Firearm/Gun Facts the Left Ignores and Tries to Refute Part I and II
Subject: Gun facts--Part I
"Gun control advocates have imbued the national conversation on gun violence with standard talking points that seemingly play out on repeat. These talking points are almost universally based on misunderstandings of the actual problems and therefore rarely have any real capacity to meaningfully address those problems or increase the general public safety. At the same time, they almost universally undermine the fundamental constitutional rights of peaceable, law-abiding Americans. It is well past time for policymakers to move on from these “solutions”—which at best give only a veneer of having “just done something” about gun violence—and at worst threaten to exacerbate existing problems.”—Amy Swearer
In the 20th century the US experienced 2 significant violent crime waves; one that began building during the late 1960s and reached its peak in the early 1990s. After hitting an apex in 1992 violent crime rates began a decades-long national decline.
By 2014, homicide rates dropped by 50%, while non-fatal firearm crime dropped to just 16% of the rates 2 decades earlier. In more recent years, there have been occasional (but largely localized) hiccups in this trend. In 2016, for example, Chicago elected a liberal/democrat prosecutor, the first of a movement that continues to this day. Almost immediately, Chicago experienced a stunning increase in crime rates, including violent crime rates, bucking the general national trend and making the city deadly.
From 2015 through the first half of 2020, sudden and significant increases in violent crime were common in those cities whose liberal prosecutors undermined the rule of law by declining to enforce entire categories of crimes: Among other pro-criminal, anti-victim policies, they watered down felonies to misdemeanors, refused to prosecute juveniles in adult court for homicides or other violent crimes, refused to add sentence enhancements or allegations to indictments, and prohibited protecting communities by asking for bail. In every city with a lib/dem prosecutor, crimes rates exploded. Meanwhile, the US as a whole continued its 30-year trend of stable, low rates of violent victimization.It is undeniable, however, that beginning in the summer of 2020, a series of things abruptly destabilized the overall public safety even further in major cities around the nation, even in some cities with traditional “law and order” prosecutors. A broad swath of urban areas around the US were wracked by a rapid, significant, and sustained increase in certain types of violent crime, including homicides, non-fatal shootings, and carjackings. While there is some evidence that these spikes in violent crime may be slowing in some areas, on the whole, the violence has continued largely unabated.
During this same time period, lawful gun sales have skyrocketed, and the number of first-time gun owners has grown in unprecedented ways. Libs/dems and left-wing extremists pointed to the simultaneous trends in lawful gun sales and violent crime as evidence that the former was to blame for the latter. The evidence, however, does not support that conclusion, similar to most liberal ideological beliefs and demands.On the contrary, it is far more likely that the same factors driving the surge in violent crime are also driving increased lawful gun sales—and that the increased violence is itself a factor driving more law-abiding Americans to buy firearms for self-defense. It is therefore not only unnecessary to impose stricter gun laws as a means of combating violent crime, but the imposition of such laws would likely prove entirely unhelpful. It may even have the unintended consequence of exacerbating violent crime by lessening the protective impact lawful gun owners have on crime rates.
While it is difficult to calculate rates of lawful gun ownership, there are nonetheless several indications that lawful gun ownership are not causally related to violent crime rates. For example, violent crime and homicide rates in the US plummeted during the 1990s and early 2000s—and remained relatively stable at these low rates for 15 years—despite that the number of guns per capita increased by 50% during that time. And urban areas experience far greater problems with violent crime than do rural areas, even though they have far lower rates of gun ownership
Finally, the most methodologically sound studies on gun ownership and gun violence “consistently find no support for the hypothesis” that higher gun ownership rates cause higher crime rates, given that lawful gun owners have never been the primary facilitators of gun crime. Of course, in any given year, a small number of lawful gun owners will commit crimes with their firearms, but the overwhelming majority of America’s tens of millions of gun owners will never constitute a danger to themselves or others.On the contrary, the best available evidence suggests that a small number of serial offenders commit the majority of violent crimes, and that many of these serial offenders are already legally prohibited from possessing the firearms they use to perpetrate their crimes.
Consider, for example, a report analyzing gun violence in Washington, DC, which concluded that 65% of all gun violence in our capital is tightly concentrated in a group of 500 “very high risk” individuals, almost all of whom have significant prior or ongoing interactions with DC’s criminal justice system. Almost 50% of homicide suspects in DC have been previously incarcerated, while 25% were on active probation or parole supervision. Accord to the report: most victims and suspects with prior criminal offenses had been arrested about 11 times for about 13 different offenses by the time of the homicide” they were involved in—not including juvenile arrests.
DC is not an outlier. An analysis of more than 2,200 individuals arrested for shootings in Philadelphia since 2015 had similar results: 40% of suspects had a prior felony conviction, 52% had a prior felony charge, 76% had at least one prior arrest, 20% a pending court case at the time of arrest for a shooting. The same is true of recent analyses of homicide and shooting suspects in Indianapolis, Portland, Knoxville, and San Francisco.
In other words, the trend is across the nation—the bulk of criminal gun violence falls on the shoulders of a small and predictable subset of the population who could not have been in lawful possession of any of the firearms they used to commit their crimes. These analyses of known gun violence perpetrators are consistent with the efforts of law enforcement to trace so-called crime guns. In cases in which the possessor of a crime gun can be successfully identified, that possessor is rarely the original lawful possessor of the firearm, based the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).These findings are also consistent with a 2019 Department of Justice survey of prisoners who possessed guns during their offenses--additional evidence that perpetrators of criminal gun violence are not commonly in lawful possession of legally obtained firearms. It found that 90% of prisoners who possessed a gun during their offenses did not obtain the weapon retail, where they are required to undergo a criminal background check under federal law. A plurality—43%—obtained their guns “off the street” or through an “underground market,” while another 6% obtained them by theft. 25% obtained guns from a friend or family member, good reason to believe that a significant percentage of these would constitute illegal transfers to prohibited persons. Moreover, a small minority of respondents who initially obtained a firearm through a retail source and were presumably in lawful possession at the time of purchase later became prohibited possessors, but evaded efforts to have those firearms removed from their possession by law enforcement. It is little wonder, then, that recent comprehensive analyses have not found any association between increases in lawful gun purchases and increases in violent crime.
An additional study found that while 28 states saw significantly higher risk of gun violence during the pandemic compared to the same time pre-pandemic, 22 states did not experience a statistically significant higher risk—including states like Florida and South Carolina, which at the same time set record numbers for gun sales and traditionally receive poor gun control law ratings from advocacy groups. In short, are serious logical flaws with the assertion that increased lawful gun sales during COVID-19 were causing the simultaneous surge in criminal gun violence. Those firearms, by definition, were not purchased by the small subset of repeat offenders who are responsible for most gun violence.
It is far more likely that the same factors largely responsible for increased crime also facilitated lawful gun sales by increasing the law-abiding public’s sense that the foundations of civil society were threatened by chaos and disorder. Surveys routinely show that most Americans who choose to own guns do so primarily for out of concern for their personal safety. Increased numbers of Americans chose to purchase firearms in recent years because of spikes in violent crime, which led to increased fears that they would need to defend themselves from criminal activity.
For sources see:
https://www.heritage.org/firearms/report/answering-policymakers-most-common-questions-and-debunking-their-most-common
Subject: Gun facts--Part II
BIG LIE: Lawful Gun Owners Rarely Use Their Firearms in Self-Defense
Advocates of stricter gun control laws overstate the impact of such laws on violent crime and seriously downplay (or completely ignore) the protective impact of lawful gun ownership. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every major study on defensive gun uses has concluded that Americans use their firearms defensively somewhere between 500,000 and several million times every year.
In 2021, the most comprehensive survey of gun owners and gun use ever conducted vindicated earlier studies, estimating an average of 1.6 million annual defensive gun uses. Importantly, this analysis reveals that, unlike criminal gun uses, defensive gun uses are quite common amongst lawful gun owners, with approximately 33% of all gun owners reporting having used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Not only are armed civilians better able to resist criminal activity when it occurs, but according to criminals themselves, knowing that potential victims might be armed effectively deters many crimes in the first place. According to a survey of imprisoned felons, roughly 33% reported being “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” while 40% admitted that they had refrained from attempting to commit a crime out of fear that the victim was armed. Well over 50% of the felons acknowledged that they would not attack a victim they knew was armed, and almost three-quarters agreed that: “one reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot. Importantly, it also found that felons from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms registered the highest levels of concern about confronting an armed victim.
This is consistent with the conclusions of a study that analyzed the effect of a Memphis newspaper listing all Tennessee residents with a handgun carry permit in a publicly accessible database, locating them within their five-digit zip code. The database received more than a million views in 2009. The study’s authors concluded that, in the months following a newspaper article that dramatically increased online traffic to the database, zip codes with higher densities of carry permit holders experienced a 20% relative decrease in burglaries compared to zip codes with lower densities of carry permit holders. International data, too, seems to indicate that criminals generally consider the likelihood of armed resistance and adapt their behavior accordingly. According to one study, only about 13% of burglaries in the US take place when the occupants are home, a rate far lower than in many other developed countries like Canada, Great Britain, and the Netherlands.
Because these “hot burglaries” are far more likely to result in an assault against a victim than are burglaries of unoccupied homes, it is relatively easy to predict—as several researchers have—that the lower percentage of hot burglaries in the US results in over half a million fewer assaults every year than would otherwise occur if the percentage of hot burglaries was on par with these other countries, saving the nation billions of dollars in avoided crime costs. Importantly, these dollar amounts increase significantly when inflation is taken into account.
Finally, armed civilians played a significant but under-acknowledged role in stopping active shooters, including those bent on acts of mass public violence. Between 2014 and 2021, armed citizens successfully stopped 51% of active shooters who carried out attacks in public places that allowed civilians to lawfully carry their own firearms for self-defense. In none of those incidents did the armed citizen injure innocent bystanders.
Further reading:
-Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, CDC
-Massive Errors in FBI’S Active Shooting Reports Regarding Cases Where Civilians Stop Attacks, Crime Research Prevention Center, John Lott
"Gun control advocates have imbued the national conversation on gun violence with standard talking points that seemingly play out on repeat. These talking points are almost universally based on misunderstandings of the actual problems and therefore rarely have any real capacity to meaningfully address those problems or increase the general public safety. At the same time, they almost universally undermine the fundamental constitutional rights of peaceable, law-abiding Americans. It is well past time for policymakers to move on from these “solutions”—which at best give only a veneer of having “just done something” about gun violence—and at worst threaten to exacerbate existing problems.”—Amy Swearer
In the 20th century the US experienced 2 significant violent crime waves; one that began building during the late 1960s and reached its peak in the early 1990s. After hitting an apex in 1992 violent crime rates began a decades-long national decline.
By 2014, homicide rates dropped by 50%, while non-fatal firearm crime dropped to just 16% of the rates 2 decades earlier. In more recent years, there have been occasional (but largely localized) hiccups in this trend. In 2016, for example, Chicago elected a liberal/democrat prosecutor, the first of a movement that continues to this day. Almost immediately, Chicago experienced a stunning increase in crime rates, including violent crime rates, bucking the general national trend and making the city deadly.
From 2015 through the first half of 2020, sudden and significant increases in violent crime were common in those cities whose liberal prosecutors undermined the rule of law by declining to enforce entire categories of crimes: Among other pro-criminal, anti-victim policies, they watered down felonies to misdemeanors, refused to prosecute juveniles in adult court for homicides or other violent crimes, refused to add sentence enhancements or allegations to indictments, and prohibited protecting communities by asking for bail. In every city with a lib/dem prosecutor, crimes rates exploded. Meanwhile, the US as a whole continued its 30-year trend of stable, low rates of violent victimization.It is undeniable, however, that beginning in the summer of 2020, a series of things abruptly destabilized the overall public safety even further in major cities around the nation, even in some cities with traditional “law and order” prosecutors. A broad swath of urban areas around the US were wracked by a rapid, significant, and sustained increase in certain types of violent crime, including homicides, non-fatal shootings, and carjackings. While there is some evidence that these spikes in violent crime may be slowing in some areas, on the whole, the violence has continued largely unabated.
During this same time period, lawful gun sales have skyrocketed, and the number of first-time gun owners has grown in unprecedented ways. Libs/dems and left-wing extremists pointed to the simultaneous trends in lawful gun sales and violent crime as evidence that the former was to blame for the latter. The evidence, however, does not support that conclusion, similar to most liberal ideological beliefs and demands.On the contrary, it is far more likely that the same factors driving the surge in violent crime are also driving increased lawful gun sales—and that the increased violence is itself a factor driving more law-abiding Americans to buy firearms for self-defense. It is therefore not only unnecessary to impose stricter gun laws as a means of combating violent crime, but the imposition of such laws would likely prove entirely unhelpful. It may even have the unintended consequence of exacerbating violent crime by lessening the protective impact lawful gun owners have on crime rates.
While it is difficult to calculate rates of lawful gun ownership, there are nonetheless several indications that lawful gun ownership are not causally related to violent crime rates. For example, violent crime and homicide rates in the US plummeted during the 1990s and early 2000s—and remained relatively stable at these low rates for 15 years—despite that the number of guns per capita increased by 50% during that time. And urban areas experience far greater problems with violent crime than do rural areas, even though they have far lower rates of gun ownership
Finally, the most methodologically sound studies on gun ownership and gun violence “consistently find no support for the hypothesis” that higher gun ownership rates cause higher crime rates, given that lawful gun owners have never been the primary facilitators of gun crime. Of course, in any given year, a small number of lawful gun owners will commit crimes with their firearms, but the overwhelming majority of America’s tens of millions of gun owners will never constitute a danger to themselves or others.On the contrary, the best available evidence suggests that a small number of serial offenders commit the majority of violent crimes, and that many of these serial offenders are already legally prohibited from possessing the firearms they use to perpetrate their crimes.
Consider, for example, a report analyzing gun violence in Washington, DC, which concluded that 65% of all gun violence in our capital is tightly concentrated in a group of 500 “very high risk” individuals, almost all of whom have significant prior or ongoing interactions with DC’s criminal justice system. Almost 50% of homicide suspects in DC have been previously incarcerated, while 25% were on active probation or parole supervision. Accord to the report: most victims and suspects with prior criminal offenses had been arrested about 11 times for about 13 different offenses by the time of the homicide” they were involved in—not including juvenile arrests.
DC is not an outlier. An analysis of more than 2,200 individuals arrested for shootings in Philadelphia since 2015 had similar results: 40% of suspects had a prior felony conviction, 52% had a prior felony charge, 76% had at least one prior arrest, 20% a pending court case at the time of arrest for a shooting. The same is true of recent analyses of homicide and shooting suspects in Indianapolis, Portland, Knoxville, and San Francisco.
In other words, the trend is across the nation—the bulk of criminal gun violence falls on the shoulders of a small and predictable subset of the population who could not have been in lawful possession of any of the firearms they used to commit their crimes. These analyses of known gun violence perpetrators are consistent with the efforts of law enforcement to trace so-called crime guns. In cases in which the possessor of a crime gun can be successfully identified, that possessor is rarely the original lawful possessor of the firearm, based the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).These findings are also consistent with a 2019 Department of Justice survey of prisoners who possessed guns during their offenses--additional evidence that perpetrators of criminal gun violence are not commonly in lawful possession of legally obtained firearms. It found that 90% of prisoners who possessed a gun during their offenses did not obtain the weapon retail, where they are required to undergo a criminal background check under federal law. A plurality—43%—obtained their guns “off the street” or through an “underground market,” while another 6% obtained them by theft. 25% obtained guns from a friend or family member, good reason to believe that a significant percentage of these would constitute illegal transfers to prohibited persons. Moreover, a small minority of respondents who initially obtained a firearm through a retail source and were presumably in lawful possession at the time of purchase later became prohibited possessors, but evaded efforts to have those firearms removed from their possession by law enforcement. It is little wonder, then, that recent comprehensive analyses have not found any association between increases in lawful gun purchases and increases in violent crime.
An additional study found that while 28 states saw significantly higher risk of gun violence during the pandemic compared to the same time pre-pandemic, 22 states did not experience a statistically significant higher risk—including states like Florida and South Carolina, which at the same time set record numbers for gun sales and traditionally receive poor gun control law ratings from advocacy groups. In short, are serious logical flaws with the assertion that increased lawful gun sales during COVID-19 were causing the simultaneous surge in criminal gun violence. Those firearms, by definition, were not purchased by the small subset of repeat offenders who are responsible for most gun violence.
It is far more likely that the same factors largely responsible for increased crime also facilitated lawful gun sales by increasing the law-abiding public’s sense that the foundations of civil society were threatened by chaos and disorder. Surveys routinely show that most Americans who choose to own guns do so primarily for out of concern for their personal safety. Increased numbers of Americans chose to purchase firearms in recent years because of spikes in violent crime, which led to increased fears that they would need to defend themselves from criminal activity.
For sources see:
https://www.heritage.org/firearms/report/answering-policymakers-most-common-questions-and-debunking-their-most-common
Subject: Gun facts--Part II
BIG LIE: Lawful Gun Owners Rarely Use Their Firearms in Self-Defense
Advocates of stricter gun control laws overstate the impact of such laws on violent crime and seriously downplay (or completely ignore) the protective impact of lawful gun ownership. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every major study on defensive gun uses has concluded that Americans use their firearms defensively somewhere between 500,000 and several million times every year.
In 2021, the most comprehensive survey of gun owners and gun use ever conducted vindicated earlier studies, estimating an average of 1.6 million annual defensive gun uses. Importantly, this analysis reveals that, unlike criminal gun uses, defensive gun uses are quite common amongst lawful gun owners, with approximately 33% of all gun owners reporting having used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Not only are armed civilians better able to resist criminal activity when it occurs, but according to criminals themselves, knowing that potential victims might be armed effectively deters many crimes in the first place. According to a survey of imprisoned felons, roughly 33% reported being “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” while 40% admitted that they had refrained from attempting to commit a crime out of fear that the victim was armed. Well over 50% of the felons acknowledged that they would not attack a victim they knew was armed, and almost three-quarters agreed that: “one reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot. Importantly, it also found that felons from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms registered the highest levels of concern about confronting an armed victim.
This is consistent with the conclusions of a study that analyzed the effect of a Memphis newspaper listing all Tennessee residents with a handgun carry permit in a publicly accessible database, locating them within their five-digit zip code. The database received more than a million views in 2009. The study’s authors concluded that, in the months following a newspaper article that dramatically increased online traffic to the database, zip codes with higher densities of carry permit holders experienced a 20% relative decrease in burglaries compared to zip codes with lower densities of carry permit holders. International data, too, seems to indicate that criminals generally consider the likelihood of armed resistance and adapt their behavior accordingly. According to one study, only about 13% of burglaries in the US take place when the occupants are home, a rate far lower than in many other developed countries like Canada, Great Britain, and the Netherlands.
Because these “hot burglaries” are far more likely to result in an assault against a victim than are burglaries of unoccupied homes, it is relatively easy to predict—as several researchers have—that the lower percentage of hot burglaries in the US results in over half a million fewer assaults every year than would otherwise occur if the percentage of hot burglaries was on par with these other countries, saving the nation billions of dollars in avoided crime costs. Importantly, these dollar amounts increase significantly when inflation is taken into account.
Finally, armed civilians played a significant but under-acknowledged role in stopping active shooters, including those bent on acts of mass public violence. Between 2014 and 2021, armed citizens successfully stopped 51% of active shooters who carried out attacks in public places that allowed civilians to lawfully carry their own firearms for self-defense. In none of those incidents did the armed citizen injure innocent bystanders.
Further reading:
-Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, CDC
-Massive Errors in FBI’S Active Shooting Reports Regarding Cases Where Civilians Stop Attacks, Crime Research Prevention Center, John Lott
From: Don Clark
Subject: FAREWELL TO FREEDOM
FAREWELL TO FREEDOM
Roger Sherman (1721-1793) was the only Founding Father who signed all four of our nation’s major founding documents:
The Articles of Association in 1774.
The Declaration of Independence in 1776.
The Articles of Confederation in 1777.
The Constitution of the United States in 1787.
Sherman was part of the committee that drafted The Declaration of Independence.
As a delegate to the Continental Congress, he gave 138 speeches at that gathering.
Shoe cobbler, merchant, surveyor, self-taught lawyer, superior court judge, state senator, U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator, Sherman was a man of broad experience and expertise.
It was Sherman who seconded Benjamin Franklin’s motion to open each day’s deliberations with prayer.
It was Sherman who proposed the historic “Connecticut Compromise” that state representation in the U.S. Congress be equal in the Senate and state representation in the House be based on population---thus breaking through one of the Convention’s most bitter points of debate, disagreement, and deadlock.
It was Sherman who worked successfully with George Washington to officially declare a national Day of Thanksgiving. He cited many such days in Scripture where such occasions and observances were held to give thanks to the Almighty for His favor and blessing.
He declared those ancient celebrations to be “worthy of Christian imitation” in our own land.
In 1776, Sherman, John Adams, and George Wythe of Virginia were the men who crafted the instructions for the members of the United States Embassy in Canada.
Those instructions read:
“You are to declare that we hold sacred the rights of conscience. You may promise to the whole people, solemnly in our name, the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion.”
Such undisturbed and unrestricted freedom of conscience and free exercise of our religious faith is also promised and guaranteed to all Americans in the First Amendment to our Constitution.
But outrageously, a series of Supreme Court rulings in the early 60’s has stripped us of those promises, cancelled those guarantees, and crushed the religious freedoms Americans enjoyed for almost two centuries up to those radical rulings.
Public expressions of our faith are now outlawed, forbidden, harassed and punished on every hand.
I ask:
By what right does that High Court deprive us of our rights?
I challenge:
By what right does the radical rendering of the Constitution in the early 60’s deny to us the very rights the Constitution sovereignly preserved and protected throughout its venerable history up to that time?
To whatever extent possible, I defy:
The unlawful rulings of unelected judges, unaccountable to anyone but themselves, who issued those rulings in defiance of all past legal precedent and against the unanimous, contrary rulings of three lower courts on the same issue.
If an atheistic conqueror had seized power in America and instantly forbid all public expressions of any kind of religious faith, he could not have done more violence to our Constitution than those members of own Supreme Court did.
What’s worse, the American people today are rapidly losing any firm conviction about the critical importance of religious faith for us as individuals and as a nation.
Just five years ago, 69-percent of the American people strongly agreed with this statement:
“True religious freedom means all citizens must have freedom of conscience to believe and practice the core commitments and values of their faith.”
Today, that number has fallen to 55 percent---a 14 point drop.
The same poll showed that even Protestant clergy are “significantly less concerned” today about the importance of defending religious freedom.
A fatal mistake.
Religious freedom has been rightly called “the first freedom.”
If government can dictate what we may or may not believe and practice---or what we must believe and practice, regardless of our conscience or our religion---we are no longer a free people.
We Americans are already living under what, in my view, has been rightly called a “soft tyranny.”
But mark my words, that tyranny is rapidly hardening by media manipulation and by official coercion requiring us to say, do, think, and act as “they” command---or else to withdraw into craven silence.
The fact is, no part of our government has any rightful role whatsoever in what we believe and practice religiously. All laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances that infringe on that freedom are, on their face, invalid. Every one of them should be renounced, rescinded, and repealed.
But today’s true danger to religious freedom is not just the government.
The danger now is that significant segments of the American population have grown hostile to religion---especially to Christianity.
That’s because the Christian faith stands squarely opposed to the sexual rebellion of the 60’s against Biblical standards for human sexuality.
That rebellion is now the new secular dogma about sex.
Anything that opposes that dogma is branded as a social evil.
White is now black.
To stand for chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage is the new heresy. Those who take that stand are viciously burned in the fires of public ridicule and rejection.
Any religion that has such standards is seen by many as something to be marginalized, demonized, and discarded.
Fewer and fewer seem willing to stand against this muddy tide.
That’s the way it is in America today.
But with God’s intervention, called down by the penitent prayers of His humbled people, it does not have to be this way or go this way.
God’s ways have always been the best ways.
Sooner or later, we pray, America will compare and contrast today’s sinful ways with God’s righteous ways---and, as a matter of common sense, choose the right way.
As God has said to men and nations throughout the ages:
“Why choose death? Choose life!”
Subject: FAREWELL TO FREEDOM
FAREWELL TO FREEDOM
Roger Sherman (1721-1793) was the only Founding Father who signed all four of our nation’s major founding documents:
The Articles of Association in 1774.
The Declaration of Independence in 1776.
The Articles of Confederation in 1777.
The Constitution of the United States in 1787.
Sherman was part of the committee that drafted The Declaration of Independence.
As a delegate to the Continental Congress, he gave 138 speeches at that gathering.
Shoe cobbler, merchant, surveyor, self-taught lawyer, superior court judge, state senator, U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator, Sherman was a man of broad experience and expertise.
It was Sherman who seconded Benjamin Franklin’s motion to open each day’s deliberations with prayer.
It was Sherman who proposed the historic “Connecticut Compromise” that state representation in the U.S. Congress be equal in the Senate and state representation in the House be based on population---thus breaking through one of the Convention’s most bitter points of debate, disagreement, and deadlock.
It was Sherman who worked successfully with George Washington to officially declare a national Day of Thanksgiving. He cited many such days in Scripture where such occasions and observances were held to give thanks to the Almighty for His favor and blessing.
He declared those ancient celebrations to be “worthy of Christian imitation” in our own land.
In 1776, Sherman, John Adams, and George Wythe of Virginia were the men who crafted the instructions for the members of the United States Embassy in Canada.
Those instructions read:
“You are to declare that we hold sacred the rights of conscience. You may promise to the whole people, solemnly in our name, the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion.”
Such undisturbed and unrestricted freedom of conscience and free exercise of our religious faith is also promised and guaranteed to all Americans in the First Amendment to our Constitution.
But outrageously, a series of Supreme Court rulings in the early 60’s has stripped us of those promises, cancelled those guarantees, and crushed the religious freedoms Americans enjoyed for almost two centuries up to those radical rulings.
Public expressions of our faith are now outlawed, forbidden, harassed and punished on every hand.
I ask:
By what right does that High Court deprive us of our rights?
I challenge:
By what right does the radical rendering of the Constitution in the early 60’s deny to us the very rights the Constitution sovereignly preserved and protected throughout its venerable history up to that time?
To whatever extent possible, I defy:
The unlawful rulings of unelected judges, unaccountable to anyone but themselves, who issued those rulings in defiance of all past legal precedent and against the unanimous, contrary rulings of three lower courts on the same issue.
If an atheistic conqueror had seized power in America and instantly forbid all public expressions of any kind of religious faith, he could not have done more violence to our Constitution than those members of own Supreme Court did.
What’s worse, the American people today are rapidly losing any firm conviction about the critical importance of religious faith for us as individuals and as a nation.
Just five years ago, 69-percent of the American people strongly agreed with this statement:
“True religious freedom means all citizens must have freedom of conscience to believe and practice the core commitments and values of their faith.”
Today, that number has fallen to 55 percent---a 14 point drop.
The same poll showed that even Protestant clergy are “significantly less concerned” today about the importance of defending religious freedom.
A fatal mistake.
Religious freedom has been rightly called “the first freedom.”
If government can dictate what we may or may not believe and practice---or what we must believe and practice, regardless of our conscience or our religion---we are no longer a free people.
We Americans are already living under what, in my view, has been rightly called a “soft tyranny.”
But mark my words, that tyranny is rapidly hardening by media manipulation and by official coercion requiring us to say, do, think, and act as “they” command---or else to withdraw into craven silence.
The fact is, no part of our government has any rightful role whatsoever in what we believe and practice religiously. All laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances that infringe on that freedom are, on their face, invalid. Every one of them should be renounced, rescinded, and repealed.
But today’s true danger to religious freedom is not just the government.
The danger now is that significant segments of the American population have grown hostile to religion---especially to Christianity.
That’s because the Christian faith stands squarely opposed to the sexual rebellion of the 60’s against Biblical standards for human sexuality.
That rebellion is now the new secular dogma about sex.
Anything that opposes that dogma is branded as a social evil.
White is now black.
To stand for chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage is the new heresy. Those who take that stand are viciously burned in the fires of public ridicule and rejection.
Any religion that has such standards is seen by many as something to be marginalized, demonized, and discarded.
Fewer and fewer seem willing to stand against this muddy tide.
That’s the way it is in America today.
But with God’s intervention, called down by the penitent prayers of His humbled people, it does not have to be this way or go this way.
God’s ways have always been the best ways.
Sooner or later, we pray, America will compare and contrast today’s sinful ways with God’s righteous ways---and, as a matter of common sense, choose the right way.
As God has said to men and nations throughout the ages:
“Why choose death? Choose life!”
A few days ago I read an article that made everything click into place, at least for me. Overnight all the pieces of the puzzle came together and everything that is happening made perfect sense.
The article was about William Arkin, a reporter who resigned from MSNBC. Mr. Arkin was a "respected" reporter and consultant on military affairs who became disgusted with the MSM over their mindless, one-sided reporting AND their blind, lock-step fealty to the Deep State and the Intelligence Community/State Department cabal.
According to Mr. Arkin, the Intel Community is essentially running the news cycle and telling the MSM what to report and how to report it. Mr. Arkin said the MSM has become "the propaganda arm of the FBI and the CIA". Hold that thought.
Rush Limbaugh often plays montages of the various MSM anchors ALL saying the exact same thing, right down to using the same words and phrases. I have always wondered how and why they would all say the same thing in exactly the same way. It isn't like all the news organizations get together over coffee every morning and decide what to say and how to say it -- OR IS IT?! It begs the question of how the news is organized and who organizes it. Who is pulling the strings? One would think that, with so many different news organizations reporting on the same story, at least one or two would have a different take and report it differently, especially when they are [supposedly] in competition with each other for ratings, advertisers, etc. Yet, apparently not. Apparently, the only 'competitors' they worry about are Fox News and conservative talk radio.
So, where do they get their information and talking points? According to Mr. Arkin, the Intel Community (FBI, CIA, NSA, NSC, etc.) feed said stories and talking points to the MSM who obligingly regurgitate them. Yeah, I know, it sounds almost crazy, but bear with me for a moment.
Rush Limbaugh also notes that the MSM is not REPORTING the news as much as it is SHAPING AND MANAGING the news and subsequent public opinion, something the Intel Community is hell-bent on doing.
"Impossible!", you say. Well, Mr. Arkin maintains that the Intel Community has infiltrated the MSM from top to bottom and pretty much runs the narrative. If you think about it, it really wouldn't be that difficult, given that the MSM is, by and large, 90+% liberal Democrat and big government status quo, as is the Intel Community. It's a match made in Heaven with everyone singing off the same sheet of music and pursuing the same agenda of one-world governance with them in charge. As evidence, Mr. Arkin points to the fact that many, many, many MSM "consultants" come from the Intel Community and are closely listened to by their MSM cohorts. I give you John Brennan, a Communist put in charge of the CIA, an agency supposedly charged with spying on Communists, but now hired as yet another "consultant" by the MSM. Really?! The Latin, "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodet" (Who guards the guards?) comes to mind.
The entire thrust of this arrangement is to control the narrative and shape public opinion. By and large, this started shortly after WWII and the advent of television when the news mantra became "If it bleeds, it leads". The public is subjected to endless distractions -- wildfires, snowstorms, floods, and even car wrecks. Meanwhile, Rome burns.
The Intel Community has even infiltrated the political sphere. Let's look at the "Whistleblowers". They are all connected, directly or indirectly, to the Intel Community and/or the State Department which is, itself, closely aligned with the Intel Community. THEY are running foreign affairs and, in pursuit thereof, the news cycle. This gives them great power.
Before Trump, presidents and political parties just went along to get along. No one rocked the boat. Then came Trump who doesn't play that game. This make Trump a "Clear and present danger" to the status quo, its world view, and its long-term plans for total control. Again, almost everyone in the MSM, the Intel Community, and the State Department are liberal, progressive, one-world-order Democrats.
Anyone who doesn't adhere to their view is either drummed out or ignored. But, Trump is impossible to ignore, so he has to go, period! And, how are they trying to accomplish that? Well, let's look at all Trump's attackers/accusers. We have Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strozk, Page, Steele, Brennan, Mueller, et al. All of them are either current or former FBI, DOJ, NSC, CIA, State Department, etc. -- ALL OF THEM. Yet, NO ONE points out this glaring, in your face, connection. "Can't see the forest for the trees", I guess.
Mr. Arkin also says that the Intel Community and State Department are overwhelmingly pro-war. War justifies their existence and gives them something to do, just as crime justifies the existence of police (my comparison). Anyone who questions America's never-ending involvement in military conflicts, however major or minor, is a danger to the Intel Community and/or the State Department and must be disposed of. Eisenhower warned of the "Military-Industrial Complex", but only in his farewell address, when he knew he would be safe from retribution. JFK was on the cusp of pulling out of Vietnam; he was killed. Trump promised to get America out of mindless, unresolvable wars; he is under ongoing assault. Again, the Intel Community and State Department cabal love war and anyone who doesn't must be eliminated.
So, what's my point in all of this? I have long maintained, and firmly believe, that Fortress Washington will do whatever is necessary to get rid of Trump. If they cannot get him to resign; if they cannot impeach him; if they cannot defeat him next November; they will kill him. If, as Mr. Arkin says, the Intel Community has successfully infiltrated the entirety of government, who is to say they have not also infiltrated the Secret Service? How difficult would it be for the Secret Service to "overlook" some small window of opportunity for an assassin? Just saying. Or, as one politician pointed out, "Don't mess with the Intel Community. They have six ways from Sunday to get you."
Throughout history, leaders who have become "inconvenient" have been killed.
So far, the only thing they cannot control is the vote, but they are working on that, too, through voter fraud, franchising illegals, etc. I would not be at all surprised if Trump "loses" re-election despite winning both the popular and electoral vote. We'll see.
At the risk of getting into the weeds, let's talk about the Clintons. Am I the only one who finds it strange that anyone and everyone who makes even the slightest noise about testifying against the Clintons magically, mysteriously, suddenly dies, often right before they are scheduled to testify? We're talking 50+ mysterious deaths, all at just the right moment, many ruled "suicides" via a bullet to the back of the head. Do we really believe the Clintons are running such a vast criminal network, employing an army of trained assassins, that they are essentially a mafia-style network? Not me. But, I wouldn't be surprised if they do have contacts in the Intel Community to do their bidding. After all, AND AGAIN, they are all Democrats, birds of a feather. They all want the same thing -- power for power's sake. Yet, no one talks about it. Perhaps, doing so is just too dangerous.
If you had said this to me a couple of years ago, I would have said you were nuts. Now, I'm not so sure. After all, I'm just an old, retired cop. All I can do is follow the evidence.
Oren
The article was about William Arkin, a reporter who resigned from MSNBC. Mr. Arkin was a "respected" reporter and consultant on military affairs who became disgusted with the MSM over their mindless, one-sided reporting AND their blind, lock-step fealty to the Deep State and the Intelligence Community/State Department cabal.
According to Mr. Arkin, the Intel Community is essentially running the news cycle and telling the MSM what to report and how to report it. Mr. Arkin said the MSM has become "the propaganda arm of the FBI and the CIA". Hold that thought.
Rush Limbaugh often plays montages of the various MSM anchors ALL saying the exact same thing, right down to using the same words and phrases. I have always wondered how and why they would all say the same thing in exactly the same way. It isn't like all the news organizations get together over coffee every morning and decide what to say and how to say it -- OR IS IT?! It begs the question of how the news is organized and who organizes it. Who is pulling the strings? One would think that, with so many different news organizations reporting on the same story, at least one or two would have a different take and report it differently, especially when they are [supposedly] in competition with each other for ratings, advertisers, etc. Yet, apparently not. Apparently, the only 'competitors' they worry about are Fox News and conservative talk radio.
So, where do they get their information and talking points? According to Mr. Arkin, the Intel Community (FBI, CIA, NSA, NSC, etc.) feed said stories and talking points to the MSM who obligingly regurgitate them. Yeah, I know, it sounds almost crazy, but bear with me for a moment.
Rush Limbaugh also notes that the MSM is not REPORTING the news as much as it is SHAPING AND MANAGING the news and subsequent public opinion, something the Intel Community is hell-bent on doing.
"Impossible!", you say. Well, Mr. Arkin maintains that the Intel Community has infiltrated the MSM from top to bottom and pretty much runs the narrative. If you think about it, it really wouldn't be that difficult, given that the MSM is, by and large, 90+% liberal Democrat and big government status quo, as is the Intel Community. It's a match made in Heaven with everyone singing off the same sheet of music and pursuing the same agenda of one-world governance with them in charge. As evidence, Mr. Arkin points to the fact that many, many, many MSM "consultants" come from the Intel Community and are closely listened to by their MSM cohorts. I give you John Brennan, a Communist put in charge of the CIA, an agency supposedly charged with spying on Communists, but now hired as yet another "consultant" by the MSM. Really?! The Latin, "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodet" (Who guards the guards?) comes to mind.
The entire thrust of this arrangement is to control the narrative and shape public opinion. By and large, this started shortly after WWII and the advent of television when the news mantra became "If it bleeds, it leads". The public is subjected to endless distractions -- wildfires, snowstorms, floods, and even car wrecks. Meanwhile, Rome burns.
The Intel Community has even infiltrated the political sphere. Let's look at the "Whistleblowers". They are all connected, directly or indirectly, to the Intel Community and/or the State Department which is, itself, closely aligned with the Intel Community. THEY are running foreign affairs and, in pursuit thereof, the news cycle. This gives them great power.
Before Trump, presidents and political parties just went along to get along. No one rocked the boat. Then came Trump who doesn't play that game. This make Trump a "Clear and present danger" to the status quo, its world view, and its long-term plans for total control. Again, almost everyone in the MSM, the Intel Community, and the State Department are liberal, progressive, one-world-order Democrats.
Anyone who doesn't adhere to their view is either drummed out or ignored. But, Trump is impossible to ignore, so he has to go, period! And, how are they trying to accomplish that? Well, let's look at all Trump's attackers/accusers. We have Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strozk, Page, Steele, Brennan, Mueller, et al. All of them are either current or former FBI, DOJ, NSC, CIA, State Department, etc. -- ALL OF THEM. Yet, NO ONE points out this glaring, in your face, connection. "Can't see the forest for the trees", I guess.
Mr. Arkin also says that the Intel Community and State Department are overwhelmingly pro-war. War justifies their existence and gives them something to do, just as crime justifies the existence of police (my comparison). Anyone who questions America's never-ending involvement in military conflicts, however major or minor, is a danger to the Intel Community and/or the State Department and must be disposed of. Eisenhower warned of the "Military-Industrial Complex", but only in his farewell address, when he knew he would be safe from retribution. JFK was on the cusp of pulling out of Vietnam; he was killed. Trump promised to get America out of mindless, unresolvable wars; he is under ongoing assault. Again, the Intel Community and State Department cabal love war and anyone who doesn't must be eliminated.
So, what's my point in all of this? I have long maintained, and firmly believe, that Fortress Washington will do whatever is necessary to get rid of Trump. If they cannot get him to resign; if they cannot impeach him; if they cannot defeat him next November; they will kill him. If, as Mr. Arkin says, the Intel Community has successfully infiltrated the entirety of government, who is to say they have not also infiltrated the Secret Service? How difficult would it be for the Secret Service to "overlook" some small window of opportunity for an assassin? Just saying. Or, as one politician pointed out, "Don't mess with the Intel Community. They have six ways from Sunday to get you."
Throughout history, leaders who have become "inconvenient" have been killed.
So far, the only thing they cannot control is the vote, but they are working on that, too, through voter fraud, franchising illegals, etc. I would not be at all surprised if Trump "loses" re-election despite winning both the popular and electoral vote. We'll see.
At the risk of getting into the weeds, let's talk about the Clintons. Am I the only one who finds it strange that anyone and everyone who makes even the slightest noise about testifying against the Clintons magically, mysteriously, suddenly dies, often right before they are scheduled to testify? We're talking 50+ mysterious deaths, all at just the right moment, many ruled "suicides" via a bullet to the back of the head. Do we really believe the Clintons are running such a vast criminal network, employing an army of trained assassins, that they are essentially a mafia-style network? Not me. But, I wouldn't be surprised if they do have contacts in the Intel Community to do their bidding. After all, AND AGAIN, they are all Democrats, birds of a feather. They all want the same thing -- power for power's sake. Yet, no one talks about it. Perhaps, doing so is just too dangerous.
If you had said this to me a couple of years ago, I would have said you were nuts. Now, I'm not so sure. After all, I'm just an old, retired cop. All I can do is follow the evidence.
Oren
America is at a Dangerous Crossroad
by The Tradesman
America is at a crossroads. We are about to lose our Constitutional Protections because of a group of self styled Democratic/Communists, who only have their own interests in mind, want to change the rules to suit their agendas. They have been trying to slowly remove the 2nd Amendment's protections since the FDR Administration. They have almost succeeded.
They're doing it because they KNOW the 2nd is NOT ABOUT hunting, NOT about target shooting, NOT about personal protection. The primary reason it was placed right after the protected rights of Free Speech, Free Press, and Free Religious Persuasion. It's the TEETH of Constitution. It gives the people the tools and capability to stand up against their Government, should that Government ever decide to ignore it's proper place of serving the people. That is why the Liberal Communistic/Socialists want the people disarmed. Even Dictators like Mao Zedong admitted that political power came from the barrel of a gun, and then forbade Chinese citizens from having firearms. When they were collected he started killing off the opposition with little to no danger to himself. Remember that.
The fact that Americans can legally keep and bear arms in the crux of our Self Governance. Remember the Founders had just came through a period where the King was going to confiscate all their personal weapons. The Founders put it there, for the time they foresaw our government overstepping. Since then our Government has been overstepping a little at a time, by creating regulations that require extensive background checks and large tax stamps, essentially a Government police permit to keep and own certain types of firearms. Now the Democratic/Socialists want to do that with all Civilian firearms. The entire reason that the Second amendment exists in the first place was to give Citizens an equal footing with the military might of their Government.
As I said before it's there because it gives the people the means to fight back against the government, and it was intended to allow the citizens to have all the same weaponry the government has. Many people on the Left want you to believe that the Founders only meant Flintlock Muzzle Loaders and such they had during the Revolutionary War.. They conveniently ignore Cannons and other period arms. So only types they had during the Revolutionary War. How about the Cookson repeater 1690.The Kalthoff repeater 1600's, The Belton repeating musket 100 ordered by Washington/Congress, Puckle gun 1718, Nordenfelt 10 barrel rifle-caliber machine gun 1783 are those types allowed too? The Gun Grabbing Democratic/Communists or 'Socialists' if you prefer, are openly lying when they say modern style arms were never intended, nor were Military Assault style weapons. Ask yourselves this; Did the Gun Grabbers not know the arms they were talking about WERE the Military Assault weapons of the period? The Gun Grabbing Democrats have stolen our Second Amendment Rights under the color of the law.
Every Law that's been passed against guns and other weapons, since the Ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, has INFRINGED on that specific protection the 2nd Amendment granted. The politicians saying it's to protect people is a line of HORSE SH*T, and they know it. It's to protect them from angered abused citizens who would finally come after them to end the excesses they have rained down on us.
Now not only do they (Democratic/Socialist Party) want to take away our guns, they want to rip the Constitution to shreds so they can become the Dictatorial Rulers who only care for their continued Power and Positions, and who can change the rules at a whim. It must stop, and we must stop it using the provisions the Founders left with us to hold the Federal Government in check! The Vote, and Article V to propose Amendments that will keep Congress honest. After the Bill of Rights, EVERY SINGLE AMENDMENT has been proposed by Congress. Many of them were embedded with Stealth provisions that would only serve the Congress and increase the power and scope of Federal Government. Three come to mind. the 14th, 16th, & 17th.
The 14th had a stealth bomb within it that actually flipped the power structure to the Central Federal Government by curtailing the power of the States and the People. It contained three toxic words; "No State Shall" It's amazing how three words took the power from it's rightful owners and invested it in the Federal Government when the Constitution was intended by the Founders to be the Legal Chains on the power of the Federal Government. The 16th which some thing was not properly ratified Changed the portion of the Constitution that Apportioned taxes and installed a privately owned bank over the Treasury of the United States. the 17th stripped the Equal Representation the States had in Congress by allowing the direct election of Senators by the people. Now, instead of owing fealty to their State Legislatures like was intended, the Senators only owe fealty to their own political party. That is why we are in this mess today. Look up the Connecticut Compromise and find out why there were only two Senators per State, and how they were chosen.
I fail to see why the American People have allowed those Evil Incarnate Misanthropes in Congress to reign supreme, and hold unchecked positions of power. They are not our Rulers, they are our Hired Hands. If they don't do the job we tell them to do, then we must fire them ASAP. The Sooner the Better I say. I also believe, if we don't wake up soon, and eliminate those who put themselves above the good of America for personal gain, we will soon be incapable of doing it. Then we will far down the road to becoming enslaved to the Socialist Masters, and to their whims of governance.
The Tradesman
They're doing it because they KNOW the 2nd is NOT ABOUT hunting, NOT about target shooting, NOT about personal protection. The primary reason it was placed right after the protected rights of Free Speech, Free Press, and Free Religious Persuasion. It's the TEETH of Constitution. It gives the people the tools and capability to stand up against their Government, should that Government ever decide to ignore it's proper place of serving the people. That is why the Liberal Communistic/Socialists want the people disarmed. Even Dictators like Mao Zedong admitted that political power came from the barrel of a gun, and then forbade Chinese citizens from having firearms. When they were collected he started killing off the opposition with little to no danger to himself. Remember that.
The fact that Americans can legally keep and bear arms in the crux of our Self Governance. Remember the Founders had just came through a period where the King was going to confiscate all their personal weapons. The Founders put it there, for the time they foresaw our government overstepping. Since then our Government has been overstepping a little at a time, by creating regulations that require extensive background checks and large tax stamps, essentially a Government police permit to keep and own certain types of firearms. Now the Democratic/Socialists want to do that with all Civilian firearms. The entire reason that the Second amendment exists in the first place was to give Citizens an equal footing with the military might of their Government.
As I said before it's there because it gives the people the means to fight back against the government, and it was intended to allow the citizens to have all the same weaponry the government has. Many people on the Left want you to believe that the Founders only meant Flintlock Muzzle Loaders and such they had during the Revolutionary War.. They conveniently ignore Cannons and other period arms. So only types they had during the Revolutionary War. How about the Cookson repeater 1690.The Kalthoff repeater 1600's, The Belton repeating musket 100 ordered by Washington/Congress, Puckle gun 1718, Nordenfelt 10 barrel rifle-caliber machine gun 1783 are those types allowed too? The Gun Grabbing Democratic/Communists or 'Socialists' if you prefer, are openly lying when they say modern style arms were never intended, nor were Military Assault style weapons. Ask yourselves this; Did the Gun Grabbers not know the arms they were talking about WERE the Military Assault weapons of the period? The Gun Grabbing Democrats have stolen our Second Amendment Rights under the color of the law.
Every Law that's been passed against guns and other weapons, since the Ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, has INFRINGED on that specific protection the 2nd Amendment granted. The politicians saying it's to protect people is a line of HORSE SH*T, and they know it. It's to protect them from angered abused citizens who would finally come after them to end the excesses they have rained down on us.
Now not only do they (Democratic/Socialist Party) want to take away our guns, they want to rip the Constitution to shreds so they can become the Dictatorial Rulers who only care for their continued Power and Positions, and who can change the rules at a whim. It must stop, and we must stop it using the provisions the Founders left with us to hold the Federal Government in check! The Vote, and Article V to propose Amendments that will keep Congress honest. After the Bill of Rights, EVERY SINGLE AMENDMENT has been proposed by Congress. Many of them were embedded with Stealth provisions that would only serve the Congress and increase the power and scope of Federal Government. Three come to mind. the 14th, 16th, & 17th.
The 14th had a stealth bomb within it that actually flipped the power structure to the Central Federal Government by curtailing the power of the States and the People. It contained three toxic words; "No State Shall" It's amazing how three words took the power from it's rightful owners and invested it in the Federal Government when the Constitution was intended by the Founders to be the Legal Chains on the power of the Federal Government. The 16th which some thing was not properly ratified Changed the portion of the Constitution that Apportioned taxes and installed a privately owned bank over the Treasury of the United States. the 17th stripped the Equal Representation the States had in Congress by allowing the direct election of Senators by the people. Now, instead of owing fealty to their State Legislatures like was intended, the Senators only owe fealty to their own political party. That is why we are in this mess today. Look up the Connecticut Compromise and find out why there were only two Senators per State, and how they were chosen.
I fail to see why the American People have allowed those Evil Incarnate Misanthropes in Congress to reign supreme, and hold unchecked positions of power. They are not our Rulers, they are our Hired Hands. If they don't do the job we tell them to do, then we must fire them ASAP. The Sooner the Better I say. I also believe, if we don't wake up soon, and eliminate those who put themselves above the good of America for personal gain, we will soon be incapable of doing it. Then we will far down the road to becoming enslaved to the Socialist Masters, and to their whims of governance.
The Tradesman
Here is an article I believe needs to be read by every American to see the real threats the flirtation with Socialism, the Millennials and the Left Politicians are embracing,and how it will eventually destroy America unless we stop it.
The Tradesman
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I Went to a Socialism Conference. Here Are My 6 Observations.
From the Daily Caller
commentary by Jarrett Stepman 7/15/19. Posted for educational purposes.
While you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.
Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently for flattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently forflattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAYWhile you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.
Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.
Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.
At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.
In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.
One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”
While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.
They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.
Here are six takeaways from the conference:
1. Serious About Socialism
A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.
It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.
It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.
Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.
Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.
Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.
Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”
It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.
It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.
2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant
Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.
One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.
Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”
Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”
That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.
She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”
Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.
Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.
She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”
“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.
She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”
3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test
It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.
The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.
As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.
But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.
Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.
He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.
South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”
“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.
That has implications for the labor movement.
Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.
Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.
“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.
4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans
The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently for flattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.
It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.
Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”
View image on Twitter
Haven Coleman@havenruthie Teen Vogue panel SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE at the @socialismconf with @SatansJacuzzi @TeenVogue (Lucy) @SunriseMvmtChi (Sally) and me @usclimatestrike! Thanks @haymarketbooks!
74
1:05 AM - Jul 8, 2019
See Haven Coleman's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacyThe panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.
“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”
The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.
“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.
5. The Green Movement Is Red
It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal--which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.
One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the groupconfronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.
The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.
She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.
Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”
Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.
6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left
According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.
But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.
As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.
What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.
Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.
They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.
Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.
Dear Readers:With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
What may come if we follow the Democratic Socialists to hell.
Co-Authored by Lady Boots and The Tradesman
Consider this; We live in an age where just about everything is either digitized or computerized, data analyzed and categorized. Our bank accounts, credit cards, personal records, medical records, and on and on.
The powers that be in Silicon valley and on the larger stage of high finance and international business, are of the belief that it's a brave new world with A.I. controlling access and egress from the "Cloud”.
Very soon there will be no "Hard Copy" except in museums. Libraries are even going to electronic reproductions over paper books, so ask the first question, if the electronic copies every disappear, where is the hard copy paper trail going to exist?
Granted this seems to make information readily available to all of us at the touch of a computer key board and mouse, perhaps that will enhance our experience and make us more capable of learning more information at a higher degree of study, and certainly give us greater opportunities to pursue a limitless myriad of things that we want to see and learn from our arm chairs through the new library frontier of the internet.
Beyond this exciting potential I would like to introduce the cautionary ideas I eluded to above; What if all this suddenly disappeared? What would happen? How would we be individually affected? How would we be affected as a Community? As a State? As a Nation?
Would we have any "Money" other than what we happened to have on hand? Would any Electronic devices continue to work? Would there be any Credit Cards? Would our "Money" have any value since we are no longer on a precious metals standard?
So, what happens if all of our digital systems quit working? It would affect literally everything. What happens if some entity decides to rewrite our basic history and laws? How would we know with no "Hard Copy" back ups?
And let's think about other hazards such as, a personal enemy or even a vicious over-reaching government that might/could make anyone a supposed criminal or mental case, or even someone that would be hated by other Americans, if some nefarious person or organization with the ability to create this scenario desired to do so. Criminals are doing this to a lesser degree by stealing identities and wrecking peoples lives, we hear about this daily, now imagine it on that world-wide scale the technology and a cloud now provide?
Think of what a totalitarian government or even a beneficent ('we know whats good for you better than you do') democratic government will be able to do to you?
On an even more dire note, think what an enemy government could do that has the power to deliver an EMP to take out Key Electrical Generation Hubs, coordinated with a Cyber attack to disable our military systems, and civilian enforcement systems. Imagine the chaos and destruction. In actuality we have no integral/internal security integrated into almost nothing we use on a daily basis, that uses electricity and computer systems/chips. What happens to civilization if everything that connects to the internet, if the internet quits working?
Think of something even more ominous, if the electric grid goes belly up, everything will be reverted to an 1800's technology basis and we have no hand crank tech we can use except in places like Amish enclaves or maybe some Prepper communities.
We no longer have the skills or equipment that was used in WWII and Vietnam, let alone the knowledge our grandparents had on how things worked, and how to repair them. Americans, especially those under 35, do not know how to survive without electricity or the electronic gear they use to get through every day of their lives. Take away electricity, take away computers,take away cell phones, take away TV, take away motor vehicles and they are lost. How many of those young people know how to can goods to preserve them without refrigeration? How many of them know how to make jerky, or even something as simple as hardtack?
How many people have a growing season worth of preserved foods to rely on to sustain them, until any crops they plant will be ready to harvest? How many people have seeds to plant? How many people have farm animals or know someone who has that can be slaughtered for food? Do you really think the Government would be able to furnish everything needed for everyone who lives in this great country, like the Democrats and Socialists promise they will in their campaigns? Not a chance. We need to stop listening to the useful Idiots on the left and put things back into a semblance of order.
We need a strong and safe America.
An America that has the protections in place and on multiple platforms that can provide redundant failsafes so that if one no longer functions anther can. We need redundancy in our backups of information and multiple formats where it can be safeguarded and archived.
An America that depends on individual abilities and abilities that are multi-faceted and not just learned and taught in a vacuum. We need unpoliticized and truthful education systems, and instill in our children self reliance instead of self-entitlement and dependency on the Democrat's Welfare. The Socialist Face and platform where ‘the everything should be given freely' mentality that has so far destroyed every society and government that has ever experimented with it or is currently held in it's unforgiving clutches should not even be entertained as an experiment worthy of America.
We desperately must pray for and work to recover the American Promise and Vision where people work together voluntarily for the betterment of the Nation, not because of some blind and partisan loyalty that reeks of nothing more than politically correct idiocy.
Those are the reasons America is supposed to be a REPUBLIC.
Co-Authored by
Lady Boots and the Tradesman
The powers that be in Silicon valley and on the larger stage of high finance and international business, are of the belief that it's a brave new world with A.I. controlling access and egress from the "Cloud”.
Very soon there will be no "Hard Copy" except in museums. Libraries are even going to electronic reproductions over paper books, so ask the first question, if the electronic copies every disappear, where is the hard copy paper trail going to exist?
Granted this seems to make information readily available to all of us at the touch of a computer key board and mouse, perhaps that will enhance our experience and make us more capable of learning more information at a higher degree of study, and certainly give us greater opportunities to pursue a limitless myriad of things that we want to see and learn from our arm chairs through the new library frontier of the internet.
Beyond this exciting potential I would like to introduce the cautionary ideas I eluded to above; What if all this suddenly disappeared? What would happen? How would we be individually affected? How would we be affected as a Community? As a State? As a Nation?
Would we have any "Money" other than what we happened to have on hand? Would any Electronic devices continue to work? Would there be any Credit Cards? Would our "Money" have any value since we are no longer on a precious metals standard?
So, what happens if all of our digital systems quit working? It would affect literally everything. What happens if some entity decides to rewrite our basic history and laws? How would we know with no "Hard Copy" back ups?
And let's think about other hazards such as, a personal enemy or even a vicious over-reaching government that might/could make anyone a supposed criminal or mental case, or even someone that would be hated by other Americans, if some nefarious person or organization with the ability to create this scenario desired to do so. Criminals are doing this to a lesser degree by stealing identities and wrecking peoples lives, we hear about this daily, now imagine it on that world-wide scale the technology and a cloud now provide?
Think of what a totalitarian government or even a beneficent ('we know whats good for you better than you do') democratic government will be able to do to you?
On an even more dire note, think what an enemy government could do that has the power to deliver an EMP to take out Key Electrical Generation Hubs, coordinated with a Cyber attack to disable our military systems, and civilian enforcement systems. Imagine the chaos and destruction. In actuality we have no integral/internal security integrated into almost nothing we use on a daily basis, that uses electricity and computer systems/chips. What happens to civilization if everything that connects to the internet, if the internet quits working?
Think of something even more ominous, if the electric grid goes belly up, everything will be reverted to an 1800's technology basis and we have no hand crank tech we can use except in places like Amish enclaves or maybe some Prepper communities.
We no longer have the skills or equipment that was used in WWII and Vietnam, let alone the knowledge our grandparents had on how things worked, and how to repair them. Americans, especially those under 35, do not know how to survive without electricity or the electronic gear they use to get through every day of their lives. Take away electricity, take away computers,take away cell phones, take away TV, take away motor vehicles and they are lost. How many of those young people know how to can goods to preserve them without refrigeration? How many of them know how to make jerky, or even something as simple as hardtack?
How many people have a growing season worth of preserved foods to rely on to sustain them, until any crops they plant will be ready to harvest? How many people have seeds to plant? How many people have farm animals or know someone who has that can be slaughtered for food? Do you really think the Government would be able to furnish everything needed for everyone who lives in this great country, like the Democrats and Socialists promise they will in their campaigns? Not a chance. We need to stop listening to the useful Idiots on the left and put things back into a semblance of order.
We need a strong and safe America.
An America that has the protections in place and on multiple platforms that can provide redundant failsafes so that if one no longer functions anther can. We need redundancy in our backups of information and multiple formats where it can be safeguarded and archived.
An America that depends on individual abilities and abilities that are multi-faceted and not just learned and taught in a vacuum. We need unpoliticized and truthful education systems, and instill in our children self reliance instead of self-entitlement and dependency on the Democrat's Welfare. The Socialist Face and platform where ‘the everything should be given freely' mentality that has so far destroyed every society and government that has ever experimented with it or is currently held in it's unforgiving clutches should not even be entertained as an experiment worthy of America.
We desperately must pray for and work to recover the American Promise and Vision where people work together voluntarily for the betterment of the Nation, not because of some blind and partisan loyalty that reeks of nothing more than politically correct idiocy.
Those are the reasons America is supposed to be a REPUBLIC.
Co-Authored by
Lady Boots and the Tradesman
An article by;J.W.Neal
With a commentary by
Oren Long
INTERESTING READ
A woman dies at age 65 before collecting one benefit check. She and her employer paid into the system for almost 50 years and she collected NOTHING.
Keep in mind all the working people that die every year who were paying into the system and got nothing!
And these governmental morons mismanaged the money and stole from the system, so that it's now going broke.
BEAUTIFUL! And they have the audacity to call today's seniors "vultures" in an attempt to cover their ineptitude. DISGRACEFUL!
The real reason for renaming our Social Security payments is so the government can claim that all those social security recipients are receiving entitlements thus putting them in the same category as welfare, and food stamp recipients.
THIS IS WORTH THE FEW MINUTES IT TAKES TO READ AND DIGEST!
F.Y.I. By changing the name of SS contributions, it gives them a means to refute this program in the future. It's free money for the government to spend under this guise.
The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a *Federal Benefit Payment* ?
I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you.
Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it
The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment."
This is NOT a benefit. It is OUR money , paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too ! It totaled 15% of our incomebeforetaxes.(This should be enough for you to forward this message, If not read on.)
If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.
If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved.
This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.
That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it's a fact). And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.
Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger *Ponzi scheme* than Bernie Madoff ever did
They took our money and used it elsewhere. They "forgot"(oh yes, they knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them ,.. and they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently they've told us that the money won't support us for very much longer.
But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a *benefit*, as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. This is stealing!
Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't mean that our investments were for charity!
Let's take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government
Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the sake of the 92% of our population who need it.
Then call it what it is:
Our Earned Retirement Income .
90% of people won't forward this.
PLEASE! Will you?
--J.W. Neal
Author of Ain't Nobody Really Happy at the Bottom...Except Catfish
Gentlemen,
Very good article. I have some additional thoughts.
Employers calculate employee wages by adding together EVERYTHING it will cost to hire said employee, including employee AND employer contributions to Social Security, unemployment compensation, health insurance, etc.
So, if the employee was taking home $30,000 per year but DIDN'T have to "contribute" to Social Security, unemployment compensation, health insurance, etc. AND neither did the employer, that employee would probably be taking home closer to $50,000 per year.
In fact, the employer is already calculating the cost of hiring said employee at $50,000 per year, but the employee just doesn't know it.
Then, the employee could easily set aside a portion of his take-home pay for retirement, health insurance, or times when he is unemployed, and STILL have a significant pay raise.
Add to this all the money the employee loses to federal and state income taxes used to fund programs and services the employee never uses and/or serve no real purpose in the real world, and we are talking about REAL MONEY!
And, what does government do with its ill-gotten money? It gives it to foreign governments, welfare recipients, illegals, "friends" (think solar and wind companies that go belly-up), scientists (for "studies" promoting man-made global warming), pay raises for do-nothing government bureaucrats, duplicitous agencies that essentially do the same thing, and other unnecessary "programs". And, all the while, crying "crocodile tears" over the poor, overworked, underpaid worker, enslaved by evil employers. But, even if everyone's pay was raised, that would just be even more money for the government to appropriate for even more wasteful spending. Hey, that's a good idea!
The current system is SOCIALISM and THEFT wherein the government takes YOUR money to ostensibly "take care of you" through programs that you may not want and may never use AND that you could easily provide for yourself -- IF YOU JUST HAD YOUR OWN MONEY!
And the Socialist Democrats tell us that we just can't live without Socialism and government largesse?!
R I G H T ! ! !
We have been asked to pass this article on and I am doing it. BUT, I have a better idea.
What if ALL employers sat their employees down and told them just how much money they are losing -- AND FOR WHAT? What if all employers actually told their employees exactly how much it REALLY costs to hire them? I'll bet that if employees knew just how much more money they COULD be making, at current pay rates, there would be an employee uprising. I'll bet that if employees knew they were already making well above the much vaunted (by Socialists) $15 per hour, the Socialists would have a real problem on their hands.
I'll bet that if employees knew that it was the Socialists and big government acolytes -- NOT THE "EVIL" CAPITALISTS -- who were milking workers for all they were worth . . ., well, you get the idea.
Employees and the public are constantly told that capitalists are akin to slaveholders, milking employees for all they are worth and refusing to pay a "living wage" when, in reality, it is GOVERNMENT that is the slaveholder, running a national "plantation" and using the Law and IRS as its "overseers".
Employees are ALREADY making a living wage, but never allowed to get it. Hell, they aren't even allowed to know about it OR that the employer is already paying it!
What say you?
Oren
With a commentary by
Oren Long
INTERESTING READ
A woman dies at age 65 before collecting one benefit check. She and her employer paid into the system for almost 50 years and she collected NOTHING.
Keep in mind all the working people that die every year who were paying into the system and got nothing!
And these governmental morons mismanaged the money and stole from the system, so that it's now going broke.
BEAUTIFUL! And they have the audacity to call today's seniors "vultures" in an attempt to cover their ineptitude. DISGRACEFUL!
The real reason for renaming our Social Security payments is so the government can claim that all those social security recipients are receiving entitlements thus putting them in the same category as welfare, and food stamp recipients.
THIS IS WORTH THE FEW MINUTES IT TAKES TO READ AND DIGEST!
F.Y.I. By changing the name of SS contributions, it gives them a means to refute this program in the future. It's free money for the government to spend under this guise.
The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a *Federal Benefit Payment* ?
I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you.
Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it
The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment."
This is NOT a benefit. It is OUR money , paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too ! It totaled 15% of our incomebeforetaxes.(This should be enough for you to forward this message, If not read on.)
If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.
If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved.
This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.
That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it's a fact). And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.
Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger *Ponzi scheme* than Bernie Madoff ever did
They took our money and used it elsewhere. They "forgot"(oh yes, they knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them ,.. and they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently they've told us that the money won't support us for very much longer.
But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a *benefit*, as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. This is stealing!
Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't mean that our investments were for charity!
Let's take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government
Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the sake of the 92% of our population who need it.
Then call it what it is:
Our Earned Retirement Income .
90% of people won't forward this.
PLEASE! Will you?
--J.W. Neal
Author of Ain't Nobody Really Happy at the Bottom...Except Catfish
Gentlemen,
Very good article. I have some additional thoughts.
Employers calculate employee wages by adding together EVERYTHING it will cost to hire said employee, including employee AND employer contributions to Social Security, unemployment compensation, health insurance, etc.
So, if the employee was taking home $30,000 per year but DIDN'T have to "contribute" to Social Security, unemployment compensation, health insurance, etc. AND neither did the employer, that employee would probably be taking home closer to $50,000 per year.
In fact, the employer is already calculating the cost of hiring said employee at $50,000 per year, but the employee just doesn't know it.
Then, the employee could easily set aside a portion of his take-home pay for retirement, health insurance, or times when he is unemployed, and STILL have a significant pay raise.
Add to this all the money the employee loses to federal and state income taxes used to fund programs and services the employee never uses and/or serve no real purpose in the real world, and we are talking about REAL MONEY!
And, what does government do with its ill-gotten money? It gives it to foreign governments, welfare recipients, illegals, "friends" (think solar and wind companies that go belly-up), scientists (for "studies" promoting man-made global warming), pay raises for do-nothing government bureaucrats, duplicitous agencies that essentially do the same thing, and other unnecessary "programs". And, all the while, crying "crocodile tears" over the poor, overworked, underpaid worker, enslaved by evil employers. But, even if everyone's pay was raised, that would just be even more money for the government to appropriate for even more wasteful spending. Hey, that's a good idea!
The current system is SOCIALISM and THEFT wherein the government takes YOUR money to ostensibly "take care of you" through programs that you may not want and may never use AND that you could easily provide for yourself -- IF YOU JUST HAD YOUR OWN MONEY!
And the Socialist Democrats tell us that we just can't live without Socialism and government largesse?!
R I G H T ! ! !
We have been asked to pass this article on and I am doing it. BUT, I have a better idea.
What if ALL employers sat their employees down and told them just how much money they are losing -- AND FOR WHAT? What if all employers actually told their employees exactly how much it REALLY costs to hire them? I'll bet that if employees knew just how much more money they COULD be making, at current pay rates, there would be an employee uprising. I'll bet that if employees knew they were already making well above the much vaunted (by Socialists) $15 per hour, the Socialists would have a real problem on their hands.
I'll bet that if employees knew that it was the Socialists and big government acolytes -- NOT THE "EVIL" CAPITALISTS -- who were milking workers for all they were worth . . ., well, you get the idea.
Employees and the public are constantly told that capitalists are akin to slaveholders, milking employees for all they are worth and refusing to pay a "living wage" when, in reality, it is GOVERNMENT that is the slaveholder, running a national "plantation" and using the Law and IRS as its "overseers".
Employees are ALREADY making a living wage, but never allowed to get it. Hell, they aren't even allowed to know about it OR that the employer is already paying it!
What say you?
Oren
"Everything Has Turned Upside Down and Stark Raving Crazy”
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President of the
National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues
Copyright Sunday, February 17, 2019 - All Rights Reserved
"Cities and governments tolerate crazy people. Companies don't!" Geoffrey West
God knows how anyone can watch the news any more. Each day one or more crazy things happen that defy logic, intellect and common sense. For example, why are 70,000 people a year dying of a drug overdose? That doesn't include the hundreds of thousands (or is it millions) that are "hooked" on drugs. Remember, there would be no drugs crossing our southern border if millions of stupid Americans weren't consuming the drugs!!!
Why is every 2020 Democrat candidate for president coming out with socialist policies that would play well in Communist China, but hardly in the United States of America? Where were these people born? There is no way they could have been sired by American parents. Or, has Progressive brainwashing been so successful that socialism is now in the main stream?
Why do we let millions of illegal aliens cross our borders and not do everything in our power to stop it, even if that means building fences across the 2,000 plus miles from San Diego to Brownsville? We are the only nation on earth that does not adequately protect its borders. But worse, we are a nation that provides huge incentives for every person in the Western Hemisphere to break down our doors and then demand we pay for them when they enter illegally. Why do legal Americans put up with it? They should fire every politician that supports open borders and refuses to fund the necessary defenses.
Why do we let local, county and state politicians pass sanctuary policies for illegal aliens, thus allowing the illegal criminals to rob, scam, run is down with their cars and kill us?
Why do we give these illegal aliens driver's licenses and allow them to register to vote, when it is illegal for them to vote?
Why in the Hell did we-the-people let Congress destroy one of the best health care systems on the planet by passing Obama Care? It is now politically unfixable and we did it to ourselves because we didn't make a loud enough noise against it. We literally sat there and did nothing, while those elite, can-do-no-wrong politicians (all Democrats) screwed us. Why? Because Obama Care was just another ploy by the Democrats to buy votes from those tens of millions of Americans that have allowed themselves to become dependent on government. The cost be damned.
Why did we let the state of New York, or any other state for that matter, pass an abortion law that is outright infanticide and allows the fetus to be killed after birth? What's next, euthanasia for our seniors? Remember the 1973 movie "Soylent Green" where they turned the remains of euthanized old people into cookies? Could fiction become fact?
Why have we authorized the federal government to establish a Department of Education, (DoED) when education is a state responsibility? Why did we let the DoED nationalize the education of America's children and establish a curriculum better suited for the children of Russia? American education has become socialist indoctrination. Hitler must be smiling in his grave.
Why did we let the federal government pass so many environmental laws that have effectively repealed the fifth amendment and rendered property ownership a barren right? The American landowner has become an indentured slave to almighty government and the environmentalists. Today, under current environmental law, we could not build the nation's freeway system. Further, every building project requires a very expensive environmental impact statement that does nothing but force the builder, or the taxpayer, to pay for the weapon that will shoot him in the foot.
And why have we found it necessary to protect every wetland in America to save the planet, when 12,000 years ago over one third of the earth's surface was covered by an ice sheet over one mile thick? There were no wetlands under the ice sheet. How DID the earth and its plants and animals survive without all those wetlands? What happened to reason, logic and common sense?
Why is it we have allowed government and the environmentalists to perpetrate one of the world's greatest con games ever devised on the people under the guise of alleged man-caused global warming? Why are the people allowing government to burn up their tax money by the trillions for an alleged disaster that hasn't happened and has little to no basis in science?
Why are college kids dying under barbaric initiation rituals? What makes a college kid think that it is a good idea to force another college kid to drink a gallon of 180-proof alcohol until he's dead? We know that high school and college kids tend to leave their common sense at home when they arrive at college, but outright murder when you know better, isn't just criminal, it's crazy.
Why are urban ethnic groups robbing and killing each other at unprecedented rates? Why are their cultures breaking down? Why has the tried, true and tested family unit of father, mother and child become out of style or passé, a family unit that was and still is a culture's answer to cultural stability?
Why have we allowed our standards of decency to descend into the gutter? Why have we allowed debauchery, swearing, violence and gratuitous sex in movies and TV to become commonplace? If we go see the movies or watch TV and accept these lower standards without any outcry, we effectively condone them.
Why is it that high-level officers at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation found it perfectly OK to break the law and stage a silent coup against a sitting president, by opening an investigation against him in search of a crime? If we can't trust the top law enforcement agencies of our country to play by the rules and the rule of law, a little thing like a constitution won't make any difference. Everyone knows that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is that the Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole Americans have decided to go down ..... at their own peril?
Why is it that the DOJ or FBI decided that a heavily-armed, overwhelming S.W.A.T team was necessary to take Roger Stone into custody for a process crime, while other politicians, guilty of the same offense, are wondering around free as a bird? Shall we name names? How about Hillary Clinton who lied to Congress and destroyed evidence that was under a Congressional subpoena. How about Huma Abedin, advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ex-wife of sex pervert Anthony Weiner, who also lied to Congress. How about Assistant FBI director Andrew McCabe who not only lied to Congress and other agencies, but whose wife received huge sums of money from Democrats for her political campaign, a huge conflict of interest for her husband Andrew, who was investigating both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? And why isn't former FBI director under investigation for taking classified information out of his office when he was fired by Trump? Why hasn't an FBI S.W.A.T team descended on their homes at the break of day with guns drawn to take them into custody? The list of perpetrators goes on and on but accountability is nowhere to be found.
But our lives are a mysterious contradiction. On the one hand we constantly observe idiotic events that make no sense at all, like the ones we have just described. But on the other hand we observe man's humanity to man in so many different ways. If we are in trouble, others come to our rescue, sometimes at great risk to themselves. First responders and citizens pull people out of burning houses, or cars, or rescue them from drowning in frozen ponds. During national disasters, we come together as if we were all related by blood. If we are truly bad in heart and soul, then why do we reach out a helping hand to people we don't even know? As a culture we are one of the most generous on the planet. We share our good fortune with others in ways too numerous to describe.
So how can these two sides co-exist? It is as if we live on a schizophrenic teeter-totter with one side weighing down the other side and then the opposite side reversing the process, in a delicate balance of alleged sanity. But what if the bad side, the crazy side, the debauchery side, overwhelms the sane, reasonable and commonsense side? The delicate balance is gone forever and our culture collapses, which is the direction we are headed.
Just recently we heard President Trump give the State of the Union address. Sadly, the "State of the Union" as proffered by the President, only tells a small portion of the real "State of the Union." What we describe in the first paragraphs of this article and in our short VIDEO, appears to be the giant share of that "state", but not addressed by the President. In contrast, the other side of the "State of the Union" is that we are a people of fairness, empathy and generosity.
Nevertheless, truth and history tells us that if we give up on honesty, integrity, honor and morality, if we strangle ourselves in a morass of millions of laws, rules and regulations, if we abandon economic principles, if we forsake decency standards, if we give up on the foundation of our freedom and liberty, as codified into law under the U. S. Constitution, we have no hope to remain as "We the People" governing ourselves under a Constitutional Republic and in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We will become just another third-world socialist country in a bleak life of shared misery. The Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer crowd and the current crop of crazy socialist presidential candidates will have won.
If that is what you want, you are not far from receiving it. If that ISN'T what you want, you better be prepared for a long, protracted and maybe even bloody, fight. The crazies among us are only going to get crazier and our once-balanced teeter-totter life will be resting on the ground on the crazy side.
Comments!
Ron Ewart is a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of his weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America". Ron is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (www.narlo.org), a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, acting as an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. An affiliated NARLO website is "Only The Righteous Hear The Truth" (http://www.otrht.com). Ron can be reached for comment HERE.
God knows how anyone can watch the news any more. Each day one or more crazy things happen that defy logic, intellect and common sense. For example, why are 70,000 people a year dying of a drug overdose? That doesn't include the hundreds of thousands (or is it millions) that are "hooked" on drugs. Remember, there would be no drugs crossing our southern border if millions of stupid Americans weren't consuming the drugs!!!
Why is every 2020 Democrat candidate for president coming out with socialist policies that would play well in Communist China, but hardly in the United States of America? Where were these people born? There is no way they could have been sired by American parents. Or, has Progressive brainwashing been so successful that socialism is now in the main stream?
Why do we let millions of illegal aliens cross our borders and not do everything in our power to stop it, even if that means building fences across the 2,000 plus miles from San Diego to Brownsville? We are the only nation on earth that does not adequately protect its borders. But worse, we are a nation that provides huge incentives for every person in the Western Hemisphere to break down our doors and then demand we pay for them when they enter illegally. Why do legal Americans put up with it? They should fire every politician that supports open borders and refuses to fund the necessary defenses.
Why do we let local, county and state politicians pass sanctuary policies for illegal aliens, thus allowing the illegal criminals to rob, scam, run is down with their cars and kill us?
Why do we give these illegal aliens driver's licenses and allow them to register to vote, when it is illegal for them to vote?
Why in the Hell did we-the-people let Congress destroy one of the best health care systems on the planet by passing Obama Care? It is now politically unfixable and we did it to ourselves because we didn't make a loud enough noise against it. We literally sat there and did nothing, while those elite, can-do-no-wrong politicians (all Democrats) screwed us. Why? Because Obama Care was just another ploy by the Democrats to buy votes from those tens of millions of Americans that have allowed themselves to become dependent on government. The cost be damned.
Why did we let the state of New York, or any other state for that matter, pass an abortion law that is outright infanticide and allows the fetus to be killed after birth? What's next, euthanasia for our seniors? Remember the 1973 movie "Soylent Green" where they turned the remains of euthanized old people into cookies? Could fiction become fact?
Why have we authorized the federal government to establish a Department of Education, (DoED) when education is a state responsibility? Why did we let the DoED nationalize the education of America's children and establish a curriculum better suited for the children of Russia? American education has become socialist indoctrination. Hitler must be smiling in his grave.
Why did we let the federal government pass so many environmental laws that have effectively repealed the fifth amendment and rendered property ownership a barren right? The American landowner has become an indentured slave to almighty government and the environmentalists. Today, under current environmental law, we could not build the nation's freeway system. Further, every building project requires a very expensive environmental impact statement that does nothing but force the builder, or the taxpayer, to pay for the weapon that will shoot him in the foot.
And why have we found it necessary to protect every wetland in America to save the planet, when 12,000 years ago over one third of the earth's surface was covered by an ice sheet over one mile thick? There were no wetlands under the ice sheet. How DID the earth and its plants and animals survive without all those wetlands? What happened to reason, logic and common sense?
Why is it we have allowed government and the environmentalists to perpetrate one of the world's greatest con games ever devised on the people under the guise of alleged man-caused global warming? Why are the people allowing government to burn up their tax money by the trillions for an alleged disaster that hasn't happened and has little to no basis in science?
Why are college kids dying under barbaric initiation rituals? What makes a college kid think that it is a good idea to force another college kid to drink a gallon of 180-proof alcohol until he's dead? We know that high school and college kids tend to leave their common sense at home when they arrive at college, but outright murder when you know better, isn't just criminal, it's crazy.
Why are urban ethnic groups robbing and killing each other at unprecedented rates? Why are their cultures breaking down? Why has the tried, true and tested family unit of father, mother and child become out of style or passé, a family unit that was and still is a culture's answer to cultural stability?
Why have we allowed our standards of decency to descend into the gutter? Why have we allowed debauchery, swearing, violence and gratuitous sex in movies and TV to become commonplace? If we go see the movies or watch TV and accept these lower standards without any outcry, we effectively condone them.
Why is it that high-level officers at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation found it perfectly OK to break the law and stage a silent coup against a sitting president, by opening an investigation against him in search of a crime? If we can't trust the top law enforcement agencies of our country to play by the rules and the rule of law, a little thing like a constitution won't make any difference. Everyone knows that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is that the Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole Americans have decided to go down ..... at their own peril?
Why is it that the DOJ or FBI decided that a heavily-armed, overwhelming S.W.A.T team was necessary to take Roger Stone into custody for a process crime, while other politicians, guilty of the same offense, are wondering around free as a bird? Shall we name names? How about Hillary Clinton who lied to Congress and destroyed evidence that was under a Congressional subpoena. How about Huma Abedin, advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ex-wife of sex pervert Anthony Weiner, who also lied to Congress. How about Assistant FBI director Andrew McCabe who not only lied to Congress and other agencies, but whose wife received huge sums of money from Democrats for her political campaign, a huge conflict of interest for her husband Andrew, who was investigating both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? And why isn't former FBI director under investigation for taking classified information out of his office when he was fired by Trump? Why hasn't an FBI S.W.A.T team descended on their homes at the break of day with guns drawn to take them into custody? The list of perpetrators goes on and on but accountability is nowhere to be found.
But our lives are a mysterious contradiction. On the one hand we constantly observe idiotic events that make no sense at all, like the ones we have just described. But on the other hand we observe man's humanity to man in so many different ways. If we are in trouble, others come to our rescue, sometimes at great risk to themselves. First responders and citizens pull people out of burning houses, or cars, or rescue them from drowning in frozen ponds. During national disasters, we come together as if we were all related by blood. If we are truly bad in heart and soul, then why do we reach out a helping hand to people we don't even know? As a culture we are one of the most generous on the planet. We share our good fortune with others in ways too numerous to describe.
So how can these two sides co-exist? It is as if we live on a schizophrenic teeter-totter with one side weighing down the other side and then the opposite side reversing the process, in a delicate balance of alleged sanity. But what if the bad side, the crazy side, the debauchery side, overwhelms the sane, reasonable and commonsense side? The delicate balance is gone forever and our culture collapses, which is the direction we are headed.
Just recently we heard President Trump give the State of the Union address. Sadly, the "State of the Union" as proffered by the President, only tells a small portion of the real "State of the Union." What we describe in the first paragraphs of this article and in our short VIDEO, appears to be the giant share of that "state", but not addressed by the President. In contrast, the other side of the "State of the Union" is that we are a people of fairness, empathy and generosity.
Nevertheless, truth and history tells us that if we give up on honesty, integrity, honor and morality, if we strangle ourselves in a morass of millions of laws, rules and regulations, if we abandon economic principles, if we forsake decency standards, if we give up on the foundation of our freedom and liberty, as codified into law under the U. S. Constitution, we have no hope to remain as "We the People" governing ourselves under a Constitutional Republic and in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We will become just another third-world socialist country in a bleak life of shared misery. The Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer crowd and the current crop of crazy socialist presidential candidates will have won.
If that is what you want, you are not far from receiving it. If that ISN'T what you want, you better be prepared for a long, protracted and maybe even bloody, fight. The crazies among us are only going to get crazier and our once-balanced teeter-totter life will be resting on the ground on the crazy side.
Comments!
Ron Ewart is a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of his weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America". Ron is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (www.narlo.org), a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, acting as an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. An affiliated NARLO website is "Only The Righteous Hear The Truth" (http://www.otrht.com). Ron can be reached for comment HERE.
WHY STATES CANNOT SUE TRUMP IN DISTRICT COURT
by Oren Long
When the Founders wrote Article III of the Constitution they specified three types of cases that can ONLY be heard by the Supreme Court, including cases where a State sues the United States (Federal Government). They clearly did not want District and/or Appellate Courts, possibly subject to personal/local/regional/political biases or prejudices, hearing cases of such national importance.
This is important in light of the many lawsuits filed against President Trump, in Federal District Court, by various States, over his Declaration of a National Emergency.
Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentences One and Two state, "In ALL (emphasis added) cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court SHALL (emphasis added) have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction. In all the other cases . . . the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact . . . ".
The above CLEARLY means that NO Federal District or Appellate Court can hear a case where a State sues the Federal Government, PERIOD! In legal parlance, it's called "Improper Venue", meaning that Federal District Courts have no "Standing" to hear the case. Given that President Trump is the head of the Federal Government, any State suing Trump or his Administration is, in fact, suing the Federal Government. Ergo, said State MUST file directly with the Supreme Court and NOT in District Court.
In turn, this means that President Trump can legally and Constitutionally IGNORE any "Inferior Court" (Founders' Constitutional definition, Article III, Section One) ruling, unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against him. IF the Supreme Court refuses the case, Presidential Orders stand.
Further, IF this Clause of the Constitution was enforced, the Supreme Court would quickly tire of these endless 'State vs. Trump' cases and refuse to hear them, meaning that Trump's Executive Orders would stand. AND the States, realizing this, would stop filing these frivolous lawsuits. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
So, why does the President not know this? He is relying on legal advice from his legal team who either don't know or don't want him to know. In either case, it's bad advice. I am reminded of an old saying, "When you control what a man knows, you control what he thinks".
Oren Long
by Oren Long
When the Founders wrote Article III of the Constitution they specified three types of cases that can ONLY be heard by the Supreme Court, including cases where a State sues the United States (Federal Government). They clearly did not want District and/or Appellate Courts, possibly subject to personal/local/regional/political biases or prejudices, hearing cases of such national importance.
This is important in light of the many lawsuits filed against President Trump, in Federal District Court, by various States, over his Declaration of a National Emergency.
Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentences One and Two state, "In ALL (emphasis added) cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court SHALL (emphasis added) have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction. In all the other cases . . . the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact . . . ".
The above CLEARLY means that NO Federal District or Appellate Court can hear a case where a State sues the Federal Government, PERIOD! In legal parlance, it's called "Improper Venue", meaning that Federal District Courts have no "Standing" to hear the case. Given that President Trump is the head of the Federal Government, any State suing Trump or his Administration is, in fact, suing the Federal Government. Ergo, said State MUST file directly with the Supreme Court and NOT in District Court.
In turn, this means that President Trump can legally and Constitutionally IGNORE any "Inferior Court" (Founders' Constitutional definition, Article III, Section One) ruling, unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against him. IF the Supreme Court refuses the case, Presidential Orders stand.
Further, IF this Clause of the Constitution was enforced, the Supreme Court would quickly tire of these endless 'State vs. Trump' cases and refuse to hear them, meaning that Trump's Executive Orders would stand. AND the States, realizing this, would stop filing these frivolous lawsuits. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
So, why does the President not know this? He is relying on legal advice from his legal team who either don't know or don't want him to know. In either case, it's bad advice. I am reminded of an old saying, "When you control what a man knows, you control what he thinks".
Oren Long
ARTICLE IV, SECTION FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION
by Oren Long
The President has found it necessary to declare a National Emergency, under his powers in the 1976 National Emergency Act, in order to go around an intransigent Congress and build necessary barriers on the southern border to protect the United States from an ongoing incursion by up to 300,000 illegal border crossers annually.
Said intransigent Congress, along with many other groups and some States, have promised lawsuits to stop President Trump's Declaration, something that will take months or years to unwind in the courts. Meanwhile, the invasion by thousands or hundreds of thousands of illegals continues unabated, overwhelming DHS, ICE, the Border Patrol, and the courts.
There is a Constitutional solution.
Article IV, Section Four of the Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION (emphasis added) . . . "
The President, as the 'head' of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces, has the primary DUTY to protect the United States from invasion or other hostile acts against the country.
The President can simply activate Article IV, Section Four and send the military to the border with orders to "repel" the invaders. "Invaders" have NO civil or constitutional "rights" -- NONE -- they are INVADERS! They can just be repelled and pushed back across the border.
I suspect the President may not even know about Article IV, Section Four. Either his close advisors do not know about it or, if they do, do not want the President to know. Someone needs to tell him.
The key to successful implementation of Article IV, Section Four lies in the vernacular. The President can STOP calling these illegal border crossers "Refugees", "Migrants", "Immigrants", or "Asylum Seekers". Call them what they are -- INVADERS!
In conjunction with Article IV, Section Four, the President can use 10 USC 284 which allows the military to construct necessary barriers along the border to complete its mission. Representative Mo Brooks is very familiar with this law, has advocated its implementation, and can brief the President on it.
The beauty of this approach is that it negates the need for a National Emergency Declaration AND takes both Congress and the courts out of the play. Neither Congress nor the courts can override the Constitution's simple, clear, and succinct language. Article IV, Section Four is a MANDATE, an ORDER, a REQUIREMENT! It is NOT an option to be used if and when the federal government feels like it.
Again, the use of Article IV, Section Four would instantly neutralize all civil/court actions and empower the President to keep his core promise of securing the border. Unless and until it is activated and used, this bitter resistance to securing the border will continue unabated into the foreseeable future.
Oren Long
by Oren Long
The President has found it necessary to declare a National Emergency, under his powers in the 1976 National Emergency Act, in order to go around an intransigent Congress and build necessary barriers on the southern border to protect the United States from an ongoing incursion by up to 300,000 illegal border crossers annually.
Said intransigent Congress, along with many other groups and some States, have promised lawsuits to stop President Trump's Declaration, something that will take months or years to unwind in the courts. Meanwhile, the invasion by thousands or hundreds of thousands of illegals continues unabated, overwhelming DHS, ICE, the Border Patrol, and the courts.
There is a Constitutional solution.
Article IV, Section Four of the Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION (emphasis added) . . . "
The President, as the 'head' of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces, has the primary DUTY to protect the United States from invasion or other hostile acts against the country.
The President can simply activate Article IV, Section Four and send the military to the border with orders to "repel" the invaders. "Invaders" have NO civil or constitutional "rights" -- NONE -- they are INVADERS! They can just be repelled and pushed back across the border.
I suspect the President may not even know about Article IV, Section Four. Either his close advisors do not know about it or, if they do, do not want the President to know. Someone needs to tell him.
The key to successful implementation of Article IV, Section Four lies in the vernacular. The President can STOP calling these illegal border crossers "Refugees", "Migrants", "Immigrants", or "Asylum Seekers". Call them what they are -- INVADERS!
In conjunction with Article IV, Section Four, the President can use 10 USC 284 which allows the military to construct necessary barriers along the border to complete its mission. Representative Mo Brooks is very familiar with this law, has advocated its implementation, and can brief the President on it.
The beauty of this approach is that it negates the need for a National Emergency Declaration AND takes both Congress and the courts out of the play. Neither Congress nor the courts can override the Constitution's simple, clear, and succinct language. Article IV, Section Four is a MANDATE, an ORDER, a REQUIREMENT! It is NOT an option to be used if and when the federal government feels like it.
Again, the use of Article IV, Section Four would instantly neutralize all civil/court actions and empower the President to keep his core promise of securing the border. Unless and until it is activated and used, this bitter resistance to securing the border will continue unabated into the foreseeable future.
Oren Long
Tribalism in politics: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
By; Oren Long
Webster's Dictionary defines "Tribe" as, "A human community developed by an association of, and interbreeding between, a number of families, opposed in principle to crossbreeding with other communities, and preserving its own customs, beliefs and organization. A number of people associated by family relationship or by common interests, etc.".
We are all members of a tribe to a greater or lesser degree. Most of us belong to multiple tribes, be they family, community, religious, regional, national, political, etc. All of us belong to a 'tribal', nuclear family. At the same time we probably see ourselves as belonging to a community, state, country, race, religion, and political party. All are tribes. Many identify as fans of a sports team, school, club, hobby, etc. These, too, are tribes in a very real sense.
As humans, we like tribalism. It makes us feel safe. It puts us into a "comfort zone" with others we like and can feel comfortable with. We don't have to worry about conflict. We can do and say what we like without worrying about getting into arguments. The others in our "tribe" probably agree with us and accept us as we are. It is a natural tendency. No one would voluntarily gravitate to a group with which we would find ourselves in conflict. It would be asking for trouble, so we shy away. Again, it's only natural.
In and of itself, tribalism is neither good nor bad. It is a way of identifying ourselves and finding others who share common interests. But, taken to its extreme, tribalism can be bad and even ugly. Some examples are racism, sexism, religious bigotry, economic bias, and political ideology. Taken to their extreme, they can and do have negative consequences, especially in multi-cultural societies such as ours.
Tribalism has existed from the very beginning. Imagine yourself in a cave with other cavemen. One day a stranger walks into your group. He is dressed differently, looks different, talks different, and has different tools and weapons. Your first instinct is for personal and group safety and survival. Is he an enemy? You don't know, but can't take the chance that he's not. So, you kill him. It's the safe play.
This will not change unless and until humans evolve past it, well, assuming we don't kill each other off before that.
So, what does this have to do with politics? Short answer, EVERYTHING! Make no mistake, politics has become "tribal" in the extreme. And, so, too, is society in general becoming increasingly tribal, negatively so, led by the extreme Left and hate-mongers for their own purposes, using the Democrat Party in pursuit of their anti-America agenda.
Politics is, by nature and instinct, TRIBAL! Political parties are "tribes" of like-minded people, with common interests and beliefs who form together to achieve commonly desired goals. They tend to see opposing parties as an "enemy" seeking to thwart their agenda. Party members tend to react to opposing party members in much the same way as the caveman cited above. Even those within a party who deviate from the party mantra can find themselves cast out for not adhering to generally accepted party norms.
Sometimes, competing tribes can come together to defeat a more threatening, common enemy (tribe). Then, once that enemy is defeated, they go back to fighting each other. This happened in WWII when America, England, and others joined forces with Russia to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan. Then, when the war was over, Russia, once again, became the enemy.
Fast forward to current events. The Republicans and Democrats in Washington have traditionally been at each others' throats, sometimes more, sometimes less. But, overall, they fought and quarreled.
THEN CAME TRUMP! Instantly, almost instinctively, the Washington Elite and Deep State (I call it "Fortress Washington") came together to defeat this interloper. He wasn't one of them! He wasn't part of the "club" (tribe)! Who does he think he is telling us "smart people" how to run the country? We'll show him, even if it means adopting a "scorched earth" policy, destroying everything! In the end, ONLY "Fortress Washington" and the status quo matter! ONLY the "tribe" matters.
The ongoing fight over the border is a perfect example. Before Trump, both parties agreed that the border had to be secured. Before Trump, both parties voted for massive funding to secure the border, well, someday, maybe. BUT, when Trump was elected on securing the border and promised to actually do it, EVERYTHING CHANGED -- INSTANTLY! Suddenly, just because Trump says it, it is evil, inhumane, and unamerican. Suddenly, everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, insists that the border is fine just the way it is. "There's no crisis, no emergency, no problem! Everything is fine!"
It all goes right back to tribalism. Trump is not part of the tribe, so he MUST be defeated. It doesn't matter that he's right. It ONLY matters that he's not part of the "Tribe". Just like the outsider walking into the caveman camp, Trump talks different, acts different, thinks different so MUST be the enemy. "Kill him" becomes the hue and cry of "Fortress Washington". "He's not one of us" is all that matters!
In a way, Trump is a secular version of Jesus. He has marched into the Temple (Washington), flipped over the tables of the money-changers (lobbyists and big donors), and challenged the Rabbis (Fortress Washington). And, just like Jesus, he did it as an outsider (not part of the Tribe). They hate him for it! Just as they killed Jesus for His temerity, they want to kill Trump -- figuratively or literally!
Trump's ONLY ally is US and he knows it! So, too, does Fortress Washington know it. Why do you think We The People are so often and viciously impugned, berated, scoffed at, and insulted? We, too, are the enemy. We, too, are locked out of the power-elite "tribe". Again, like the caveman outsider, we are not to be trusted. We just don't understand how things are done in Fortress Washington. We just need to go home, sit down, shut up, and sulk. They'll handle everything. Yeah, right!
They've done such a BANG-UP job!
Oren
By; Oren Long
Webster's Dictionary defines "Tribe" as, "A human community developed by an association of, and interbreeding between, a number of families, opposed in principle to crossbreeding with other communities, and preserving its own customs, beliefs and organization. A number of people associated by family relationship or by common interests, etc.".
We are all members of a tribe to a greater or lesser degree. Most of us belong to multiple tribes, be they family, community, religious, regional, national, political, etc. All of us belong to a 'tribal', nuclear family. At the same time we probably see ourselves as belonging to a community, state, country, race, religion, and political party. All are tribes. Many identify as fans of a sports team, school, club, hobby, etc. These, too, are tribes in a very real sense.
As humans, we like tribalism. It makes us feel safe. It puts us into a "comfort zone" with others we like and can feel comfortable with. We don't have to worry about conflict. We can do and say what we like without worrying about getting into arguments. The others in our "tribe" probably agree with us and accept us as we are. It is a natural tendency. No one would voluntarily gravitate to a group with which we would find ourselves in conflict. It would be asking for trouble, so we shy away. Again, it's only natural.
In and of itself, tribalism is neither good nor bad. It is a way of identifying ourselves and finding others who share common interests. But, taken to its extreme, tribalism can be bad and even ugly. Some examples are racism, sexism, religious bigotry, economic bias, and political ideology. Taken to their extreme, they can and do have negative consequences, especially in multi-cultural societies such as ours.
Tribalism has existed from the very beginning. Imagine yourself in a cave with other cavemen. One day a stranger walks into your group. He is dressed differently, looks different, talks different, and has different tools and weapons. Your first instinct is for personal and group safety and survival. Is he an enemy? You don't know, but can't take the chance that he's not. So, you kill him. It's the safe play.
This will not change unless and until humans evolve past it, well, assuming we don't kill each other off before that.
So, what does this have to do with politics? Short answer, EVERYTHING! Make no mistake, politics has become "tribal" in the extreme. And, so, too, is society in general becoming increasingly tribal, negatively so, led by the extreme Left and hate-mongers for their own purposes, using the Democrat Party in pursuit of their anti-America agenda.
Politics is, by nature and instinct, TRIBAL! Political parties are "tribes" of like-minded people, with common interests and beliefs who form together to achieve commonly desired goals. They tend to see opposing parties as an "enemy" seeking to thwart their agenda. Party members tend to react to opposing party members in much the same way as the caveman cited above. Even those within a party who deviate from the party mantra can find themselves cast out for not adhering to generally accepted party norms.
Sometimes, competing tribes can come together to defeat a more threatening, common enemy (tribe). Then, once that enemy is defeated, they go back to fighting each other. This happened in WWII when America, England, and others joined forces with Russia to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan. Then, when the war was over, Russia, once again, became the enemy.
Fast forward to current events. The Republicans and Democrats in Washington have traditionally been at each others' throats, sometimes more, sometimes less. But, overall, they fought and quarreled.
THEN CAME TRUMP! Instantly, almost instinctively, the Washington Elite and Deep State (I call it "Fortress Washington") came together to defeat this interloper. He wasn't one of them! He wasn't part of the "club" (tribe)! Who does he think he is telling us "smart people" how to run the country? We'll show him, even if it means adopting a "scorched earth" policy, destroying everything! In the end, ONLY "Fortress Washington" and the status quo matter! ONLY the "tribe" matters.
The ongoing fight over the border is a perfect example. Before Trump, both parties agreed that the border had to be secured. Before Trump, both parties voted for massive funding to secure the border, well, someday, maybe. BUT, when Trump was elected on securing the border and promised to actually do it, EVERYTHING CHANGED -- INSTANTLY! Suddenly, just because Trump says it, it is evil, inhumane, and unamerican. Suddenly, everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, insists that the border is fine just the way it is. "There's no crisis, no emergency, no problem! Everything is fine!"
It all goes right back to tribalism. Trump is not part of the tribe, so he MUST be defeated. It doesn't matter that he's right. It ONLY matters that he's not part of the "Tribe". Just like the outsider walking into the caveman camp, Trump talks different, acts different, thinks different so MUST be the enemy. "Kill him" becomes the hue and cry of "Fortress Washington". "He's not one of us" is all that matters!
In a way, Trump is a secular version of Jesus. He has marched into the Temple (Washington), flipped over the tables of the money-changers (lobbyists and big donors), and challenged the Rabbis (Fortress Washington). And, just like Jesus, he did it as an outsider (not part of the Tribe). They hate him for it! Just as they killed Jesus for His temerity, they want to kill Trump -- figuratively or literally!
Trump's ONLY ally is US and he knows it! So, too, does Fortress Washington know it. Why do you think We The People are so often and viciously impugned, berated, scoffed at, and insulted? We, too, are the enemy. We, too, are locked out of the power-elite "tribe". Again, like the caveman outsider, we are not to be trusted. We just don't understand how things are done in Fortress Washington. We just need to go home, sit down, shut up, and sulk. They'll handle everything. Yeah, right!
They've done such a BANG-UP job!
Oren
Trevor Loudon’s 2019 list of socialists and communists in Congress
Source; http://noisyroom.net/blog/2019/02/02/trevor-loudons-2019-list-of-so...
I’ve been asked to compile a list of socialists and communists in Congress. A friend of mine was challenged to name “even two socialists in Congress.” Altogether, if you add in Islamist connections I think about 100 members of the House of Representatives would struggle to pass a low-level background security check..but guess what? There are no security checks in Congress.
Here’s my list of 50 of the most obvious socialists in the House, with links to my website Keywiki for the backup evidence. Apologies to the many I’ve omitted. Please email me at trevor.newzeal @gmail.com if you’d like to be included in future lists.
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA since at least 1993. A self-described “Alinskyite.” Traveled to Cuba in 2015.
Ami Bera (D-CA) Has used Communist Party USA campaign volunteers in 2010, 2014 and 2016. Also close to Democratic Socialists of America.
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Very close to several key Communist Party USA allies in San Francisco in the 1970s and ’80s. Also some involvement with Democratic Socialists of America.
Barbara Lee (D-CA) Lee has been close to the Communist Party USA for decades. In the 1990s she was a leading member of the Communist Party spin-off Committees of Correspondence. Has been to Cuba more than 20 times.
Ro Khanna (D-CA) Very close to Democratic Socialists of America.
Salud Carbajal (D-CA) Long history with Democratic Socialists of America members.
Judy Chu (D-CA) Was heavily involved with the now-defunct pro-Beijing Communist Workers Party in the 1970s and ’80s. Still works closely with former members today. China’s best friend in the US Congress.
Raul Ruiz (D-CA) Worked closely with Workers World Party members in Massachusetts in the late 1990s.
Karen Bass (D-CA) Was actively involved with the Marxist-Leninist group Line of March in the 1980s. Still works closely with former members. Mentored by a leading Communist Party USA member. Also close to Democratic Socialists of America and some Freedom Road Socialist Organization members. Has been to Cuba at least 4 times.
Maxine Waters (D-CA) Long history with the Communist Party USA. Also ties to some Communist Workers Party and Workers World Party fronts. Has employed staff members from Democratic Socialists of America and League of Revolutionary Struggle.
Joe Courtney (D-CT) Has worked closely with several Communist Party USA leaders.
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Has worked extremely closely with the Communist Party USA for many years. Traveled to Cuba in 2014.
Jim Himes (D-CT) His 1988 thesis “The Sandinista Defense Committees and the Transformation of Political Culture in Nicaragua” was a sympathetic portrayal of Marxist government’s civilian spy network. Has worked closely with one Communist Party USA front group.
Kathy Castor (D-FL) Has worked closely with Cuba and pro-Castro organizations to open US trade with the communist island.
John Lewis (D-GA) Worked closely with the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA in the 1960s. In recent years has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members.
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members through her political career. Ties to some Filipino-American “former communists.” Worked with Communist Party USA affiliated former Congressman Dennis Kucinich to defend Soviet-Russian puppet Syrian leader Bashar-al-Assad.
Bobby Rush (D-IL) Former leader of the Maoist-leaning Black Panther Party. Has worked closely with Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America. Has traveled to Cuba twice.
Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-IL) Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA for nearly 40 years.
Danny Davis (D-IL) Was a member of Democratic Socialists of America in the mid 2000s. Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA since the 1980s. Also close to Committees of Correspondence in the 1990s.
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Was a member of Democratic Socialists of America in the 1980s and has continued to work closely with the organization. Has also worked closely with some Communist Party USA members.
Dave Loebsack (D-IA) has worked closely with Socialist Party USA and
Democratic Socialists of America members for many years.
John Yarmuth (D-KY) has worked with Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism members. Traveled to Cuba in 2011.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has worked closely with Democratic Socialists of America for many years.
Jim McGovern (D-MA) has supported Latin American socialist and revolutionary groups for 20 years. Has traveled to Cuba at least three times.
Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) Has been endorsed by Democratic Socialists of America. Worked with Freedom Road Socialist Organization front groups and with the pro-Beijing Chinese Progressive Association in Boston.
Andy Levin (D-MI) Close to Democratic Socialists of America for at least a decade.
Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) Democratic Socialists of America member.
Betty McCollum (D-MN) Close ties to communist Laos. Has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members. Traveled to Cuba in 2014.
Ilhan Omar (D-MN) Supported by Democratic Socialists of America- controlled groups Our Revolution and National Nurses United. Reportedly a self-described “Democratic Socialist.”
Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Was close to the Communist Party USA for many years. Also supported one Communist Workers Party organization. Traveled to Cuba in 2000 and worked with Fidel Castro to train leftist American medical students in Cuba.
William Lacy Clay (D-MO) Has worked with Communist Party USA fronts for many years.
Greg Meeks (D-NY) Has traveled to Cuba at least 3 times. Was a strong supporter of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
Grace Meng (D-NY) Very close to the pro-Beijing Asian Americans for Equality. Was also active in a radical Korean-American organization.
Nydia Velasquez (D-NY) Close ties to Democratic Socialists of America. Welcomed Fidel Castro to Harlem in 1995.
Yvette Clarke (D-NY) Addressed a Workers World Party rally in 2005. A close ally of a prominent Democratic Socialists of America member. Traveled to Cuba in 2007.
Jerry Nadler (D-NY) Was a member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in the 1970s and was involved with Democratic Socialists of America in the ’80s and ’90s.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) A member of Democratic Socialists of America.
Jose Serrano (D-NY) Close ties to the Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America. Was a strong supporter of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) Some connection to Workers World Party and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Also close to the “former” communist-led Moral Mondays movement.
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Ties to Democratic Socialists of America. Traveled to Cuba in 2002.
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Ties to Democratic Socialists of America.
Steve Cohen (D-TN) Close ties to Memphis Socialist Party USA members. Traveled to Cuba in 2011.
Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) Elected to the Texas State House with Communist Party USA support. Works closely with a major communist-influenced organization.
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) Long relationship with the Communist Party USA. Traveled to Cuba at least twice.
Marc Veasey (D-TX) Very close relationship with the Communist Party USA.
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) Has been involved with Democratic Socialists of America since the 1980s.
Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) Has been involved with Freedom Road Socialist Organization-connected groups for many years.
Mark Pocan (D-WI) Close to some Democratic Socialists of America activists. Long-time active supporter of Colombian revolutionary movements.
Gwen Moore (D-WI) Has been mentored by leading Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA members.
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) Former Young Peoples Socialist League member. Long connection to Democratic Socialists of America.
For more information on socialists and communists in the US Congress watch my acclaimed 90-minute documentary the Enemies Within, or read my book Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists And Progressives In The US Congress
Source; http://noisyroom.net/blog/2019/02/02/trevor-loudons-2019-list-of-so...
I’ve been asked to compile a list of socialists and communists in Congress. A friend of mine was challenged to name “even two socialists in Congress.” Altogether, if you add in Islamist connections I think about 100 members of the House of Representatives would struggle to pass a low-level background security check..but guess what? There are no security checks in Congress.
Here’s my list of 50 of the most obvious socialists in the House, with links to my website Keywiki for the backup evidence. Apologies to the many I’ve omitted. Please email me at trevor.newzeal @gmail.com if you’d like to be included in future lists.
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA since at least 1993. A self-described “Alinskyite.” Traveled to Cuba in 2015.
Ami Bera (D-CA) Has used Communist Party USA campaign volunteers in 2010, 2014 and 2016. Also close to Democratic Socialists of America.
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Very close to several key Communist Party USA allies in San Francisco in the 1970s and ’80s. Also some involvement with Democratic Socialists of America.
Barbara Lee (D-CA) Lee has been close to the Communist Party USA for decades. In the 1990s she was a leading member of the Communist Party spin-off Committees of Correspondence. Has been to Cuba more than 20 times.
Ro Khanna (D-CA) Very close to Democratic Socialists of America.
Salud Carbajal (D-CA) Long history with Democratic Socialists of America members.
Judy Chu (D-CA) Was heavily involved with the now-defunct pro-Beijing Communist Workers Party in the 1970s and ’80s. Still works closely with former members today. China’s best friend in the US Congress.
Raul Ruiz (D-CA) Worked closely with Workers World Party members in Massachusetts in the late 1990s.
Karen Bass (D-CA) Was actively involved with the Marxist-Leninist group Line of March in the 1980s. Still works closely with former members. Mentored by a leading Communist Party USA member. Also close to Democratic Socialists of America and some Freedom Road Socialist Organization members. Has been to Cuba at least 4 times.
Maxine Waters (D-CA) Long history with the Communist Party USA. Also ties to some Communist Workers Party and Workers World Party fronts. Has employed staff members from Democratic Socialists of America and League of Revolutionary Struggle.
Joe Courtney (D-CT) Has worked closely with several Communist Party USA leaders.
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Has worked extremely closely with the Communist Party USA for many years. Traveled to Cuba in 2014.
Jim Himes (D-CT) His 1988 thesis “The Sandinista Defense Committees and the Transformation of Political Culture in Nicaragua” was a sympathetic portrayal of Marxist government’s civilian spy network. Has worked closely with one Communist Party USA front group.
Kathy Castor (D-FL) Has worked closely with Cuba and pro-Castro organizations to open US trade with the communist island.
John Lewis (D-GA) Worked closely with the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA in the 1960s. In recent years has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members.
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members through her political career. Ties to some Filipino-American “former communists.” Worked with Communist Party USA affiliated former Congressman Dennis Kucinich to defend Soviet-Russian puppet Syrian leader Bashar-al-Assad.
Bobby Rush (D-IL) Former leader of the Maoist-leaning Black Panther Party. Has worked closely with Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America. Has traveled to Cuba twice.
Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-IL) Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA for nearly 40 years.
Danny Davis (D-IL) Was a member of Democratic Socialists of America in the mid 2000s. Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA since the 1980s. Also close to Committees of Correspondence in the 1990s.
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Was a member of Democratic Socialists of America in the 1980s and has continued to work closely with the organization. Has also worked closely with some Communist Party USA members.
Dave Loebsack (D-IA) has worked closely with Socialist Party USA and
Democratic Socialists of America members for many years.
John Yarmuth (D-KY) has worked with Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism members. Traveled to Cuba in 2011.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has worked closely with Democratic Socialists of America for many years.
Jim McGovern (D-MA) has supported Latin American socialist and revolutionary groups for 20 years. Has traveled to Cuba at least three times.
Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) Has been endorsed by Democratic Socialists of America. Worked with Freedom Road Socialist Organization front groups and with the pro-Beijing Chinese Progressive Association in Boston.
Andy Levin (D-MI) Close to Democratic Socialists of America for at least a decade.
Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) Democratic Socialists of America member.
Betty McCollum (D-MN) Close ties to communist Laos. Has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members. Traveled to Cuba in 2014.
Ilhan Omar (D-MN) Supported by Democratic Socialists of America- controlled groups Our Revolution and National Nurses United. Reportedly a self-described “Democratic Socialist.”
Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Was close to the Communist Party USA for many years. Also supported one Communist Workers Party organization. Traveled to Cuba in 2000 and worked with Fidel Castro to train leftist American medical students in Cuba.
William Lacy Clay (D-MO) Has worked with Communist Party USA fronts for many years.
Greg Meeks (D-NY) Has traveled to Cuba at least 3 times. Was a strong supporter of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
Grace Meng (D-NY) Very close to the pro-Beijing Asian Americans for Equality. Was also active in a radical Korean-American organization.
Nydia Velasquez (D-NY) Close ties to Democratic Socialists of America. Welcomed Fidel Castro to Harlem in 1995.
Yvette Clarke (D-NY) Addressed a Workers World Party rally in 2005. A close ally of a prominent Democratic Socialists of America member. Traveled to Cuba in 2007.
Jerry Nadler (D-NY) Was a member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in the 1970s and was involved with Democratic Socialists of America in the ’80s and ’90s.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) A member of Democratic Socialists of America.
Jose Serrano (D-NY) Close ties to the Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America. Was a strong supporter of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) Some connection to Workers World Party and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Also close to the “former” communist-led Moral Mondays movement.
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Ties to Democratic Socialists of America. Traveled to Cuba in 2002.
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Ties to Democratic Socialists of America.
Steve Cohen (D-TN) Close ties to Memphis Socialist Party USA members. Traveled to Cuba in 2011.
Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) Elected to the Texas State House with Communist Party USA support. Works closely with a major communist-influenced organization.
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) Long relationship with the Communist Party USA. Traveled to Cuba at least twice.
Marc Veasey (D-TX) Very close relationship with the Communist Party USA.
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) Has been involved with Democratic Socialists of America since the 1980s.
Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) Has been involved with Freedom Road Socialist Organization-connected groups for many years.
Mark Pocan (D-WI) Close to some Democratic Socialists of America activists. Long-time active supporter of Colombian revolutionary movements.
Gwen Moore (D-WI) Has been mentored by leading Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA members.
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) Former Young Peoples Socialist League member. Long connection to Democratic Socialists of America.
For more information on socialists and communists in the US Congress watch my acclaimed 90-minute documentary the Enemies Within, or read my book Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists And Progressives In The US Congress
Has Patience Become An Excuse For Failure?
By Ron Nelson Col. US Army (ret)
Has Patience Become An Excuse For Failure?Patience may be a virtue… but when dealing with those who have no virtue, patients can become an enemy. We must not let excessive caution rule the day or fear destroy our hope.
We are at war for the very soul of our nation… bold strides and broad advances need to replace the pastel and mediocre efforts of the past. America must act while the People still have the framework of a Constitutional Republic to reform. Let patience have her perfect works… but work, she must.
So far, it appears that our patience is not working… In fact, it has become an excuse for failure. Patience must be reinforced with Hope and Hope must have a vision. Where is our hope and a vision for the future. It is not enough to complain. America must organize under a single banner; it must find effective leadership and resourcing capable of developing a plan and a vision that can take root in the people; too, motivate and mobilize, the Spirit of 1776. A nation without a vision will perish. Where is the plan… the vision? Where may we place our patience and hope? Who among us will lead the people and where will they find the resources to wage war with the enemies of liberty?
Those may be hard words… but I believe they are a truthful representation of our current situation; nothing appears to be working, hope is turning to despair, and with it comes the specter of defeat. America can not wait for the next election cycle to begin, our efforts must materialize in the streets of America now… Patience is not working, it has become an excuse for ineffective action and failure.
America’s leaders and wealthy are failing to heed the call of its people… the despots hold our hope at bay and our patience is turning to despair. A people without a vision, a nation without true leadership, and a merchant class, that is unwilling to sacrifice for the good of the whole, will soon turn the American Dream into a nightmare. I call upon those who command the resources, those with the ability to lead, to take the reigns of America while there is yet day light to work anew her foundations… Too, pull down the evil which has occupied our halls of government; too, restore our forefathers vision in a people who are desperate for leadership and renewal.
We are at war for the very soul of our nation… bold strides and broad advances need to replace the pastel and mediocre efforts of the past. America must act while the People still have the framework of a Constitutional Republic to reform. Let patience have her perfect works… but work, she must.
So far, it appears that our patience is not working… In fact, it has become an excuse for failure. Patience must be reinforced with Hope and Hope must have a vision. Where is our hope and a vision for the future. It is not enough to complain. America must organize under a single banner; it must find effective leadership and resourcing capable of developing a plan and a vision that can take root in the people; too, motivate and mobilize, the Spirit of 1776. A nation without a vision will perish. Where is the plan… the vision? Where may we place our patience and hope? Who among us will lead the people and where will they find the resources to wage war with the enemies of liberty?
Those may be hard words… but I believe they are a truthful representation of our current situation; nothing appears to be working, hope is turning to despair, and with it comes the specter of defeat. America can not wait for the next election cycle to begin, our efforts must materialize in the streets of America now… Patience is not working, it has become an excuse for ineffective action and failure.
America’s leaders and wealthy are failing to heed the call of its people… the despots hold our hope at bay and our patience is turning to despair. A people without a vision, a nation without true leadership, and a merchant class, that is unwilling to sacrifice for the good of the whole, will soon turn the American Dream into a nightmare. I call upon those who command the resources, those with the ability to lead, to take the reigns of America while there is yet day light to work anew her foundations… Too, pull down the evil which has occupied our halls of government; too, restore our forefathers vision in a people who are desperate for leadership and renewal.
The Coming Darkness
By The Tradesman
With a shout out to LadyBoots for her well appreciated help
The Coming Darkness
By The Tradesman
With a shout out to LadyBoots for her well appreciated help
The world today is in a shambles because of the greed and selfishness of the elites and their dupes, who believe they are smarter and better than the rest of us. The propaganda techniques they are using seem evidently plausible at the outset, but until you get into the main reasoning you won't see the fallacy they contain. The ones who call themselves Progressive, or Liberal, or NWO believers are a canny lot. They revel in duplicity and two faced actions. The real problem is they somehow spin and twist our good values, rely on our societal beliefs and traditions, and pretend they are doing this out of some sort of altruistic reason.
The plain truth is they use the essence of our values and morals to hide the fact that their methods utilize deception disguised as honorable ideologies. They make statements that profess to follow the upstanding virtues of faith hope and charity then twist them into some fallow caricature of theirs. They play on our sympathies and promise what could only happen in a perfect world, as the end result of our following their ideologies. The youth are readily bluffed by this idea because of several factors. They have not had to work for anything they wanted. They were immediately given gratification by their doting parents, they were not educated in the realities of history, but instead given a highly stylized and inaccurate rendition of the reality. This stylized version was deliberately created to enhance the moral wrongs that were proposed to be the best things to do and the best way to act.
In fact those ways were inimical with reality and were only suited for creating mindless idiots who would blindly champion whatever their handlers desired them to champion, even if the issues were contradictory in and of themselves.In short the kids were trained in a situational belief system where their avowed leaders told them what to think and do at every turn.
Look at what we have lost because of these greedy Dictators; Competition used to strengthen people has been undercut by the idea that everyone must receive a trophy for participating or they can throw a tantrum. This belies the fact that people are different and have different skills. It also belies the fact that people are not equal in their accomplishments. That philosophy stops any advancement and sabotages anything that may make things better for everyone.
We have also lost the common decency that used to be existent between people and the sexes by proposing that everyone can do everything that anyone else can do and with equal ability. Citing Lets see how well men are at carrying a baby to full term. Granted that is an extreme example but different people have different skill sets. the same goes for innate intelligence. Not everyone is an Albert Einstein, and not everyone is a skilled prototype machinist. Nor is everyone an Opera class singer. The list goes on ad-infinitum.
The main point is the current class of proto-dictators personified by the Democratic left is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Socialism and it's two sub-sets Communism and Fascism, pretend to staunchly uphold the basic equality among all their adherents. Bullshit! What it actually does is to elevate the very few at the top and enslave the other underling proletariat public. Most of the millennials can't see that, and it's not their fault. It's the fault of slow and calculated interference by the ones who want to end up on the top regardless of those they must trod over to make it.
Is it any wonder our Nation not to mention the world at large is verging on chaos? This must be some sort of actual conspiracy to usurp everything and shift the paradigm back to a world wide rule by whims of men instead of by written and enforced laws. Strangely enough the current world events seemingly match up to the general plot of Revelations. I wonder if it is a coincidence, or if there is an evil supernatural force prodding us to annihilation.
The average honorable citizen is losing everything they have held dear because of the few who have taken over using their billions for influence and trading on the naivete of morally and educationally crippled modern youth. If we don't shake off the cloak of darkness and return to the light of reason, we will become as slaves of old with nothing to look forward to except more and more abuse by those who have traded their souls for money and power.
This is not just my opinion, it is straight from the Alinsky Handbook and the Cloward Piven Strategy (US)
https://archive.org/stream/RulesForRadicals/RulesForRadicals_djvu.txt
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-03/cloward-piven-strategy-being-used-destroy-america
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty
The Tradesman
By The Tradesman
With a shout out to LadyBoots for her well appreciated help
The world today is in a shambles because of the greed and selfishness of the elites and their dupes, who believe they are smarter and better than the rest of us. The propaganda techniques they are using seem evidently plausible at the outset, but until you get into the main reasoning you won't see the fallacy they contain. The ones who call themselves Progressive, or Liberal, or NWO believers are a canny lot. They revel in duplicity and two faced actions. The real problem is they somehow spin and twist our good values, rely on our societal beliefs and traditions, and pretend they are doing this out of some sort of altruistic reason.
The plain truth is they use the essence of our values and morals to hide the fact that their methods utilize deception disguised as honorable ideologies. They make statements that profess to follow the upstanding virtues of faith hope and charity then twist them into some fallow caricature of theirs. They play on our sympathies and promise what could only happen in a perfect world, as the end result of our following their ideologies. The youth are readily bluffed by this idea because of several factors. They have not had to work for anything they wanted. They were immediately given gratification by their doting parents, they were not educated in the realities of history, but instead given a highly stylized and inaccurate rendition of the reality. This stylized version was deliberately created to enhance the moral wrongs that were proposed to be the best things to do and the best way to act.
In fact those ways were inimical with reality and were only suited for creating mindless idiots who would blindly champion whatever their handlers desired them to champion, even if the issues were contradictory in and of themselves.In short the kids were trained in a situational belief system where their avowed leaders told them what to think and do at every turn.
Look at what we have lost because of these greedy Dictators; Competition used to strengthen people has been undercut by the idea that everyone must receive a trophy for participating or they can throw a tantrum. This belies the fact that people are different and have different skills. It also belies the fact that people are not equal in their accomplishments. That philosophy stops any advancement and sabotages anything that may make things better for everyone.
We have also lost the common decency that used to be existent between people and the sexes by proposing that everyone can do everything that anyone else can do and with equal ability. Citing Lets see how well men are at carrying a baby to full term. Granted that is an extreme example but different people have different skill sets. the same goes for innate intelligence. Not everyone is an Albert Einstein, and not everyone is a skilled prototype machinist. Nor is everyone an Opera class singer. The list goes on ad-infinitum.
The main point is the current class of proto-dictators personified by the Democratic left is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Socialism and it's two sub-sets Communism and Fascism, pretend to staunchly uphold the basic equality among all their adherents. Bullshit! What it actually does is to elevate the very few at the top and enslave the other underling proletariat public. Most of the millennials can't see that, and it's not their fault. It's the fault of slow and calculated interference by the ones who want to end up on the top regardless of those they must trod over to make it.
Is it any wonder our Nation not to mention the world at large is verging on chaos? This must be some sort of actual conspiracy to usurp everything and shift the paradigm back to a world wide rule by whims of men instead of by written and enforced laws. Strangely enough the current world events seemingly match up to the general plot of Revelations. I wonder if it is a coincidence, or if there is an evil supernatural force prodding us to annihilation.
The average honorable citizen is losing everything they have held dear because of the few who have taken over using their billions for influence and trading on the naivete of morally and educationally crippled modern youth. If we don't shake off the cloak of darkness and return to the light of reason, we will become as slaves of old with nothing to look forward to except more and more abuse by those who have traded their souls for money and power.
This is not just my opinion, it is straight from the Alinsky Handbook and the Cloward Piven Strategy (US)
https://archive.org/stream/RulesForRadicals/RulesForRadicals_djvu.txt
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-03/cloward-piven-strategy-being-used-destroy-america
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty
The Tradesman
Two Important Op-Ed's by Oren Long
Tucker Carlson Just Blew The Lid Off One Of The Biggest Scandals In American History
https://greatamericandaily.com/tucker-carlson-biggest-scandals-american-history/
Gentlemen,
All the pieces of the puzzle are falling into place.
Tucker Carlson aptly states what every thinking American already knows. NO ONE in DC or the ruling elite gives a whit about us "dirty, little people". This includes those uber-rich who should be on our side and against the Left and the Democrats but view us the same way. We are little better than "house niggers" in the old South.
As Tucker points out, they have NO IDEA who we are or what we think. It amounts to
I D O N ' T K N O W , I D O N ' T W A N T T O K N O W , D O N ' T T E L L M E
It amounts to top-down socialism/communism where our "betters" run our lives, for our own good, of course.
We saw the beginnings of this with Social Security where we "stupid" people were forced to save for retirement because we were too stupid to do it on our own. Then came Medicare and Medicaid, followed by Obamacare, all implemented with the underlying mindset that the public needed to be told what to do and how to do it, by force if necessary, because we were, again, too stupid to make decisions on our own.
Romney is nothing more than the mouthpiece of the ruling class, parroting the same, tired mantra that Trump is evil when all he is doing is giving voice -- and power -- to the People who have, to date, been lorded over by their betters.
This is exactly what happened in the French and Russian Revolutions wherein the People finally rebelled against their rulers, rulers who could not have cared less if people fell over dead in the street. Then, the violently overthrown rulers were shocked and amazed that it happened.
As I have said before, the anti-Trump frenzy in the elite is really an anti-People frenzy! We must be put back into our place, at all cost! The status quo MUST be maintained, even at the cost of destroying the Republic.
In their feeble minds, the elite truly, naively believe that Trump, the Tea Party, and Populism are just some "dust-up" than can be quelled and the status quo of top-down leadership restored. They have no clue what is headed their way.
They are like the frog put into a pot of water and the heat turned up until the frog is cooked alive. He doesn't realize what is happening until it is too late.
All this is exemplified by every "issue" currently being undertaken. Mass illegal immigration, dumbing down the education system, teaching communism and anti-capitalism in colleges, radical Leftist propaganda in the Democrat Party, anti-religion, humanism in the form of abortion on demand, hatred of time-honored Western Civilization, anti-Constitutionalism, environmental extremism, et al, are just the latest tools formulated to destroy America.
This disparate assemblage of extremists are but the "useful idiots" Stalin used to maintain himself in power. What they neither can nor will see is that they are being used, used to destroy themselves along with those they have been so well conditioned to hate.
They truly believe that they will somehow prevail, but forget that the American Revolution was accomplished by a mere 14% of the colonists, people who were willing to fight and die for freedom. There is a HUGE difference between extremists willing to kill for slavery and those willing to die for freedom. Those in Fortress Washington and their minions may well soon find that out.
We are rapidly approaching critical mass, a mass that, once achieved, cannot be stopped. The pot is simmering and on the verge of boiling.
Again, the anti-Trump mania is really anti-PEOPLE mania and We The People have had just about enough!
Be ready -- it's coming!
Oren
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
More on anti-Trumpism; US VS THEM
I have struggled to understand why the political and uber-rich elite hate normal Americans and have no interest in even trying to understand us.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists want to welcome masses of illegal illiterates, people who cannot read or write their own language, let alone English, and who have zero marketable skills beyond digging in the dirt, into the United States.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists have no problem with sending jobs to other countries while Americans go hungry.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists don't care about crime, poverty, disease, etc. among those they welcome into America, blind and oblivious to its effects on the public.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists can so easily and blithely lie to the voters and remain indifferent when caught, often on video, as though it really doesn't matter.
Now I know! The answer is amazingly simple and, simultaneously, incomprehensible!
Elitists, in their own minds (think Nancy Pelosi), see NO difference between those with a Ph.D. and the "untouchables" of Calcutta. In their minds, you are either part of the "Elitist Club" or you are NOT, regardless of ALL ELSE! You are either one of them or you are NOT!
Therefore, and pursuant thereto, there is NO difference between you as a hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding Citizen and some disease-ridden, criminal, illegal border crosser. There is NO difference between a taxpayer and a welfare recipient. There is NO difference between a criminal and a cop.
To the elitists, we are ALL serfs, slaves, and "dirty, little people". We can drive Cadillacs we bought or car-jack a ride -- NO difference.
To differentiate between people would require elitists to think beyond a "us vs them" ("Club vs. non-Club") mantra. And that is not only too much trouble, it's just too damned inconvenient. Why would someone already in "The Club" worry or care about people on "the outside"? Or, as Pink Floyd said, "SEP (someone else's problem)".
The above is the only common denominator I can come up with in this equation. Or, as Sherlock Holmes said, "When all other possibilities are eliminated, the only one remaining, however improbable, is probably the truth".
This can only lead to one, inescapable, terrifying conclusion; a conclusion I posted earlier this morning, to wit, that we are rapidly approaching critical mass and that We The People HAVE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH!
Oren
https://greatamericandaily.com/tucker-carlson-biggest-scandals-american-history/
Gentlemen,
All the pieces of the puzzle are falling into place.
Tucker Carlson aptly states what every thinking American already knows. NO ONE in DC or the ruling elite gives a whit about us "dirty, little people". This includes those uber-rich who should be on our side and against the Left and the Democrats but view us the same way. We are little better than "house niggers" in the old South.
As Tucker points out, they have NO IDEA who we are or what we think. It amounts to
I D O N ' T K N O W , I D O N ' T W A N T T O K N O W , D O N ' T T E L L M E
It amounts to top-down socialism/communism where our "betters" run our lives, for our own good, of course.
We saw the beginnings of this with Social Security where we "stupid" people were forced to save for retirement because we were too stupid to do it on our own. Then came Medicare and Medicaid, followed by Obamacare, all implemented with the underlying mindset that the public needed to be told what to do and how to do it, by force if necessary, because we were, again, too stupid to make decisions on our own.
Romney is nothing more than the mouthpiece of the ruling class, parroting the same, tired mantra that Trump is evil when all he is doing is giving voice -- and power -- to the People who have, to date, been lorded over by their betters.
This is exactly what happened in the French and Russian Revolutions wherein the People finally rebelled against their rulers, rulers who could not have cared less if people fell over dead in the street. Then, the violently overthrown rulers were shocked and amazed that it happened.
As I have said before, the anti-Trump frenzy in the elite is really an anti-People frenzy! We must be put back into our place, at all cost! The status quo MUST be maintained, even at the cost of destroying the Republic.
In their feeble minds, the elite truly, naively believe that Trump, the Tea Party, and Populism are just some "dust-up" than can be quelled and the status quo of top-down leadership restored. They have no clue what is headed their way.
They are like the frog put into a pot of water and the heat turned up until the frog is cooked alive. He doesn't realize what is happening until it is too late.
All this is exemplified by every "issue" currently being undertaken. Mass illegal immigration, dumbing down the education system, teaching communism and anti-capitalism in colleges, radical Leftist propaganda in the Democrat Party, anti-religion, humanism in the form of abortion on demand, hatred of time-honored Western Civilization, anti-Constitutionalism, environmental extremism, et al, are just the latest tools formulated to destroy America.
This disparate assemblage of extremists are but the "useful idiots" Stalin used to maintain himself in power. What they neither can nor will see is that they are being used, used to destroy themselves along with those they have been so well conditioned to hate.
They truly believe that they will somehow prevail, but forget that the American Revolution was accomplished by a mere 14% of the colonists, people who were willing to fight and die for freedom. There is a HUGE difference between extremists willing to kill for slavery and those willing to die for freedom. Those in Fortress Washington and their minions may well soon find that out.
We are rapidly approaching critical mass, a mass that, once achieved, cannot be stopped. The pot is simmering and on the verge of boiling.
Again, the anti-Trump mania is really anti-PEOPLE mania and We The People have had just about enough!
Be ready -- it's coming!
Oren
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
More on anti-Trumpism; US VS THEM
I have struggled to understand why the political and uber-rich elite hate normal Americans and have no interest in even trying to understand us.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists want to welcome masses of illegal illiterates, people who cannot read or write their own language, let alone English, and who have zero marketable skills beyond digging in the dirt, into the United States.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists have no problem with sending jobs to other countries while Americans go hungry.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists don't care about crime, poverty, disease, etc. among those they welcome into America, blind and oblivious to its effects on the public.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists can so easily and blithely lie to the voters and remain indifferent when caught, often on video, as though it really doesn't matter.
Now I know! The answer is amazingly simple and, simultaneously, incomprehensible!
Elitists, in their own minds (think Nancy Pelosi), see NO difference between those with a Ph.D. and the "untouchables" of Calcutta. In their minds, you are either part of the "Elitist Club" or you are NOT, regardless of ALL ELSE! You are either one of them or you are NOT!
Therefore, and pursuant thereto, there is NO difference between you as a hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding Citizen and some disease-ridden, criminal, illegal border crosser. There is NO difference between a taxpayer and a welfare recipient. There is NO difference between a criminal and a cop.
To the elitists, we are ALL serfs, slaves, and "dirty, little people". We can drive Cadillacs we bought or car-jack a ride -- NO difference.
To differentiate between people would require elitists to think beyond a "us vs them" ("Club vs. non-Club") mantra. And that is not only too much trouble, it's just too damned inconvenient. Why would someone already in "The Club" worry or care about people on "the outside"? Or, as Pink Floyd said, "SEP (someone else's problem)".
The above is the only common denominator I can come up with in this equation. Or, as Sherlock Holmes said, "When all other possibilities are eliminated, the only one remaining, however improbable, is probably the truth".
This can only lead to one, inescapable, terrifying conclusion; a conclusion I posted earlier this morning, to wit, that we are rapidly approaching critical mass and that We The People HAVE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH!
Oren
Informational on what we as Conservatives are fighting
Source; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/988046/posts
Are the Clintons Fabian Socialists?
The British counterpart of the German Marxian revisionists and heavily influenced by the English Historical school, the upper-middle-class intellectual group - the "Fabian Society" - emerged in 1884 as a strand of latter-day utopian socialism. They became known to the public firstly through Sidney Webb's Facts for Socialists (1884) and then through the famous Fabian Essays in Socialism (1889) written by the Webbs, Shaw, and others.
The "Fabians" were named after Fabius, the famous Roman general which opposed Hannibal as they were "biding their time" until they would "strike hard". Exactly when this strike would occur was a perennial question.
Eschewing the revolutionary tactics of more orthodox Marxians, the middle-class Fabians were more directly involved with politics and practical gains - through contacts not only in the "International Labor Party", trade unions and cooperative movements but also throughout the entire British political apparatus (Liberals and Tories included).
At the core of the Fabian Society were the Webbs - Sidney J. Webb and his wife, Beatrice Potter Webb (married 1892). Together, they wrote numerous studies of industrial Britain, alternative economic arrangements (esp. cooperatives) and pamphlets for political reform. At the core of their system was the Ricardian theory of rent which they applied to capital as well as land (and labor as well - their opposition to high labor incomes was also an issue). Their conclusion was that it was the state's responsibility to acquire this rent (a position strikingly familiar to Henry George - whom Shaw credited explicitly). Their later admiration of Soviet Russia stemmed partly from Stalin's "efficiency" at acquiring this rent.
As one contemporary noted, "they combined an ounce of theory with a ton of practice". The practice, for the Fabians, was to influence public opinion in this direction. This was to be accomplished, they argued, not through mass organization but rather by the selective education of the powerful "few" who would lead the reforms in government (hopefully themselves), thus they only belatedly extended their appeal beyond the narrow intelligentsia class from which they arose. It was the Webbs who founded the London School of Economics (L.S.E.) in 1895.
Through the relentless outpouring of Fabian Essays and the charismatic appeal of the Webbs - coupled with the prowess of literary figures such as George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells - ensured that they would be indeed influential among British intellectuals and government officials. Alfred Marshall, for one, readily admitted his sympathies for the Fabian cause (although he abhorred their anti-theoretical stance). Philip Wicksteed - who tangled with Shaw over the labor theory of value and marginal utility theory - in contrast, was considerably more critical. It was this narrowness of appeal that led some Fabians, such as G.D.H. Cole and novelist H.G. Wells to break with the Fabians. Cole went on to establish the "Guild Socialists" who relied more on state-chartered but nonetheless self-governing producer organizations of workers - "guilds" - than on the intellectual-government machine the Fabians preferred. In this sense, the "Guild Socialists" were closer to the French syndicalism of Sorel - albeit a bit more muted. Further splits in the Fabian camp emerged when the Webbs and Shaw decided to throw their weight behind the British Imperial enterprise - supporting the Boer War and other colonial misadventures - as they felt their reforms (when they came about) would thus have a wider application. An overarching British Empire, they believed, would be a more efficient conductor of reform than a multitude of smaller countries. The Webb's support of monopolies was also well-known - particularly, in their famous 1897 claim that "higgling in the market" (i.e. competition) was inimical because competitive prices always bore down on the workers. Thus, monopolies are more desirable as they would have more room to treat their workers better. The Fabians finally disintegrated in the 1930s for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the Webbs' unqualified admiration of Soviet Russia seemed distasteful to too many in their group. Secondly, the ascendancy of the British Labour Party on the back of trade union activism had rendered the Fabians superfluous - and this body of working class activists did not trust the paternalistic and nationalistic Fabians (esp. after the Education Act of 1902, essayed by Sidney Webb and against which almost all of the Labour Party was mobilized - although Arthur Henderson, Labour Party leader from 1914 to 1922 was himself a Fabian and it was Sidney Webb who authored the famous Clause Four of the Labour Party charter committing it to a Socialist basis). Thirdly, they lost control of the L.S.E. when Cannan and then, more vigorously, Robbins turned it on a decidedly Jevonian track; fourthly, their intellectual influence during the 1930s was overshadowed by that of Keynes. Finally, many of the reforms they had advocated had actually been undertaken during and after the Great Depression, thus rendering their work, in a sense, "complete". Of particular importance was the establishment of a comprehensive welfare state in Britain in the 1940s following the famous 1942 "Beveridge Report".
Source; http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2015/04/barack-hussein-obama-fabian-society.htmlBarack Hussein Obama: Fabian Society Puppet
Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold’s The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect “fundamental change” and “social justice” was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior “realist” playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack’s character in Woody Allen’s “Bullets Over Broadway” captures the movement rather well.
Arnold taught me to question everyone–my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn’t supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That’s the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
That’s Obama’s world.
He’s telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t agree with Bill Ayers’ violent bombing tactics, but it’s a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you’ve got Saul Alinski?
Are the Clintons Fabian Socialists?
The British counterpart of the German Marxian revisionists and heavily influenced by the English Historical school, the upper-middle-class intellectual group - the "Fabian Society" - emerged in 1884 as a strand of latter-day utopian socialism. They became known to the public firstly through Sidney Webb's Facts for Socialists (1884) and then through the famous Fabian Essays in Socialism (1889) written by the Webbs, Shaw, and others.
The "Fabians" were named after Fabius, the famous Roman general which opposed Hannibal as they were "biding their time" until they would "strike hard". Exactly when this strike would occur was a perennial question.
Eschewing the revolutionary tactics of more orthodox Marxians, the middle-class Fabians were more directly involved with politics and practical gains - through contacts not only in the "International Labor Party", trade unions and cooperative movements but also throughout the entire British political apparatus (Liberals and Tories included).
At the core of the Fabian Society were the Webbs - Sidney J. Webb and his wife, Beatrice Potter Webb (married 1892). Together, they wrote numerous studies of industrial Britain, alternative economic arrangements (esp. cooperatives) and pamphlets for political reform. At the core of their system was the Ricardian theory of rent which they applied to capital as well as land (and labor as well - their opposition to high labor incomes was also an issue). Their conclusion was that it was the state's responsibility to acquire this rent (a position strikingly familiar to Henry George - whom Shaw credited explicitly). Their later admiration of Soviet Russia stemmed partly from Stalin's "efficiency" at acquiring this rent.
As one contemporary noted, "they combined an ounce of theory with a ton of practice". The practice, for the Fabians, was to influence public opinion in this direction. This was to be accomplished, they argued, not through mass organization but rather by the selective education of the powerful "few" who would lead the reforms in government (hopefully themselves), thus they only belatedly extended their appeal beyond the narrow intelligentsia class from which they arose. It was the Webbs who founded the London School of Economics (L.S.E.) in 1895.
Through the relentless outpouring of Fabian Essays and the charismatic appeal of the Webbs - coupled with the prowess of literary figures such as George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells - ensured that they would be indeed influential among British intellectuals and government officials. Alfred Marshall, for one, readily admitted his sympathies for the Fabian cause (although he abhorred their anti-theoretical stance). Philip Wicksteed - who tangled with Shaw over the labor theory of value and marginal utility theory - in contrast, was considerably more critical. It was this narrowness of appeal that led some Fabians, such as G.D.H. Cole and novelist H.G. Wells to break with the Fabians. Cole went on to establish the "Guild Socialists" who relied more on state-chartered but nonetheless self-governing producer organizations of workers - "guilds" - than on the intellectual-government machine the Fabians preferred. In this sense, the "Guild Socialists" were closer to the French syndicalism of Sorel - albeit a bit more muted. Further splits in the Fabian camp emerged when the Webbs and Shaw decided to throw their weight behind the British Imperial enterprise - supporting the Boer War and other colonial misadventures - as they felt their reforms (when they came about) would thus have a wider application. An overarching British Empire, they believed, would be a more efficient conductor of reform than a multitude of smaller countries. The Webb's support of monopolies was also well-known - particularly, in their famous 1897 claim that "higgling in the market" (i.e. competition) was inimical because competitive prices always bore down on the workers. Thus, monopolies are more desirable as they would have more room to treat their workers better. The Fabians finally disintegrated in the 1930s for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the Webbs' unqualified admiration of Soviet Russia seemed distasteful to too many in their group. Secondly, the ascendancy of the British Labour Party on the back of trade union activism had rendered the Fabians superfluous - and this body of working class activists did not trust the paternalistic and nationalistic Fabians (esp. after the Education Act of 1902, essayed by Sidney Webb and against which almost all of the Labour Party was mobilized - although Arthur Henderson, Labour Party leader from 1914 to 1922 was himself a Fabian and it was Sidney Webb who authored the famous Clause Four of the Labour Party charter committing it to a Socialist basis). Thirdly, they lost control of the L.S.E. when Cannan and then, more vigorously, Robbins turned it on a decidedly Jevonian track; fourthly, their intellectual influence during the 1930s was overshadowed by that of Keynes. Finally, many of the reforms they had advocated had actually been undertaken during and after the Great Depression, thus rendering their work, in a sense, "complete". Of particular importance was the establishment of a comprehensive welfare state in Britain in the 1940s following the famous 1942 "Beveridge Report".
Source; http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2015/04/barack-hussein-obama-fabian-society.htmlBarack Hussein Obama: Fabian Society Puppet
Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold’s The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect “fundamental change” and “social justice” was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior “realist” playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack’s character in Woody Allen’s “Bullets Over Broadway” captures the movement rather well.
Arnold taught me to question everyone–my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn’t supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That’s the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
That’s Obama’s world.
He’s telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t agree with Bill Ayers’ violent bombing tactics, but it’s a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you’ve got Saul Alinski?
Obama the wolf in sheep’s clothing on Fabian Window Coat of Arms!
As Canada Free Press columnist William Kevin Stoos wrote here yesterday. “The Fabian Window is a beautiful, if sinister, thing. Although it currently hangs in London, it should be hanging in the White House, for the message in the window is an eerie reflection of what is happening in the United States before our very eyes. Built to commemorate the founding of the Fabian Socialist Society, the Fabian Window contains images that are clear, unapologetic and, as a friend of mine once said..brazen. It is one thing, as Lenin said, to howl like wolves in order to live among wolves; however it is quite another to advertise the fact that you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yet, the socialists who constructed the window had no qualms about advertising the fact that they had a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda when it comes to reshaping the world.”
The wolf at the door is not a Made in America problem. It is a made in the Free World problem.
The Fabian Society casts all doubt aside about what Obama really is: He’s the quintessential Socialist wolf in sheep’s clothing being used to shape a new world.
Not only Obama, but also Justin Trudeau (just like his father Pierre Trudeau). Obviously.
As Canada Free Press columnist William Kevin Stoos wrote here yesterday. “The Fabian Window is a beautiful, if sinister, thing. Although it currently hangs in London, it should be hanging in the White House, for the message in the window is an eerie reflection of what is happening in the United States before our very eyes. Built to commemorate the founding of the Fabian Socialist Society, the Fabian Window contains images that are clear, unapologetic and, as a friend of mine once said..brazen. It is one thing, as Lenin said, to howl like wolves in order to live among wolves; however it is quite another to advertise the fact that you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yet, the socialists who constructed the window had no qualms about advertising the fact that they had a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda when it comes to reshaping the world.”
The wolf at the door is not a Made in America problem. It is a made in the Free World problem.
The Fabian Society casts all doubt aside about what Obama really is: He’s the quintessential Socialist wolf in sheep’s clothing being used to shape a new world.
Not only Obama, but also Justin Trudeau (just like his father Pierre Trudeau). Obviously.
Trump's Achilles Heel
By Oren Long
Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 4:45 AM
Everyone has a weakness. Trump's is twofold.
First, Trump overestimates his own power, influence, popularity, approval numbers, and 'Art of the Deal' skills. He truly believes he can get things done without support from the GOP Elite and despite resistance from the Democrats, judiciary, media, and Deep State. So far, he has been largely successful and I think it has gone to his head, leading him to believe he will continue to succeed.
Second, and much more important, Trump underestimates the rabid, Pavlovian hatred of the Left and their allies and their absolute determination to undermine him at every available opportunity, even if it means cheating at the polls, twisting the law into a pretzel, and engaging in criminal behavior. The mid-terms showed us how far the Left will go to stop Trump at any cost, including taking political casualties and creating collateral damage.
I truly believe the mid-terms were a test run to see how much cheating they could get away with and what, if any, resistance they can expect from Trump and the GOP in 2020. If Trump and the DOJ do not come down on the Democrats with both feet for their 2018 malfeasance NOW, they will ramp up their game plan in 2020. Count on it.
The Democrats have learned their 2016 lesson where they won the popular vote but overlooked the Electoral College vote. They are busy putting their 2020 game plan in place as I type. Trump desperately needs to prepare for that.
The anti-Pelosi, radical Left resistance brewing in the House should tell us and Trump that the Left will go to any length to get their way. If Trump is not preparing for that he will be a one-term president and everything he has accomplished will be undone at light speed.
The ONLY way to stop this madness is for Trump and the DOJ to investigate and prosecute everyone they can in the Democrat machine, exposing the depth of their corruption and criminality.
But first, Trump MUST drain the DOJ and FBI swamp, firing everyone involved, regardless of the short-term political blowback. Unless and until that happens, the corruption will grow and fester, undermining all Trump's efforts. The long-term gains will far outweigh any short-term negatives.
Trump MUST stop listening to those Armani clad advisors around him who constantly tell him, "Mr. President, you can't do that, it might piss off the media and Democrats". Really?! News flash: They're already pissed off! They already hate you! They will NEVER love you! They want you gone no matter what and they don't care how they do it!
Chief Justice Roberts' comments attacking the President for essentially calling a spade a spade CLEARLY illustrate the depth of the resistance against him. It is now out in the open. Trump truly is one man fighting an army of corruption and resistance.
Mr. President, Trust your instincts! You should NOT have let your advisors talk you out of prosecuting Hillary! You essentially promised your supporters that you would in the second presidential debate. Follow through!
I'm sure those same advisors are now telling you that you should not prosecute the Democrat Party for its rampant cheating in Florida, Georgia, Arizona, California, and elsewhere. I'm sure they want you to let bygones be bygones. DON'T! Remember what General Patton said, "Don't let them stop, don't let them rest, don't let them regroup -- attack, attack, ATTACK!".
Oren
Addendum by Oren;
Dec.7, 2018 4:40 am
I need your help!
Below is an email I sent to Rush yesterday. We MUST get conservative talk-show hosts to talk about this and PUSH the narrative of Democrat OPEN cheating and theft of elections. We MUST also get Trump to focus on this and order the DOJ and FBI to investigate.
I would ask that each of you re-send it to Rush at elrushbo@eibnet.com. Rush gets thousands of emails a day and does not read them all, instead scanning the headers for something interesting. IF (and it's a big "if") we and our friends re-send it over and over, we greatly increase the chances of him seeing it and pushing the issue.
Rush has said that when he scans the headers he looks for something that piques his interest. Therefore, we must continually change the header into something that makes him want to read the narrative.
Also, if some of you (and/or your friends) know how to send a tweet to the President (I don't), please do so. If we repeatedly tweet Trump he may read it and take action, especially if he thinks there is sufficient public demand that he act.
Please help!
Oren
Rush,
That Democrats cheated their way to victory in mid-term elections, from Florida to California, is not in question and is NOT the story! The fact that neither Trump nor the GOP want to talk about it or pursue it should be the story. so far, no one in the GOP or the media will even talk about it.
I have long maintained that Democrat cheating in the mid-terms was just a test-run for 2020 to see how much they could get away with and how much, if any, resistance they could expect from Trump, the GOP, the DOJ, and the FBI. Given that, to date, there has been ZERO resistance or push-back, I would bet serious money that the Democrats are feeling very confident in their future game-plan. In fact, they are probably refining it as I type.
Today there is a story that the Republican candidate for Congress in Maine who won overwhelmingly against a Democrat was declared (by Maine's Democrat Secretary of State) to have lost to the Democrat. Yet, all the GOP could muster was a press release?! REALLY?!
Then there is North Carolina where the Democrats are screaming "voter fraud" while, simultaneously, openly conducting voter fraud on a national scale. AGAIN, REALLY?!
Rush, if Trump, the GOP, the DOJ, and the FBI do not pursue this vigorously and viciously, we WILL lose and lose BIG in 2020.
Oren Long,
Oren
Two Executive Second Amendment Actions Available to President Trump
Ammoland Inc.
Posted on November 16, 2018 by Dean Weingarten
Normally I write my own commentary here, but, I feel this is critical information to post.
The Tradesman
Source; https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/two-executive-second-amendment-actions-available-to-president-trump/#ixzz5XQUOIZVx
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Donald Trump – Second AmendmentU.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- -What can President Trump accomplish in the wake of the 2018 mid-term elections, with respect to the Second Amendment?
The Democrats, with the aid of their colleagues in the media, have managed to take control of the House of Representatives.
At the same time, the Republicans have gained seats in the Senate, cementing their control there, especially with the retirement of Senator Jeff Flake and the death of John McCain.
Given the new reality, Donald Trump's presidency has gained some potential and lost some potential.
The losses are real. They mean little legislation will be passed. I do not expect any positive legislative reforms to restore Second Amendment rights to pass in the next two years. The House will work to bog down the executive branch with frivolous investigations.
The gains are real, and can be acted on. President Trump now controls the executive branch more effectively than he has previously.
President Trump can issue executive orders. He has more latitude to pick his cabinet and have his selections approved by the Senate. He can work with his new AG to clarify existing law.
First action:Many Federal gun free zones are based on interpretation of 18 U.S. Code § 930 – Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities.
The relevant paragraphs are (a) and (d).
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
The new U.S. Attorney General can issue an opinion that self defense is a lawful purpose for the carry of firearms under (3). It is hardly a controversial opinion. All 50 states and the District of Columbia issue permits specifically for people to carry firearms for the purposes of self defense.
In spite of the obvious nature that carrying a firearm for self defense is a lawful purpose, expect much wailing in the media about such a move “making us less safe”. Exactly the opposite is the case. Expect some semi-retired judge in a deep blue state, most likely in the Ninth Circuit, to place an injunction on any action based on the opinion. With any luck, such an injunction would be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Second action:Have the Secretary of the Treasury issue an amnesty for the registration of items requiring a tax stamp under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, the Congress concurrently passed a bill to allow an amnesty for people who had possessed unregistered NFA items. No fingerprints or tax was required.
Fill out a paper form and send it in, and your NFA item was registered. The initial amnesty was for 30 days in 1968, from October 2nd to November 1st. The law contained a provision for further amnesties at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. They need to be announced beforehand in the Federal Register. From PUBLIC LAW 90-619-OCT. 22, 1968, found on page 1236 of United States Statutes at Large Volume 82.djvu/1278:
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to establish such periods of amnesty, not to exceed ninety days in the case of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of this title. TITLE III — AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VII O F THE OMNIB U S C R I M E CONTROL A N D S A F E S T R E E T S ACT O F 1968
I do not believe this statute has ever been repealed or superseded. It appears to be effective law.
In 1968, there was an expectation that amnesties would be a common, regular occurrence to bring unregistered NFA items into the legal fold. No Amnesty has been announced in the last fifty years. It is past time to do so. With the current ruling by the BATFE that “bump stocks” are NFA items, all existing “bump stocks” should be included in an amnesty.
The Secretary of the Treasury should declare a 90 day amnesty for the registration of all NFA items. As a backup, because the BATFE has been transferred to the Department of Justice, the Attorney General should be ready with a duplicate declaration.
Partial amnesties have been pushed in Congress in recent years, for the purpose of registering war trophies brought home by returning veterans.
Some will argue these actions will incite the media to a greater condemnation of President Trump. I doubt the media can exceed its current level of 90% negative coverage of the President.
The Tradesman
Source; https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/two-executive-second-amendment-actions-available-to-president-trump/#ixzz5XQUOIZVx
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Donald Trump – Second AmendmentU.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- -What can President Trump accomplish in the wake of the 2018 mid-term elections, with respect to the Second Amendment?
The Democrats, with the aid of their colleagues in the media, have managed to take control of the House of Representatives.
At the same time, the Republicans have gained seats in the Senate, cementing their control there, especially with the retirement of Senator Jeff Flake and the death of John McCain.
Given the new reality, Donald Trump's presidency has gained some potential and lost some potential.
The losses are real. They mean little legislation will be passed. I do not expect any positive legislative reforms to restore Second Amendment rights to pass in the next two years. The House will work to bog down the executive branch with frivolous investigations.
The gains are real, and can be acted on. President Trump now controls the executive branch more effectively than he has previously.
President Trump can issue executive orders. He has more latitude to pick his cabinet and have his selections approved by the Senate. He can work with his new AG to clarify existing law.
First action:Many Federal gun free zones are based on interpretation of 18 U.S. Code § 930 – Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities.
The relevant paragraphs are (a) and (d).
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
The new U.S. Attorney General can issue an opinion that self defense is a lawful purpose for the carry of firearms under (3). It is hardly a controversial opinion. All 50 states and the District of Columbia issue permits specifically for people to carry firearms for the purposes of self defense.
In spite of the obvious nature that carrying a firearm for self defense is a lawful purpose, expect much wailing in the media about such a move “making us less safe”. Exactly the opposite is the case. Expect some semi-retired judge in a deep blue state, most likely in the Ninth Circuit, to place an injunction on any action based on the opinion. With any luck, such an injunction would be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Second action:Have the Secretary of the Treasury issue an amnesty for the registration of items requiring a tax stamp under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, the Congress concurrently passed a bill to allow an amnesty for people who had possessed unregistered NFA items. No fingerprints or tax was required.
Fill out a paper form and send it in, and your NFA item was registered. The initial amnesty was for 30 days in 1968, from October 2nd to November 1st. The law contained a provision for further amnesties at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. They need to be announced beforehand in the Federal Register. From PUBLIC LAW 90-619-OCT. 22, 1968, found on page 1236 of United States Statutes at Large Volume 82.djvu/1278:
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to establish such periods of amnesty, not to exceed ninety days in the case of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of this title. TITLE III — AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VII O F THE OMNIB U S C R I M E CONTROL A N D S A F E S T R E E T S ACT O F 1968
I do not believe this statute has ever been repealed or superseded. It appears to be effective law.
In 1968, there was an expectation that amnesties would be a common, regular occurrence to bring unregistered NFA items into the legal fold. No Amnesty has been announced in the last fifty years. It is past time to do so. With the current ruling by the BATFE that “bump stocks” are NFA items, all existing “bump stocks” should be included in an amnesty.
The Secretary of the Treasury should declare a 90 day amnesty for the registration of all NFA items. As a backup, because the BATFE has been transferred to the Department of Justice, the Attorney General should be ready with a duplicate declaration.
Partial amnesties have been pushed in Congress in recent years, for the purpose of registering war trophies brought home by returning veterans.
Some will argue these actions will incite the media to a greater condemnation of President Trump. I doubt the media can exceed its current level of 90% negative coverage of the President.
DEMOCRAT PARTY DANGEROUS FOR FREE AMERICA
If they break so blatantly and without regard to decency, truth, ethics, and respect for the Republic, all the rules that obstruct their getting what they want for a supposedly good cause even when they are but a minority opposition party, then what would make you think that they will not do the same for a bad cause when they grab a monopoly on political power?
If they so easily abandon the cornerstone principles of parliamentarian governance and the rights of the accused for a supposedly good cause even when they are but a minority opposition party, then what would make you think that they will not do the same for a bad cause when they grab a monopoly on political power?
If they are so quick to anger, hate, insult hurling, political thuggery, lynching, witch hunts, slander, character assassinations, and false accusations and calumnies for a supposedly good cause even when they are but a minority opposition party, then what would make you think that they will not do the same for a bad cause when they grab a monopoly on political power?
I assure you, they will. After all, the above mentioned pathologies of theirs are idiosyncratic for the “progressive” (“assaulting” seems like more adequate classifier here) Left, and always have been.
The Democrat party and its leaders are completely unfit to govern America. Letting them win any election poses a deadly threat to our liberty, prosperity, and Republican form of government, never mind our national integrity and security from invasions and hostile takeovers. They are poised to disrespect and destroy everything we hold dear, including our freedom to pursue happiness the way we see fit, as opposed to following politically-correct, pre-approved and government-regulated script. They will not hesitate to violate anything or attack anyone, in the name of their “good cause”, if they think that doing so may help them win.
With support from millions of migrants from Russia, Soviet Union, and vicinity, and their American-born offspring, taking into account their notoriety for impositions (or propensities towards such impositions) of the dictatorships of the least fit, working together they will waste no time building the Evil Empire right here on the American soil just like their ancestors, mentors, and other role models did in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917.
But if they were so well-meaning and committed to their supposedly “good cause” as they say, then where did all the documented evil that was roaring in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1991 come from? Definitely, not from America or capitalist Western Europe, despite all the claims of the Soviet ideologues. The evil sprouted from the seeds of their ideology that usurped to itself the power of redistributing the means and proceeds of men’s work from the makers to the takers without much concern who deserves them and who does not. And the result of this kind of Soviet “social justice” was the equal misery for all, except for the ruling clique who enjoyed much better living standards than the rest of the nation.
Many old-fashion American Liberals are surprised or shocked to see the vulgarization of Liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s, today. They scratch their heads trying to sort things out and understand the rather abrupt change of direction and strategy that the Democrat party is pursuing these days. They seem to overlook the key to the solution of this puzzle: waves of mass immigration from Soviet Union and Russia that begun around 1970 and peaked about the time of the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991. Interestingly, after hundreds of thousands (perhaps a million) of these immigrants have moved from there to here, socialistic tendencies in Russia are on decline while they are rising quickly in the U.S. And so are signature Soviet doctrines like the presumption of guilt of political opponents and morality defined as all things that support the party’s “good cause”. We have seen a good display of the repertoire of these clearly un-American ideas and methods during the Kavanaugh trial during his confirmation hearings; the Soviet courts would not have treated the enemies of socialism any better during the Great Purge in the 1930s.
The Democrat party is dangerous for free and prosperous America, and will remain so as long as the party exists. It would be much better for our nation if the Democrats and their trans-national financiers just went away. I hope we have enough persuasive talents to convince them that they do not belong here, and that it would be much easier for everybody if they chose another nation as a target of their transformational-destructive rhetoric and actions.
Once they disappear from our political landscape, America may become great, again. I hope to see this happening before I die.
Mark Andrew Dwyer’s recent columns
Links to his other commentaries
If they so easily abandon the cornerstone principles of parliamentarian governance and the rights of the accused for a supposedly good cause even when they are but a minority opposition party, then what would make you think that they will not do the same for a bad cause when they grab a monopoly on political power?
If they are so quick to anger, hate, insult hurling, political thuggery, lynching, witch hunts, slander, character assassinations, and false accusations and calumnies for a supposedly good cause even when they are but a minority opposition party, then what would make you think that they will not do the same for a bad cause when they grab a monopoly on political power?
I assure you, they will. After all, the above mentioned pathologies of theirs are idiosyncratic for the “progressive” (“assaulting” seems like more adequate classifier here) Left, and always have been.
The Democrat party and its leaders are completely unfit to govern America. Letting them win any election poses a deadly threat to our liberty, prosperity, and Republican form of government, never mind our national integrity and security from invasions and hostile takeovers. They are poised to disrespect and destroy everything we hold dear, including our freedom to pursue happiness the way we see fit, as opposed to following politically-correct, pre-approved and government-regulated script. They will not hesitate to violate anything or attack anyone, in the name of their “good cause”, if they think that doing so may help them win.
With support from millions of migrants from Russia, Soviet Union, and vicinity, and their American-born offspring, taking into account their notoriety for impositions (or propensities towards such impositions) of the dictatorships of the least fit, working together they will waste no time building the Evil Empire right here on the American soil just like their ancestors, mentors, and other role models did in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917.
But if they were so well-meaning and committed to their supposedly “good cause” as they say, then where did all the documented evil that was roaring in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1991 come from? Definitely, not from America or capitalist Western Europe, despite all the claims of the Soviet ideologues. The evil sprouted from the seeds of their ideology that usurped to itself the power of redistributing the means and proceeds of men’s work from the makers to the takers without much concern who deserves them and who does not. And the result of this kind of Soviet “social justice” was the equal misery for all, except for the ruling clique who enjoyed much better living standards than the rest of the nation.
Many old-fashion American Liberals are surprised or shocked to see the vulgarization of Liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s, today. They scratch their heads trying to sort things out and understand the rather abrupt change of direction and strategy that the Democrat party is pursuing these days. They seem to overlook the key to the solution of this puzzle: waves of mass immigration from Soviet Union and Russia that begun around 1970 and peaked about the time of the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991. Interestingly, after hundreds of thousands (perhaps a million) of these immigrants have moved from there to here, socialistic tendencies in Russia are on decline while they are rising quickly in the U.S. And so are signature Soviet doctrines like the presumption of guilt of political opponents and morality defined as all things that support the party’s “good cause”. We have seen a good display of the repertoire of these clearly un-American ideas and methods during the Kavanaugh trial during his confirmation hearings; the Soviet courts would not have treated the enemies of socialism any better during the Great Purge in the 1930s.
The Democrat party is dangerous for free and prosperous America, and will remain so as long as the party exists. It would be much better for our nation if the Democrats and their trans-national financiers just went away. I hope we have enough persuasive talents to convince them that they do not belong here, and that it would be much easier for everybody if they chose another nation as a target of their transformational-destructive rhetoric and actions.
Once they disappear from our political landscape, America may become great, again. I hope to see this happening before I die.
Mark Andrew Dwyer’s recent columns
Links to his other commentaries
FISA court held no hearings on spy warrants, they were approved after written submission, DOJ reveals
By Oren Long
9/2/18
As I recall, when FISA courts were first proposed, civil libertarians strenuously warned of the potential danger of having what amounts to secret courts authorizing covert surveillance on American citizens. But, everyone was up in arms after 9-11 and the legislation sailed through.
We forgot Benjamin Franklin's warning, "They that would trade a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security will soon find they have neither freedom nor security".
Now we are stuck with FISA courts and have no redress against them. It's a lot like what we were told when the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was first proposed, that the income tax would never amount to much more than a couple of percent. Now we are stuck with the results of that lying and naivete.
The above begs the questions, "How do we resolve this? How do we get rid of FISA courts? How can we drag the judiciary back within the constraints of the Constitution?" The answer is both simple and complex. A Convention of States could propose an amendment that would provide a "check" on the courts, something that does not currently exist.
I have written such an amendment in the event we achieve a COS. It is NUMBER THREE of my proposed amendments and is in the attachment below. Please refresh your familiarity and read them again. For the sake of brevity, I will summarize my proposed checks on the courts; they are two-fold.
First, I propose that Congress have the ability to override court decisions by a two-thirds or three-fourths vote (I can make an argument for either).
Second, I propose that all judges and justices stand for re-confirmation or de-confirmation every six years. I believe that if judges and justices knew they had to stand for re-confirmation or de-confirmation every six years, they would practice actual fealty to the Constitution and would be much less likely to stray off into the ideological swamp of the Left. Courts would find it extremely difficult to read faux "rights" and powers into the Constitution that were never there in the first place (think Roe v. Wade).
Unless and until we impose a check on the judiciary and drag them, kicking and screaming, back under their Constitutional constraints, as envisioned by the Founders, we will face never-ending crises with no end in sight.
Oren
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/09/01/fisa-court-held-no-hearings-on-spy-warrants-they-were-approved-after-written-submission-doj-reveals-670005?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=BPR%20Email&utm_campaign=DMS#
We forgot Benjamin Franklin's warning, "They that would trade a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security will soon find they have neither freedom nor security".
Now we are stuck with FISA courts and have no redress against them. It's a lot like what we were told when the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was first proposed, that the income tax would never amount to much more than a couple of percent. Now we are stuck with the results of that lying and naivete.
The above begs the questions, "How do we resolve this? How do we get rid of FISA courts? How can we drag the judiciary back within the constraints of the Constitution?" The answer is both simple and complex. A Convention of States could propose an amendment that would provide a "check" on the courts, something that does not currently exist.
I have written such an amendment in the event we achieve a COS. It is NUMBER THREE of my proposed amendments and is in the attachment below. Please refresh your familiarity and read them again. For the sake of brevity, I will summarize my proposed checks on the courts; they are two-fold.
First, I propose that Congress have the ability to override court decisions by a two-thirds or three-fourths vote (I can make an argument for either).
Second, I propose that all judges and justices stand for re-confirmation or de-confirmation every six years. I believe that if judges and justices knew they had to stand for re-confirmation or de-confirmation every six years, they would practice actual fealty to the Constitution and would be much less likely to stray off into the ideological swamp of the Left. Courts would find it extremely difficult to read faux "rights" and powers into the Constitution that were never there in the first place (think Roe v. Wade).
Unless and until we impose a check on the judiciary and drag them, kicking and screaming, back under their Constitutional constraints, as envisioned by the Founders, we will face never-ending crises with no end in sight.
Oren
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/09/01/fisa-court-held-no-hearings-on-spy-warrants-they-were-approved-after-written-submission-doj-reveals-670005?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=BPR%20Email&utm_campaign=DMS#
A Lesson In History
By Oren Long
Aug 30, 2018
A Lesson In History;
Back in the '30s, and for the first time in history, "Mein Kampf" outsold the Bible. There was even a HUGE Socialist/Communist Movement in America. Huge communist rallies were held everywhere in America.
As a result of the Depression many, many Americans fell for the Democrat Socialist agenda. It all sounded sooo wonderful, "equality for all, social justice, soak the rich" -- yadda, yadda, yadda!
T H E N C A M E P E A R L H A R B O R . A N D A M E R I C A W O K E U P - - F O R A W H I L E ! ! ! !
The pro-Commie/Socialist Movement immediately went "POOF"! Whatever else they were, Americans were Americans -- FIRST -- and they rallied around America and American ideals and the Constitution.
Years later came the anti-America Left who were against the war in Viet Nam, putting the country in turmoil. Things eventually settled down, but nothing was resolved and the '60s-era Lefties are now in power in many offices throughout government.
A M E R I C A R E M A I N E D A S L E E P ! ! ! !
Still later came those Leftists who were against fighting Islamic terrorism ("Islam is wonderful and peaceful, etc.").
T H E N C A M E 9 - 1 1 , A N D A M E R I C A W O K E U P - - F O R A W H I L E ! ! ! !
Now it's all about the illegals, poverty, racism, homelessness, etc. And, the [Left-wing] beat goes on. They never give up and we have the new generation of American Socialists; Ocasio-Cortez, Gillum, and the Millennials!
T H E N C A M E T R U M P , A N D A M E R I C A W O K E U P - - F O R A W H I L E ! ! ! !
Yesterday's primaries openly pitted the Commies (Socialism is just Commie-Lite) against the Constitution and freedom. The Commies won their primaries! I truly believe that the Commies and the Elites in "Fortress Washington" will lose and lose big in November as Americans wake up and realize what is at stake. for how long, I don't know. Apparently, we need an almost endless series of crises to keep us from falling into a Socialist Stupor.
W I L L A M E R I C A W A K E U P ? ? ? ? W E ' L L S E E ! ! ! !
Yes, I, too, sometimes get depressed and am tempted to lose hope. It's kind of like faith in God; there is so much Evil that I am sometimes tempted to lose hope and faith, but then, I get it back. Why, I don't know, but my faith is always there in the recesses of my mind. I have to remind myself of something Mahatma Ghandi said, " Whenever I get depressed I remind myself that Good always defeats Evil. Think of it", he said, "In all of human history, Good always, ultimately, defeats Evil".
Well, Evil only needs to win ONCE! Good must win, EVERY TIME, else all is lost.
Admiral Yamamoto, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, said, "I fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and instill in him a terrible resolve." Do we still have that resolve?
We are awake, at least for now. We had better stay awake and awaken those around us, especially the young whom we may have to kick in the seat of the pants.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Oren
Back in the '30s, and for the first time in history, "Mein Kampf" outsold the Bible. There was even a HUGE Socialist/Communist Movement in America. Huge communist rallies were held everywhere in America.
As a result of the Depression many, many Americans fell for the Democrat Socialist agenda. It all sounded sooo wonderful, "equality for all, social justice, soak the rich" -- yadda, yadda, yadda!
T H E N C A M E P E A R L H A R B O R . A N D A M E R I C A W O K E U P - - F O R A W H I L E ! ! ! !
The pro-Commie/Socialist Movement immediately went "POOF"! Whatever else they were, Americans were Americans -- FIRST -- and they rallied around America and American ideals and the Constitution.
Years later came the anti-America Left who were against the war in Viet Nam, putting the country in turmoil. Things eventually settled down, but nothing was resolved and the '60s-era Lefties are now in power in many offices throughout government.
A M E R I C A R E M A I N E D A S L E E P ! ! ! !
Still later came those Leftists who were against fighting Islamic terrorism ("Islam is wonderful and peaceful, etc.").
T H E N C A M E 9 - 1 1 , A N D A M E R I C A W O K E U P - - F O R A W H I L E ! ! ! !
Now it's all about the illegals, poverty, racism, homelessness, etc. And, the [Left-wing] beat goes on. They never give up and we have the new generation of American Socialists; Ocasio-Cortez, Gillum, and the Millennials!
T H E N C A M E T R U M P , A N D A M E R I C A W O K E U P - - F O R A W H I L E ! ! ! !
Yesterday's primaries openly pitted the Commies (Socialism is just Commie-Lite) against the Constitution and freedom. The Commies won their primaries! I truly believe that the Commies and the Elites in "Fortress Washington" will lose and lose big in November as Americans wake up and realize what is at stake. for how long, I don't know. Apparently, we need an almost endless series of crises to keep us from falling into a Socialist Stupor.
W I L L A M E R I C A W A K E U P ? ? ? ? W E ' L L S E E ! ! ! !
Yes, I, too, sometimes get depressed and am tempted to lose hope. It's kind of like faith in God; there is so much Evil that I am sometimes tempted to lose hope and faith, but then, I get it back. Why, I don't know, but my faith is always there in the recesses of my mind. I have to remind myself of something Mahatma Ghandi said, " Whenever I get depressed I remind myself that Good always defeats Evil. Think of it", he said, "In all of human history, Good always, ultimately, defeats Evil".
Well, Evil only needs to win ONCE! Good must win, EVERY TIME, else all is lost.
Admiral Yamamoto, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, said, "I fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and instill in him a terrible resolve." Do we still have that resolve?
We are awake, at least for now. We had better stay awake and awaken those around us, especially the young whom we may have to kick in the seat of the pants.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Oren
No, Marbury V. Madison Did Not Say The Supreme Court Gets Final Say On Constitutionality
By Ryan Walters
July 16,2018
Article From the Federalist and reprinted here by permission of author Ryan Walters
Many today hold the distorted view that Marbury v. Madison affirmed the Supreme Court as the most powerful branch in determining the constitutionality of a government action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ryan Walters
JULY 16, 2018After President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, many have been discussing the various justices’ judicial philosophies. The way the justices would exercise their power of judicial review has been central to this discussion.
Judicial review is currently revered in American political society. Judicial review is defined as the theory “that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary.”
The ability for a court to refuse to apply an unconstitutional law is a concept that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton discusses in Federalist 78, with the first practical application of the idea occurring in the Marbury v. Madison ruling in 1803. While Chief Justice John Marshall did declare a law unconstitutional in his ruling, many today hold the distorted view that his decision affirmed the court to be the most powerful branch in determining the constitutionality of a government action. This warped view has become so common the other two branches of the federal government have acquiesced to even the most egregious unconstitutional dictates from the high court.
What Hamilton Says in Federalist 78In Federalist 78, Hamilton describes the judicial power, which he calls “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” Writing under the pseudonym Publius, Hamilton explains, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
Hamilton goes on to state the court’s responsibility when facing such an act: “A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
The courts should not apply a law that directly violates the Constitution, he says. This was Hamilton’s explanation of the court’s role in determining constitutionality: If the courts face the potential of applying an “act contrary to the manifest tenor of Constitution,” they should defer to the Constitution by refusing to apply it on the plaintiffs before them.
Hamilton concludes by stating, “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.”
What Happened in Marbury v. MadisonWhen John Adams lost his bid for reelection to bitter rival Thomas Jefferson in what Jefferson referred to as the “Revolution of 1800,” Adams decided to place as many Federalists—members of his political party—in national office as possible before he left the presidency. This litany of appointments resulted in his secretary of state, John Marshall, not being able to deliver all the commissions of these “midnight appointments” before Jefferson took office.
Since Jefferson wanted to place members of his party in these positions, he ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, to not deliver the remaining commissions. William Marbury, who did not have his commission delivered, filed a lawsuit against Madison, demanding that it be delivered. This was the case Marbury v. Madison.
Serving as chief justice of the Supreme Court, Adams’s former secretary of state John Marshall wrote the court’s unanimous (4-0) majority opinion, stating that while Marbury should receive his commission the court could not order it because the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in a case not specified under Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution. In short, Justice Marshall ruled the court could not apply a law that violates the Constitution.
In the decision, Marshall states that his oath to uphold the Constitution binds his decision-making, just as it binds the other branches:“It is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument (the Constitution), as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!”
Marshall does not say the judicial branch is the lone decider of what is constitutional. Marshall is claiming that the courts, like the other branches, cannot violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. Marshall simply followed his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This ruling is far from the preeminent judicial precedent many claim it to be.
Things Changed in Cooper v. Aaron in 1958In 1958, the Supreme Court rewrote the authority of the Supreme Court by providing an alternative interpretation of Marbury v. Madison. While the Cooper v. Aaron case focused on the implementation of Brown v. Board of Education, in an opinion authored by all nine justices the court claimed that Marbury v. Madison “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by the Court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.”
With this ruling, the courts claimed supremacy in defining the Constitution. Yet this court made a fundamentally false claim in its reasoning. The court misunderstood that when Article 6 of the Constitution states that the Constitution “shall be the supreme law of the land,” it is referring to the actual Constitution, not a court’s opinion on the Constitution. This becomes a crucial distinction when the country meets court opinions that rewrite or contradict the clear meaning of the Constitution.
As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once emphasized, the significance lies in the “Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.”
The Myth of Judicial SupremacyThe courts’ claim to superiority contradicts Madison’s description of boundaries in the powers of the branches. Madison wrote in Federalist 49, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”
The judiciary does not possess a greater power when constitutional questions arise between branches, no matter what a majority of Supreme Court justices may say. As Thomas Jefferson noted in a letter to William Jarvis, “to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions…would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
When reflecting upon judicial review and the role of the judiciary, it is important to remember, as Pulitzer Prize-winning constitutional historian Charles Warren once noted, “however the Court may interpret the provisions of the Constitution, it is still the Constitution which is the law, not the decisions of the Court.”
Ryan Walters is a high school teacher in McAlester, Oklahoma. He teaches Advanced Placement courses in world history, U.S. history, and U.S. government. He can be reached by email at ryanwalters37@gmail.com or on Twitter @ryanmwalters.
Photo public domain
-&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Source;https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/the_ratchet_effect_on_american_politics.html
Reprinted with permission of Author Ryan Walters
May 10, 2018The Ratchet Effect on American PoliticsBy Ryan Walters
In a 1977 speech to the Institute of Public Relations, Margaret Thatcher said, "Britain is no longer in the politics of the pendulum, but of the ratchet."
Margaret Thatcher's description of the political state of Great Britain could just as accurately describe the state of politics in the United States in 2018. Many conservatives have found solace in the belief that times of statist control will result in the country shifting in a more conservative direction. The problem with this theory is that while it may accurately describe the mood of the country, it does not describe the mood of the ruling political figures. Republicans, after years of Democratic rule, have found themselves in control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency, but we haven't seen a significantly different conservative policy.
The Trump administration has cut back on regulations including the individual mandate in Obamacare, issued a tax cut, and appointed originalist federal judges. There has also been the passage of a $1.3-billion omnibus spending bill that continued funding Planned Parenthood, furthering the expansion of the federal government. The explanation of this phenomenon is provided in the idiom Thatcher coined as the "ratchet effect." Once liberals have ratcheted the nation far to the left, conservatives cannot turn the ratchet the other direction. They can slow or maybe even stop the lurch to the left, but they can never bring the country any farther back from where the left has turned them. The left has the nation on autopilot toward an ever growing centralized government. In 2018, with the constitutional principles, hanging only by a thread, bold candidates and bold solutions must be the answer.
Bold Candidates
Conservatives are often quick to rally around the most articulate conservatives. The ability of a candidate to explain constitutional conservatism is a tremendous quality for a candidate to have, but time and time again, we have seen articulate conservatives bend to the will of the progressive majority. The most sought after attribute future candidates should possess was best stated by Ron DeSantis as he was describing the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: "[p]erhaps the most important quality for a constitutionalist Supreme Court justice is something that Scalia demonstrated in spades: backbone. There will be times when the proper reading of the Constitution will diverge sharply from the conventional wisdom of D.C. elites, the legacy press and the legal intelligentsia. Scalia never wilted in the face of intense criticism; indeed, he reveled in it, as it was a sign that he was properly discharging his constitutional duty." This backbone is the quality that allowed Scalia to be successful.
In Washington, D.C., there are intense pressures applied to representatives. Those who challenge the system will find that there is something that both sides of the aisle can agree on: they hate you. This pressure applied over years has proven incredibly successful at wearing down even the most conservative of legislators. Candidates must have the "backbone" of an Antonin Scalia to stand up to the prolonged pressure.
William Buckley sums up what this type of candidate looks like in his mission statement for National Review, 1955: "[a] conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." In order to get this type of candidate, we must reject political prognosticators who press conservatives to back moderate safe candidates "who can win." Traditional red states must nominate these candidates. Local Republican leaders should press to change their nominating process from primaries to caucuses. Caucuses allow grassroots supporters to have a larger impact than special interest groups. Caucuses give local community leaders the ability to make the case for their bold constitutional candidate. It was a Utah caucus that produced Mike Lee. Just a few bold candidates like Mike Lee do more for conservatism than hundreds of candidates who don't have the temerity to fight back.
Electing bold candidates is not enough. The federal government will perpetually grow in power in the corrupted model in place today. This is far from the government the founders intended for America. The bold solution for our federal government, unmoored from constitutional principles, is found in the Constitution itself.
Bold Solutions
On September 15, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, George Mason of Virginia was worried about allowing only Congress to amend the Constitution. Mason's concern was that if Congress was part of the problem, it would block beneficial change. James Madison's notes describe Mason's position when discussing the Amendment process: "on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case."
As Mark Levin lays out masterfully is his book The Liberty Amendments, Article V of the Constitution allows the American people to bypass Congress to directly amend the Constitution.
The states through conventions have the ability to directly propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution. This gives states the ability to utilize the constitutional concept of federalism to take back some of the powers usurped by the federal government. The amendments proposed by Levin include a balanced budget amendment limiting spending and taxation; an amendment repealing the 17th Amendment, thereby empowering state legislators, as the founders originally put in place; an amendment requiring photo ID to vote to protect our elections; an amendment allowing the national legislature or state legislatures to override a ruling from the Supreme Court with a three-fifths vote; an amendment allowing two thirds of states the ability to override federal statutes; and amendments placing term limits on Congress and limiting federal judges to one 12-year term. These amendments will structurally place the federal government back in the constitutional constraints that embody the separation of powers principle that limits the ability for government to become tyrannical. The term limits imposed will change the dynamics of the elected bodies. No longer will leadership be confined to members who have been influenced by D.C. corruption for decades. Elected officials will be much more accountable to the needs of their constituents and less likely to deviate from their core principles.
Short- and Long-Term Solutions
Amending the Constitution through an Article V convention is not a solution that will occur within the next few months. It may take years to accomplish, but it is a structural solution to bring the country back under constitutional principles. The country did not devolve to this point in a matter of months, and consequently, the long-term solution is not going to be a rapid fix. That should not deter conservatives. Conservatives should join the grassroots movement to push for a convention.
In the short term, we must back candidates with backbone – candidates who will fight the progressives in both parties. These bold candidates must be able to withstand the onslaught levied against them, slow the statist agenda, and become beacons for the conservative movement at the national level. We must break through the ratchet effect on government and make significant strides to save constitutional conservatism.
Ryan Walters teaches A.P. History courses at McAlester High School in McAlester, Okla. He is a featured columnist at The Liberty Bell Online. He can be reached by email at ryanwalters37@gmail.com or on Twitter at @ryanmwalters.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Source; http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/presidents-legislatures-ignore-crazy-court-decisions-alexander-hamilton-thinks/
Reprinted with permission of author Ryan Walters
Should Presidents And Legislatures Ignore Crazy Court Decisions? Alexander Hamilton Thinks So
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a president or legislature is faced with following either a court ruling they know has no constitutional basis or the actual Constitution, they should heed Hamilton’s advice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ryan Walters
MARCH 1, 2018Many conservatives hold conflicting positions about dealing with illegitimate federal court rulings. They blast rulings from the high courts as unconstitutional, illegal, and improper, while stating the other branches of government must follow these rulings.
Conservatives watched in disbelief, for example, as federal courts ruled that President Trump’s treatment of foreign nationals was unconstitutional. Considering the seven applicable federal statutes, the president was on the firmest legal footing with three separate executive orders limiting immigration from countries that pose a national risk. While the Supreme Court months later upheld parts of these travel bans, this was just the latest example of a more central problem: lawless judges using their position to launch political attacks that slow or halt conservative policy.The Supreme Court usurping legislative power by rewriting the Obamacare “tax” and creating a right for homosexual couples to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges make clear the highest court of the land rejects any notion of judicial restraint. Some conservatives claim that nothing can be done as a direct response to improper rulings. After every ruling, they reiterate that federal courts and the Supreme Court are the final adjudicator on constitutional matters, that their rulings are final and must be upheld no matter their lack of legal reasoning.
The belief in the finality of federal judicial decisions runs contrary to our earliest descriptions of the judiciary. In 1788 Alexander Hamilton detailed the power of the judicial branch.
The Limits Alexander Hamilton Understood for CourtsOne of the early objections to the Constitution was the role it outlined for the judiciary. Many antifederalists withheld their support for this new governing document until a better description of the power of the judiciary was provided. An antifederalist using the pseudonym Brutus published an essay in 1787 concerning the power the Constitution provides the judiciary.
“There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself,” he writes in Anti-Federalist 15.Many Americans share this concern today. Brutus believed the judiciary would possess unchecked power to affect laws, which would give them power over the legislature, and, therefore, the people themselves. Hamilton responds in Federalist 78 by explaining the judiciary’s lack of power: “The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments,” he writes in Federalist 78.
Hamilton states judgements from the judiciary must be legally sound, and that the court’s entire judicial power rests on the acceptance of their judgements. The inverse is also true. If their judgements are not legally sound, they will not be accepted. The courts have neither “the sword or the purse,” “neither force nor will.” The judiciary has no power to enforce their rulings, ensuring the soundness of their judgements. The court’s reliance on the “executive arm” safeguards the public from improper rulings imposed upon them from a rogue court.
Federal judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So do legislatures, and so does the president. Are they to break their oaths to uphold what is constitutionally sound because a federal court has issued a ruling? The real question is, “Is the judicial branch the only branch that is given the responsibility to determine constitutionality?” The answer should be obvious.
The Idea of Judicial ReviewThe seminal case of judicial review is Marbury v. Madison. In that ruling, John Marshall sets the precedent of the courts declaring an act of the legislature unconstitutional. Should courts be able to deem a certain law unconstitutional? The answer was actually provided well before the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling. In 1788, Hamilton explained that determining constitutionality of legislation is a proper function of the court:
It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Federalist 78
The courts are to be obligated to the Constitution over an act from the legislature if the two come into conflict. Therefore, if an injured party comes before a judge with a situation where the legislature has acted unconstitutionally, the judge is bound to follow his oath to uphold the Constitution. Does this make the judiciary superior to the legislature? Again, Hamilton provides the answer:
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental (emphasis added). Federalist 78
The Constitution is the legal representation of the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” laid out in the Declaration of Independence. No law the legislature enacts can take precedent over the Constitution.
The same can be said about unconstitutional court rulings. When a president or legislature is faced with a dilemma of following a ruling they know has no constitutional basis or follow the actual constitution itself, they should heed Hamilton’s advice. Follow the law that is fundamental, the law that has its foundation in natural law, rather than simply coming from the mind of a few jurists.
Unconstitutional Court Rulings Happen AplentySome of the most egregious court rulings in our nation’s history have contributed to the horrific treatment of African Americans. One of the most significant causes of the Civil War was the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling in 1857. Roger Taney, writing the opinion of the court, proclaimed that Dred Scott could not be recognized as a citizen of any state. With this ruling the court sent the message to abolitionists that there was no path to end slavery through the political system.
If President James Buchanan and the 35th Congress had stated that they had no intention of following a Supreme Court ruling that violated the very natural law of liberty that ungirded the entire U.S. Constitution, Congress would have felt added pressure to find a political solution, and the nation may have avoided the Civil War. This ruling allowed Congress to shift responsibility to the court and thus enshrined the deplorable continuation of slavery until more than 600,000 Americans lay dead.
Another example of the court setting back rights for African Americans was the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling in 1896. Even though the Fourteenth Amendment with its Equal Protection Clause had been ratified in 1868, the court found that the Louisiana law separating blacks from whites was constitutional. This ruling legitimized the Jim Crow laws of the South.
Instead of a president or a subsequent Congress repudiating this decision, the nation waited until Brown v. Board of Educationin 1954 for the court to correct their outrageous decision. If the president is sworn to uphold the Constitution, why would he use his power as the chief executive to enforce a court decision that clearly violates the Constitution?
The decision to take on the legitimacy of a federal court ruling should not be made lightly. There must be a clear violation in the decision that the president articulates. This criteria would be met with any of the recent court rulings limiting the president’s power to curtail immigration. Congress should also move to limit the court’s jurisdiction over matters that involve immigration policy, per the Constitution’s Article III Section 2. While this is redundant considering the courts have no jurisdiction in many of these cases, this would place the judiciary on notice that their violations of clear legal precedent will meet swift action.
Objections to Following the Constitution Don’t SquareThose who reject Hamilton’s view often state that ignoring Supreme Court rulings could lead to anarchy. Then the Left would ignore rulings they don’t agree with and the nation would head toward lawlessness.
We are already at a time where the Left doesn’t abide by federal law. The sanctuary cities all over the country are great evidence of the Left’s lack of respect of federal law. At this point the Left can and does undo any legislation in such ways, so lawless court rulings mute election victories for the Right. The electorate gave Donald Trump the presidency in part to deal with the illegal immigration problem, but unlawful decisions from federal courts have made his ability to institute his policies nearly impossible.
Those who reject defying unconstitutional court rulings do not have a valid solution.Daniel Horowitz argues the courts are “irremediably broken,” that there is no correcting this shift to the Left. Those who reject defying unconstitutional court rulings do not have a valid solution. Their first response is to call for nominating better judges. This answer is feeble at best, and a red herring at worst.
As law schools shift further and further to the Left, it is increasingly difficult to find judges that interpret the Constitution in accordance with its original intent. Nominating originalist judges has proven a difficult task for even the most conservative of presidents. President Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Kennedy wrote the opinion creating a right to marriage for homosexual couples in Obergefell v. Hodges, a right which has no constitutional precedent.
Impeachment and constitutional amendments have proven to be futile. There is yet to be a successful example of an impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, and a constitutional amendment stripping the court’s power could be years, maybe even decades away. Every day the country is bombarded by erroneous federal court rulings that dismember the Constitution. Conservatives must rally around a response to these assaults of our political system or even when they win elections they will never be able to institute their agenda.
Stop Talking, and Start ActingIf America continues to allow the judiciary to act outside of its proper role in government, the country will continue to fall away from its constitutional foundation. Every summer Americans sit with bated breath, waiting to see what parts of the Constitution remain intact after that year’s Supreme Court decisions.
Conservatives write article after article detailing the damage done by these rulings. These commentators lament the state of the judiciary, and declare that we need better judges. Then nothing changes and the following year the scenario plays itself out again.
Hamilton has prescribed a solution that could begin tomorrow. The judicial branch must be held accountable for its rulings. The president and congress must force the judiciary to base their rulings in the Constitution.
Federal court rulings have authority only if they are grounded in the Constitution. The branch Hamilton called “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” must be forced to operate within its constitutional constraints, or the country will move closer toward being ruled by a judicial oligarchy.
Ryan Walters is a high school teacher in McAlester, Oklahoma. He teaches Advanced Placement courses in world history, U.S. history, and U.S. government. He can be reached by email at ryanwalters37@gmail.com or on Twitter @ryanmwalters.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Source; https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/president_trump_should_ignore_the_daca_ruling.html
Reprinted with permission of author Ryan Walters
May 17, 2018President Trump Should Ignore the DACA RulingBy Ryan Walters
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "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."
–U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1
This is the oath President Trump and every president of the United States took prior to becoming the chief executive. Every member of Congress swears to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." When a president or a legislature is directed to perform a duty that is unconstitutional, he or it must refuse or else he or it would, thereby, break this oath.
Due to recent unconstitutional actions taken by the judiciary, this scenario needs be examined as more than a theoretical exercise. A U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. has ordered President Trump to continue President Obama's DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. According to the court, President Trump must not only keep the program in place, but also continue accepting new applicants. A federal court is now ordering the president to perform an executive order that even President Obama stated was illegal before later issuing it.
Does a district court have the power to order the chief executive of the United States to take an illegal executive action? Does President Trump simply abide by this order, thus violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution? Or does he have another option?
Court Immigration Case Abuses
While abuses by the court have been well documented, there has been a change in the tyranny unleashed by the courts in the past few years. As Daniel Horowitz lays out in Stolen Sovereignty. How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America, the courts have now shifted their attack to America's national sovereignty. By overturning the Legislature's precedent of plenary power over immigration policy, the courts are prepared to take away the American people's ability to determine our immigration policy.
For two centuries, the courts viewed immigration policy as a political decision to be decided by elected representatives. The court unanimously held in the Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):
[T]hrough the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy[.] ... [Immigration matters are] not questions for judicial determination[.] ... [I]t must be made to the political department of our government, which is alone competent to act upon the subject.
Immigration policy is not for the judiciary to decide. Immigration policy is a political decision that rests solely in the political branches of government, the Legislative and Executive Branches. Later in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892), the Supreme Court ruled (emphasis added):
It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, national and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.
Later, Knauff v. Shaughnessy deemed that when an illegal alien stands before Executive Branch officials, that is his due process. He cannot turn around and use our federal court system to infer 5th and 6th Amendment due process rights. The courts have readily understood the plenary power doctrine and not granted standing to illegal aliens until Donald Trump became president.
President Trump's Response
President Trump should follow the explanation Abraham Lincoln gave in his fifth debate with Stephen Douglas. Lincoln described the Dred Scott case and Douglas's lack of inquiry into its judgment:
[H]e swells himself up and says, "All of us who stand by the decision of the Supreme Court are the friends of the Constitution; all you fellows that dare question it in any way, are the enemies of the Constitution." Now, in this very devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has recognized as leaders – in opposition to his former self and history, there is something very marked. And the manner in which he adheres to it – not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory upon every one simply because of the source from whence it comes – as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be – this is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong.
Lincoln attacks this view of accepting a court decision based not on its merits, but its source. Previously, in their third debate, Lincoln even mentioned the oath of office taken by every legislature binding its members' actions in accordance with constitutional principles.
President Trump should use his position of chief executive to shine a light on the constitutional malfeasance being perpetrated by the judiciary. President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should explain their legal position and assert that the president must act in accordance with the Constitution in order to keep true to his oath of office. President Trump should then announce that he will not issue new DACA applications despite the D.C. court ruling. This stand by the president will deal a tremendous blow to the power of the Judicial Branch. Fighting back against judicial tyranny will provide Congress the momentum to pass legislation to rein in the courts.
President Trump should then meet with Republican leaders in the House and the Senate. He should ask the Senate to impeach all the federal judges who have issued rulings against his immigration policies, citing legal precedents. He should then ask both houses to pass legislation limiting the jurisdiction of the courts per the Constitution's Article III, Section 2. This legislation should be redundant, since the precedent clearly set by the courts was that immigration policy would not be determined by the judicial branch. However, this would clarify the matter so that even the most progressive judges could understand.
Regain Our Democratic Republic
We should have national debates on immigration policy. The public should speak through its representatives to determine policy, as it has throughout our nation's history. If the left wants drastic changes, leftists should go through the elected branches of government to implement those changes, not through unelected judges. Fundamental in our founding is the principle that political matters will be decided by representatives of the people. The checks and balances of our system of government have been damaged almost beyond recognition. Alexander Hamilton clearly stated that the Judicial Branch is the weakest of the three branches and therefore would not possess the ability to usurp power from the other branches. Now the Judicial Branch is the sole decider on constitutionality instead of all branches of government assuming that responsibility.
While a president ignoring a federal court ruling may seem like an extraordinary measure, we are living in extraordinary times. In the 1954 Galvan v. Press ruling, Justice Felix Frankfurter explained that the plenary power doctrine os "as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government." Now that the courts have corrupted one of the most accepted judicial principles, an extraordinary measure must be taken.
It is long overdue for America to have a national dialogue over solutions to the unconstitutional overreach of the courts. When Benjamin Franklin was asked after the Constitutional Convention what form of government the delegates had created, he responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." Are we willing to confront the courts in order to keep our republic intact?
Ryan Walters teaches A.P. History courses at McAlester High School in McAlester, Okla. He is a featured columnist at The Liberty Bell Online. He can be reached by email at ryanwalters37@gmail.com or on Twitter at @ryanmwalters.
-
Many today hold the distorted view that Marbury v. Madison affirmed the Supreme Court as the most powerful branch in determining the constitutionality of a government action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ryan Walters
JULY 16, 2018After President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, many have been discussing the various justices’ judicial philosophies. The way the justices would exercise their power of judicial review has been central to this discussion.
Judicial review is currently revered in American political society. Judicial review is defined as the theory “that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary.”
The ability for a court to refuse to apply an unconstitutional law is a concept that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton discusses in Federalist 78, with the first practical application of the idea occurring in the Marbury v. Madison ruling in 1803. While Chief Justice John Marshall did declare a law unconstitutional in his ruling, many today hold the distorted view that his decision affirmed the court to be the most powerful branch in determining the constitutionality of a government action. This warped view has become so common the other two branches of the federal government have acquiesced to even the most egregious unconstitutional dictates from the high court.
What Hamilton Says in Federalist 78In Federalist 78, Hamilton describes the judicial power, which he calls “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” Writing under the pseudonym Publius, Hamilton explains, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
Hamilton goes on to state the court’s responsibility when facing such an act: “A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
The courts should not apply a law that directly violates the Constitution, he says. This was Hamilton’s explanation of the court’s role in determining constitutionality: If the courts face the potential of applying an “act contrary to the manifest tenor of Constitution,” they should defer to the Constitution by refusing to apply it on the plaintiffs before them.
Hamilton concludes by stating, “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.”
What Happened in Marbury v. MadisonWhen John Adams lost his bid for reelection to bitter rival Thomas Jefferson in what Jefferson referred to as the “Revolution of 1800,” Adams decided to place as many Federalists—members of his political party—in national office as possible before he left the presidency. This litany of appointments resulted in his secretary of state, John Marshall, not being able to deliver all the commissions of these “midnight appointments” before Jefferson took office.
Since Jefferson wanted to place members of his party in these positions, he ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, to not deliver the remaining commissions. William Marbury, who did not have his commission delivered, filed a lawsuit against Madison, demanding that it be delivered. This was the case Marbury v. Madison.
Serving as chief justice of the Supreme Court, Adams’s former secretary of state John Marshall wrote the court’s unanimous (4-0) majority opinion, stating that while Marbury should receive his commission the court could not order it because the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in a case not specified under Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution. In short, Justice Marshall ruled the court could not apply a law that violates the Constitution.
In the decision, Marshall states that his oath to uphold the Constitution binds his decision-making, just as it binds the other branches:“It is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument (the Constitution), as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!”
Marshall does not say the judicial branch is the lone decider of what is constitutional. Marshall is claiming that the courts, like the other branches, cannot violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. Marshall simply followed his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This ruling is far from the preeminent judicial precedent many claim it to be.
Things Changed in Cooper v. Aaron in 1958In 1958, the Supreme Court rewrote the authority of the Supreme Court by providing an alternative interpretation of Marbury v. Madison. While the Cooper v. Aaron case focused on the implementation of Brown v. Board of Education, in an opinion authored by all nine justices the court claimed that Marbury v. Madison “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by the Court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.”
With this ruling, the courts claimed supremacy in defining the Constitution. Yet this court made a fundamentally false claim in its reasoning. The court misunderstood that when Article 6 of the Constitution states that the Constitution “shall be the supreme law of the land,” it is referring to the actual Constitution, not a court’s opinion on the Constitution. This becomes a crucial distinction when the country meets court opinions that rewrite or contradict the clear meaning of the Constitution.
As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once emphasized, the significance lies in the “Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.”
The Myth of Judicial SupremacyThe courts’ claim to superiority contradicts Madison’s description of boundaries in the powers of the branches. Madison wrote in Federalist 49, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”
The judiciary does not possess a greater power when constitutional questions arise between branches, no matter what a majority of Supreme Court justices may say. As Thomas Jefferson noted in a letter to William Jarvis, “to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions…would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
When reflecting upon judicial review and the role of the judiciary, it is important to remember, as Pulitzer Prize-winning constitutional historian Charles Warren once noted, “however the Court may interpret the provisions of the Constitution, it is still the Constitution which is the law, not the decisions of the Court.”
Ryan Walters is a high school teacher in McAlester, Oklahoma. He teaches Advanced Placement courses in world history, U.S. history, and U.S. government. He can be reached by email at ryanwalters37@gmail.com or on Twitter @ryanmwalters.
Photo public domain
-&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Source;https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/the_ratchet_effect_on_american_politics.html
Reprinted with permission of Author Ryan Walters
May 10, 2018The Ratchet Effect on American PoliticsBy Ryan Walters
In a 1977 speech to the Institute of Public Relations, Margaret Thatcher said, "Britain is no longer in the politics of the pendulum, but of the ratchet."
Margaret Thatcher's description of the political state of Great Britain could just as accurately describe the state of politics in the United States in 2018. Many conservatives have found solace in the belief that times of statist control will result in the country shifting in a more conservative direction. The problem with this theory is that while it may accurately describe the mood of the country, it does not describe the mood of the ruling political figures. Republicans, after years of Democratic rule, have found themselves in control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency, but we haven't seen a significantly different conservative policy.
The Trump administration has cut back on regulations including the individual mandate in Obamacare, issued a tax cut, and appointed originalist federal judges. There has also been the passage of a $1.3-billion omnibus spending bill that continued funding Planned Parenthood, furthering the expansion of the federal government. The explanation of this phenomenon is provided in the idiom Thatcher coined as the "ratchet effect." Once liberals have ratcheted the nation far to the left, conservatives cannot turn the ratchet the other direction. They can slow or maybe even stop the lurch to the left, but they can never bring the country any farther back from where the left has turned them. The left has the nation on autopilot toward an ever growing centralized government. In 2018, with the constitutional principles, hanging only by a thread, bold candidates and bold solutions must be the answer.
Bold Candidates
Conservatives are often quick to rally around the most articulate conservatives. The ability of a candidate to explain constitutional conservatism is a tremendous quality for a candidate to have, but time and time again, we have seen articulate conservatives bend to the will of the progressive majority. The most sought after attribute future candidates should possess was best stated by Ron DeSantis as he was describing the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: "[p]erhaps the most important quality for a constitutionalist Supreme Court justice is something that Scalia demonstrated in spades: backbone. There will be times when the proper reading of the Constitution will diverge sharply from the conventional wisdom of D.C. elites, the legacy press and the legal intelligentsia. Scalia never wilted in the face of intense criticism; indeed, he reveled in it, as it was a sign that he was properly discharging his constitutional duty." This backbone is the quality that allowed Scalia to be successful.
In Washington, D.C., there are intense pressures applied to representatives. Those who challenge the system will find that there is something that both sides of the aisle can agree on: they hate you. This pressure applied over years has proven incredibly successful at wearing down even the most conservative of legislators. Candidates must have the "backbone" of an Antonin Scalia to stand up to the prolonged pressure.
William Buckley sums up what this type of candidate looks like in his mission statement for National Review, 1955: "[a] conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." In order to get this type of candidate, we must reject political prognosticators who press conservatives to back moderate safe candidates "who can win." Traditional red states must nominate these candidates. Local Republican leaders should press to change their nominating process from primaries to caucuses. Caucuses allow grassroots supporters to have a larger impact than special interest groups. Caucuses give local community leaders the ability to make the case for their bold constitutional candidate. It was a Utah caucus that produced Mike Lee. Just a few bold candidates like Mike Lee do more for conservatism than hundreds of candidates who don't have the temerity to fight back.
Electing bold candidates is not enough. The federal government will perpetually grow in power in the corrupted model in place today. This is far from the government the founders intended for America. The bold solution for our federal government, unmoored from constitutional principles, is found in the Constitution itself.
Bold Solutions
On September 15, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, George Mason of Virginia was worried about allowing only Congress to amend the Constitution. Mason's concern was that if Congress was part of the problem, it would block beneficial change. James Madison's notes describe Mason's position when discussing the Amendment process: "on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case."
As Mark Levin lays out masterfully is his book The Liberty Amendments, Article V of the Constitution allows the American people to bypass Congress to directly amend the Constitution.
The states through conventions have the ability to directly propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution. This gives states the ability to utilize the constitutional concept of federalism to take back some of the powers usurped by the federal government. The amendments proposed by Levin include a balanced budget amendment limiting spending and taxation; an amendment repealing the 17th Amendment, thereby empowering state legislators, as the founders originally put in place; an amendment requiring photo ID to vote to protect our elections; an amendment allowing the national legislature or state legislatures to override a ruling from the Supreme Court with a three-fifths vote; an amendment allowing two thirds of states the ability to override federal statutes; and amendments placing term limits on Congress and limiting federal judges to one 12-year term. These amendments will structurally place the federal government back in the constitutional constraints that embody the separation of powers principle that limits the ability for government to become tyrannical. The term limits imposed will change the dynamics of the elected bodies. No longer will leadership be confined to members who have been influenced by D.C. corruption for decades. Elected officials will be much more accountable to the needs of their constituents and less likely to deviate from their core principles.
Short- and Long-Term Solutions
Amending the Constitution through an Article V convention is not a solution that will occur within the next few months. It may take years to accomplish, but it is a structural solution to bring the country back under constitutional principles. The country did not devolve to this point in a matter of months, and consequently, the long-term solution is not going to be a rapid fix. That should not deter conservatives. Conservatives should join the grassroots movement to push for a convention.
In the short term, we must back candidates with backbone – candidates who will fight the progressives in both parties. These bold candidates must be able to withstand the onslaught levied against them, slow the statist agenda, and become beacons for the conservative movement at the national level. We must break through the ratchet effect on government and make significant strides to save constitutional conservatism.
Ryan Walters teaches A.P. History courses at McAlester High School in McAlester, Okla. He is a featured columnist at The Liberty Bell Online. He can be reached by email at ryanwalters37@gmail.com or on Twitter at @ryanmwalters.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Source; http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/presidents-legislatures-ignore-crazy-court-decisions-alexander-hamilton-thinks/
Reprinted with permission of author Ryan Walters
Should Presidents And Legislatures Ignore Crazy Court Decisions? Alexander Hamilton Thinks So
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a president or legislature is faced with following either a court ruling they know has no constitutional basis or the actual Constitution, they should heed Hamilton’s advice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ryan Walters
MARCH 1, 2018Many conservatives hold conflicting positions about dealing with illegitimate federal court rulings. They blast rulings from the high courts as unconstitutional, illegal, and improper, while stating the other branches of government must follow these rulings.
Conservatives watched in disbelief, for example, as federal courts ruled that President Trump’s treatment of foreign nationals was unconstitutional. Considering the seven applicable federal statutes, the president was on the firmest legal footing with three separate executive orders limiting immigration from countries that pose a national risk. While the Supreme Court months later upheld parts of these travel bans, this was just the latest example of a more central problem: lawless judges using their position to launch political attacks that slow or halt conservative policy.The Supreme Court usurping legislative power by rewriting the Obamacare “tax” and creating a right for homosexual couples to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges make clear the highest court of the land rejects any notion of judicial restraint. Some conservatives claim that nothing can be done as a direct response to improper rulings. After every ruling, they reiterate that federal courts and the Supreme Court are the final adjudicator on constitutional matters, that their rulings are final and must be upheld no matter their lack of legal reasoning.
The belief in the finality of federal judicial decisions runs contrary to our earliest descriptions of the judiciary. In 1788 Alexander Hamilton detailed the power of the judicial branch.
The Limits Alexander Hamilton Understood for CourtsOne of the early objections to the Constitution was the role it outlined for the judiciary. Many antifederalists withheld their support for this new governing document until a better description of the power of the judiciary was provided. An antifederalist using the pseudonym Brutus published an essay in 1787 concerning the power the Constitution provides the judiciary.
“There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself,” he writes in Anti-Federalist 15.Many Americans share this concern today. Brutus believed the judiciary would possess unchecked power to affect laws, which would give them power over the legislature, and, therefore, the people themselves. Hamilton responds in Federalist 78 by explaining the judiciary’s lack of power: “The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments,” he writes in Federalist 78.
Hamilton states judgements from the judiciary must be legally sound, and that the court’s entire judicial power rests on the acceptance of their judgements. The inverse is also true. If their judgements are not legally sound, they will not be accepted. The courts have neither “the sword or the purse,” “neither force nor will.” The judiciary has no power to enforce their rulings, ensuring the soundness of their judgements. The court’s reliance on the “executive arm” safeguards the public from improper rulings imposed upon them from a rogue court.
Federal judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So do legislatures, and so does the president. Are they to break their oaths to uphold what is constitutionally sound because a federal court has issued a ruling? The real question is, “Is the judicial branch the only branch that is given the responsibility to determine constitutionality?” The answer should be obvious.
The Idea of Judicial ReviewThe seminal case of judicial review is Marbury v. Madison. In that ruling, John Marshall sets the precedent of the courts declaring an act of the legislature unconstitutional. Should courts be able to deem a certain law unconstitutional? The answer was actually provided well before the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling. In 1788, Hamilton explained that determining constitutionality of legislation is a proper function of the court:
It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Federalist 78
The courts are to be obligated to the Constitution over an act from the legislature if the two come into conflict. Therefore, if an injured party comes before a judge with a situation where the legislature has acted unconstitutionally, the judge is bound to follow his oath to uphold the Constitution. Does this make the judiciary superior to the legislature? Again, Hamilton provides the answer:
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental (emphasis added). Federalist 78
The Constitution is the legal representation of the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” laid out in the Declaration of Independence. No law the legislature enacts can take precedent over the Constitution.
The same can be said about unconstitutional court rulings. When a president or legislature is faced with a dilemma of following a ruling they know has no constitutional basis or follow the actual constitution itself, they should heed Hamilton’s advice. Follow the law that is fundamental, the law that has its foundation in natural law, rather than simply coming from the mind of a few jurists.
Unconstitutional Court Rulings Happen AplentySome of the most egregious court rulings in our nation’s history have contributed to the horrific treatment of African Americans. One of the most significant causes of the Civil War was the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling in 1857. Roger Taney, writing the opinion of the court, proclaimed that Dred Scott could not be recognized as a citizen of any state. With this ruling the court sent the message to abolitionists that there was no path to end slavery through the political system.
If President James Buchanan and the 35th Congress had stated that they had no intention of following a Supreme Court ruling that violated the very natural law of liberty that ungirded the entire U.S. Constitution, Congress would have felt added pressure to find a political solution, and the nation may have avoided the Civil War. This ruling allowed Congress to shift responsibility to the court and thus enshrined the deplorable continuation of slavery until more than 600,000 Americans lay dead.
Another example of the court setting back rights for African Americans was the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling in 1896. Even though the Fourteenth Amendment with its Equal Protection Clause had been ratified in 1868, the court found that the Louisiana law separating blacks from whites was constitutional. This ruling legitimized the Jim Crow laws of the South.
Instead of a president or a subsequent Congress repudiating this decision, the nation waited until Brown v. Board of Educationin 1954 for the court to correct their outrageous decision. If the president is sworn to uphold the Constitution, why would he use his power as the chief executive to enforce a court decision that clearly violates the Constitution?
The decision to take on the legitimacy of a federal court ruling should not be made lightly. There must be a clear violation in the decision that the president articulates. This criteria would be met with any of the recent court rulings limiting the president’s power to curtail immigration. Congress should also move to limit the court’s jurisdiction over matters that involve immigration policy, per the Constitution’s Article III Section 2. While this is redundant considering the courts have no jurisdiction in many of these cases, this would place the judiciary on notice that their violations of clear legal precedent will meet swift action.
Objections to Following the Constitution Don’t SquareThose who reject Hamilton’s view often state that ignoring Supreme Court rulings could lead to anarchy. Then the Left would ignore rulings they don’t agree with and the nation would head toward lawlessness.
We are already at a time where the Left doesn’t abide by federal law. The sanctuary cities all over the country are great evidence of the Left’s lack of respect of federal law. At this point the Left can and does undo any legislation in such ways, so lawless court rulings mute election victories for the Right. The electorate gave Donald Trump the presidency in part to deal with the illegal immigration problem, but unlawful decisions from federal courts have made his ability to institute his policies nearly impossible.
Those who reject defying unconstitutional court rulings do not have a valid solution.Daniel Horowitz argues the courts are “irremediably broken,” that there is no correcting this shift to the Left. Those who reject defying unconstitutional court rulings do not have a valid solution. Their first response is to call for nominating better judges. This answer is feeble at best, and a red herring at worst.
As law schools shift further and further to the Left, it is increasingly difficult to find judges that interpret the Constitution in accordance with its original intent. Nominating originalist judges has proven a difficult task for even the most conservative of presidents. President Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Kennedy wrote the opinion creating a right to marriage for homosexual couples in Obergefell v. Hodges, a right which has no constitutional precedent.
Impeachment and constitutional amendments have proven to be futile. There is yet to be a successful example of an impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, and a constitutional amendment stripping the court’s power could be years, maybe even decades away. Every day the country is bombarded by erroneous federal court rulings that dismember the Constitution. Conservatives must rally around a response to these assaults of our political system or even when they win elections they will never be able to institute their agenda.
Stop Talking, and Start ActingIf America continues to allow the judiciary to act outside of its proper role in government, the country will continue to fall away from its constitutional foundation. Every summer Americans sit with bated breath, waiting to see what parts of the Constitution remain intact after that year’s Supreme Court decisions.
Conservatives write article after article detailing the damage done by these rulings. These commentators lament the state of the judiciary, and declare that we need better judges. Then nothing changes and the following year the scenario plays itself out again.
Hamilton has prescribed a solution that could begin tomorrow. The judicial branch must be held accountable for its rulings. The president and congress must force the judiciary to base their rulings in the Constitution.
Federal court rulings have authority only if they are grounded in the Constitution. The branch Hamilton called “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” must be forced to operate within its constitutional constraints, or the country will move closer toward being ruled by a judicial oligarchy.
Ryan Walters is a high school teacher in McAlester, Oklahoma. He teaches Advanced Placement courses in world history, U.S. history, and U.S. government. He can be reached by email at ryanwalters37@gmail.com or on Twitter @ryanmwalters.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Source; https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/president_trump_should_ignore_the_daca_ruling.html
Reprinted with permission of author Ryan Walters
May 17, 2018President Trump Should Ignore the DACA RulingBy Ryan Walters
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "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."
–U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1
This is the oath President Trump and every president of the United States took prior to becoming the chief executive. Every member of Congress swears to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." When a president or a legislature is directed to perform a duty that is unconstitutional, he or it must refuse or else he or it would, thereby, break this oath.
Due to recent unconstitutional actions taken by the judiciary, this scenario needs be examined as more than a theoretical exercise. A U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. has ordered President Trump to continue President Obama's DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. According to the court, President Trump must not only keep the program in place, but also continue accepting new applicants. A federal court is now ordering the president to perform an executive order that even President Obama stated was illegal before later issuing it.
Does a district court have the power to order the chief executive of the United States to take an illegal executive action? Does President Trump simply abide by this order, thus violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution? Or does he have another option?
Court Immigration Case Abuses
While abuses by the court have been well documented, there has been a change in the tyranny unleashed by the courts in the past few years. As Daniel Horowitz lays out in Stolen Sovereignty. How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America, the courts have now shifted their attack to America's national sovereignty. By overturning the Legislature's precedent of plenary power over immigration policy, the courts are prepared to take away the American people's ability to determine our immigration policy.
For two centuries, the courts viewed immigration policy as a political decision to be decided by elected representatives. The court unanimously held in the Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):
[T]hrough the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy[.] ... [Immigration matters are] not questions for judicial determination[.] ... [I]t must be made to the political department of our government, which is alone competent to act upon the subject.
Immigration policy is not for the judiciary to decide. Immigration policy is a political decision that rests solely in the political branches of government, the Legislative and Executive Branches. Later in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892), the Supreme Court ruled (emphasis added):
It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, national and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.
Later, Knauff v. Shaughnessy deemed that when an illegal alien stands before Executive Branch officials, that is his due process. He cannot turn around and use our federal court system to infer 5th and 6th Amendment due process rights. The courts have readily understood the plenary power doctrine and not granted standing to illegal aliens until Donald Trump became president.
President Trump's Response
President Trump should follow the explanation Abraham Lincoln gave in his fifth debate with Stephen Douglas. Lincoln described the Dred Scott case and Douglas's lack of inquiry into its judgment:
[H]e swells himself up and says, "All of us who stand by the decision of the Supreme Court are the friends of the Constitution; all you fellows that dare question it in any way, are the enemies of the Constitution." Now, in this very devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has recognized as leaders – in opposition to his former self and history, there is something very marked. And the manner in which he adheres to it – not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory upon every one simply because of the source from whence it comes – as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be – this is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong.
Lincoln attacks this view of accepting a court decision based not on its merits, but its source. Previously, in their third debate, Lincoln even mentioned the oath of office taken by every legislature binding its members' actions in accordance with constitutional principles.
President Trump should use his position of chief executive to shine a light on the constitutional malfeasance being perpetrated by the judiciary. President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should explain their legal position and assert that the president must act in accordance with the Constitution in order to keep true to his oath of office. President Trump should then announce that he will not issue new DACA applications despite the D.C. court ruling. This stand by the president will deal a tremendous blow to the power of the Judicial Branch. Fighting back against judicial tyranny will provide Congress the momentum to pass legislation to rein in the courts.
President Trump should then meet with Republican leaders in the House and the Senate. He should ask the Senate to impeach all the federal judges who have issued rulings against his immigration policies, citing legal precedents. He should then ask both houses to pass legislation limiting the jurisdiction of the courts per the Constitution's Article III, Section 2. This legislation should be redundant, since the precedent clearly set by the courts was that immigration policy would not be determined by the judicial branch. However, this would clarify the matter so that even the most progressive judges could understand.
Regain Our Democratic Republic
We should have national debates on immigration policy. The public should speak through its representatives to determine policy, as it has throughout our nation's history. If the left wants drastic changes, leftists should go through the elected branches of government to implement those changes, not through unelected judges. Fundamental in our founding is the principle that political matters will be decided by representatives of the people. The checks and balances of our system of government have been damaged almost beyond recognition. Alexander Hamilton clearly stated that the Judicial Branch is the weakest of the three branches and therefore would not possess the ability to usurp power from the other branches. Now the Judicial Branch is the sole decider on constitutionality instead of all branches of government assuming that responsibility.
While a president ignoring a federal court ruling may seem like an extraordinary measure, we are living in extraordinary times. In the 1954 Galvan v. Press ruling, Justice Felix Frankfurter explained that the plenary power doctrine os "as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government." Now that the courts have corrupted one of the most accepted judicial principles, an extraordinary measure must be taken.
It is long overdue for America to have a national dialogue over solutions to the unconstitutional overreach of the courts. When Benjamin Franklin was asked after the Constitutional Convention what form of government the delegates had created, he responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." Are we willing to confront the courts in order to keep our republic intact?
Ryan Walters teaches A.P. History courses at McAlester High School in McAlester, Okla. He is a featured columnist at The Liberty Bell Online. He can be reached by email at ryanwalters37@gmail.com or on Twitter at @ryanmwalters.
-
Politicians, Veterans, the Constitution, and Modern America
This Trieste is a joint effort with contributions from Mangus Colorado and Lady Boots Both of whom I thank profusely for their time and inputs.
The Tradesman
Recently I had the privilege of being in Washington DC and watching the changing of the guard at the tomb of the unknown soldier. Watching it and seeing the Arlington Cemetery Graves of some who I personally knew and worked alongside, and those who I didn't personally know, struck a common chord within me.Every last one of them including the living Veterans and the Active Military wrote a blank check for anything up to their lives when they swore to defend the Constitution and America from all enemies, Foreign and Domestic. What civilians don't seem to know is that oath when taken has only one expiration date; the passing of the oath taker.
Politicians take similar oaths, but I suspect many of them have no real knowledge of what they are promising and some of them may have even taken it under false pretenses.Some of them honor it to the letter, and some of them ignore the fact they have even taken an oath. It never used to be that way.Yes there was the occasional rat bastard who ignored it and went into politics for money and power instead of public service. Once upon a time in America, there used to be a certain code of ethics and an accepted standard of public conduct. That standard is missing in almost every facet of American life today.
The Founding Fathers signed a mutual agreement that came into force on March 4, 1789. That agreement has been in effect for 229 years, and the laws have worked for America that long. This is not to say they were working for everyone, or that they have never been challenged. The truth is they are not perfect, but they are better than other countries have working for their citizens. That Agreement has been modified 27 times in those 229 years and will be modified many more times in the future. That agreement for mutual protection is of course the Constitution of the REPUBLIC of the United States. It is all that stands between Americans and Anarchy which would devolve into Chaos and Dictatorship in a true Democracy.
Whatever happens in America, we have this Document that is designed to primarily Protect our Unalienable Rights from the excesses of an Overreaching Excessive Government which would curtail our rights for it's own selfish advancement. Seriously though a Government is made up from people. Many of those people have forgotten, or never knew, that agreement was what protected us from destruction from outside or from within. They have no concept that we must not turn away from it's intent. We are a nation of people who over 229 years ago, agreed to govern themselves, and turned their backs on Monarchies, Dictatorships, Satrap's,Theocracies,and Democracies. We became the First Self Governed Republic in the World.
That Noble experiment does have aspects of of Democracy and other forms of governance, but those are tempered by a written Constitution. A Constitution which was designed to, and is meant to, curtail and control the limits of what can be done by the people, and by their elected representatives. Unfortunately, the wanna-be rulers have usurped much of the power designated to the people themselves.In case they have forgotten, the People are the highest authority of our Constitutional Republic. This misconception about Federal Power being Supreme, must be stopped and reversed, or the experiment will fail. It will fail with disastrous results for the American People. Lately, the Nation is showing preliminary signs of a Theocratic-Dictatorial- Monarchy, and rule by force instead of by public consent as it was intended to be by our Founders. Some of the reasons for this I will go into a little later.
Over the last Hundred and Fifty Three Years, many elected representatives and a few Presidents have skirted the intent of the Constitution and have weakened the peoples say in how they choose to be governed. This is decidedly Un-American in nature. This must be reversed. Many will disagree with me on this, but the American People must take most of the blame for the present Chaos we are fraught with. We pursued hedonistic and selfish ideals, and lost sight of what our representatives were taking from us through the old Roman ploy of Bread and Circuses designed to hide actual events and to usurp our rightful power for themselves. In short, to make us subjects instead of the citizens we are.
We became greedy and complacent over their lies/promises, and even allowed ourselves to be divided among ourselves by their lies to become more self centered and less interested in the health and strength of our nation. We unwittingly allowed greedy and power hungry representatives to beguile us and secretly create political upheaval. This was not accomplished overnight, but over a century and a half.
They Infiltrated the centers of higher learning and twisted our moral and ethical tenets into weapons used in the psychological warfare they have waged against us by turning our beliefs inside out and using them against us through faulty logic, at every turn. In Fact they have turned us from a melting pot, into a plethora of groups sniping at each other, so they can cause us to attack each other, when it suits advancing their agendas and false narratives.
This latest Infiltration has taken the original ones several steps closer to ending our autonomy and self rule. It goes like this; There are massive influxes of Illegal immigrants, and the existing politicians on one side are supporting them and fighting with the politicians on the opposite side. This divides us and we all lose sight of the cadre of immigrants who come legally into america, gain citizenship, and then ensconce themselves into positions of power and influence in the various areas of Government, State and Federal Bureaucratic Positions, the Business Community,and every aspect of American life. While doing this they breed prolifically and gain majorities in various areas of the nation. Granted this is what our forebears did, but they have a different agenda. NWO.
Think about it,Federal State and Local Judges using Sharia Law instead of Constitutional law. grass roots politics on up to national politics slowly being taken over by naturalized citizens with differing agendas. Ask yourselves this; Is there a foreign central group that is controlling these "Immigrants? Another chilling fact is this is happening all over the world with the exceptions of China and Japan. extrapolate the influx to date, and move it forward to say 2060. By that time the foreign elements will be the majorities and the existing power structures along with the traditions of Liberty and Freedom will be gone. Here are some statistics; in 1969 there were an estimated 540,000 illegal immigrants, and the latest figures of 2016 estimated the Illegals at 11,300,000 or a rise of 0.03% in 1969 to 3.5% in 2016. The increase has been a steady influx of foreign nationals from a multitude of countries.
The American People are beginning to wake up to some of the threats, but not all of them. Federal Government has been infiltrating State and Local governments for years to make them basically outposts for Federal Compliance.
See(http://thefederalist.com/ 2018/06/20/theres-no-thing- local-government/?utm_source= The+Federalist+List&utm_ campaign=a504c5c4c4-RSS_The_ Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_ Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_ term=0_cfcb868ceb-a504c5c4c4- 83785165) Why there's no local Governments. That was submitted to me by Ladyboots.
Mangus Colorado has stated;"
the answer lies in the Constitution using only literal meanings of the time written. Over the last 235+ years the Progressive Socialists (A.K.A. Communists) have been suing clauses to distort meanings and have expanded federal powers by simple usurpation (started with John Marshall in 1800). These usurpations morphed into Hundreds of agencies complete with their own selected Courts and Judges. The Judges are appointed by the agency without Presidential or Senate approval? So, they create false laws that have no constitutional basis and this become the base for the Corrupt DC elites? The Supreme Court has given the President power to fire these unconstitutional judges. This will be a big game changer as all of the corruption will be exposed and stopped by President Trump.
http://patriotjournal.org/ supreme-court-trump-power- fire-judges/"
AND
Well the Supreme Court has laid open the old wound of Appointed administrative Judges by the many agencies without Presidential of Senate approval. Trump can now fire them by the thousands and he should act quickly before the Socialists find a remedy? Yes and that includes Congress - both parties.
This is my position and it must be done if we are to LIMIT government powers to those enumerated in the Original Constitution. To hell with John Marshall and the usurping courts.
http://patriotjournal.org/ supreme-court-trump-power- fire-judges/
We have also been warned by many extremely well educated persons from the past like John Locke
(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist who probably inspired our Forefathers in their endeavors to create the United States.
See;
"Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many."
-- John Locke
(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist
http://libertytree.ca/quotes/ John.Locke.Quote.A3DC
"[E]very Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property."
-- John Locke
(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist
1690
http://libertytree.ca/quotes/ John.Locke.Quote.07AA
"The Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man, but to have only the Law of Nature for his Rule."
-- John Locke
(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist
Source: Two Treatises on Government, 1690
http://libertytree.ca/quotes/ John.Locke.Quote.E23D
After all this information has been read and digested, the question remains; "What are our options?" and "What are we as a people going to do about the issues?"
We actually have some good options, but they are time sensation and they are somewhat related by priorities. We know the Democrats are not the same party they were 50 years ago. I seriously doubt that even people like Schumer and Pelosi can see the degrading changes that have been brought about. I know they don't see the infiltration by the naturalized people placing themselves in critical positions of power in the body politic of the United States. So, what do we do to preserve and restore the Republic?
The most critical election of the last 200 years will be the mid-term elections. If the the Cultural Neo - Marxist Democrats win and take control of Congress, it's game over. So the first and foremost item to be promoting is uniting the Conservatives and educating them why it's so critical to have a massive turn out at the polls in November and even the remaining primaries. This group of Anti - Progressive Democrat voters, must realize it's imperative to vote against every Democrat running, or risk losing the Republic to a Socialist Oppressive Government with most if not all of our freedoms removed. The Constitution will be either ignored or changed by them. This they have already promised to do starting with modifying the 1st Amendment and abolishing the 2nd Amendment.
Concurrently with opposing the Federal Democrats, we must also oppose the State and Local Democrats running in November. This will be hard to do given the Blue States and the Democrats uniting to take back the power they lost since 2010.
It does not end there either. To prevent more stolen powers from the people, the people must also demand their State Legislatures petition Congress for an Article V Amendment proposal Convention. This might seem very scary to the public, but it can not open the Main body of the Constitution like the ones who have the most to lose are saying. For the first time it will be the people proposing amendments that Congress would never propose. Things like Term Limits for Congress. Balanced Budget Amendment that imposes severe penalties on Congressional Representatives who do not create one in the time specified. Repeal of the original three post Civil War amendments where the Federal Government stole the powers from the people and the States.
Many more amendments can and will be proposed, but the same safeguards that govern the Amendments Congress proposes for their own benefit are in place for ones the people propose without any input from Congress. I can see others like;
Any raises for Congress must be approved by the public instead of just enacted by Congress.
Or, Congress must use the same Health care plan they imposed on the people, or buy more coverage out of their own pockets.
Government paid for health coverage ends when their terms are over.
Any pensions must be in line with the average pensions of people in their States and can only be collected by current Representatives prior to the start date of the amendment so pensions can be phased out.
There is a multitude of potential amendments that can and should be proposed, but bear in mind the Delegates and their States will have to agree on the wording, and it still takes 38 States to ratify any Amendment.
For the first time in a very long time, the ball is in the peoples court instead of in the Representatives. What will we do with it?
The Tradesman
The Tradesman
Recently I had the privilege of being in Washington DC and watching the changing of the guard at the tomb of the unknown soldier. Watching it and seeing the Arlington Cemetery Graves of some who I personally knew and worked alongside, and those who I didn't personally know, struck a common chord within me.Every last one of them including the living Veterans and the Active Military wrote a blank check for anything up to their lives when they swore to defend the Constitution and America from all enemies, Foreign and Domestic. What civilians don't seem to know is that oath when taken has only one expiration date; the passing of the oath taker.
Politicians take similar oaths, but I suspect many of them have no real knowledge of what they are promising and some of them may have even taken it under false pretenses.Some of them honor it to the letter, and some of them ignore the fact they have even taken an oath. It never used to be that way.Yes there was the occasional rat bastard who ignored it and went into politics for money and power instead of public service. Once upon a time in America, there used to be a certain code of ethics and an accepted standard of public conduct. That standard is missing in almost every facet of American life today.
The Founding Fathers signed a mutual agreement that came into force on March 4, 1789. That agreement has been in effect for 229 years, and the laws have worked for America that long. This is not to say they were working for everyone, or that they have never been challenged. The truth is they are not perfect, but they are better than other countries have working for their citizens. That Agreement has been modified 27 times in those 229 years and will be modified many more times in the future. That agreement for mutual protection is of course the Constitution of the REPUBLIC of the United States. It is all that stands between Americans and Anarchy which would devolve into Chaos and Dictatorship in a true Democracy.
Whatever happens in America, we have this Document that is designed to primarily Protect our Unalienable Rights from the excesses of an Overreaching Excessive Government which would curtail our rights for it's own selfish advancement. Seriously though a Government is made up from people. Many of those people have forgotten, or never knew, that agreement was what protected us from destruction from outside or from within. They have no concept that we must not turn away from it's intent. We are a nation of people who over 229 years ago, agreed to govern themselves, and turned their backs on Monarchies, Dictatorships, Satrap's,Theocracies,and Democracies. We became the First Self Governed Republic in the World.
That Noble experiment does have aspects of of Democracy and other forms of governance, but those are tempered by a written Constitution. A Constitution which was designed to, and is meant to, curtail and control the limits of what can be done by the people, and by their elected representatives. Unfortunately, the wanna-be rulers have usurped much of the power designated to the people themselves.In case they have forgotten, the People are the highest authority of our Constitutional Republic. This misconception about Federal Power being Supreme, must be stopped and reversed, or the experiment will fail. It will fail with disastrous results for the American People. Lately, the Nation is showing preliminary signs of a Theocratic-Dictatorial- Monarchy, and rule by force instead of by public consent as it was intended to be by our Founders. Some of the reasons for this I will go into a little later.
Over the last Hundred and Fifty Three Years, many elected representatives and a few Presidents have skirted the intent of the Constitution and have weakened the peoples say in how they choose to be governed. This is decidedly Un-American in nature. This must be reversed. Many will disagree with me on this, but the American People must take most of the blame for the present Chaos we are fraught with. We pursued hedonistic and selfish ideals, and lost sight of what our representatives were taking from us through the old Roman ploy of Bread and Circuses designed to hide actual events and to usurp our rightful power for themselves. In short, to make us subjects instead of the citizens we are.
We became greedy and complacent over their lies/promises, and even allowed ourselves to be divided among ourselves by their lies to become more self centered and less interested in the health and strength of our nation. We unwittingly allowed greedy and power hungry representatives to beguile us and secretly create political upheaval. This was not accomplished overnight, but over a century and a half.
They Infiltrated the centers of higher learning and twisted our moral and ethical tenets into weapons used in the psychological warfare they have waged against us by turning our beliefs inside out and using them against us through faulty logic, at every turn. In Fact they have turned us from a melting pot, into a plethora of groups sniping at each other, so they can cause us to attack each other, when it suits advancing their agendas and false narratives.
This latest Infiltration has taken the original ones several steps closer to ending our autonomy and self rule. It goes like this; There are massive influxes of Illegal immigrants, and the existing politicians on one side are supporting them and fighting with the politicians on the opposite side. This divides us and we all lose sight of the cadre of immigrants who come legally into america, gain citizenship, and then ensconce themselves into positions of power and influence in the various areas of Government, State and Federal Bureaucratic Positions, the Business Community,and every aspect of American life. While doing this they breed prolifically and gain majorities in various areas of the nation. Granted this is what our forebears did, but they have a different agenda. NWO.
Think about it,Federal State and Local Judges using Sharia Law instead of Constitutional law. grass roots politics on up to national politics slowly being taken over by naturalized citizens with differing agendas. Ask yourselves this; Is there a foreign central group that is controlling these "Immigrants? Another chilling fact is this is happening all over the world with the exceptions of China and Japan. extrapolate the influx to date, and move it forward to say 2060. By that time the foreign elements will be the majorities and the existing power structures along with the traditions of Liberty and Freedom will be gone. Here are some statistics; in 1969 there were an estimated 540,000 illegal immigrants, and the latest figures of 2016 estimated the Illegals at 11,300,000 or a rise of 0.03% in 1969 to 3.5% in 2016. The increase has been a steady influx of foreign nationals from a multitude of countries.
The American People are beginning to wake up to some of the threats, but not all of them. Federal Government has been infiltrating State and Local governments for years to make them basically outposts for Federal Compliance.
See(http://thefederalist.com/ 2018/06/20/theres-no-thing- local-government/?utm_source= The+Federalist+List&utm_ campaign=a504c5c4c4-RSS_The_ Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_ Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_ term=0_cfcb868ceb-a504c5c4c4- 83785165) Why there's no local Governments. That was submitted to me by Ladyboots.
Mangus Colorado has stated;"
the answer lies in the Constitution using only literal meanings of the time written. Over the last 235+ years the Progressive Socialists (A.K.A. Communists) have been suing clauses to distort meanings and have expanded federal powers by simple usurpation (started with John Marshall in 1800). These usurpations morphed into Hundreds of agencies complete with their own selected Courts and Judges. The Judges are appointed by the agency without Presidential or Senate approval? So, they create false laws that have no constitutional basis and this become the base for the Corrupt DC elites? The Supreme Court has given the President power to fire these unconstitutional judges. This will be a big game changer as all of the corruption will be exposed and stopped by President Trump.
http://patriotjournal.org/ supreme-court-trump-power- fire-judges/"
AND
Well the Supreme Court has laid open the old wound of Appointed administrative Judges by the many agencies without Presidential of Senate approval. Trump can now fire them by the thousands and he should act quickly before the Socialists find a remedy? Yes and that includes Congress - both parties.
This is my position and it must be done if we are to LIMIT government powers to those enumerated in the Original Constitution. To hell with John Marshall and the usurping courts.
http://patriotjournal.org/ supreme-court-trump-power- fire-judges/
We have also been warned by many extremely well educated persons from the past like John Locke
(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist who probably inspired our Forefathers in their endeavors to create the United States.
See;
"Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many."
-- John Locke
(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist
http://libertytree.ca/quotes/ John.Locke.Quote.A3DC
"[E]very Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property."
-- John Locke
(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist
1690
http://libertytree.ca/quotes/ John.Locke.Quote.07AA
"The Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man, but to have only the Law of Nature for his Rule."
-- John Locke
(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist
Source: Two Treatises on Government, 1690
http://libertytree.ca/quotes/ John.Locke.Quote.E23D
After all this information has been read and digested, the question remains; "What are our options?" and "What are we as a people going to do about the issues?"
We actually have some good options, but they are time sensation and they are somewhat related by priorities. We know the Democrats are not the same party they were 50 years ago. I seriously doubt that even people like Schumer and Pelosi can see the degrading changes that have been brought about. I know they don't see the infiltration by the naturalized people placing themselves in critical positions of power in the body politic of the United States. So, what do we do to preserve and restore the Republic?
The most critical election of the last 200 years will be the mid-term elections. If the the Cultural Neo - Marxist Democrats win and take control of Congress, it's game over. So the first and foremost item to be promoting is uniting the Conservatives and educating them why it's so critical to have a massive turn out at the polls in November and even the remaining primaries. This group of Anti - Progressive Democrat voters, must realize it's imperative to vote against every Democrat running, or risk losing the Republic to a Socialist Oppressive Government with most if not all of our freedoms removed. The Constitution will be either ignored or changed by them. This they have already promised to do starting with modifying the 1st Amendment and abolishing the 2nd Amendment.
Concurrently with opposing the Federal Democrats, we must also oppose the State and Local Democrats running in November. This will be hard to do given the Blue States and the Democrats uniting to take back the power they lost since 2010.
It does not end there either. To prevent more stolen powers from the people, the people must also demand their State Legislatures petition Congress for an Article V Amendment proposal Convention. This might seem very scary to the public, but it can not open the Main body of the Constitution like the ones who have the most to lose are saying. For the first time it will be the people proposing amendments that Congress would never propose. Things like Term Limits for Congress. Balanced Budget Amendment that imposes severe penalties on Congressional Representatives who do not create one in the time specified. Repeal of the original three post Civil War amendments where the Federal Government stole the powers from the people and the States.
Many more amendments can and will be proposed, but the same safeguards that govern the Amendments Congress proposes for their own benefit are in place for ones the people propose without any input from Congress. I can see others like;
Any raises for Congress must be approved by the public instead of just enacted by Congress.
Or, Congress must use the same Health care plan they imposed on the people, or buy more coverage out of their own pockets.
Government paid for health coverage ends when their terms are over.
Any pensions must be in line with the average pensions of people in their States and can only be collected by current Representatives prior to the start date of the amendment so pensions can be phased out.
There is a multitude of potential amendments that can and should be proposed, but bear in mind the Delegates and their States will have to agree on the wording, and it still takes 38 States to ratify any Amendment.
For the first time in a very long time, the ball is in the peoples court instead of in the Representatives. What will we do with it?
The Tradesman
We Are Into A Full Blown Constitutional Crisis Right Now!
I found this information in an article by Ron Ewert the President of N.A.R.L.O.National Association of Rural Landowners on the post at; http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/forum/topics/royalty-dynasties-the-e...
>
The Royal Connecticut legislature, gun control nuts all, just passed the National Popular Vote Compact. The Compact, by Democrat controlled states, is blatantly designed to circumvent the Electoral College and return America to the popular vote. They may just succeed.
>
From an article in the Daily Signal they describe Connecticut's conspiratorial end run around the Constitution.
>
"Most Americans have never heard of the National Popular Vote compact, but it is shockingly close to causing a major political and legal firestorm.
It is a clever scheme to change how we elect the president without the bother of having to pass a constitutional amendment."
>
"States that approve this legislation enter a simple compact with one another. Each participating state agrees to allocate its electors to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how its own citizens voted. The compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to the plan."
>
"With Connecticut’s vote, 11 states and the District of Columbia have now approved the measure, giving the compact a total of 172 electors. It needs only "98 more" to reach the 270 mark.".
and the election can be stolen from the people of America just that easy. Talk about dirty corrupt Politics.
>
WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ON OUR HANDS NOW BECAUSE OF THIS COMPACT BUT MOST HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT!
>
Frankly I don't have a clue on how to stop and reverse this. I do know it will lead to another Revolution, and that is probably what the originators are hoping for as their "End Game for Americans who are not Elites or their Cronys." IMHO.
>
"Most Americans have never heard of the "National Popular Vote Compact", but it is shockingly close to causing a major political and legal firestorm.The end result if we allow this to go on will not end well for loyal Americans who believe in Liberty and Freedom
>
This information needs to be distributed far and wide to educate the public what is going on behind their backs by the Loss Oriented Democrats, who will not allow themselves to lose no matter what they have to do, or what trust they have to break, to win the elections.
>
Important links to information;
>
Link to voter compact "A MUST READ FULLY"; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/05/10/connecticut-subverts-the-ele...
>
Heritage Foundation link on destroying the electoral College "ANOTHER MUST READ FULLY"; https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/destroying-the-e...
>
Libs claim electoral is biased "PLEASE READ FULLY; https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/is-the-electoral-college-bia...
>
UNDERSTANDING THE POLITICAL AND NATIONAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS "NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT" ATTEMPT TO END THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE PROPERLY FOUGHT AGAINST TO PRESERVE ELECTION INTEGRITY EVEN MORE SO THAN VOTER I.Ds.
>
Found this also;
No.JurisdictionCurrent
Electoral
votes (EV)Date adopted
1Maryland10April 10, 2007
2New Jersey14January 13, 2008
3Illinois20April 7, 2008
4Hawaii4May 1, 2008
5Washington12April 28, 2009
6Massachusetts11August 4, 2010
7District of Columbia3December 7, 2010
8Vermont3April 22, 2011
9California55August 8, 2011
10Rhode Island4July 12, 2013
11New York29April 15, 2014
12Connecticut7May 24, 2018
Total172 (63.7% of the 270 EVs needed)
>
This Wikipedia article is more informative and yes I don’t consider Wikipedia a particularly trustworthy source but it does have more specific information than the other articles, including the count as of May 2018 and which states passed it. You guessed right- all deep blue states." IT'S A MUST READ ".
>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Co...
>
This must be challenged in at least one state. I’d start with California or New York since they carry the most electoral votes among those which have passed this interstate compact.
Well, let’s get onto this people - talking and wailing over email isn’t enough. We need to get active right now. Eventually it will need to be challenged in the Supreme Court on Constitutionality Grounds since the end run around the Constitution depends on the autonomy of the electors and not on what the states can impose on them as I see it.
>
This is the same, exact thing that happened with the 17th Amendment. Control of the Senate was removed from State Legislatures and given to National Party Leadership, thus undermining the Original Intent of the Founders and the Constitution.
>
If this National Popular Vote compact succeeds, we conservatives would be relegated to the House of Representatives ONLY. Even though conservatives are still the majority of the country, we would be cast as "fringe".
>
This, like the 17th Amendment, is one of those things that sounds good on paper but has massive evil intent behind the curtain.
>
The Tradesman
>
Information for this Trieste comes from several contributors;
Ron Ewert President of N.A.R.L.O.
Owen Long
Shelley Kennedy
Heritage Foundation
Daily Signal
>
The Royal Connecticut legislature, gun control nuts all, just passed the National Popular Vote Compact. The Compact, by Democrat controlled states, is blatantly designed to circumvent the Electoral College and return America to the popular vote. They may just succeed.
>
From an article in the Daily Signal they describe Connecticut's conspiratorial end run around the Constitution.
>
"Most Americans have never heard of the National Popular Vote compact, but it is shockingly close to causing a major political and legal firestorm.
It is a clever scheme to change how we elect the president without the bother of having to pass a constitutional amendment."
>
"States that approve this legislation enter a simple compact with one another. Each participating state agrees to allocate its electors to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how its own citizens voted. The compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to the plan."
>
"With Connecticut’s vote, 11 states and the District of Columbia have now approved the measure, giving the compact a total of 172 electors. It needs only "98 more" to reach the 270 mark.".
and the election can be stolen from the people of America just that easy. Talk about dirty corrupt Politics.
>
WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ON OUR HANDS NOW BECAUSE OF THIS COMPACT BUT MOST HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT!
>
Frankly I don't have a clue on how to stop and reverse this. I do know it will lead to another Revolution, and that is probably what the originators are hoping for as their "End Game for Americans who are not Elites or their Cronys." IMHO.
>
"Most Americans have never heard of the "National Popular Vote Compact", but it is shockingly close to causing a major political and legal firestorm.The end result if we allow this to go on will not end well for loyal Americans who believe in Liberty and Freedom
>
This information needs to be distributed far and wide to educate the public what is going on behind their backs by the Loss Oriented Democrats, who will not allow themselves to lose no matter what they have to do, or what trust they have to break, to win the elections.
>
Important links to information;
>
Link to voter compact "A MUST READ FULLY"; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/05/10/connecticut-subverts-the-ele...
>
Heritage Foundation link on destroying the electoral College "ANOTHER MUST READ FULLY"; https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/destroying-the-e...
>
Libs claim electoral is biased "PLEASE READ FULLY; https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/is-the-electoral-college-bia...
>
UNDERSTANDING THE POLITICAL AND NATIONAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS "NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT" ATTEMPT TO END THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE PROPERLY FOUGHT AGAINST TO PRESERVE ELECTION INTEGRITY EVEN MORE SO THAN VOTER I.Ds.
>
Found this also;
No.JurisdictionCurrent
Electoral
votes (EV)Date adopted
1Maryland10April 10, 2007
2New Jersey14January 13, 2008
3Illinois20April 7, 2008
4Hawaii4May 1, 2008
5Washington12April 28, 2009
6Massachusetts11August 4, 2010
7District of Columbia3December 7, 2010
8Vermont3April 22, 2011
9California55August 8, 2011
10Rhode Island4July 12, 2013
11New York29April 15, 2014
12Connecticut7May 24, 2018
Total172 (63.7% of the 270 EVs needed)
>
This Wikipedia article is more informative and yes I don’t consider Wikipedia a particularly trustworthy source but it does have more specific information than the other articles, including the count as of May 2018 and which states passed it. You guessed right- all deep blue states." IT'S A MUST READ ".
>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Co...
>
This must be challenged in at least one state. I’d start with California or New York since they carry the most electoral votes among those which have passed this interstate compact.
Well, let’s get onto this people - talking and wailing over email isn’t enough. We need to get active right now. Eventually it will need to be challenged in the Supreme Court on Constitutionality Grounds since the end run around the Constitution depends on the autonomy of the electors and not on what the states can impose on them as I see it.
>
This is the same, exact thing that happened with the 17th Amendment. Control of the Senate was removed from State Legislatures and given to National Party Leadership, thus undermining the Original Intent of the Founders and the Constitution.
>
If this National Popular Vote compact succeeds, we conservatives would be relegated to the House of Representatives ONLY. Even though conservatives are still the majority of the country, we would be cast as "fringe".
>
This, like the 17th Amendment, is one of those things that sounds good on paper but has massive evil intent behind the curtain.
>
The Tradesman
>
Information for this Trieste comes from several contributors;
Ron Ewert President of N.A.R.L.O.
Owen Long
Shelley Kennedy
Heritage Foundation
Daily Signal
Want to know the strategy for a rescissions fight?
“Over the past decade, it’s become increasingly apparent that Washington has no appetite for fiscal restraint.”
That is what my former Heritage Action colleague, and current deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, wrote in the Wall Street Journal. And that is why, this morning, President Trump proposed the largest rescissions request ever made to Congress.
This first round of rescissions goes after “unobligated balances” or money that was previously appropriated but never spent. The list includes:
The first step is to put pressure on the House to act immediately and then tout House-passage as a victory.
After that, we shift our attention to the Senate and say, “the House acted. Now it is the Senate’s turn.” It’s only with a strong House showing that we can force the issue in the Senate and get the votes necessary to lay the foundation for going after the next pot of wasteful money.
As House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said yesterday, “This is I believe the first of many rescission packages that you’ll see.”
We need every conservative on board and engaged in this effort. To get up to speed on the rescissions process, read Heritage Action’s Wesley Coopersmith’s blog post, “GOP Should Exercise Fiscal Restraint through the Impoundment Control Act” and Russ Vought’s op-ed, “The White House Announces Its Rescission Package.”
Dan
Dan Holler
Vice President
Heritage Action for America
Heritage Action for America | 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20002
“Over the past decade, it’s become increasingly apparent that Washington has no appetite for fiscal restraint.”
That is what my former Heritage Action colleague, and current deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, wrote in the Wall Street Journal. And that is why, this morning, President Trump proposed the largest rescissions request ever made to Congress.
This first round of rescissions goes after “unobligated balances” or money that was previously appropriated but never spent. The list includes:
- $7 billion from unnecessary or expired CHIP programs;
- $4.3 billion from the Energy Department’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, inactive since 2011;
- $523 million from the Energy Department’s Title 17 “innovative technology” loan guarantee program, inactive since 2011;
- $252 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development’s 2015 Ebola response;
- $148 million from Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for already-resolved disease outbreaks;
- $133 million from a Railroad Retirement Board program that ended in 2012;
- $107 million from unused watershed rehabilitation programs following Superstorm Sandy; and
- $47 million from a Federal Transit Administration account that has stagnated for 13 years.
The first step is to put pressure on the House to act immediately and then tout House-passage as a victory.
After that, we shift our attention to the Senate and say, “the House acted. Now it is the Senate’s turn.” It’s only with a strong House showing that we can force the issue in the Senate and get the votes necessary to lay the foundation for going after the next pot of wasteful money.
As House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said yesterday, “This is I believe the first of many rescission packages that you’ll see.”
We need every conservative on board and engaged in this effort. To get up to speed on the rescissions process, read Heritage Action’s Wesley Coopersmith’s blog post, “GOP Should Exercise Fiscal Restraint through the Impoundment Control Act” and Russ Vought’s op-ed, “The White House Announces Its Rescission Package.”
Dan
Dan Holler
Vice President
Heritage Action for America
Heritage Action for America | 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20002
40 Questions Special Counsel Robert Mueller Needs to Answer Now
Source; https://gohmert.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=HERU3YPI5HOV74UAV...
By: Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Lifezette, May 4, 2018
40 Questions Special Counsel Robert Mueller Needs to Answer Now
By: Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
A firestorm was ignited earlier this week when The New York Times published a list of 40 questions that special counsel Robert Mueller allegedly wants President Donald J. Trump to answer under oath.
It is a revealing list of questions, proving that after a year of strong-arming Trump family and friends, bankrupting Trump campaign volunteers and former staff, and leaking like a sieve, Mueller has found no evidence of any crime by the president whatsoever.
But since Mueller has wasted millions of tax dollars and endless hours of Trump’s time, it’s time for the special counsel to answer some questions. Let’s start with a few on the present runaway railroading of the president, then a look back to prior instances of the same sordid behavior by Mueller.
Regarding Your Trump “Investigation”
1.) Why did you hire only lawyers with backgrounds as Democratic Party donors for your investigative team? Were there no Establishment Republicans willing to help railroad President Trump?
2.) Peter Strzok was removed from your team after more than 10,000 texts between him and fellow team member Lisa Page were found to contain vitriolic anti-Trump tirades. These texts were not simply anti-Trump. They were more in the nature of desperate attempts to stop him from becoming president and talk of a nefarious insurance policy to orchestrate his removal if he were elected. Did they ever speak this way about Donald Trump in your presence? Why were you so determined to have people with outright hatred of Donald Trump on your special counsel team?
3.) Andrew Weissman has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election-night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. Not to mention his vast historyof prosecutorial abuses.
Both of you were involved in the investigation into Russia’s illegal efforts to obtain U.S. uranium. Did either of you alert the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to the crimes being committed? The plea deals? Did either of you profit in any way from the $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation or from those who benefited from the sale of U.S. uranium that would ultimately end up in the hands of Russian owners? Do you consider this to be a potential conflict of interest to the current investigation?
4.) What efforts have you undertaken to identify the leakers in your team who’ve revealed investigative details to the media? Were the leaks done with your permission or encouragement? When do you believe the statutes of limitations would run on possible prosecutions of you or your team for any such criminal leaks?
5.) Have you threatened White House officials with investigative actions or public statements regarding opposition by the White House to your partisan personnel decisions? Have you asked staff of the deputy attorney general’s office to issue these threats on your behalf?
6.) Were you aware that Judge Rudolph Contreras, who accepted former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea, also served on the FISA court and had a personal relationship with team member Strzok? Did you know it was Strzok who interviewed Flynn? Was Contreras angry about being recused for all his conflicts of interest?
7.) Do you believe it was proper for the case against Flynn to be brought before FISA Judge Contreras, even though he was such a close personal friend of Strzok? Did Contreras also hear the Steele dossier evidence in his FISA court? Who actually recused Contreras?
8.) Are you investigating the unmasking of American citizens in these matters? For example, Flynn’s name was somehow unmasked in the NSA surveillance, which apparently allowed the Obama administration to peruse his meetings and conversations. Are you investigating this unmasking of American citizens?
9.) Was Flynn made aware of the exculpatory evidence, before he entered his guilty plea, that the interviewing FBI agents did not believe he intentionally lied to them? Was the judge who took the plea aware of the agents’ belief that Flynn did not have intent to deceive?
10.) Where are the FBI’s notes from the Flynn interview? If they were provided to Flynn, when?
11.) Did you or anyone else on your team get the required signoff from then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster, as required on any retasking of NSA surveillance, in April of 2017 when the direct FISA surveillance of Carter Page and indirect surveillance of Trump was again extended, this time with approvalby Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein?
Now on to Mueller’s multiple past prosecutorial abuses.
On Mobster Whitey Bulger
As head of the criminal division while assistant U.S. attorney, then as acting U.S. attorney in Boston, Mueller oversaw a cluster of prosecutions tied to protected FBI informant and mob kingpin Whitey Bulger.
Mueller’s stewardship of these prosecutions led to wrongful murder convictions, cover-ups and a $100 million settlement to the victims or their families, as two of these men died in prison. The Boston Globe only had one “lingering question” — I have a few more.
12.) Why did the U.S. Attorney’s office, under your direction, let the FBI protect known mobster Whitey Bulger?
13.) Why did you work so hard to prevent the parole of the four men who were exonerated for the murder of Teddy Deegan?
14.) Did you purposefully allow these innocent men to remain in prison for murder to protect FBI informant Vincent “Jimmy” Flemmi?
15.) Whom do you think should be held responsible for the $100 million paid to compensate the four defendants wrongly framed by FBI agents on your watch?
16.) Did you leak or authorize the leaks of any information to anyone associated with organized crime during the Whitey Bulger investigation? There was a pattern of leaks to organized crime figures to disparage your targets in the Whitey Bulger investigations.
Rep. Curt Weldon Defeated by Mueller’s FBI
In the wake of 9/11 while Mueller was FBI director, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) tried to hold those accountable in the FBI and CIA that he believed mishandled actionable intelligence from a top-secret program organized at the request of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff using intelligence assets to focus on al-Qaida. This secret program was called Able Danger.
17.) Though you were not yet director of the FBI, do you know why the FBI would not accept the intelligence information from the U.S. military regarding 9/11 attacker Mohammed Atta? In January and February 2000, one year before 9/11, members of the program Able Danger identified the Brooklyn al-Qaida cell and Mohammed Atta. In September 2000, Able Danger attempted to provide information to the FBI on three separate occasions, but administration lawyers denied the transfer of information.
18.) If the FBI had received that information from the Able Danger team, what actions could have been taken to prevent 9/11?
19.) Did you leak information to the press or authorize the leak about nonexistent allegations against Weldon? Did you leak to the media or authorize a leak about the raid of the Weldon family property? Whose idea was it to do the search two weeks before Weldon’s re-election? Could the FBI’s raid have achieved its purposes if it had been done two weeks after Weldon’s re-election? Did you investigate how the media knew of the raid and its location?
20.) Was a grand jury convened to hear evidence in the alleged investigation of Weldon and his daughter?
21.) What was the outcome of that investigation, if there was one? What follow-up has occurred to attempt to remedy the loss that the FBI participated in causing?
Mueller’s Illegal Raid on Congressional Offices
Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) was secretly videotaped taking bribes in an undercover sting and, subsequently, Mueller’s FBI found $90,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer during a raid at his home.
The Constitution frames our government with three coequal branches, but Mueller doesn’t seem to care too much about constitutional restraints. Mueller’s FBI agents raided the offices of a sitting member of Congress — for the first time in our nation’s history — without attorneys in the House of Representatives first reviewing the material seized to ensure nothing privileged was obtained by the FBI.
The Supreme Court sided with the legislative branch against the executive branch to throw out Mueller’s illegal raid of Jefferson’s federal office. There are set processes by which these coequal branches cooperate for warrants. Which leaves this lingering question:
22.) As FBI director, why did you authorize the raid of Jefferson’s office without first consulting with House of Representatives attorneys? Did you intend the raid to put fear into members of Congress that you could raid them whenever you wanted? In the wake of that raid did you state that you might decide to assign 400 agents to investigate all of the members of Congress, or words to that effect? Was it your intent to intimidate members of Congress and dissuade them from asking further questions or making demands upon your office?
National Security Letter Abuses
National Security Letters (NSL) are a tool that allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bypass the formality of subpoenas, warrants, and instead simply send a letter to an individual, business or any entity they so choose to demand documents.
The letter also informs the recipient that it is a federal felony to reveal to anyone that the letter was received or what it requires to be produced, and if he or she has done so, prosecution will follow. Under Muller’s tenure as FBI director, there was incredibly widespread abuse of the NSLs.
23.) Are you responsible for the FBI’s misusing the Patriot Act, NSLs and other methods to obtain information on American citizens without probable cause?
24.) Other than the attorney general, did anyone lose his or her job as a result of the widespread abuse of NSLs and the Patriot Act?
25.) When you said at the time that you were accountable for that massive assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens, how exactly were you held accountable? Did you write or find some way to apologize to or compensate the thousands of Americans whose records were improperly seized?
Mueller’s Witch Hunt Against Sen. Ted Stevens
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was falsely charged and prosecuted in 2008 just 100 days before his re-election bid for what the FBI alleged was not paying full price for improvements to a cabin he owned in Alaska. In the midst of the prosecution, Stevens lost his re-election bid and, two years later, lost his life.
Large-scale misconduct was revealed through a whistleblower in an audit of the case, in which FBI agents and prosecutors, among many other things, withheld exculpatory evidence.
26.) Were you aware of any exculpatory evidence, or attempts to conceal evidence, that would have exonerated Stevens?
27.) Did you take any actions of any kind to prevent FBI agent Mary Beth Kepner from being fired? Did you take any actions to pursue disciplinary procedures against her for the wrongdoing in the Stevens case?
28.) Why was the whistleblower, FBI agent Chad Joy, permanently restricted from participating in any more criminal cases? Whose decision was that? Did you approve of it? Is it true that whistleblowers against the FBI while you were FBI director were routinely disciplined or dismissed, despite any wrongdoing they unearthed or caused to be corrected?
29.) Why was a critical witness in the case with exculpatory evidence sent back to Alaska by FBI agents before the information could be shared with Stevens’ defense attorneys? Did you ever consider advocating to have the case against Stevens dropped when you learned of all the improprieties, instead of waiting for a new attorney general to take over and drop the charges the following year?
Ruin of Dr. Steven Hatfill’s Reputation, Productive Life
And a few questions on the wrongful, malicious prosecution of Dr. Steven Hatfill, accused by Mueller of mailing anthrax letters in the wake of 9/11, a Mueller/Comey twofer. They ruined Hatfill’s life and his relationship with friends, neighbors, and potential employers.
30.) Despite a 100 percent absence of any admissible evidence of Hatfill’s guilt, why did you work so hard to convince people he was the perpetrator? Did you find it helpful for your purposes to move public attention away from the radical Islamic jihadis who had attacked us on 9/11 and instead place the attention on a white male?
31.) Was any research done into the disposition of cases involving the dogs you had brought in from California to smell Dr. Hatfill? Did you know these same dogs were involved in many cases in which the defendants were later exonerated? Do you believe that every time a dog seems to appreciate having his ears rubbed, as these did when Dr. Hatfill petted them, it is an “alert” to evidence of a crime?
33.) Whom do you feel is most responsible for the settlement in excess of $6 million paid out to Dr. Hatfill for your FBI’s maliciously and wrongfully persecution of an innocent man who never had any contact with anthrax?
The Framing of Scooter Libby
Another Mueller/Comey twofer came in 2003 — a fabricated and politically charged FBI investigation “searching” for the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity to the media.
34.) Did you encourage James Comey to ask then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to recuse himself from the Plame investigation? Did you bother to discern that Plame was not in a protected status at the time her identity was allegedly outed and before Scooter Libby, a former aide to Vice President Richard Cheney, was wrongfully convicted, as we now know?
35.) When did you learn that the source of Plame’s identity leak was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage? Wasn’t it before U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (godfather to one of Comey’s children) was sworn in as special counsel? Why, as FBI director, did you not stop the witch hunt, since you knew that there was no crime committed — and if there was one, Armitage committed it? Did it cross your mind that not only would you avoid an innocent man’s being convicted, but also save millions of dollars to stop the unnecessary special counsel prosecution? How much did Fitzgerald’s investigation cost American taxpayers?
36.) Was Scooter Libby at all involved in the leak of Plame’s identity to reporters?
Mueller’s Unethical Acceptance of Special Prosecutor Appointment
Federal law at 28 CFR 600.7 prohibits anyone from serving as a special counsel if there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
37.) How long have you been a mentor and friend to Comey?Did he mention to you that he was thinking about leaking information to try to get a special counsel appointed? Have you spoken to Comey since you have been special counsel? If so, was it recorded? Were there witnesses to your conversation? Did you write a 302 memo immediately after your conversation?
38.) Have you reviewed the standards for recusing oneself from prosecuting a case? Are you aware that under 28 CFR 600.7, you are prohibited from serving as special counsel even if there is only the appearance of a conflict of interest?
39.) Do you have a conflict of interest in your relationship with Comey? Since Comey is necessarily a witness in any potential case against Trump regarding a potential obstruction of justice, can you admit that you are disqualified from investigating or prosecuting the case?
40.) Do you consider your role as special counsel to be the protector of those who want President Trump removed from office because you believe he never should have been elected? Do you realize that actions to remove a duly elected president for crimes he did not commit may reasonably fit the definition of sedition?
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former chief justice of the 12th Circuit Court of Appeals (Texas).
Read in Lifezette, here.
By: Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Lifezette, May 4, 2018
40 Questions Special Counsel Robert Mueller Needs to Answer Now
By: Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
A firestorm was ignited earlier this week when The New York Times published a list of 40 questions that special counsel Robert Mueller allegedly wants President Donald J. Trump to answer under oath.
It is a revealing list of questions, proving that after a year of strong-arming Trump family and friends, bankrupting Trump campaign volunteers and former staff, and leaking like a sieve, Mueller has found no evidence of any crime by the president whatsoever.
But since Mueller has wasted millions of tax dollars and endless hours of Trump’s time, it’s time for the special counsel to answer some questions. Let’s start with a few on the present runaway railroading of the president, then a look back to prior instances of the same sordid behavior by Mueller.
Regarding Your Trump “Investigation”
1.) Why did you hire only lawyers with backgrounds as Democratic Party donors for your investigative team? Were there no Establishment Republicans willing to help railroad President Trump?
2.) Peter Strzok was removed from your team after more than 10,000 texts between him and fellow team member Lisa Page were found to contain vitriolic anti-Trump tirades. These texts were not simply anti-Trump. They were more in the nature of desperate attempts to stop him from becoming president and talk of a nefarious insurance policy to orchestrate his removal if he were elected. Did they ever speak this way about Donald Trump in your presence? Why were you so determined to have people with outright hatred of Donald Trump on your special counsel team?
3.) Andrew Weissman has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election-night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. Not to mention his vast historyof prosecutorial abuses.
Both of you were involved in the investigation into Russia’s illegal efforts to obtain U.S. uranium. Did either of you alert the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to the crimes being committed? The plea deals? Did either of you profit in any way from the $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation or from those who benefited from the sale of U.S. uranium that would ultimately end up in the hands of Russian owners? Do you consider this to be a potential conflict of interest to the current investigation?
4.) What efforts have you undertaken to identify the leakers in your team who’ve revealed investigative details to the media? Were the leaks done with your permission or encouragement? When do you believe the statutes of limitations would run on possible prosecutions of you or your team for any such criminal leaks?
5.) Have you threatened White House officials with investigative actions or public statements regarding opposition by the White House to your partisan personnel decisions? Have you asked staff of the deputy attorney general’s office to issue these threats on your behalf?
6.) Were you aware that Judge Rudolph Contreras, who accepted former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea, also served on the FISA court and had a personal relationship with team member Strzok? Did you know it was Strzok who interviewed Flynn? Was Contreras angry about being recused for all his conflicts of interest?
7.) Do you believe it was proper for the case against Flynn to be brought before FISA Judge Contreras, even though he was such a close personal friend of Strzok? Did Contreras also hear the Steele dossier evidence in his FISA court? Who actually recused Contreras?
8.) Are you investigating the unmasking of American citizens in these matters? For example, Flynn’s name was somehow unmasked in the NSA surveillance, which apparently allowed the Obama administration to peruse his meetings and conversations. Are you investigating this unmasking of American citizens?
9.) Was Flynn made aware of the exculpatory evidence, before he entered his guilty plea, that the interviewing FBI agents did not believe he intentionally lied to them? Was the judge who took the plea aware of the agents’ belief that Flynn did not have intent to deceive?
10.) Where are the FBI’s notes from the Flynn interview? If they were provided to Flynn, when?
11.) Did you or anyone else on your team get the required signoff from then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster, as required on any retasking of NSA surveillance, in April of 2017 when the direct FISA surveillance of Carter Page and indirect surveillance of Trump was again extended, this time with approvalby Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein?
Now on to Mueller’s multiple past prosecutorial abuses.
On Mobster Whitey Bulger
As head of the criminal division while assistant U.S. attorney, then as acting U.S. attorney in Boston, Mueller oversaw a cluster of prosecutions tied to protected FBI informant and mob kingpin Whitey Bulger.
Mueller’s stewardship of these prosecutions led to wrongful murder convictions, cover-ups and a $100 million settlement to the victims or their families, as two of these men died in prison. The Boston Globe only had one “lingering question” — I have a few more.
12.) Why did the U.S. Attorney’s office, under your direction, let the FBI protect known mobster Whitey Bulger?
13.) Why did you work so hard to prevent the parole of the four men who were exonerated for the murder of Teddy Deegan?
14.) Did you purposefully allow these innocent men to remain in prison for murder to protect FBI informant Vincent “Jimmy” Flemmi?
15.) Whom do you think should be held responsible for the $100 million paid to compensate the four defendants wrongly framed by FBI agents on your watch?
16.) Did you leak or authorize the leaks of any information to anyone associated with organized crime during the Whitey Bulger investigation? There was a pattern of leaks to organized crime figures to disparage your targets in the Whitey Bulger investigations.
Rep. Curt Weldon Defeated by Mueller’s FBI
In the wake of 9/11 while Mueller was FBI director, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) tried to hold those accountable in the FBI and CIA that he believed mishandled actionable intelligence from a top-secret program organized at the request of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff using intelligence assets to focus on al-Qaida. This secret program was called Able Danger.
17.) Though you were not yet director of the FBI, do you know why the FBI would not accept the intelligence information from the U.S. military regarding 9/11 attacker Mohammed Atta? In January and February 2000, one year before 9/11, members of the program Able Danger identified the Brooklyn al-Qaida cell and Mohammed Atta. In September 2000, Able Danger attempted to provide information to the FBI on three separate occasions, but administration lawyers denied the transfer of information.
18.) If the FBI had received that information from the Able Danger team, what actions could have been taken to prevent 9/11?
19.) Did you leak information to the press or authorize the leak about nonexistent allegations against Weldon? Did you leak to the media or authorize a leak about the raid of the Weldon family property? Whose idea was it to do the search two weeks before Weldon’s re-election? Could the FBI’s raid have achieved its purposes if it had been done two weeks after Weldon’s re-election? Did you investigate how the media knew of the raid and its location?
20.) Was a grand jury convened to hear evidence in the alleged investigation of Weldon and his daughter?
21.) What was the outcome of that investigation, if there was one? What follow-up has occurred to attempt to remedy the loss that the FBI participated in causing?
Mueller’s Illegal Raid on Congressional Offices
Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) was secretly videotaped taking bribes in an undercover sting and, subsequently, Mueller’s FBI found $90,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer during a raid at his home.
The Constitution frames our government with three coequal branches, but Mueller doesn’t seem to care too much about constitutional restraints. Mueller’s FBI agents raided the offices of a sitting member of Congress — for the first time in our nation’s history — without attorneys in the House of Representatives first reviewing the material seized to ensure nothing privileged was obtained by the FBI.
The Supreme Court sided with the legislative branch against the executive branch to throw out Mueller’s illegal raid of Jefferson’s federal office. There are set processes by which these coequal branches cooperate for warrants. Which leaves this lingering question:
22.) As FBI director, why did you authorize the raid of Jefferson’s office without first consulting with House of Representatives attorneys? Did you intend the raid to put fear into members of Congress that you could raid them whenever you wanted? In the wake of that raid did you state that you might decide to assign 400 agents to investigate all of the members of Congress, or words to that effect? Was it your intent to intimidate members of Congress and dissuade them from asking further questions or making demands upon your office?
National Security Letter Abuses
National Security Letters (NSL) are a tool that allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bypass the formality of subpoenas, warrants, and instead simply send a letter to an individual, business or any entity they so choose to demand documents.
The letter also informs the recipient that it is a federal felony to reveal to anyone that the letter was received or what it requires to be produced, and if he or she has done so, prosecution will follow. Under Muller’s tenure as FBI director, there was incredibly widespread abuse of the NSLs.
23.) Are you responsible for the FBI’s misusing the Patriot Act, NSLs and other methods to obtain information on American citizens without probable cause?
24.) Other than the attorney general, did anyone lose his or her job as a result of the widespread abuse of NSLs and the Patriot Act?
25.) When you said at the time that you were accountable for that massive assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens, how exactly were you held accountable? Did you write or find some way to apologize to or compensate the thousands of Americans whose records were improperly seized?
Mueller’s Witch Hunt Against Sen. Ted Stevens
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was falsely charged and prosecuted in 2008 just 100 days before his re-election bid for what the FBI alleged was not paying full price for improvements to a cabin he owned in Alaska. In the midst of the prosecution, Stevens lost his re-election bid and, two years later, lost his life.
Large-scale misconduct was revealed through a whistleblower in an audit of the case, in which FBI agents and prosecutors, among many other things, withheld exculpatory evidence.
26.) Were you aware of any exculpatory evidence, or attempts to conceal evidence, that would have exonerated Stevens?
27.) Did you take any actions of any kind to prevent FBI agent Mary Beth Kepner from being fired? Did you take any actions to pursue disciplinary procedures against her for the wrongdoing in the Stevens case?
28.) Why was the whistleblower, FBI agent Chad Joy, permanently restricted from participating in any more criminal cases? Whose decision was that? Did you approve of it? Is it true that whistleblowers against the FBI while you were FBI director were routinely disciplined or dismissed, despite any wrongdoing they unearthed or caused to be corrected?
29.) Why was a critical witness in the case with exculpatory evidence sent back to Alaska by FBI agents before the information could be shared with Stevens’ defense attorneys? Did you ever consider advocating to have the case against Stevens dropped when you learned of all the improprieties, instead of waiting for a new attorney general to take over and drop the charges the following year?
Ruin of Dr. Steven Hatfill’s Reputation, Productive Life
And a few questions on the wrongful, malicious prosecution of Dr. Steven Hatfill, accused by Mueller of mailing anthrax letters in the wake of 9/11, a Mueller/Comey twofer. They ruined Hatfill’s life and his relationship with friends, neighbors, and potential employers.
30.) Despite a 100 percent absence of any admissible evidence of Hatfill’s guilt, why did you work so hard to convince people he was the perpetrator? Did you find it helpful for your purposes to move public attention away from the radical Islamic jihadis who had attacked us on 9/11 and instead place the attention on a white male?
31.) Was any research done into the disposition of cases involving the dogs you had brought in from California to smell Dr. Hatfill? Did you know these same dogs were involved in many cases in which the defendants were later exonerated? Do you believe that every time a dog seems to appreciate having his ears rubbed, as these did when Dr. Hatfill petted them, it is an “alert” to evidence of a crime?
33.) Whom do you feel is most responsible for the settlement in excess of $6 million paid out to Dr. Hatfill for your FBI’s maliciously and wrongfully persecution of an innocent man who never had any contact with anthrax?
The Framing of Scooter Libby
Another Mueller/Comey twofer came in 2003 — a fabricated and politically charged FBI investigation “searching” for the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity to the media.
34.) Did you encourage James Comey to ask then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to recuse himself from the Plame investigation? Did you bother to discern that Plame was not in a protected status at the time her identity was allegedly outed and before Scooter Libby, a former aide to Vice President Richard Cheney, was wrongfully convicted, as we now know?
35.) When did you learn that the source of Plame’s identity leak was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage? Wasn’t it before U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (godfather to one of Comey’s children) was sworn in as special counsel? Why, as FBI director, did you not stop the witch hunt, since you knew that there was no crime committed — and if there was one, Armitage committed it? Did it cross your mind that not only would you avoid an innocent man’s being convicted, but also save millions of dollars to stop the unnecessary special counsel prosecution? How much did Fitzgerald’s investigation cost American taxpayers?
36.) Was Scooter Libby at all involved in the leak of Plame’s identity to reporters?
Mueller’s Unethical Acceptance of Special Prosecutor Appointment
Federal law at 28 CFR 600.7 prohibits anyone from serving as a special counsel if there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
37.) How long have you been a mentor and friend to Comey?Did he mention to you that he was thinking about leaking information to try to get a special counsel appointed? Have you spoken to Comey since you have been special counsel? If so, was it recorded? Were there witnesses to your conversation? Did you write a 302 memo immediately after your conversation?
38.) Have you reviewed the standards for recusing oneself from prosecuting a case? Are you aware that under 28 CFR 600.7, you are prohibited from serving as special counsel even if there is only the appearance of a conflict of interest?
39.) Do you have a conflict of interest in your relationship with Comey? Since Comey is necessarily a witness in any potential case against Trump regarding a potential obstruction of justice, can you admit that you are disqualified from investigating or prosecuting the case?
40.) Do you consider your role as special counsel to be the protector of those who want President Trump removed from office because you believe he never should have been elected? Do you realize that actions to remove a duly elected president for crimes he did not commit may reasonably fit the definition of sedition?
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former chief justice of the 12th Circuit Court of Appeals (Texas).
Read in Lifezette, here.
The Americans With No Abilities Act (ANAA)
A tongue in cheek Op-Ed
by Jack Keel
The Democrats in the U.S. Senate are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many more Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack intelligence, intellect, any real skills and ambition.
“Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,” said former California Sen. Barbara Boxer. “We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.”
In a Capitol Hill press conference, Nancy Pelosi pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent).
Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.
Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability (POI) into middle-management positions, and give a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.
Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, “Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?”
“As a non-abled person, I can’t be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,” said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Mich., due to her inability to remember “righty tighty, lefty loosey”. “This new law should be real good for people like me. I’ll finally have job security.” With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Said Sen. Dick Durbin, II: “As a senator with no abilities or brain, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.”
This message was approved by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Maxine (WaWa) Waters, Elizabeth (Nut Case) Warren & Nancy Pelosi........all Americans With No Abilities whatsoever! !
“Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,” said former California Sen. Barbara Boxer. “We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.”
In a Capitol Hill press conference, Nancy Pelosi pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent).
Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.
Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability (POI) into middle-management positions, and give a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.
Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, “Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?”
“As a non-abled person, I can’t be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,” said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Mich., due to her inability to remember “righty tighty, lefty loosey”. “This new law should be real good for people like me. I’ll finally have job security.” With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Said Sen. Dick Durbin, II: “As a senator with no abilities or brain, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.”
This message was approved by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Maxine (WaWa) Waters, Elizabeth (Nut Case) Warren & Nancy Pelosi........all Americans With No Abilities whatsoever! !
Concerning the Florida Shooting, We Are At A Crossroads.
Concerning the Florida school shooting: Gun law changes attract renewed GOP interest http://fxn.ws/2oeMKun #FoxNews Just strengthening existing laws and regulations will not result in more safety. We need to find out the root causes driving these killers.
When they strengthen the background check system there also needs to be a fixed set of rules open to public debate on what is and what is not acceptable to the public at large about impacting constitutional rights, and agreed on by all parties. This set of rules must realistically address root causes.It must also be fixed as if in stone, so future politicians can't change anything to suit their agendas.
To put it plainly; If they fix the background check system there must be an agreed on hard set of rules as to what can and can't be done in the name of safety.Too often reasonable rules are bastardized by politicians who practice overreach as a matter of course.interpreting the new rules must be clearly spelled out and agreed on by the public.
One other important observation; While it sounds good on the surface, it begs the question, "Who decides?" Obviously, the government would seize that mantle and, like ALL government programs, would soon overreach, disarming anyone and everyone it could, for our own good, of course.This must be prevented at it's inception so politicians would be unable to change it at a whim.
The root causes must be studied within a reasonable time frame to begin with and be able to continue as new information is accrued,then the public must decide how much Safety is really derived and how much suppression of rights will be created. A reasonable balance needs to be determined. These decisions must not be driven by Political Agendas for any reason.
ALL factions need an equal seat at the negotiation table. The same caveat needs to be held for all the collected data in finding out the root causes that drive the killers as well as what could stop them. At this point, we do not actually know what those root causes might be. We do not know what will necessarily work. We do however know what has not worked so far, so it will be necessary for all sides to relax their hard held beliefs until facts are forthcoming from the study.
Gun Control is the progressives deadly lie. look how it has done nothing to stop the killings.Outlawing certain guns did nothing to stop the killings either.Lets demand real protections for our kids and our selves. Repeating Progressive folly did not work, and will not work. The very Definition of insanity is repeating the same things like the progressives do with Gun Control/Gun Free Zones, and expecting a different outcome. Lets find out the real problems for once and correct them to save our kids lives..
Based on findings from all the shooters backgrounds, things like medical histories,upbringing,school records,friends, environment,habitual behaviors, and the many more things found to be commonalities across the range of shooters. Those things will have to be studied in depth.
Seriously though, we need to reevaluate what we have been doing, and see it in the light of reality to determine how effective it really is in the real world as opposed to the Fantasy World inhabited by the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist Gun Grabbers.I truthfully believe they don't give one Whit about it's effectiveness, as long as it conforms to their Agendas..
From that study we need to formulate plans to eliminate the triggering conditions and find ways to ameliorate damage already done to potential shooters. This also must not be corrupted by political agendas or wishful thinking.The compromises must be reasonable not dictatorial.
Everything we are doing now must of necessity be reevaluated for it's effectiveness and impact on the issue of serial shootings and serial shooters. We may or may not find things we are doing contribute to the killings.We may find that Not training our kids about guns is a factor. There are probably many more factors to be considered.
We must learn to act on the factors the study finds out about the root causes, and act on them while rejecting political and personal desires as wishful thinking that will only serve to harm more innocent people. As it sits, neither side is right at this point. Neither side actually knows what is happening, but are ready to create fixes based on their personal preferences and agendas.
We have a real mess here that poses a danger to all innocent people unless it's addressed properly. I believe that most of the problem stems from political expedience to pander to public fears for reelection purposes rather, than systematically correcting the killings problem.
I agree we do need change. Change that will not be political desideratum, but in fact, will positively impact the clear and present danger from serial shooters, preying on the innocent public. Politicians will take the easy road unless we force them to take the right road on this.
What Trump and/or Congress needs to do is to commission an unbiased study on all the factors common to all the serial shooters and see which ones contributed to their becoming serial killers. Once we really know what the causes are we can work to eliminate them and save lives. Bring in both sides Pro gun and Con gun, to oversee the integrity of the study, but not contribute to the end results.
I suggest that the Congress get it together and create real laws that actually have a chance of saving lives instead of pandering to highly vocal agendas on both sides of the issue.Until then, we must harden the targets as much as is possible and train & arm the staffs.
The Tradesman
When they strengthen the background check system there also needs to be a fixed set of rules open to public debate on what is and what is not acceptable to the public at large about impacting constitutional rights, and agreed on by all parties. This set of rules must realistically address root causes.It must also be fixed as if in stone, so future politicians can't change anything to suit their agendas.
To put it plainly; If they fix the background check system there must be an agreed on hard set of rules as to what can and can't be done in the name of safety.Too often reasonable rules are bastardized by politicians who practice overreach as a matter of course.interpreting the new rules must be clearly spelled out and agreed on by the public.
One other important observation; While it sounds good on the surface, it begs the question, "Who decides?" Obviously, the government would seize that mantle and, like ALL government programs, would soon overreach, disarming anyone and everyone it could, for our own good, of course.This must be prevented at it's inception so politicians would be unable to change it at a whim.
The root causes must be studied within a reasonable time frame to begin with and be able to continue as new information is accrued,then the public must decide how much Safety is really derived and how much suppression of rights will be created. A reasonable balance needs to be determined. These decisions must not be driven by Political Agendas for any reason.
ALL factions need an equal seat at the negotiation table. The same caveat needs to be held for all the collected data in finding out the root causes that drive the killers as well as what could stop them. At this point, we do not actually know what those root causes might be. We do not know what will necessarily work. We do however know what has not worked so far, so it will be necessary for all sides to relax their hard held beliefs until facts are forthcoming from the study.
Gun Control is the progressives deadly lie. look how it has done nothing to stop the killings.Outlawing certain guns did nothing to stop the killings either.Lets demand real protections for our kids and our selves. Repeating Progressive folly did not work, and will not work. The very Definition of insanity is repeating the same things like the progressives do with Gun Control/Gun Free Zones, and expecting a different outcome. Lets find out the real problems for once and correct them to save our kids lives..
Based on findings from all the shooters backgrounds, things like medical histories,upbringing,school records,friends, environment,habitual behaviors, and the many more things found to be commonalities across the range of shooters. Those things will have to be studied in depth.
Seriously though, we need to reevaluate what we have been doing, and see it in the light of reality to determine how effective it really is in the real world as opposed to the Fantasy World inhabited by the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist Gun Grabbers.I truthfully believe they don't give one Whit about it's effectiveness, as long as it conforms to their Agendas..
From that study we need to formulate plans to eliminate the triggering conditions and find ways to ameliorate damage already done to potential shooters. This also must not be corrupted by political agendas or wishful thinking.The compromises must be reasonable not dictatorial.
Everything we are doing now must of necessity be reevaluated for it's effectiveness and impact on the issue of serial shootings and serial shooters. We may or may not find things we are doing contribute to the killings.We may find that Not training our kids about guns is a factor. There are probably many more factors to be considered.
We must learn to act on the factors the study finds out about the root causes, and act on them while rejecting political and personal desires as wishful thinking that will only serve to harm more innocent people. As it sits, neither side is right at this point. Neither side actually knows what is happening, but are ready to create fixes based on their personal preferences and agendas.
We have a real mess here that poses a danger to all innocent people unless it's addressed properly. I believe that most of the problem stems from political expedience to pander to public fears for reelection purposes rather, than systematically correcting the killings problem.
I agree we do need change. Change that will not be political desideratum, but in fact, will positively impact the clear and present danger from serial shooters, preying on the innocent public. Politicians will take the easy road unless we force them to take the right road on this.
What Trump and/or Congress needs to do is to commission an unbiased study on all the factors common to all the serial shooters and see which ones contributed to their becoming serial killers. Once we really know what the causes are we can work to eliminate them and save lives. Bring in both sides Pro gun and Con gun, to oversee the integrity of the study, but not contribute to the end results.
I suggest that the Congress get it together and create real laws that actually have a chance of saving lives instead of pandering to highly vocal agendas on both sides of the issue.Until then, we must harden the targets as much as is possible and train & arm the staffs.
The Tradesman
The Electoral College and its importance
Jerry Berg
The Electoral College.
Below is the reason why we need and use the electoral college adapted by our founding fore fathers for electing our Presidents.
Civics 101.
After this lesson, is there anyone who doubts the foresight of our Founding Fathers and the validity of the Electoral College, especially in our modern age of demographics?
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
This is the best example of why the Founding Fathers created with amazing foresight the wisdom the Electoral College.
WHY IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SO IMPORTANT?
In their infinite wisdom, the founders of our country created a structure called the "Electoral College" as a control system and to ensure the individual states were fairly represented.
Otherwise one or two densely populated areas would speak for the whole of the nation.
It was not created as a device to favor Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Tories or any other political affiliation.
It was created as a system of "checks and balances" to guard against any small vocal area, with a specific agenda, speaking for the whole of the nation.
The following list of statistics should put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump.
In other words, these Five (5) counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote for the entire country !
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote
of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) do not and should not speak for the rest of our country.
And somehow the geniuses who founded our country understood this and created a system to avoid that circumstance.
And now you understand the supreme importance of the Electoral College.
Do share this. It needs to be understood.
ED. Note: Please copy this and pass it along.
Below is the reason why we need and use the electoral college adapted by our founding fore fathers for electing our Presidents.
Civics 101.
After this lesson, is there anyone who doubts the foresight of our Founding Fathers and the validity of the Electoral College, especially in our modern age of demographics?
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
This is the best example of why the Founding Fathers created with amazing foresight the wisdom the Electoral College.
WHY IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SO IMPORTANT?
In their infinite wisdom, the founders of our country created a structure called the "Electoral College" as a control system and to ensure the individual states were fairly represented.
Otherwise one or two densely populated areas would speak for the whole of the nation.
It was not created as a device to favor Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Tories or any other political affiliation.
It was created as a system of "checks and balances" to guard against any small vocal area, with a specific agenda, speaking for the whole of the nation.
The following list of statistics should put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump.
In other words, these Five (5) counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote for the entire country !
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote
of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) do not and should not speak for the rest of our country.
And somehow the geniuses who founded our country understood this and created a system to avoid that circumstance.
And now you understand the supreme importance of the Electoral College.
Do share this. It needs to be understood.
ED. Note: Please copy this and pass it along.
Understanding the Psychology of Never-Trumpism
By Oren Long
Gentlemen,
The more I think about the article at the end of this email, the more I think I understand what is going on with 'Never-Trumpers'.
As I told &&&&&&& in a separate post, Bill Kristol said two things that explain the Never-Trumpers, "I still wish Hillary was President" and "How much simpler things would be".
These two quotes explain the psychology behind Never-Trumpism. Even though Mr. Kristol admits that he likes everything Trump has done, he still prefers Hillary. Why? It doesn't make any logical sense, UNLESS you plug in the psychology. As a cop I saw this all the time.
Congress and the Washington Establishment are well aware that their ratings are in the tank. They are well aware that everything Trump is doing desperately needed to be done. They just couldn't make themselves do it and definitely don't like the way Trump is doing it. Trump is operating outside the box and in ways they neither understand nor are used to.
Never-Trumpers very much resemble a battered and abused woman. She knows she has to leave or kick the abuser out, but she just can't seem to take that step. Over and over, she makes excuses for the abuser and runs back into his arms, only to be abused again and again. She wants the abuse to stop, but when faced with how to make it stop, she chooses abuse. It's all she knows. It is her "comfort zone". She knows what to expect and has developed psychological coping mechanisms to deal with it. Freedom, independence, and responsibility are just too dangerous. They are the unknown and she cannot make herself go there. Intellectually, she knows what she should do, but she cannot make that emotional decision.
Democrats, the Left, and Hillary are the smooth talking abusers. Never-Trumpers know it, but cleave unto their abusers for the same reasons the abused woman stays with her abuser. They dislike Trump because he is the "unknown, the random element, the unpredictable". He makes them uncomfortable. Given a choice between freedom, lower taxes, less government, etc. they will choose slavery, high taxes, and more government because it is all they know. It's their "comfort zone". Trump challenges them to open their eyes and examine their beliefs -- and they hate him for it!
THEY DON'T KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW, DON'T TELL THEM ! ! ! Trumpism is outside of their reality! They can't grasp it! They don't understand it! Washington is ALL they know or want to know! Washington is their "Reality"!
Unknowingly, Mr. Kristol, in the attached article, said as much. He admits that he like everything Trump is doing, BUT it makes him uncomfortable, NOT because it is wrong, but because he doesn't like the way it's being done. In short, Mr. Kristol is choosing form over substance. He would be much more comfortable with Hillary because she fits neatly into his view of what a leader is and should be. She is reliably predictable, even if her policies would destroy the country. He could get up every morning knowing what to expect, and that makes him comfortable. He could make excuses for her. He knows she would have been a disaster, but she would be a "predictable" disaster and he could cope with that.
But Trump demands responsibility, action, and tough choices; things Mr. Kristol and the Never-Trumpers hate. Trump operates outside of "acceptable norms". Mr. Kristol and the Never-Trumpers are happy to sit on the sidelines, complain, and do nothing. They are old biddies complaining about their 'worthless husbands', but doing nothing to confront them or change their own lives. It's just too difficult, so they live their lives in misery, but knowing what to expect each and every day. It's just easier.
Trump is a secular "Jesus", marching into the Temple (Washington), flipping over the tables of the money-changers (lobbyists and big donors), and confronting the Rabbis (Washington Elite). They hate him for it. It makes them uncomfortable and challenges "acceptable norms".
.
Their entire mantra is the S T A T U S Q U O , for its own sake, and simply because it's all they know and are comfortable with. "Business as usual" is perfectly O.K., even when it is a disaster!
It Is Time to Pull the Plug on Never-Trumpism. http://google.com/newsstand/s/ CBIwlNzUpjc
Oren
The more I think about the article at the end of this email, the more I think I understand what is going on with 'Never-Trumpers'.
As I told &&&&&&& in a separate post, Bill Kristol said two things that explain the Never-Trumpers, "I still wish Hillary was President" and "How much simpler things would be".
These two quotes explain the psychology behind Never-Trumpism. Even though Mr. Kristol admits that he likes everything Trump has done, he still prefers Hillary. Why? It doesn't make any logical sense, UNLESS you plug in the psychology. As a cop I saw this all the time.
Congress and the Washington Establishment are well aware that their ratings are in the tank. They are well aware that everything Trump is doing desperately needed to be done. They just couldn't make themselves do it and definitely don't like the way Trump is doing it. Trump is operating outside the box and in ways they neither understand nor are used to.
Never-Trumpers very much resemble a battered and abused woman. She knows she has to leave or kick the abuser out, but she just can't seem to take that step. Over and over, she makes excuses for the abuser and runs back into his arms, only to be abused again and again. She wants the abuse to stop, but when faced with how to make it stop, she chooses abuse. It's all she knows. It is her "comfort zone". She knows what to expect and has developed psychological coping mechanisms to deal with it. Freedom, independence, and responsibility are just too dangerous. They are the unknown and she cannot make herself go there. Intellectually, she knows what she should do, but she cannot make that emotional decision.
Democrats, the Left, and Hillary are the smooth talking abusers. Never-Trumpers know it, but cleave unto their abusers for the same reasons the abused woman stays with her abuser. They dislike Trump because he is the "unknown, the random element, the unpredictable". He makes them uncomfortable. Given a choice between freedom, lower taxes, less government, etc. they will choose slavery, high taxes, and more government because it is all they know. It's their "comfort zone". Trump challenges them to open their eyes and examine their beliefs -- and they hate him for it!
THEY DON'T KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW, DON'T TELL THEM ! ! ! Trumpism is outside of their reality! They can't grasp it! They don't understand it! Washington is ALL they know or want to know! Washington is their "Reality"!
Unknowingly, Mr. Kristol, in the attached article, said as much. He admits that he like everything Trump is doing, BUT it makes him uncomfortable, NOT because it is wrong, but because he doesn't like the way it's being done. In short, Mr. Kristol is choosing form over substance. He would be much more comfortable with Hillary because she fits neatly into his view of what a leader is and should be. She is reliably predictable, even if her policies would destroy the country. He could get up every morning knowing what to expect, and that makes him comfortable. He could make excuses for her. He knows she would have been a disaster, but she would be a "predictable" disaster and he could cope with that.
But Trump demands responsibility, action, and tough choices; things Mr. Kristol and the Never-Trumpers hate. Trump operates outside of "acceptable norms". Mr. Kristol and the Never-Trumpers are happy to sit on the sidelines, complain, and do nothing. They are old biddies complaining about their 'worthless husbands', but doing nothing to confront them or change their own lives. It's just too difficult, so they live their lives in misery, but knowing what to expect each and every day. It's just easier.
Trump is a secular "Jesus", marching into the Temple (Washington), flipping over the tables of the money-changers (lobbyists and big donors), and confronting the Rabbis (Washington Elite). They hate him for it. It makes them uncomfortable and challenges "acceptable norms".
.
Their entire mantra is the S T A T U S Q U O , for its own sake, and simply because it's all they know and are comfortable with. "Business as usual" is perfectly O.K., even when it is a disaster!
It Is Time to Pull the Plug on Never-Trumpism. http://google.com/newsstand/s/ CBIwlNzUpjc
Oren
Treatise on;Draining the swamp the Right Way/By Making it Permanent
By 'M'
Treatise by 'M' found on the We the people USA site warning that what Trump has done to help America can vanish overnight unless the people act to make those and other changes Permanent.
"Reply by M 11 hours ago
Draining the swamp the Right Way/By Making it Permanent
Most people here complain about the dirty deal Obama gave us, and lionize Trump for attempting to set things straight.
We want him to keep draining the swamp.
We are sitting here feeling good about what he has done, and what he will potentially continue to do.
We tend to forget that everything Trump has done to help America can vanish overnight.
Nothing that has been done is final.
Case in point;The 111th Congress without the help of even one Republican imposed Obamacare on the American people, of which, the vast majority did not want it.Look at the continuing mess it has caused and will keep causing. Look at what Trump has done to reverse Obama's fiasco. He has repealed ten things Obama pushed on us, he got a tax abatement, he started draining the denizens of the swamp. This is good but not relatively permanent.
{Ed. Note; I believe he's talking about the top ten of a combination of regulations Trump canceled and new laws he signed into effect.}
However none of the things he has done, none of the laws he has signed into existence has any permanence. Any or all of them, can be reversed as easily as Obamacare was pushed on us, provided the voters put in Progressives instead of Conservatives. Anything can be eliminated as easily as the new tax law has eliminated the mandate provision. There is a distinct possibility the next President or Liberal Congress will reverse everything Trump has done.
What we need to do is to get an article V amendment proposal convention, petitioned for by the State Legislatures, so it will be the people instead of Congress, who propose amendments. Many people on both sides say what use is it to make new amendments because the Congress or President do not follow the Constitution any way. That is not true. They do follow it Even SCOTUS follows it. The problem being is the existing Amendments from 11 on have been proposed solely by Congress itself and for it's own benefit, not the publics.
Originally our Founders created the Constitution out of the old articles of the Confederation of the United States of America. It provided the chains on the Federal Central Government to keep it in check, and the power in the hands of the people. It proved too unwieldy and the Founders created the Constitution for the same purpose. The Constitution was written in such a way that it was in Two basic parts; The original Document and the Amendments.
Article V was created in the original document to allow for amendments as time went by, the people or the peoples representatives in Congress could update and modify without changing one word of the original. They made it hard to create amendments, but they made it possible so the people could make changes they collectively decided were reasonable and necessary. As it is now, it was the Congress who has made every single proposal for an amendment, and not one has came from the people themselves. This situation is the reason the Federal Government has grown in power and size way beyond anything reasonable.
As we all know the Civil war was fought over Slavery and States Rights being Superior to Federal rights. the amendment Congress (All Northern Senators by the way) forced on the South basically at the point of the guns of occupying GAR troops, and the refusal (unconstitutional by the way, no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" ), of denying the States in the Rebellion from taking their seats until they signed the 14th Amendment, which is what the Northern States did.
That 14th Amendment was supposedly created only to give citizenship and voting rights to the freed Slaves. However they inserted three toxic words ( No State Shall ) into it that changed the flow of power from the People to the States and from the States to the Federal Government into, the Federal Government over the States and the States over the people who originally were meant to be the highest political power in the United States.
In it's rulings over time SCOTUS has cemented that power flow by abusing the meaning of the 14th and using it as a club over the States and people. Every ruling against the peoples wishes has stemmed from those three words. Those three words has stolen the peoples rightful power over their government and gave it to the charlatans in politics.
This is the reason that anything done by Presidents or Congress or even the people is only transient and can be easily overturned. Case in point; When Congress wanted to increase the taxes collected they originally legislated an income tax. That tax was declared unconstitutional by Scotus. Congress retaliated by calling an article V convention and came up with the 16th Amendment for their benefit bluffing the people into ratifying it. The same happened when the political parties wanted Senators to be loyal to their party and not to the States who they represented so they created the 17th Amendment. The rest is history.
These are things the public either does not see or can not see being blinded by the dog and pony shows of modern politics. Unless and until we band together and order our legislatures to petition for an Article V where it is the people themselves who propose Amendments Like a balanced budget amendment with severe penalties to Congress for not creating a budget. Or, for a true and binding term limit for all congress, even repealing the 16th and replacing it with a National Sales Tax of say 5% ( must be done concurrently within the new amendment to prevent Congress from adding a new tax without removing the income tax. ) or repealing the 17th and putting the Senators back under the control of State Legislatures as was originally intended. Even ones creating language to keep the best things Trump has done as law of the land even SCOTUS can not reverse, the people will be at the mercy of politicians who believe themselves to be the masters instead of the hired hands.
Right now under Trump is the best ever situation where the people can push this through. See; http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html The free online library that is dedicated to make changes for the better permanent, and controlled by the will of the people, instead of by the will of self serving political hacks."
Ed. Note; I published this article with the express hope that I could Alert and hopefully Unite enough Americans to get an Article V States petitioned for Amendment Proposal Convention started.
For far too long in my estimation,Congress has only used what the American people want as a political football. As I see it, it's time for the American people to take back their original political power and impose restrictions on Congress to relegate them back into being our elected servants instead of our masters.
The American people need to take a critical look at the Amendments Ratified after the Bill of Rights to see which serve the peoples interests instead of the Governments.
Changing them into things like:
Term Limits for Congress.
Balanced Budget Mandate with serious penalty to Congress if not done in the prescribed time limit.
A true and fair taxation by concurrently in the same amendment proposal repealing the 16th and replacing it with a National sales tax of 5%-10% on all purchases including purchases of materials by businesses/corporations etc.
Repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the Senators to their Constitutional place of Representing the interests of their States instead of their political parties, or the people directly.
Either Repealing the 14th, or modifying it to remove the three words (No State Shall) incorporated within it that took the supreme political power away from the people, and gave it to the Federal Government
The United States is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy, even though we utilize Democratic Principles. We are constrained by our written Constitution. Therefore we are a nation ruled by Constitutional Law. To change or modify that law, we must create Amendments, and 3/4 of us (38 out of 50 States currently) must agree to change the rules that we and our Government must live by. Under Trump, conditions have came about that will facilitate those necessary changes, and make them permanently a part of our Constitution. We must order our representatives to take action to bring it about.
"Reply by M 11 hours ago
Draining the swamp the Right Way/By Making it Permanent
Most people here complain about the dirty deal Obama gave us, and lionize Trump for attempting to set things straight.
We want him to keep draining the swamp.
We are sitting here feeling good about what he has done, and what he will potentially continue to do.
We tend to forget that everything Trump has done to help America can vanish overnight.
Nothing that has been done is final.
Case in point;The 111th Congress without the help of even one Republican imposed Obamacare on the American people, of which, the vast majority did not want it.Look at the continuing mess it has caused and will keep causing. Look at what Trump has done to reverse Obama's fiasco. He has repealed ten things Obama pushed on us, he got a tax abatement, he started draining the denizens of the swamp. This is good but not relatively permanent.
{Ed. Note; I believe he's talking about the top ten of a combination of regulations Trump canceled and new laws he signed into effect.}
However none of the things he has done, none of the laws he has signed into existence has any permanence. Any or all of them, can be reversed as easily as Obamacare was pushed on us, provided the voters put in Progressives instead of Conservatives. Anything can be eliminated as easily as the new tax law has eliminated the mandate provision. There is a distinct possibility the next President or Liberal Congress will reverse everything Trump has done.
What we need to do is to get an article V amendment proposal convention, petitioned for by the State Legislatures, so it will be the people instead of Congress, who propose amendments. Many people on both sides say what use is it to make new amendments because the Congress or President do not follow the Constitution any way. That is not true. They do follow it Even SCOTUS follows it. The problem being is the existing Amendments from 11 on have been proposed solely by Congress itself and for it's own benefit, not the publics.
Originally our Founders created the Constitution out of the old articles of the Confederation of the United States of America. It provided the chains on the Federal Central Government to keep it in check, and the power in the hands of the people. It proved too unwieldy and the Founders created the Constitution for the same purpose. The Constitution was written in such a way that it was in Two basic parts; The original Document and the Amendments.
Article V was created in the original document to allow for amendments as time went by, the people or the peoples representatives in Congress could update and modify without changing one word of the original. They made it hard to create amendments, but they made it possible so the people could make changes they collectively decided were reasonable and necessary. As it is now, it was the Congress who has made every single proposal for an amendment, and not one has came from the people themselves. This situation is the reason the Federal Government has grown in power and size way beyond anything reasonable.
As we all know the Civil war was fought over Slavery and States Rights being Superior to Federal rights. the amendment Congress (All Northern Senators by the way) forced on the South basically at the point of the guns of occupying GAR troops, and the refusal (unconstitutional by the way, no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" ), of denying the States in the Rebellion from taking their seats until they signed the 14th Amendment, which is what the Northern States did.
That 14th Amendment was supposedly created only to give citizenship and voting rights to the freed Slaves. However they inserted three toxic words ( No State Shall ) into it that changed the flow of power from the People to the States and from the States to the Federal Government into, the Federal Government over the States and the States over the people who originally were meant to be the highest political power in the United States.
In it's rulings over time SCOTUS has cemented that power flow by abusing the meaning of the 14th and using it as a club over the States and people. Every ruling against the peoples wishes has stemmed from those three words. Those three words has stolen the peoples rightful power over their government and gave it to the charlatans in politics.
This is the reason that anything done by Presidents or Congress or even the people is only transient and can be easily overturned. Case in point; When Congress wanted to increase the taxes collected they originally legislated an income tax. That tax was declared unconstitutional by Scotus. Congress retaliated by calling an article V convention and came up with the 16th Amendment for their benefit bluffing the people into ratifying it. The same happened when the political parties wanted Senators to be loyal to their party and not to the States who they represented so they created the 17th Amendment. The rest is history.
These are things the public either does not see or can not see being blinded by the dog and pony shows of modern politics. Unless and until we band together and order our legislatures to petition for an Article V where it is the people themselves who propose Amendments Like a balanced budget amendment with severe penalties to Congress for not creating a budget. Or, for a true and binding term limit for all congress, even repealing the 16th and replacing it with a National Sales Tax of say 5% ( must be done concurrently within the new amendment to prevent Congress from adding a new tax without removing the income tax. ) or repealing the 17th and putting the Senators back under the control of State Legislatures as was originally intended. Even ones creating language to keep the best things Trump has done as law of the land even SCOTUS can not reverse, the people will be at the mercy of politicians who believe themselves to be the masters instead of the hired hands.
Right now under Trump is the best ever situation where the people can push this through. See; http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html The free online library that is dedicated to make changes for the better permanent, and controlled by the will of the people, instead of by the will of self serving political hacks."
Ed. Note; I published this article with the express hope that I could Alert and hopefully Unite enough Americans to get an Article V States petitioned for Amendment Proposal Convention started.
For far too long in my estimation,Congress has only used what the American people want as a political football. As I see it, it's time for the American people to take back their original political power and impose restrictions on Congress to relegate them back into being our elected servants instead of our masters.
The American people need to take a critical look at the Amendments Ratified after the Bill of Rights to see which serve the peoples interests instead of the Governments.
Changing them into things like:
Term Limits for Congress.
Balanced Budget Mandate with serious penalty to Congress if not done in the prescribed time limit.
A true and fair taxation by concurrently in the same amendment proposal repealing the 16th and replacing it with a National sales tax of 5%-10% on all purchases including purchases of materials by businesses/corporations etc.
Repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the Senators to their Constitutional place of Representing the interests of their States instead of their political parties, or the people directly.
Either Repealing the 14th, or modifying it to remove the three words (No State Shall) incorporated within it that took the supreme political power away from the people, and gave it to the Federal Government
The United States is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy, even though we utilize Democratic Principles. We are constrained by our written Constitution. Therefore we are a nation ruled by Constitutional Law. To change or modify that law, we must create Amendments, and 3/4 of us (38 out of 50 States currently) must agree to change the rules that we and our Government must live by. Under Trump, conditions have came about that will facilitate those necessary changes, and make them permanently a part of our Constitution. We must order our representatives to take action to bring it about.
GENERAL FLYNN & The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
By Andrew G. Benjamin —-- Bio and Archives--December 3, 2017
Source; http://canadafreepress.com/article/general-flynn-amp-the-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=general_flynn_the_fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree&utm_term=2017-12-03
Team Mueller, special prosecutors extraordinaire established on the demands of the losing Party of Tolerance and Social Justice, charged General Michael Flynn, a temporary (transition) national security advisor to President Donald Trump, with a single count of lying to the FBI.
The Hope for Change is that Flynn will topple the Trump Presidency and reverse the will of The People and the election results of 2016 with his testimony. The hope is the astonishing delusion purveyed by the mainstream media that it is illegal or improper for a free US citizen, businessman, candidate, or transition team member, to speak with Russians about any subject they so choose - and also choose not to disclose that fact.
These failures to disclose include matters of national importance such as the ingredients of Russian dressing one may pour on one’s salad, or the best brand of Russian caviar and vodka, and even the latest shade of lipstick to be worn by Russian transgenders of the Democrat faith about to convert to Islam. And imagine this: even foreign policy and sanctions. The Logan Law, just to inform delusional Democrats, no longer exists and is not enforced. Moreover for liberals watching CNN, collusion is not a crime.
QUESTIONS
The people calling for impeachment might ask, was it illegal for Barack Obama in 2008 to send envoys to Iran to instruct them not to negotiate with George Bush; or to the Syrian dictator who murdered a half million innocent human beings and offer him American F16s with which he can attack Israel? That same Israel that destroyed Assad’s nuclear facilities with which he promised to destroy Israel? This, in the light that George Bush confiscated Ghaddafi’s and Saddam’s nuclear materials? Meanwhile, BO failed to do anything about Iran’s and North Korea’s.
Which part of the Logan Act did Barack Obama and Hillary as his SecState violate and how many years should they spend in prison for it?
Report 2008: Obama Sends Advisor Malley to Cozy Up to Egypt and Syria
President Obama’s Hypocrisy on Syria - The New York Times
Mueller’s Play could not have been more conveniently timed to distract the nation from the GOP’s monumental victory as it had, in spite of all, passed change on the nation that gives it hope for the second time in eight years. November 8th of 2016 was the first. The second is the Tax Reform Bill of 2017 that not just handed the biggest legislative victory to this president in half the time that the prior got his Obamacare passed, but also repealed Obamacare and its mandates, effectively having defunded it. Just in time as the O’Care House of Cards is collapsing around the Hope & Changers - as it also demolished Obama’s Legacy.
Which brings us to the nature of lies, or have I repeated myself?
WHAT HAVE WE HERE? What we have here is a former general who lied to Mike Pence and Donald Trump, admitted his lies and got fired for it within three weeks of his association with the team.
What we have here is a former general who lied to the FBI, admitted the lying, got investigated and then indicted for it. He is the liar who is now concerned with saving his skin if not his reputation, and is being coerced to invent “truthful” testimony against the president - or else!
What we have here is Team Mueller hoping to coerce believable testimony from an admitted chronic liar not even his mother would believe, and make that testimony stick, to become a new lie The People will believe.
Well, Democrats will believe anything. Don’t believe me?
Democrats will believe anything They believed REUTERS and YAHOO and The New York Times that told the nation the days before the election that Hillary had a 95%, 85% and 85% chance, respectively, of becoming president.
Former Dept. State spokeswoman and Hillary aide Mary Harf: The Obama administration thought the incoming Trump Administration was operating inappropriately. She alluded to Russian interference in the American election process being behind the reasons for the inappropriateness that justified the unmasking. What she parroted however was the post facto talking points of the former SecState and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the Obama Administration.
This story asserts, without any evidence, that Russia favored Donald Trump. It asserts that it is specifically because of Russia, Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin that Hillary Clinton is sipping whichever alcoholic beverage is within reach in a Chappaqua kitchen.
It asserts that Donald Trump won the presidency by an almost forty percent margin because of communications of his staff, even himself, having used Cyrillic characters.
In other words, Vlad Putin managed during the era of Hope & Change to convince 63 million Americans to pull the levers for Donald, and also throw 1042 Democrat legislators across the nation out of office.
From another angle, if Trump officials may have met with Russian citizens or officials as a matter of routine or business, or traveling the world, or because they were in a line at a party shaking hands, so have thousands of you readers who will be indicted any day now. Just remember, if the FBI asks you anything, either tell them your mom’s true name or plead the Fifth.
In fact, Russia favored Hillary Clinton, specifically because Hillary and Obama gave the Russians everything they wanted, and the later sanctions and the throwing out of Russian diplomats at the end of the failed Obama presidency was a sham and a sideshow of little consequence.
Harf implied that the unmasking of Flynn along with over 240 other Americans whom Susan Rice ordered unmasked during the presidential campaign (and it does not include other unmasking orders from Samantha Powers, intel chiefs Comey, Brenner and Clapper) was “incidental.”
As language no longer matters in Democrat circles except when it is to their advantage, “incidental” may mean anything, or that the information arrived through illegal means was meant to interfere with the election of the winner and his winning party suddenly becomes legal because it was “unintentional.” And besides, it is not a problem.
What was a problem was that a thought crossed the new president’s mind that former FBI chief James Comey was planning to harass him and interfere with his presidency. They call that thought Obstruction of Justice.
In other words, any thought President Trump or his staff consider is a criminal offense; but any illegal activities the former president and his former Sec State Hillary committed is “no problem.”
What also was not a problem—ever - was the Obama White House’s illegal violating of the constitutional rights of hundreds, possibly thousands of Americans through “incidental” unmasking, the illegal wiretapping of the Trump Campaign, and the evidence garnered incidentally through the wiretapping of General Flynn.
Aka, The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, which should be inadmissible in court.
That wiretapping of the political opposition was incidental just like Obama’s and Hillary’s statements the day after the US Embassy in Benghazi was razed and its staff was mutilated and murdered.
It was incidental and unintentional just like the testimony of the IRS and other Obama administration officials taking the Fifth after they had violated the constitutional rights of conservative organizations raising funds for the 2012 and 2016 election season, after they were targeted and then prevented from raising funds.
It was unintentional and incidental as thousands of Mexicans and some Americans were murdered by Obama’s Justice Department having armed Mexican drug cartels with weapons taken and/or redirected from law-abiding Americans.
Put another way, the losing party of the failed president on a justification of a fabricated narrative and fake Fusion GPS dossiers ordered the wiretapping of the officials of the winning party at their official headquarters.
LYING TO THE FBI
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree:
“A doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained. As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential “tree” is tainted, so is its “fruit.” The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase “fruit of the poisonous tree” was coined by Justice Frankfurter in his 1939 opinion in Nardone v. United States.
Like the exclusionary rule itself, this doctrine is subject to three important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded:
- if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity;
- its discovery was inevitable;
- or if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence.
Further, if the primary evidence was illegally obtained, but admissible under the good faith exception, its derivatives (or “fruit”) may also be admissible.”
Let’s make it clear.
- There was no illegal activity and therefore the discovery or the source of making the discovery—the unmasking and wiretapping orders—were illegal.
- The discovery was made through illegal activity and was not inevitable.
- There is no attenuation because the perpetrators of the non-existing illegal activity, the Witch Hunt, were unmasked on false premises. There was no detrimental collusion and cooperation suggesting politically-motivated activities of Family Trump with the Russians. Collusion or a conspiracy never existed, therefore making the unmasking itself illegal.
- The unmasking was politically-motivated.
- Team Mueller’s activities are politically-motivated.
- The establishment of Team Mueller was politically-motivated.
- All the fruits, as well as the tree, were poisoned.
- And the American People are being poisoned.
It is this poison that the derelicts and anti-American criminals of the Deep State, the anti-American operatives at State, Justice and the intel community who had colluded with the Russians themselves throughout the entire period of the Obama Administration - we know them as THE SWAMP - are feeding the American public right now.
And, just a reminder for the Hope & Changers:
THERE’S STILL NO PATH TO IMPEACHMENT!
Cleaning up at Interior
By Rob Bishop
11-29-2017
Cleaning Up the Department of the Interior Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
In the 1990s, after posting the largest revenue losses at the time of any U.S. company in history, multinational computer giant IBM implemented an epic corporate turnaround. Having posted billions of dollars in annual losses, it was widely considered bloated and antiquated. Business executive Louis Gerstner Jr., largely credited with IBM’s “rebirth,” reflected that “Reorganization to me is shuffling boxes, moving boxes around. Transformation means that you’re really fundamentally changing the way the organization thinks, the way it responds, the way it leads. It’s a lot more than just playing with boxes.” It’s clear that the Interior Department needs such a transformation.
While the Interior Department employs less than one-fifth the number of employees at IBM today, the department is facing an equally crucial juncture and an opportunity to shed its bloated, antiquated and bureaucratic ways. It’s apparent that my former colleague who now leads the department, Ryan Zinke, agrees.
The Interior Department is one of the most vital federal agencies, overseeing more than 400 million acres of federally owned land, 26 percent of which is in 11 western states. In case you’re wondering, 400 million acres is about one-fifth of all the land in the United States or approximately four times the size of California. The department and its agencies have diverse missions and responsibilities that include everything from running our nation’s cherished national parks to managing offshore energy resources on 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf.
Despite the importance of the department’s work, its ever-expanding missions have fueled a decline in its ability to provide efficient, effective and transparent service to the American public. In fact, the Government Accountability Office identified several “mission critical” functions within the department — the management of oil and gas resources and Interior programs that serve tribes — to be high-risk areas for “fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or the need [of] transformation.”
I agree with the Government Accountability Office. The department has fallen behind in carrying out some of its basic statutory responsibilities, including responsible management and development of our nation’s natural resources. Despite this being among the department’s most basic functions, costly and duplicative bureaucratic policies have slowed resources development, leading to an $8 billion decline in royalties during the past four years. This inefficiency ultimately shortchanges the American taxpayer.
We’ve seen federal coordination with states and local land managers deteriorate, often resulting in distrust and poor resource management. For example, resource management plans, created by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are designed to delineate how federal lands will be managed and how those objectives can square with state and local needs. Contrary to their very purpose, these plans have become restrictive and unproductive, and the agency’s mandate for sustained yield and multiple use management has been essentially ignored as a result.
The lack of accountability for serious misconduct by Interior officials further complicates these issues. Several high-profile cases of misconduct have come to light in recent years, ranging from sexual harassment within the ranks of the National Park Service to the brazen abuse of authority by BLM Special Agent Dan Love. A pattern has emerged demonstrating a reluctance by senior department officials to discipline and hold federal employees accountable for their wrongdoing. I’m encouraged to see the department beginning to open its eyes to reports of misconduct and impose real consequences on those found responsible.
As Congress and the department consider reforms to address problems within the agency, the first step should be to bring decision-making and leadership back to the communities where Interior’s policies and work impacts citizens the most — the western United States. The western states include large swaths of federally managed land, such as in my home state of Utah, where about 65 percent of all land is owned by the federal government. There is no doubt that we need increased state and local input and federal management that is responsive to the needs of communities. After years of systemic dysfunction and mismanagement at the department, true change is long overdue.
A shift away from the current Washington-centric management system toward a contemporary decentralized model that prioritizes accountability, transparency and service to the American people must occur. A primary responsibility of Congress is to conduct oversight of the executive branch. The Natural Resources Committee has a critical role overseeing the Interior Department’s reorganization efforts, and I look forward to reviewing the specifics of Mr. Zinke’s plans. Together, we have an opportunity to not just move organizational boxes, but to transform the way the department responds to the American people it serves.
• Rob Bishop, Utah Republican, is chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Link: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/29/interior-department-gets-a-cleanup/
Gentlemen,
Following is a reply I sent to my sister in response to an email (just below my reply) I received this morning.
Before you assume that she is a mind-numbed robot, let me tell you something that will explain why I include her in my messages. In last year's election, she phoned me and, much to my surprise, actually complained about the underhanded way in which Trump was being treated by the press, Democrats, and other liberals. I was shocked!
As you can tell by her writing, she is intelligent, though misinformed. I have known her all her life and she has always been a liberal. But, I sense that she is beginning to question what she has been told and what she has always believed.
Give it time. It's like turning a battleship around on a lake. It can be done, but it's going to take time.
Oren
Sister,
No, I have no animosity towards you, nor do my friends, at least not personally. What all of us are sick and tired of is the outright hatred of conservatism by the Left. What we want -- ALL we want -- is a certain amount of fealty to the Constitution as the cornerstone of our freedom. We feel like we, as conservatives, are under constant assault for our beliefs, be they religious, Constitutional, social, political, etc. We really do not try to attack liberals for being liberal. Our "attacks" are not attacks so much as "counter-attacks".
Everything we believe in is being undermined by the Radical Left who want to transform the country into some sort of Socialist Utopia, a concept that has NEVER worked, EVER, not ONCE, in the history of the planet. Yet, they keep trying. When confronted with the FACT that Socialism has never worked in its quest to establish a "Utopia", their response can best be summed up with, "Yeah, we know, but THIS TIME FOR SURE, WE'RE IN CHARGE NOW!" Insanity has been described as doing the same thing, over and over, expecting a different result each time. By that definition, the Left is clearly insane.
If the Left thinks the Constitution and personal freedom are "obsolete", fine! Write up one or more amendments and get them ratified. We will live with it. But, until then, the Constitution is the Law of the Land. They should live with it! Then, there's the fact that, under Socialism, things slowly just get worse and its stated goal is never achieved. BUT, under the Constitution and Freedom, things have slowly gotten better, MUCH better. Slavery was abolished (at the cost of 500,000 lives White lives BTW), Suffrage was gradually extended to all, the economy has expanded and improved, the environment has gotten better, etc. Socialism could never have done that. It doesn't know how, and that's the point. Under Socialism, ALL that is important is the STATE. Under the Constitution and Freedom, the INDIVIDUAL and FREEDOM are paramount. Plus, FREEDOM is exactly and precisely what the Left abhors and fears and THAT is why they hate the Constitution and conservatism. Modern Liberalism is just another form of Authoritarianism -- FOR OUR OWN GOOD, OF COURSE!
Karl Marx said in Das Kapital, "Socialism is nothing but a way station on the road to full Communism". Yet, the Left either cannot or will not see that simple truth. BTW, contrary to popular Leftist belief, Marx was not some Bohemian living in poverty in some unheated loft. He was actually wealthy, had servants, and lived in a very nice home, thanks to capitalism. Imagine that.
From time to time you may wonder how and why I became a conservative. Let me tell you. I remember our childhood and all the discussions around the table. We were all raised as rock-ribbed liberal Democrats. In school I would vociferously argue the Democrat/liberal Mantra. It's all I knew. There is an old saying, "If you control what a person knows, you control what he thinks". So true. But, over the years, slowly, painfully, I began to realize I had been wrong. As brother Kevan says, "I began to realize I couldn't make the math work. No matter how I parsed it, Liberalism simply doesn't work". I came to the same conclusion, so I began to look for another ideology that actually DOES work. I found it in Constitutional Conservatism.
Before Limbaugh, there was no advocacy for conservatism in the media. In those days, we had only ABC, NBC, and CBS. That's it, and they were all liberal and slowly getting more so. Then came Rush! Suddenly, magically, we had a voice! Stay with me, please.
This is an exact parallel to the American Experiment. Before America (with the notable exceptions of Ancient Greece and Early Rome) there was NO freedom. EVERYONE on the planet lived in some form of slavery to the State -- EVERYONE! They were enslaved to a king, emperor, or some other despot. When we won our freedom, with everyone free to do, think, worship, or act as they pleased according to their conscience, all the authoritarian regimes around the planet immediately began to try and stop this "freedom thing". They accurately saw that America was a direct threat to their power. These assaults on America and the Constitution have been ongoing ever since -- AND THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL AMERICA IS DESTROYED!
That is what we conservatives are scared to death of. Sadly, too many, waaay too many, unwittingly join the effort to undermine the Constitution and destroy the very country that affords them the right to try to destroy it -- AND THEMSELVES.
Back to Rush. The same thing is happening to Rush. The Left accurately sees that Rush represents the voice of the People. In their minds, he must be crushed before they can continue their march toward their dream of a Socialist Utopia. Ergo, the constant attacks on him and conservatives. The same people who relentlessly attack him never listen to him. They edit what he says or take it completely out of context.
I, too, thought Rush was just some blowhard. I believed everything I was told about him and other conservatives. Then, I took the "Limbaugh Challenge". I listened to him for two weeks straight. I found out that everything I thought I knew and everything I was told was a lie. He does not just pontificate mindless tripe. He actually cites FACTS, UNDENIABLE FACTS! He plays BOTH sides of an argument, in the liberals' own words, then counters them with the truth.
Yes, he can be quite abrasive to some, but as he explains, "I demonstrate absurdity with absurdity". Is he always right? Of course not. I have found him to be spot on 95% of the time, but there's always that 5% when I disagree. I like to think I am intelligent enough to discern the difference.
But, as I said above, it isn't that he is right or wrong; to the Left it is that he is THERE AT ALL. The Left just wants all opposition GONE! The Left cannot compete on the battlefield of ideas, so they "compete" with emotion, "Don't you care about the children?" Actually, NO! I care that their parents are nowhere to be found and that I am expected to, well, you know the rest.
This brings us to Judge Moore. Personally, I don't care about Judge Moore. That is Alabama's decision. What I care about is that the Left, in true Leftist fashion, right out of Saul Alinsky's book, are targeting Judge Moore with emotion, They have targeted Judge Moore for the same, EXACT reason they have targeted Rush Limbaugh, all conservatives, religion, and the Constitution. ALL are direct threats to their agenda. It's that simple! The Left is TERRIFIED of conservatism and will do anything to stop it -- EVEN LIE!
As Sherlock Holmes said, "When all other possibilities are eliminated, the only one remaining, however improbable, is the truth".
I believe Rush when he pointed out that the GOP and the Washington Establishment faux "conservatives" have never really fought back against the Democrats and/or the Radical Left. They have always just gone along to get along. Then came Trump, Cruz, and now Moore. THIS is what push-back looks like. IT'S UGLY, BUT EFFECTIVE. And, the Democrats and Radical Left are in full panic mode. America is fighting back!
I believe Judge Moore will be elected, perhaps not by much, but elected. IF that Left-Wing Loony Doug Jones is elected, you can expect this same kind of underhanded attack on all conservatives in the mid-terms next year. Count on it. In fact, win or lose, they may do it, anyway. The Left is fighting for its life and they know it!
Finally, you said that you could not find one nice thing Limbaugh has said about any Democrat or one bad thing he has said about any Republican. Not true. I listen to him every day and often -- OFTEN -- hear him compliment Democrats who do the constitutional thing AND attack Republicans who swear they are conservative but act and vote liberal. it happens all the time.
Sister, I know you are busy and working hard, but, if possible, take the Limbaugh Challenge. Your eyes will be opened.
Love you,
Oren
Following is a reply I sent to my sister in response to an email (just below my reply) I received this morning.
Before you assume that she is a mind-numbed robot, let me tell you something that will explain why I include her in my messages. In last year's election, she phoned me and, much to my surprise, actually complained about the underhanded way in which Trump was being treated by the press, Democrats, and other liberals. I was shocked!
As you can tell by her writing, she is intelligent, though misinformed. I have known her all her life and she has always been a liberal. But, I sense that she is beginning to question what she has been told and what she has always believed.
Give it time. It's like turning a battleship around on a lake. It can be done, but it's going to take time.
Oren
Sister,
No, I have no animosity towards you, nor do my friends, at least not personally. What all of us are sick and tired of is the outright hatred of conservatism by the Left. What we want -- ALL we want -- is a certain amount of fealty to the Constitution as the cornerstone of our freedom. We feel like we, as conservatives, are under constant assault for our beliefs, be they religious, Constitutional, social, political, etc. We really do not try to attack liberals for being liberal. Our "attacks" are not attacks so much as "counter-attacks".
Everything we believe in is being undermined by the Radical Left who want to transform the country into some sort of Socialist Utopia, a concept that has NEVER worked, EVER, not ONCE, in the history of the planet. Yet, they keep trying. When confronted with the FACT that Socialism has never worked in its quest to establish a "Utopia", their response can best be summed up with, "Yeah, we know, but THIS TIME FOR SURE, WE'RE IN CHARGE NOW!" Insanity has been described as doing the same thing, over and over, expecting a different result each time. By that definition, the Left is clearly insane.
If the Left thinks the Constitution and personal freedom are "obsolete", fine! Write up one or more amendments and get them ratified. We will live with it. But, until then, the Constitution is the Law of the Land. They should live with it! Then, there's the fact that, under Socialism, things slowly just get worse and its stated goal is never achieved. BUT, under the Constitution and Freedom, things have slowly gotten better, MUCH better. Slavery was abolished (at the cost of 500,000 lives White lives BTW), Suffrage was gradually extended to all, the economy has expanded and improved, the environment has gotten better, etc. Socialism could never have done that. It doesn't know how, and that's the point. Under Socialism, ALL that is important is the STATE. Under the Constitution and Freedom, the INDIVIDUAL and FREEDOM are paramount. Plus, FREEDOM is exactly and precisely what the Left abhors and fears and THAT is why they hate the Constitution and conservatism. Modern Liberalism is just another form of Authoritarianism -- FOR OUR OWN GOOD, OF COURSE!
Karl Marx said in Das Kapital, "Socialism is nothing but a way station on the road to full Communism". Yet, the Left either cannot or will not see that simple truth. BTW, contrary to popular Leftist belief, Marx was not some Bohemian living in poverty in some unheated loft. He was actually wealthy, had servants, and lived in a very nice home, thanks to capitalism. Imagine that.
From time to time you may wonder how and why I became a conservative. Let me tell you. I remember our childhood and all the discussions around the table. We were all raised as rock-ribbed liberal Democrats. In school I would vociferously argue the Democrat/liberal Mantra. It's all I knew. There is an old saying, "If you control what a person knows, you control what he thinks". So true. But, over the years, slowly, painfully, I began to realize I had been wrong. As brother Kevan says, "I began to realize I couldn't make the math work. No matter how I parsed it, Liberalism simply doesn't work". I came to the same conclusion, so I began to look for another ideology that actually DOES work. I found it in Constitutional Conservatism.
Before Limbaugh, there was no advocacy for conservatism in the media. In those days, we had only ABC, NBC, and CBS. That's it, and they were all liberal and slowly getting more so. Then came Rush! Suddenly, magically, we had a voice! Stay with me, please.
This is an exact parallel to the American Experiment. Before America (with the notable exceptions of Ancient Greece and Early Rome) there was NO freedom. EVERYONE on the planet lived in some form of slavery to the State -- EVERYONE! They were enslaved to a king, emperor, or some other despot. When we won our freedom, with everyone free to do, think, worship, or act as they pleased according to their conscience, all the authoritarian regimes around the planet immediately began to try and stop this "freedom thing". They accurately saw that America was a direct threat to their power. These assaults on America and the Constitution have been ongoing ever since -- AND THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL AMERICA IS DESTROYED!
That is what we conservatives are scared to death of. Sadly, too many, waaay too many, unwittingly join the effort to undermine the Constitution and destroy the very country that affords them the right to try to destroy it -- AND THEMSELVES.
Back to Rush. The same thing is happening to Rush. The Left accurately sees that Rush represents the voice of the People. In their minds, he must be crushed before they can continue their march toward their dream of a Socialist Utopia. Ergo, the constant attacks on him and conservatives. The same people who relentlessly attack him never listen to him. They edit what he says or take it completely out of context.
I, too, thought Rush was just some blowhard. I believed everything I was told about him and other conservatives. Then, I took the "Limbaugh Challenge". I listened to him for two weeks straight. I found out that everything I thought I knew and everything I was told was a lie. He does not just pontificate mindless tripe. He actually cites FACTS, UNDENIABLE FACTS! He plays BOTH sides of an argument, in the liberals' own words, then counters them with the truth.
Yes, he can be quite abrasive to some, but as he explains, "I demonstrate absurdity with absurdity". Is he always right? Of course not. I have found him to be spot on 95% of the time, but there's always that 5% when I disagree. I like to think I am intelligent enough to discern the difference.
But, as I said above, it isn't that he is right or wrong; to the Left it is that he is THERE AT ALL. The Left just wants all opposition GONE! The Left cannot compete on the battlefield of ideas, so they "compete" with emotion, "Don't you care about the children?" Actually, NO! I care that their parents are nowhere to be found and that I am expected to, well, you know the rest.
This brings us to Judge Moore. Personally, I don't care about Judge Moore. That is Alabama's decision. What I care about is that the Left, in true Leftist fashion, right out of Saul Alinsky's book, are targeting Judge Moore with emotion, They have targeted Judge Moore for the same, EXACT reason they have targeted Rush Limbaugh, all conservatives, religion, and the Constitution. ALL are direct threats to their agenda. It's that simple! The Left is TERRIFIED of conservatism and will do anything to stop it -- EVEN LIE!
As Sherlock Holmes said, "When all other possibilities are eliminated, the only one remaining, however improbable, is the truth".
I believe Rush when he pointed out that the GOP and the Washington Establishment faux "conservatives" have never really fought back against the Democrats and/or the Radical Left. They have always just gone along to get along. Then came Trump, Cruz, and now Moore. THIS is what push-back looks like. IT'S UGLY, BUT EFFECTIVE. And, the Democrats and Radical Left are in full panic mode. America is fighting back!
I believe Judge Moore will be elected, perhaps not by much, but elected. IF that Left-Wing Loony Doug Jones is elected, you can expect this same kind of underhanded attack on all conservatives in the mid-terms next year. Count on it. In fact, win or lose, they may do it, anyway. The Left is fighting for its life and they know it!
Finally, you said that you could not find one nice thing Limbaugh has said about any Democrat or one bad thing he has said about any Republican. Not true. I listen to him every day and often -- OFTEN -- hear him compliment Democrats who do the constitutional thing AND attack Republicans who swear they are conservative but act and vote liberal. it happens all the time.
Sister, I know you are busy and working hard, but, if possible, take the Limbaugh Challenge. Your eyes will be opened.
Love you,
Oren
A Primer on due process of law
A Primer on due process of law
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to due process of law: 14th Amendment
Due Process of Law
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.
The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of
government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. The Due Process Clause o the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government. Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.
The concept of due process originated in English Common Law. The rule that individuals shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to defend themselves predates written constitutions and was widely accepted in England. The Magna Charta, an agreement signed in 1215 that defined the rights of English subjects against the king, is a nearly example of a constitutional guarantee of due process. That document includes a clause that declares, "No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned … except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land" (ch. 39). This concept of the law of the land was later transformed into the phrase "due process of law." By the seventeenth century, England's North American colonies were using the phrase "due process of law" in their statutes.
The application of constitutional due process is traditionally divided into the two categories of Substantive Due Process and procedural due process. These categories are derived from a distinction that is made between two types of law. Substantive Law creates, defines, and regulates rights, whereas procedural law enforces those rights or seeks redress for their violation.Thus, in the United States, substantive due process is concerned with such issues as Freedom of Speech and privacy, whereas procedural due process is concerned with provisions such as the right to adequate notice of a lawsuit, the right to be present during testimony, and the right to an attorney.
Substantive Due Process
The modern notion of substantive due process emerged in decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court during the late nineteenth century. In the 1897 case of Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832, the Court for the first time used the substantive due process framework to strike down a state statute. Before that time, the Court generally had used the Commerce Clause or the Contracts Clause of the Constitution to invalidate state legislation. The Allgeyer case concerned a Louisiana law that proscribed the entry into certain contracts with insurance firms in other states. The Court found that the law unfairly abridged the right to enter into lawful contracts, as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The next 40 years after Allgeyer were the heyday of what has been called the freedom-of-contract version of substantive due process. During those years, the Court often used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to void state regulation of private industry, particularly regarding terms of employment such as maximum working hours or minimum wages. In one famous case from that era, lochner v. new york, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937 (1905), the Court struck down a New York law (N.Y. Laws 1897, chap. 415, art. 8, § 110) that prohibited employers from allowing workers in bakeries to be on the job more than ten hours per day and 60 hours per week. The Court found that the law was not a valid exercise of the state's Police Power. It wrote that it could find no connection between the number of hours worked and the quality of the baked goods, thus finding that the law was arbitrary.
In Allgeyer and Lochner and in other cases like them, the Court did not find that state legislatures had failed to enact their laws using the proper procedures—which would present an issue of procedural due process. Instead, it found that the laws themselves violated certain economic freedoms that inhered in the Due Process Clause, specifically its protection of liberty and what the Court described as freedom or liberty of contract. This freedom meant that individuals had the right to purchase
or to sell labor or products without unreasonable interference by the government.
This interpretation of the Due Process Clause put the Court in direct opposition to many of the reforms and regulations passed by state legislatures during the Progressive Era of the early twentieth century. Justices who were opposed to the Courts position in such cases, including oliver wendell holmes jr. and john m. harlan, saw such rulings as unwarranted judicial activism in support of a particular free-market ideology.
During the 1930s, the Court used the doctrine of substantive due process to strike down federal legislation as well, particularly legislation associated with President franklin d. roosevelt's New Deal. In 1937, Roosevelt proposed a court-packing scheme in which Roosevelt would have sought to overcome Court opposition to his programs by appointing additional justices. Although the plan was never adopted, the Court quickly changed its position on substantive due process and other issues and began to uphold New Deal legislation. Now, a majority on the Court, including Chief Justice charlese. hughes and Justice benjamin n. cardozo, abandoned the freedom-of-contract version of substantive due process.
Even before the Court abandoned the freedom-of-contract approach to substantive due process, it began to explore using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to re-evaluate state laws and actions affecting civil freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights. Since the 1833 case of barron v. baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Court had interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying only to the federal government. Beginning in the 1920s, however, it began to apply the Bill ofRights to the states through the incorporation of those rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ingitlow v. new york, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), the Court ruled that the liberty guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects First Amendment free speech from State Action. In near v. minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), the Court found that Freedom of the Press was also protected from state action by the Due Process Clause, and it ruled the same with regard to freedom of religion in Cantwell v.Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940).
Because incorporation has proceeded gradually, with some elements of the Bill of Rights still unincorporated, it has also been called selective incorporation. Nevertheless, during the twentieth century, most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby protecting individuals from arbitrary actions by state as well as federal governments.
By the 1960s, the Court had extended its interpretation of substantive due process to include rights and freedoms that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but that, according to the Court, extend or derive from existing rights. These rights and freedoms include the freedoms of association and non-association, which have been inferred from the First Amendment's freedom-of-speech provision, and the right to privacy. The right to privacy, which has been derived from the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, has been an especially controversial aspect of substantive due process. First established in griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), the Court later used it to protect a woman's decision to have an Abortion free from state interference, in the first trimester of pregnancy (roe v. wade,410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]).
In several recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the application of substantive due process in light of actions taken by law enforcement officers. It often has determined that police actions have not violated a defendant's due process rights. In County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1998), for example,the Court determined that high-speed chases by police officers did not violate the due process rights of the suspects whom the officers were chasing. In that case, two police officers had engaged in a pursuit of two young suspects at speeds of more than 100 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood. One of the young men died, while the other suffered serious injuries. A unanimous Court held that the officers' decision to engage in the pursuit had not amounted to "governmental arbitrariness" that the Due Process Clause protects due to the nature of the judgment used by the officers in such a circumstance.
The Court in City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234, 119 S. Ct. 678, 142 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1999) again held in favor of law enforcement officers in a claim that police had violated the plaintiff's due process rights. After seizing Personal Property, including cash savings, of two owners of a home they had searched during a murder investigation, the police retained the property at the police station. When the homeowners sought to have the property returned, the police failed toprovide the homeowners with detailed information about how the owners could have their property returned. The homeowners then filed a 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 action against the police, claiming deprivation of Civil Rights under the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court held that because information about the proper procedures to retrieve this property under state law was readily available to the plaintiffs, the police had not deprived the homeowners of their due process rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to find due process violations where the actions of a government official are clearly arbitrary. In City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 144 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1999), for example, it struck down a Chicago anti-gang ordinance as unconstitutional on due process grounds. The ordinance allowed police officers to break up any group of two or more persons whom they believed to be loitering in a public place, provided that the officer also believed that at least one member of the group was a gang member. The ordinance had led to more than 43,000 arrests. Because the ordinance did not draw the line between innocent and guilty behavior and failed to give guidance to police on the matter, the ordinance violated the due process rights of the subjects of these break-ups. The Court held that since the ordinance gave absolute discretion to the police officers to determine what actions violated the ordinance, it was an arbitrary restriction on personal liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.
In 2002, the Court found that arbitrary actions by a trial judge in a murder case violated the due process rights of the defendant (Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 122 S. Ct. 877, 151 L. Ed. 820 [2002]). In that case, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder for driving the getaway car for a man who had pled guilty to a murder charge in Kansas City, Missouri. The defendant claimed that he had been in California at the time of the murder, and four family members were to testify at trial that the defendant was not in Kansas City at the time of the murder. However, the family members left beforethey were expected to testify, and the defense could not locate them. The defense asked the court for a short Continuanceof one or two days, but the judge refused due to personal conflicts and a conflict with another trial. Without the testimony ofthe family members, the defendant was convicted of murder. The high court held that the judge's arbitrary actions violated thedefendant's due process rights, and it vacated the defendant's conviction.
Procedural Due Process
The phrase "procedural due process" refers to the aspects of the Due Process Clause that apply to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have been accused of crimes and to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process limits the exercise of power by the state and federal governments by requiring that they follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. In cases where an individual has claimed a violation of due process rights, courts must determine whether a citizen is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property," and what procedural protections are "due" to that individual.
The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process. These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings, including freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; freedom from Double Jeopardy, or being tried more than once for the same crime; freedom from Self-Incrimination, or testifying against oneself; the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. In a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases during the twentieth century, all of these rights were applied to state proceedings. In one such case, gideon v.wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963), the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney in "all criminal prosecutions,"including prosecutions by a state. The case proved to be a watershed in establishing indigents' rights to legal counsel.
Procedural due process also protects individuals from government actions in the civil, as opposed to criminal, sphere. These protections have been extended to include not only land and personal property, but also entitlements, including government-provided benefits, licenses, and positions. Thus, for example, the Court has ruled that the federal government must hold hearings before terminating Welfare benefits (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 [1970]).Court decisions regarding procedural due process have exerted a great deal of influence over government procedures in prisons, schools, Social Security, civil suits, and public employment.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Lujan v. G&G Firesprinklers, Inc., 532 U.S. 189, 121 S. Ct. 1446, 149 L. Ed. 2d 391 (2000) heldthat a state is not required to hold a hearing before withholding money and imposing penalties on a building contractor. TheCalifornia Division of Labor & Standards Enforcement determined that a building subcontractor had failed to pay the prevailingwage to workers who installed fire sprinklers in state buildings. The California agency, without providing notice or a hearing,fined the general contractor, which in turn withheld money from the subcontractor. The sub-contractor, G&G Firesprinklers,Inc., sued the California agency, claiming that the agency had violated the company's procedural due process rights. TheCourt disagreed, holding that because the company could sue the agency for breach of contract, the fine did not constitute adue process violation.
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to due process of law: 14th Amendment
Due Process of Law
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.
The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of
government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. The Due Process Clause o the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government. Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.
The concept of due process originated in English Common Law. The rule that individuals shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to defend themselves predates written constitutions and was widely accepted in England. The Magna Charta, an agreement signed in 1215 that defined the rights of English subjects against the king, is a nearly example of a constitutional guarantee of due process. That document includes a clause that declares, "No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned … except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land" (ch. 39). This concept of the law of the land was later transformed into the phrase "due process of law." By the seventeenth century, England's North American colonies were using the phrase "due process of law" in their statutes.
The application of constitutional due process is traditionally divided into the two categories of Substantive Due Process and procedural due process. These categories are derived from a distinction that is made between two types of law. Substantive Law creates, defines, and regulates rights, whereas procedural law enforces those rights or seeks redress for their violation.Thus, in the United States, substantive due process is concerned with such issues as Freedom of Speech and privacy, whereas procedural due process is concerned with provisions such as the right to adequate notice of a lawsuit, the right to be present during testimony, and the right to an attorney.
Substantive Due Process
The modern notion of substantive due process emerged in decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court during the late nineteenth century. In the 1897 case of Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832, the Court for the first time used the substantive due process framework to strike down a state statute. Before that time, the Court generally had used the Commerce Clause or the Contracts Clause of the Constitution to invalidate state legislation. The Allgeyer case concerned a Louisiana law that proscribed the entry into certain contracts with insurance firms in other states. The Court found that the law unfairly abridged the right to enter into lawful contracts, as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The next 40 years after Allgeyer were the heyday of what has been called the freedom-of-contract version of substantive due process. During those years, the Court often used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to void state regulation of private industry, particularly regarding terms of employment such as maximum working hours or minimum wages. In one famous case from that era, lochner v. new york, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937 (1905), the Court struck down a New York law (N.Y. Laws 1897, chap. 415, art. 8, § 110) that prohibited employers from allowing workers in bakeries to be on the job more than ten hours per day and 60 hours per week. The Court found that the law was not a valid exercise of the state's Police Power. It wrote that it could find no connection between the number of hours worked and the quality of the baked goods, thus finding that the law was arbitrary.
In Allgeyer and Lochner and in other cases like them, the Court did not find that state legislatures had failed to enact their laws using the proper procedures—which would present an issue of procedural due process. Instead, it found that the laws themselves violated certain economic freedoms that inhered in the Due Process Clause, specifically its protection of liberty and what the Court described as freedom or liberty of contract. This freedom meant that individuals had the right to purchase
or to sell labor or products without unreasonable interference by the government.
This interpretation of the Due Process Clause put the Court in direct opposition to many of the reforms and regulations passed by state legislatures during the Progressive Era of the early twentieth century. Justices who were opposed to the Courts position in such cases, including oliver wendell holmes jr. and john m. harlan, saw such rulings as unwarranted judicial activism in support of a particular free-market ideology.
During the 1930s, the Court used the doctrine of substantive due process to strike down federal legislation as well, particularly legislation associated with President franklin d. roosevelt's New Deal. In 1937, Roosevelt proposed a court-packing scheme in which Roosevelt would have sought to overcome Court opposition to his programs by appointing additional justices. Although the plan was never adopted, the Court quickly changed its position on substantive due process and other issues and began to uphold New Deal legislation. Now, a majority on the Court, including Chief Justice charlese. hughes and Justice benjamin n. cardozo, abandoned the freedom-of-contract version of substantive due process.
Even before the Court abandoned the freedom-of-contract approach to substantive due process, it began to explore using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to re-evaluate state laws and actions affecting civil freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights. Since the 1833 case of barron v. baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Court had interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying only to the federal government. Beginning in the 1920s, however, it began to apply the Bill ofRights to the states through the incorporation of those rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ingitlow v. new york, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), the Court ruled that the liberty guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects First Amendment free speech from State Action. In near v. minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), the Court found that Freedom of the Press was also protected from state action by the Due Process Clause, and it ruled the same with regard to freedom of religion in Cantwell v.Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940).
Because incorporation has proceeded gradually, with some elements of the Bill of Rights still unincorporated, it has also been called selective incorporation. Nevertheless, during the twentieth century, most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby protecting individuals from arbitrary actions by state as well as federal governments.
By the 1960s, the Court had extended its interpretation of substantive due process to include rights and freedoms that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but that, according to the Court, extend or derive from existing rights. These rights and freedoms include the freedoms of association and non-association, which have been inferred from the First Amendment's freedom-of-speech provision, and the right to privacy. The right to privacy, which has been derived from the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, has been an especially controversial aspect of substantive due process. First established in griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), the Court later used it to protect a woman's decision to have an Abortion free from state interference, in the first trimester of pregnancy (roe v. wade,410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]).
In several recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the application of substantive due process in light of actions taken by law enforcement officers. It often has determined that police actions have not violated a defendant's due process rights. In County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1998), for example,the Court determined that high-speed chases by police officers did not violate the due process rights of the suspects whom the officers were chasing. In that case, two police officers had engaged in a pursuit of two young suspects at speeds of more than 100 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood. One of the young men died, while the other suffered serious injuries. A unanimous Court held that the officers' decision to engage in the pursuit had not amounted to "governmental arbitrariness" that the Due Process Clause protects due to the nature of the judgment used by the officers in such a circumstance.
The Court in City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234, 119 S. Ct. 678, 142 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1999) again held in favor of law enforcement officers in a claim that police had violated the plaintiff's due process rights. After seizing Personal Property, including cash savings, of two owners of a home they had searched during a murder investigation, the police retained the property at the police station. When the homeowners sought to have the property returned, the police failed toprovide the homeowners with detailed information about how the owners could have their property returned. The homeowners then filed a 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 action against the police, claiming deprivation of Civil Rights under the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court held that because information about the proper procedures to retrieve this property under state law was readily available to the plaintiffs, the police had not deprived the homeowners of their due process rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to find due process violations where the actions of a government official are clearly arbitrary. In City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 144 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1999), for example, it struck down a Chicago anti-gang ordinance as unconstitutional on due process grounds. The ordinance allowed police officers to break up any group of two or more persons whom they believed to be loitering in a public place, provided that the officer also believed that at least one member of the group was a gang member. The ordinance had led to more than 43,000 arrests. Because the ordinance did not draw the line between innocent and guilty behavior and failed to give guidance to police on the matter, the ordinance violated the due process rights of the subjects of these break-ups. The Court held that since the ordinance gave absolute discretion to the police officers to determine what actions violated the ordinance, it was an arbitrary restriction on personal liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.
In 2002, the Court found that arbitrary actions by a trial judge in a murder case violated the due process rights of the defendant (Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 122 S. Ct. 877, 151 L. Ed. 820 [2002]). In that case, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder for driving the getaway car for a man who had pled guilty to a murder charge in Kansas City, Missouri. The defendant claimed that he had been in California at the time of the murder, and four family members were to testify at trial that the defendant was not in Kansas City at the time of the murder. However, the family members left beforethey were expected to testify, and the defense could not locate them. The defense asked the court for a short Continuanceof one or two days, but the judge refused due to personal conflicts and a conflict with another trial. Without the testimony ofthe family members, the defendant was convicted of murder. The high court held that the judge's arbitrary actions violated thedefendant's due process rights, and it vacated the defendant's conviction.
Procedural Due Process
The phrase "procedural due process" refers to the aspects of the Due Process Clause that apply to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have been accused of crimes and to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process limits the exercise of power by the state and federal governments by requiring that they follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. In cases where an individual has claimed a violation of due process rights, courts must determine whether a citizen is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property," and what procedural protections are "due" to that individual.
The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process. These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings, including freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; freedom from Double Jeopardy, or being tried more than once for the same crime; freedom from Self-Incrimination, or testifying against oneself; the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. In a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases during the twentieth century, all of these rights were applied to state proceedings. In one such case, gideon v.wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963), the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney in "all criminal prosecutions,"including prosecutions by a state. The case proved to be a watershed in establishing indigents' rights to legal counsel.
Procedural due process also protects individuals from government actions in the civil, as opposed to criminal, sphere. These protections have been extended to include not only land and personal property, but also entitlements, including government-provided benefits, licenses, and positions. Thus, for example, the Court has ruled that the federal government must hold hearings before terminating Welfare benefits (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 [1970]).Court decisions regarding procedural due process have exerted a great deal of influence over government procedures in prisons, schools, Social Security, civil suits, and public employment.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Lujan v. G&G Firesprinklers, Inc., 532 U.S. 189, 121 S. Ct. 1446, 149 L. Ed. 2d 391 (2000) heldthat a state is not required to hold a hearing before withholding money and imposing penalties on a building contractor. TheCalifornia Division of Labor & Standards Enforcement determined that a building subcontractor had failed to pay the prevailingwage to workers who installed fire sprinklers in state buildings. The California agency, without providing notice or a hearing,fined the general contractor, which in turn withheld money from the subcontractor. The sub-contractor, G&G Firesprinklers,Inc., sued the California agency, claiming that the agency had violated the company's procedural due process rights. TheCourt disagreed, holding that because the company could sue the agency for breach of contract, the fine did not constitute adue process violation.
Trump, China and Childlikeness
Donald Trump has one trait that perhaps all the Chinese analysts may have difficulty discerning. Certainly the US political elite and MSM don’t get it. The man is childlike - meaning he has equal access to his left and right brain hemispheres. According to psychologist Robert Ornstein ( http://www.robertornstein. com ), this trait is common among children but is driven out of most of us by our education system.
Jewish Psychologist Ornstein once ended a talk on the subject, quoting Jesus; “Unless you become as a little child, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” Sadly, too many of us prefer that wonderful combination of ignorance and arrogance and get downright nasty about it when challenged.
It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Surely the corpus callosum challenged among us hate him because they lack vision and intuitiveness, real strengths of the childlike. (I see much childlikeness in the groups I correspond in - judging on the humor and the extraordinary musical, mathematical, business and literary talents among us. I can only play a kazoo and feel humbled.)
You’d think the masses would be crying out - “Show us how you created, built and operated all those projects so we can rebuild our cities and infrastructure” -under budget, ahead of schedule.
After he was elected, he strived to make peace with his opponents and set out to do what he promised. Welcome to the real world of the corrupt and self-worshiping.
Gerald V. Todd
Jewish Psychologist Ornstein once ended a talk on the subject, quoting Jesus; “Unless you become as a little child, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” Sadly, too many of us prefer that wonderful combination of ignorance and arrogance and get downright nasty about it when challenged.
It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Surely the corpus callosum challenged among us hate him because they lack vision and intuitiveness, real strengths of the childlike. (I see much childlikeness in the groups I correspond in - judging on the humor and the extraordinary musical, mathematical, business and literary talents among us. I can only play a kazoo and feel humbled.)
You’d think the masses would be crying out - “Show us how you created, built and operated all those projects so we can rebuild our cities and infrastructure” -under budget, ahead of schedule.
After he was elected, he strived to make peace with his opponents and set out to do what he promised. Welcome to the real world of the corrupt and self-worshiping.
Gerald V. Todd
To: Larry P. Arnn President of Hillsdale College
By Oren Long
Why States cannot sue Trump in Federal District Court
Dr. Arnn,
I want to bring to your attention a little known part of the Constitution that no one pays any attention to, yet holds great power for the President in his ongoing fight over immigration from Muslim countries (especially in light of recent terrorist attacks inside America), and also in other areas where he finds himself under constant attack from certain States.
Under the Constitution, States CANNOT sue Trump in Federal District Court. The Founders believed that when a State sues the Federal Government, ONLY the Supreme Court should hear the case -- AND THEY SAID SO IN THE CONSTITUTION!
Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentences One and Two state, "In ALL (emphasis added) cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction. In all the other cases . . . the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact . . .".
This CLEARLY means that NO Federal District or Appellate Court can hear a case where a State sues the Federal Government, PERIOD! In legal parlance, it's called "Improper Venue", meaning that Federal District Courts have no "Standing" to hear the case. Given that Trump is the 'head' of the Federal Government, any State suing Trump is, in fact, suing the Federal Government. Ergo, said State MUST file directly with the Supreme Court and NOT in District Court.
In turn, this means that President Trump can legally and Constitutionally IGNORE any "Inferior" Court ruling, unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against him. IF the Supreme Court refuses the case, the President's Executive Order stands.
Further, IF this Clause of the Constitution was enforced, the Supreme Court would quickly tire of these mindless, endless 'State vs. Trump' cases and refuse to hear them, meaning that Trump's Executive Orders would stand. And the States, realizing this, would stop filing these frivolous lawsuits. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
So, why does the President not know this? He's getting bad advice from the "Office of Presidential Legal Counsel", an office comprised of largely Democrat lawyers, including Obama holdovers. THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO KNOW AND WILL NEVER TELL HIM! This brings to mind the Latin, "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodet" (Who guards the guards?)
Sir, I write to you because I cannot get through with this very salient thought. I am a "nobody" and cannot get anyone's attention (No, I'm not whining; just trying to pass on my message). BUT, you advertise with Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh. You can get their attention. They will listen to you. In turn, they could get through to the President, personally (not some underling who promises to "pass it on"), and tell him my message.
If I am wrong, please tell me how and why.
Thank you,
Oren Long
Please get this to President Trump's desk if possible
By Oren Long
Why States cannot sue Trump in Federal District Court
Dr. Arnn,
I want to bring to your attention a little known part of the Constitution that no one pays any attention to, yet holds great power for the President in his ongoing fight over immigration from Muslim countries (especially in light of recent terrorist attacks inside America), and also in other areas where he finds himself under constant attack from certain States.
Under the Constitution, States CANNOT sue Trump in Federal District Court. The Founders believed that when a State sues the Federal Government, ONLY the Supreme Court should hear the case -- AND THEY SAID SO IN THE CONSTITUTION!
Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentences One and Two state, "In ALL (emphasis added) cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction. In all the other cases . . . the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact . . .".
This CLEARLY means that NO Federal District or Appellate Court can hear a case where a State sues the Federal Government, PERIOD! In legal parlance, it's called "Improper Venue", meaning that Federal District Courts have no "Standing" to hear the case. Given that Trump is the 'head' of the Federal Government, any State suing Trump is, in fact, suing the Federal Government. Ergo, said State MUST file directly with the Supreme Court and NOT in District Court.
In turn, this means that President Trump can legally and Constitutionally IGNORE any "Inferior" Court ruling, unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against him. IF the Supreme Court refuses the case, the President's Executive Order stands.
Further, IF this Clause of the Constitution was enforced, the Supreme Court would quickly tire of these mindless, endless 'State vs. Trump' cases and refuse to hear them, meaning that Trump's Executive Orders would stand. And the States, realizing this, would stop filing these frivolous lawsuits. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
So, why does the President not know this? He's getting bad advice from the "Office of Presidential Legal Counsel", an office comprised of largely Democrat lawyers, including Obama holdovers. THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO KNOW AND WILL NEVER TELL HIM! This brings to mind the Latin, "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodet" (Who guards the guards?)
Sir, I write to you because I cannot get through with this very salient thought. I am a "nobody" and cannot get anyone's attention (No, I'm not whining; just trying to pass on my message). BUT, you advertise with Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh. You can get their attention. They will listen to you. In turn, they could get through to the President, personally (not some underling who promises to "pass it on"), and tell him my message.
If I am wrong, please tell me how and why.
Thank you,
Oren Long
Please get this to President Trump's desk if possible
'Editorial Note:
Check Out More Information On The Governments Western Land Grab On Karen Schumacher's Contributor's Page.
The Coup d'état Over Idaho Land
There has been, and what is now a very aggressive agenda, to take and control Idaho land. Idahoans may not realize the magnitude of individuals and organizations involved so this is an overview of some, but not all, to provide an understanding of the problem, and its depth. These organizations and individuals work in harmony with each other and some individuals traverse between groups providing direction on conservation issues. Currently, land in between protected areas is highly targeted for conservation. This can only be described as a coup d'état.
Western Governor's Association (WGA)
The WGA created Resolution 07-01 in 2007, Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West, "to strengthen the protection of wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in the west.". The Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) was created using GIS tools, then transferred to the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). Here is the result of their work, the Chat map.
Goal: Data Collection, creation of corridors, and conservation.
Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA)
WAFWA represents "Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies", including Canada. WAFWA is an "affiliate" of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), however, IDFG is listed as a AFWA member with 13 employees on various committees. IDFG Director, Virgil Moore, was named AFWA President this year. AFWA, based in Washington D.C., "represents state agencies" on capital hill while its members include other countries, federal agencies, and UN NGOs (NAS, TNC, SCI).
Goal: Conservation of species, enacting federal legislation to enforce conservation.
Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP)
The BRP, created in 2014 by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal, "represents the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen's groups, and state fish and wildlife agencies." The BRP includes 26 business and conservation leaders, and is a conglomerate of lobbyists succeeding in in introducing legislation, H.R. 5650, Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2016 which requests 1.3 billion dollars for conservation. One goal is creating policy options to fund "conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species" via state SWAP plans and restructuring state fish and wildlife agencies. (BRP was renamed "Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife"-AAFW).
Goal: Raise funds through corporations to support conservation efforts in states and through federal legislation, possibly influence how fish & wildlife agencies are structured, rather than keeping it as a state decision.
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC)
Created by the Department of Interior and administered by USFWS, these are partnerships between NGOs, federal and state government agencies, universities, and conservation initiatives to collect data on species, habitat, and land which will then be evaluated for conservationthrough creation of corridors for connectivity, and other measures.
Goal: Identifying species and habitat for corridors which can be used to place large tracts of land into conservation for connectivity to other protected areas, convincing private land owners to place their land into conservation easements, buying land through NGOs and the federal government, erasing jurisdictional boundaries between counties, states, and countries, and creating a regional environmental governance.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (LILP)
The LILP, UN NGO, integrates theory and practice for public policy decisions on land use. They were responsible for the idea to bring all conservationists together in one group, "a collective voice for advancing the theory and practice of large landscape conservation", called the Network for Large Landscape Conservation, then rebranded as the Network for Landscape Conservation. They also brought in LCCs, USFS, USGS, BLM and other federal agencies to enhance funding through grants. The LILP believes in regionalism, that jurisdictional boundaries, and your representation through elected officials, are irrelevant. LILP focuses on building a large landscape community of conservation practice. Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is another organization that tries to influence the use of private property and whom "policy makers" listen to, rather than you.
Goal: Increase efforts to put all land into conservation for protection and connectivity, research land policy programs for public officials and others about the use of land, land regulation, and property rights, having a "more active role in the conversations that shape public policy decisions.", which also involves land trusts.
Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC)
The NLC includes individuals working across geographies, regardless of political boundaries, to conserve connected, ecological systems by partnering with multiple organizations and the federal government.
Goal: Conserving land for connectivity.
Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy (CNREP)
CNREP is "known for their work in public lands policy, water law and policy, land-use planning, and cross-boundary resource management.", including large landscape conservation strategic frameworks for policy and action.
Goal: Influence public policy on land issues.
Conservation Science Partners (CSP)
Research scientists in applied conservation science, collecting and developing new data for conservation practitioners, all to support conservationgoals. Their partners include the federal government and several other sources cited in this article.
Goal: Producing science that supports all forms of conservation and organization objectives.
Conservation Biology Institute (CBI)
CBI conducts conservation research and develops conservation tools, such as Data Basin, for collecting data that assists conservation agendas, and regional planning assessments to support conservation projects globally. Data collection includes protected areas, conservation easements, and high conservation value areas. Partners include foundations, the federal government, corporations, and universities. The DOI funded CBI to "assist in the strategic development and expansion of scientific information, analysis and support tools to benefit the LCC network and facilitate landscape conservation design." This tool is interoperable between LCCs. Core Data Basin information is free and also serves the HORI which is a land trust partnership for placement of private land into conservation.
Goal: Create tools for conservation, provide a data center where all conservation data can be stored and accessible to conservation groups and individuals for promotion of conservation.
HD, HOR, Y2Y, GYC, COC, FW, TNC, WS, HFLP, WCS, DOW, NWF
All of these "initiatives" and NGOs, many being UN NGOs, have common goals, putting as much private land as possible into conservation easements, buying private land to retain or sell to the government as a conservation easement, declaring areas needing protection for species or habitats, identifying corridors between protected land for eventual linkage and connectivity, engaging as many private land owners as possible to use conservation practices on their land, indoctrinating the young on believing their conservation is the only answer, creating conservation by design on land, expanding boundaries of already existing protected land such as national parks, and engaging county commissioners to integrate restrictive land use regulations into comprehensive plans. TNC is even bringing in corporations to fund their goals, starting with UN business partner J.P. Morgan. There are multiple overlaps of individuals between these groups with some players being prominent leaders such as Gary Tabor, Rob Ament, Michael Whitfield, Joel Berger, and Matthew McKinney.
Goal: Put all land into some form of conservation status with restrictive regulations on how land is used, expand protected land boundaries so wildlife has room to roam, procure as much land as possible.
USFWS, USFS, BLM, NPS, NRCS, USDA
The federal government partners with initiatives, organizations, and NGOs to accomplish conservation goals and regionalism. Each agency has a variety of programs for conservation. It is your tax dollar being used to fund these conservation groups. Eventually, all recreation and how you recreate will be "managed" for conservation and protection, as H.R. 3400, Sec. 305 describes.
Goal: Use taxpayer dollars to assist groups to achieve their goals of conservation across county, state, and country jurisdictional boundaries while failing to represent Americans as public servants through elected officials, or engage them with transparency.
Western Transportation Institute (WTI)
WTI conducts research on roads to assist with identifying core habitats, dispersal corridors, restoring connectivity, and highway mitigation methods, under the guise of road ecology.
Goal: Determine how your roads should be built and managed simultaneously with conservation groups.
Foundations
Aside from these groups taking your tax dollar to support their objectives, there are also wealthy foundations that contribute to the effort. Wilburforce, Brainerd, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Turner (UN partner) are just a few foundations that fork over money for conservation groups.
Goal: Financially assist NGOs and initiatives in conservation objectives.
What is interesting about these groups is there are legal requirements not being followed. This Legal Framework For Cooperative Conservation document outlines some legal requirements. There are specific requirements for public involvement but these groups create their own support groups with the same ideology, then proclaim them as public involvement. Public engagement, those individuals who live in a particular area, are never involved while engagement with state and federal agencies are hidden as well. Specific requirements for open and transparent disclosure are also required, but this rarely happens. As stated in the document, "These resources belong to the public", not the conservation groups. But that is what they believe, they own the land, it is theirs to manipulate, and hide what they are doing.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is intended "to ensure that agency officials make policy decisions in open, deliberative processes rather than behind closed doors with undue influence by select stakeholders". However, this is exactly what has been happening, activity and decisions are being made with select groups and hidden from the public. In order to delegate authority to new entities, "Congress must specify the general policies under which the group operates and the restrictions limiting the group’s authority." LCCs, initiatives, and NGOs operate without any congressional policy, create their own policies while projecting an image of authority, are self directed with no oversight, while the public is not informed about the depth of involvement by so many groups, their intention to collect and share data for decisions on how we will live or use our land, or that the federal government is funding it with our tax dollar. Had we been informed would we agree to this egregious agenda? Would there be agreement to the end goal of placing the majority of Idaho into conservation with restricted use?
Our Constitution is based on separation of powers. Therefore, federal "agencies may not “subdelegate” this authority to outside parties." But the federal and state agencies are subdelegating decisions to these conservation groups, allowing them to integrate their objectives into governmental decisions, and influencing our elected officials. Even worse, now there is a growing movement towards private sector management of our public land, which Secretary Zinke supports and is implementing with a recreation advisory committee. Is this a sub-delegation of our public land to outside interests? Will there be corporate influence over how the land is used which overrides the public whose tax dollars pay for public land use?
There is also the audacity of the USFS being allowed to subjugate private land to public use for access to public land. The Fifth amendment clearly states, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Matthew McKinney (CNREP), believes in regionalism, and has his own ideas about land, co-authoring an article, "The Emerging Role of Network Governance in Large Landscape Conservation". He and his coauthor claim, "No single entity has the authority to address these types of cross-boundary issues, resulting in gaps in governance and a corresponding need to create formal and informal ways work more effectively across administrative boundaries, land ownerships, and political jurisdictions." Network governance is intended to "supplement", not replace other forms of governance. Supplement is a broad term but most likely it is meant to be an insertion of his and other groups ideology for conservation and regionalism. By his own admission, "civic entrepreneurs from the public and private sectors, NGOs, and universities have catalyzed a variety of innovative governance arrangements". Has he ever heard of the Constitution, the foundation of which cannot be exchanged for other "governance arrangements? Mr. McKinney has written about "Global Guidance on Transboundary Conservation" for the IUCN and how to initiate it.
As a Global Transboundary Conservation Network member, and World Commission on Protected Areas ( WCPA) member, Mr. McKinney has deep ties with the UN, especially regarding protected areas, bringing UN ideology into decisions regarding Idaho through his many connections. All of his activities are moving towards the UN Environmental Governance strategy, which the University of Montana might teach in their model UN program where Mr. McKinney works.
This CSP graphic gives a visual picture of just a few who are involved in controlling our land use.
Western Governor's Association (WGA)
The WGA created Resolution 07-01 in 2007, Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West, "to strengthen the protection of wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in the west.". The Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) was created using GIS tools, then transferred to the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). Here is the result of their work, the Chat map.
Goal: Data Collection, creation of corridors, and conservation.
Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA)
WAFWA represents "Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies", including Canada. WAFWA is an "affiliate" of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), however, IDFG is listed as a AFWA member with 13 employees on various committees. IDFG Director, Virgil Moore, was named AFWA President this year. AFWA, based in Washington D.C., "represents state agencies" on capital hill while its members include other countries, federal agencies, and UN NGOs (NAS, TNC, SCI).
Goal: Conservation of species, enacting federal legislation to enforce conservation.
Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP)
The BRP, created in 2014 by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal, "represents the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen's groups, and state fish and wildlife agencies." The BRP includes 26 business and conservation leaders, and is a conglomerate of lobbyists succeeding in in introducing legislation, H.R. 5650, Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2016 which requests 1.3 billion dollars for conservation. One goal is creating policy options to fund "conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species" via state SWAP plans and restructuring state fish and wildlife agencies. (BRP was renamed "Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife"-AAFW).
Goal: Raise funds through corporations to support conservation efforts in states and through federal legislation, possibly influence how fish & wildlife agencies are structured, rather than keeping it as a state decision.
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC)
Created by the Department of Interior and administered by USFWS, these are partnerships between NGOs, federal and state government agencies, universities, and conservation initiatives to collect data on species, habitat, and land which will then be evaluated for conservationthrough creation of corridors for connectivity, and other measures.
Goal: Identifying species and habitat for corridors which can be used to place large tracts of land into conservation for connectivity to other protected areas, convincing private land owners to place their land into conservation easements, buying land through NGOs and the federal government, erasing jurisdictional boundaries between counties, states, and countries, and creating a regional environmental governance.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (LILP)
The LILP, UN NGO, integrates theory and practice for public policy decisions on land use. They were responsible for the idea to bring all conservationists together in one group, "a collective voice for advancing the theory and practice of large landscape conservation", called the Network for Large Landscape Conservation, then rebranded as the Network for Landscape Conservation. They also brought in LCCs, USFS, USGS, BLM and other federal agencies to enhance funding through grants. The LILP believes in regionalism, that jurisdictional boundaries, and your representation through elected officials, are irrelevant. LILP focuses on building a large landscape community of conservation practice. Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is another organization that tries to influence the use of private property and whom "policy makers" listen to, rather than you.
Goal: Increase efforts to put all land into conservation for protection and connectivity, research land policy programs for public officials and others about the use of land, land regulation, and property rights, having a "more active role in the conversations that shape public policy decisions.", which also involves land trusts.
Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC)
The NLC includes individuals working across geographies, regardless of political boundaries, to conserve connected, ecological systems by partnering with multiple organizations and the federal government.
Goal: Conserving land for connectivity.
Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy (CNREP)
CNREP is "known for their work in public lands policy, water law and policy, land-use planning, and cross-boundary resource management.", including large landscape conservation strategic frameworks for policy and action.
Goal: Influence public policy on land issues.
Conservation Science Partners (CSP)
Research scientists in applied conservation science, collecting and developing new data for conservation practitioners, all to support conservationgoals. Their partners include the federal government and several other sources cited in this article.
Goal: Producing science that supports all forms of conservation and organization objectives.
Conservation Biology Institute (CBI)
CBI conducts conservation research and develops conservation tools, such as Data Basin, for collecting data that assists conservation agendas, and regional planning assessments to support conservation projects globally. Data collection includes protected areas, conservation easements, and high conservation value areas. Partners include foundations, the federal government, corporations, and universities. The DOI funded CBI to "assist in the strategic development and expansion of scientific information, analysis and support tools to benefit the LCC network and facilitate landscape conservation design." This tool is interoperable between LCCs. Core Data Basin information is free and also serves the HORI which is a land trust partnership for placement of private land into conservation.
Goal: Create tools for conservation, provide a data center where all conservation data can be stored and accessible to conservation groups and individuals for promotion of conservation.
HD, HOR, Y2Y, GYC, COC, FW, TNC, WS, HFLP, WCS, DOW, NWF
All of these "initiatives" and NGOs, many being UN NGOs, have common goals, putting as much private land as possible into conservation easements, buying private land to retain or sell to the government as a conservation easement, declaring areas needing protection for species or habitats, identifying corridors between protected land for eventual linkage and connectivity, engaging as many private land owners as possible to use conservation practices on their land, indoctrinating the young on believing their conservation is the only answer, creating conservation by design on land, expanding boundaries of already existing protected land such as national parks, and engaging county commissioners to integrate restrictive land use regulations into comprehensive plans. TNC is even bringing in corporations to fund their goals, starting with UN business partner J.P. Morgan. There are multiple overlaps of individuals between these groups with some players being prominent leaders such as Gary Tabor, Rob Ament, Michael Whitfield, Joel Berger, and Matthew McKinney.
Goal: Put all land into some form of conservation status with restrictive regulations on how land is used, expand protected land boundaries so wildlife has room to roam, procure as much land as possible.
USFWS, USFS, BLM, NPS, NRCS, USDA
The federal government partners with initiatives, organizations, and NGOs to accomplish conservation goals and regionalism. Each agency has a variety of programs for conservation. It is your tax dollar being used to fund these conservation groups. Eventually, all recreation and how you recreate will be "managed" for conservation and protection, as H.R. 3400, Sec. 305 describes.
Goal: Use taxpayer dollars to assist groups to achieve their goals of conservation across county, state, and country jurisdictional boundaries while failing to represent Americans as public servants through elected officials, or engage them with transparency.
Western Transportation Institute (WTI)
WTI conducts research on roads to assist with identifying core habitats, dispersal corridors, restoring connectivity, and highway mitigation methods, under the guise of road ecology.
Goal: Determine how your roads should be built and managed simultaneously with conservation groups.
Foundations
Aside from these groups taking your tax dollar to support their objectives, there are also wealthy foundations that contribute to the effort. Wilburforce, Brainerd, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Turner (UN partner) are just a few foundations that fork over money for conservation groups.
Goal: Financially assist NGOs and initiatives in conservation objectives.
What is interesting about these groups is there are legal requirements not being followed. This Legal Framework For Cooperative Conservation document outlines some legal requirements. There are specific requirements for public involvement but these groups create their own support groups with the same ideology, then proclaim them as public involvement. Public engagement, those individuals who live in a particular area, are never involved while engagement with state and federal agencies are hidden as well. Specific requirements for open and transparent disclosure are also required, but this rarely happens. As stated in the document, "These resources belong to the public", not the conservation groups. But that is what they believe, they own the land, it is theirs to manipulate, and hide what they are doing.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is intended "to ensure that agency officials make policy decisions in open, deliberative processes rather than behind closed doors with undue influence by select stakeholders". However, this is exactly what has been happening, activity and decisions are being made with select groups and hidden from the public. In order to delegate authority to new entities, "Congress must specify the general policies under which the group operates and the restrictions limiting the group’s authority." LCCs, initiatives, and NGOs operate without any congressional policy, create their own policies while projecting an image of authority, are self directed with no oversight, while the public is not informed about the depth of involvement by so many groups, their intention to collect and share data for decisions on how we will live or use our land, or that the federal government is funding it with our tax dollar. Had we been informed would we agree to this egregious agenda? Would there be agreement to the end goal of placing the majority of Idaho into conservation with restricted use?
Our Constitution is based on separation of powers. Therefore, federal "agencies may not “subdelegate” this authority to outside parties." But the federal and state agencies are subdelegating decisions to these conservation groups, allowing them to integrate their objectives into governmental decisions, and influencing our elected officials. Even worse, now there is a growing movement towards private sector management of our public land, which Secretary Zinke supports and is implementing with a recreation advisory committee. Is this a sub-delegation of our public land to outside interests? Will there be corporate influence over how the land is used which overrides the public whose tax dollars pay for public land use?
There is also the audacity of the USFS being allowed to subjugate private land to public use for access to public land. The Fifth amendment clearly states, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Matthew McKinney (CNREP), believes in regionalism, and has his own ideas about land, co-authoring an article, "The Emerging Role of Network Governance in Large Landscape Conservation". He and his coauthor claim, "No single entity has the authority to address these types of cross-boundary issues, resulting in gaps in governance and a corresponding need to create formal and informal ways work more effectively across administrative boundaries, land ownerships, and political jurisdictions." Network governance is intended to "supplement", not replace other forms of governance. Supplement is a broad term but most likely it is meant to be an insertion of his and other groups ideology for conservation and regionalism. By his own admission, "civic entrepreneurs from the public and private sectors, NGOs, and universities have catalyzed a variety of innovative governance arrangements". Has he ever heard of the Constitution, the foundation of which cannot be exchanged for other "governance arrangements? Mr. McKinney has written about "Global Guidance on Transboundary Conservation" for the IUCN and how to initiate it.
As a Global Transboundary Conservation Network member, and World Commission on Protected Areas ( WCPA) member, Mr. McKinney has deep ties with the UN, especially regarding protected areas, bringing UN ideology into decisions regarding Idaho through his many connections. All of his activities are moving towards the UN Environmental Governance strategy, which the University of Montana might teach in their model UN program where Mr. McKinney works.
This CSP graphic gives a visual picture of just a few who are involved in controlling our land use.
The majority of these groups and individuals are scientists, technocrats, implementing their agenda via technocracy, a government or social system that is controlled or influenced by experts in science or technology, or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts. Most associate with the UN and are actively implementing Agenda 2030 SD target Goals 15 and 17.17.
Federal and state employees are public servants, hired to represent Idahoans through laws. Our Senators and Representatives are elected to represent our state, and us. But, the truth is, representation has been entrusted to other states, countries, corporations, organizations, and NGOs. Unless we come together, organize direct opposition to them, land use for "future generations" will be living with these individuals and groups deciding how land is used. We cannot let them continue taking control of Idaho land.
Federal and state employees are public servants, hired to represent Idahoans through laws. Our Senators and Representatives are elected to represent our state, and us. But, the truth is, representation has been entrusted to other states, countries, corporations, organizations, and NGOs. Unless we come together, organize direct opposition to them, land use for "future generations" will be living with these individuals and groups deciding how land is used. We cannot let them continue taking control of Idaho land.
The Columbia River Treaty could be the death of Idaho
Originally written on January 7, 2017
by Karen Schumacher
With the new United Nations (UN) and federal government grand plan to steal what remains of our land through the ruse of ecosystem management, there is one grand daddy that will take all of Idaho in one fell swoop.
In 1944 the United States and Canada began talks to jointly manage the Columbia River which crossed the border. Both came to an agreement in 1961 creating a treaty that would provide flood control, generate hydropower, and meet irrigation needs. This treaty, known as the Columbia Treaty, was finalized in 1961 and implemented in 1964. Because the river crossed borders, called transboundary, it was also recognized as an "international treaty".
In fact, the International Joint Commission (IJC), created from the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 to help with treaty negotiations, was involved with the Columbia Treaty. The IJC created the International Columbia River Engineering Board (ICREB) in 1944 to study the Columbia basin waters, soils, population, economics, hydrology, and existing dams, while considering ..."the basin as a whole, without regard for the international border."
The agreement stipulated that Canada would provide water storage with dams, then be compensated for water release that generated hydropower. Although not specifically stated as a "basin" treaty, the treaty does reference the Columbia basin.
Below is a map of the Columbia River and Canadian dams, the river itself just barely touching Idaho. The Montana Libby dam was agreed to by Canada.
In 1944 the United States and Canada began talks to jointly manage the Columbia River which crossed the border. Both came to an agreement in 1961 creating a treaty that would provide flood control, generate hydropower, and meet irrigation needs. This treaty, known as the Columbia Treaty, was finalized in 1961 and implemented in 1964. Because the river crossed borders, called transboundary, it was also recognized as an "international treaty".
In fact, the International Joint Commission (IJC), created from the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 to help with treaty negotiations, was involved with the Columbia Treaty. The IJC created the International Columbia River Engineering Board (ICREB) in 1944 to study the Columbia basin waters, soils, population, economics, hydrology, and existing dams, while considering ..."the basin as a whole, without regard for the international border."
The agreement stipulated that Canada would provide water storage with dams, then be compensated for water release that generated hydropower. Although not specifically stated as a "basin" treaty, the treaty does reference the Columbia basin.
Below is a map of the Columbia River and Canadian dams, the river itself just barely touching Idaho. The Montana Libby dam was agreed to by Canada.
This treaty successfully accomplished the goals of controlling flooding, producing hydropower, and irrigation management. In the treaty, for any potential unresolved disputes, the final decision could be referred to the UN International Court of Justice. How about that, no Idaho citizen has a say in the matter, but the UN does. How about that, no Idaho citizen has a say in the matter, but the UN does.
In 1995 Canada created the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT). Somehow the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) and the CBT refer to the river as the "International Columbia River". The NPCC adheres to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science, you know, that UN organization, UNEP. One CBT goal was to "...promote the social, economic, and environmental well-being in the Canadian portion of the Columbia River Basin.", all three Agenda 21 pillars. After GHW Bush signed Agenda 21 (Chapter 18) in 1992, the U.S. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project began in 1994, under WJ Clinton, incorporating the same three pillars. Meanwhile, Canada also promotessustainable development, aka Agenda 21.
Although the treaty was intended to run in perpetuity one clause allowed both countries the opportunity to give ten years notice, starting in 2014, for unilaterally renegotiating or terminating the treaty. The flood control aspect expires in 2024, unless both reach agreement to extend it. The 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review began in 2010, four years prior to 2014. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), operated by the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planned workshops for public input. Do you remember being invited?
Ok, so what, they are going to renegotiate the treaty. Well, it now goes way beyond that.
Ecosystem Management
Given the belief that environmental and social factors were not considered in the original treaty, being unfair to Tribes and the environment, negotiations must now include those factors. After all, we must remember our loyalty to Agenda 21 and the UN. The gimmick to do such? Ecosystems. All of these groups, agencies, and governments are now going to massively expand the treaty to include not just the river, but the entire Columbia basin. Here is the 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review basin map. It clearly shows just how much area they plan to incorporate into the treaty with Idaho obliterated. Click here for larger view.
In 1995 Canada created the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT). Somehow the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) and the CBT refer to the river as the "International Columbia River". The NPCC adheres to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science, you know, that UN organization, UNEP. One CBT goal was to "...promote the social, economic, and environmental well-being in the Canadian portion of the Columbia River Basin.", all three Agenda 21 pillars. After GHW Bush signed Agenda 21 (Chapter 18) in 1992, the U.S. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project began in 1994, under WJ Clinton, incorporating the same three pillars. Meanwhile, Canada also promotessustainable development, aka Agenda 21.
Although the treaty was intended to run in perpetuity one clause allowed both countries the opportunity to give ten years notice, starting in 2014, for unilaterally renegotiating or terminating the treaty. The flood control aspect expires in 2024, unless both reach agreement to extend it. The 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review began in 2010, four years prior to 2014. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), operated by the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planned workshops for public input. Do you remember being invited?
Ok, so what, they are going to renegotiate the treaty. Well, it now goes way beyond that.
Ecosystem Management
Given the belief that environmental and social factors were not considered in the original treaty, being unfair to Tribes and the environment, negotiations must now include those factors. After all, we must remember our loyalty to Agenda 21 and the UN. The gimmick to do such? Ecosystems. All of these groups, agencies, and governments are now going to massively expand the treaty to include not just the river, but the entire Columbia basin. Here is the 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review basin map. It clearly shows just how much area they plan to incorporate into the treaty with Idaho obliterated. Click here for larger view.
As explained in the BLM posts, the agenda is now incorporating ecosystems into all decisions. This is the final tool that will kill all sovereignty over state and private land. Every species, habitat, wetland, watershed, river, insect, grass, bush, water drop, and more will need protection...there will be no justification for any one of us to use any land because of ecosystem damage we cause. Plus it gives reason to regulate private land, if you are lucky enough to possess it.
A simple ecosystem definition is "the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit". Others make it more complex in that "...ecosystems themselves represent part of the earth’s biodiversity.", and humans are destroying this biodiversity, a "human-caused biotic holocaust." In this description there is no mention of humans in the ecosystem environment.
The Department of Interior (DOI), which manages the BLM, USFWS (pg 31), USFS, NPS (pg 19), and USGS among other agencies, has declared a more effective "mitigation" policy, defined as "...mitigation that includes the “preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation (PERC)” of areas destroyed in the name of progress." That means you, human being, you have and continue to destroy land. The effort is "...attempting to establish a department wide mitigation strategy that will protect natural resources as the US prepares for an expected rise in development projects on public land." This references the Resource Theft in the BLM posts, more land confiscation for the federal government to engage in renewable and other energy projects for land and energy control in partnership with foreign countries to redistribute our wealth. Here is the DOI 2014 mitigation strategy update with the cat out of the bag on renewable energy in the bottom paragraph. The BLM is already applying an Ecosystem Services Framework for Land Use Planning. Shocker. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity lists how federal government agencies are implementing their ecosystem restoration, USFS page 76, EPA watersheds page 83, and USDA agriculture/livestock page 85.
The USDA, USFS, DOI, and BLM have been working on identifying the Columbia Basin ecosystem risks since 1997. 107 "layers" of information were analyzed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Throughout this document every map shows some type of ecosystem destruction, which means the only way to preserve or restore the basin is to control it. In 2003 these same agencies created a memorandum of understanding to "implement" the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy, updated in 2014. The strategy? "A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation". If the reader takes the time to read this document it becomes very apparent that there is no room for any human to use any of this land as it has to be protected or "restored" from human damage. Page 1 lists all the Idaho areas that will be affected. Ecosystems listed include landscape, habitat, forests, rangelands, riparian and other species, riparian areas, and Tribes.
Since 2002 more GIS and Spatial Data have been collected on the basin for the purpose of eventual full control through ecosystem management. Here are GIS ecosystem maps showing the numerous mapping details they capture. Now that all of this data has been collected and strategies developed prior to the 2014 renegotiation start date, let the two countries begin talks. And, because the U.S. Department of State has a specific mission to the UN, they support incorporating ecosystem management strategies into the treaty.
All groundwork has been completed to finalize the takeover of Idaho through a renegotiated treaty using ecosystem management.
United Nations
Agenda 21, Chapter 15 and Agenda 2030, Goal 15 address the need for ecosystem protection and restoration. There is also the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (signed by the U.S. in 1993) which outlines targets for ecosystem management by 2020. Did you read that? 2020, 4 years from now. It would be fair to say they are on the last leg of getting it done. Let's see what else UN wants for ecosystem management.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has launched a program for "assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services", and "evaluate the future impacts of today's policies or management decisions". Federal agencies have already incorporated ecosystem services into their work include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and basically all DOI agenciesalong with others, even creating another program to enact it, the National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP). UNEP also has several bookletson ecosystem management if you would like to know more.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also has an agenda for ecosystem management and created the Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework 2012-2020 for countries to use as a guide. It can be downloaded to read. This "Framework seeks to leverage the organization’s status as a trusted partner of governments..." meaning the expectation that governments use the framework in policy decisions which is exactly what the DOI is doing. Again a 2020 date for framework implementation.
One other UN organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), has partnerships which includes the DOI as a partner, along with the USFS. The IUCN has a special Commission on Ecosystem Management, including a Red List of Ecosystems the DOI can use, plus a transboundary water assessment and management program.
Although not signed by the U.S. or Canada, the UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC) is recognized as the "most authoritative source of international water law". The UNWC aims to be the global water instrument, the authoritative source of international water law, and create frameworks for water governance arrangements which includes transboundary water and ecosystem protection. If the U.S. signs this convention it will put the Columbia basin under further, and complete, UN rule.
The United States Entity, comprised of the BPA and the USACE, released a document, Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 on 12/13/13, meeting the UN regionalism goal. One noteworthy recommendation is on page 5, Ecosystem-based Function. This is a scheme concocted by the UN, justified by climate change scare tactics, and is really about taking final control over land, resources and humans. It is also called "Ecosystem-based Adaptation", ecosystem based management, and can be separated out into different areas such as fisheries, mountains, and even disasters. At least this outline exposes the truth, "...there has been increasing international recognition of the need to manage human activities...". All four Idaho representatives, Risch, Crapo, Simpson, and Labrador urged the adoption of this treasonous renegotiation document.
The USGS sits on the U.S. National Committee for UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme (IHP) with one interesting function, "Recommending U.S. programs for participation in the UNESCO International Hydrological Programme.", and there are several programs. What this means for the hydropower generated by Columbia River dams is uncertain. It is difficult to ascertain just how the Columbia River Basin became "international". But, being designated as such, it places the basin under International Waters Governance, as part of the GEF International Waters Governance Project. GEF stands for Global Environment Facility and much of its funding comes from the private sector. Regardless, it also involves Idaho dams, so it will affect us as well.
In the United Nations World Water Development Report 2016, everything you would want to know about how the UN will control our water is explained. On page 57-58 it describes changing our water use to a "green" economy which means industrializing our agriculture and urban water infrastructure as two examples, using UN business partnerships. This explains the Common Core emphasis on STEM and vocational education, preparing our children for the workforce needs of these industries. Pages 58-61 cover Agenda 2030 Goal 6 and related water goals. The UN will manage water through their Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRM), which the Idaho Water Resource Board follows. Transition to renewable energy investment starts on page 83, addressing hydropower and urban infrastructure, which is why the UN bank partners are buying water utilities in preparation for the takeover. The Idaho Department of Water Resources was given a special mention on this page also. Yes, the UN monitors water use in the United States. Ecosystems are covered from page 26-28.
The UN believes transboundary waters should be under international rule with focus on the "use, development, protection and conservation of water resources." Since the Columbia Basin has somehow been declared international, it looks like the treaty renegotiation is primed for more UN involvement.
Briefly on the social pillar. As previously posted in the December, 2015 archives on Tribes being used by the federal government to take land and water from American citizens, Tribal rights are not being ignored in the treaty negotiation, including Idaho Tribes. Emphasis on salmon, tribal resources, and culture will be part of the talks, with full UN backing on Tribal water rights.
Summary
If all of this gobbledegook has left you bored to tears or brain dead, there is a more simple explanation. The UN wants control of water, and they want it bad as water is the most valuable resource needed for everything.
The intent is expanding the treaty to include the full Columbia Basin, not just the original river. With ecosystem management, defined by the UN and implemented by their federal buddies, public land will not only be affected, but private land as well. The goal is taking basin water resources, from basin water drops to storage, then controlling its use in agriculture, industries, and urban infrastructure, among other uses. Forcing Idaho into a "green economy" means expensive technology will be needed for redesigning water use in all areas, and the federal government taking more land for their renewable energy projects. UN business partners, many of them banks, will be investing in this green technology while the federal government will ban land use and take private land away through regulations causing economic devastation, what they are doing to ranchers. Agricultural farmers will be next. Common Core will educate your child to those new industrial technology needs. The UN has multiple water partners supporting this agenda. Ecosystem data is made available to UN business partners so they can take advantage of energy projects once we are stripped of our land.
Idaho will soon die, there will be nothing left of our state. This will truly be the death of Idaho. The UN controls our forests, government agencies implement UN objectives on our land, our cities are being redesigned by the UN, we are being forced off our land into cities, children are being indoctrinated on UN ideology...there is nothing left but ecosystem management to finish us off. Our water will be taken and controlled, we will be told where and how we can enjoy the outdoors, if at all. Jobs will be determined by UN corporate industries. Yet Idahoans don't listen, state legislators refuse to address this out of the fear it looks like a conspiracy. It is not a conspiracy, it is right there in front of everyone. And we do nothing. Shame on us, shame on us.
We should be in the streets demanding our legislators remove us from every illegal, treasonous, unconstitutional regulation that each corrupt federal agency forces on us, and demand that there will be no implemented UN objective in our state. We should be yelling at the top of our lungs that if this is not done, we will remove each legislator, and keep going through them until we find one that has the courage, and the love of Idaho, to do as we tell them, not ask, tell them. When will we be ready and have the courage to do this? We have 4 short years, the UN has given us the year. When?
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
A simple ecosystem definition is "the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit". Others make it more complex in that "...ecosystems themselves represent part of the earth’s biodiversity.", and humans are destroying this biodiversity, a "human-caused biotic holocaust." In this description there is no mention of humans in the ecosystem environment.
The Department of Interior (DOI), which manages the BLM, USFWS (pg 31), USFS, NPS (pg 19), and USGS among other agencies, has declared a more effective "mitigation" policy, defined as "...mitigation that includes the “preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation (PERC)” of areas destroyed in the name of progress." That means you, human being, you have and continue to destroy land. The effort is "...attempting to establish a department wide mitigation strategy that will protect natural resources as the US prepares for an expected rise in development projects on public land." This references the Resource Theft in the BLM posts, more land confiscation for the federal government to engage in renewable and other energy projects for land and energy control in partnership with foreign countries to redistribute our wealth. Here is the DOI 2014 mitigation strategy update with the cat out of the bag on renewable energy in the bottom paragraph. The BLM is already applying an Ecosystem Services Framework for Land Use Planning. Shocker. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity lists how federal government agencies are implementing their ecosystem restoration, USFS page 76, EPA watersheds page 83, and USDA agriculture/livestock page 85.
The USDA, USFS, DOI, and BLM have been working on identifying the Columbia Basin ecosystem risks since 1997. 107 "layers" of information were analyzed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Throughout this document every map shows some type of ecosystem destruction, which means the only way to preserve or restore the basin is to control it. In 2003 these same agencies created a memorandum of understanding to "implement" the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy, updated in 2014. The strategy? "A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation". If the reader takes the time to read this document it becomes very apparent that there is no room for any human to use any of this land as it has to be protected or "restored" from human damage. Page 1 lists all the Idaho areas that will be affected. Ecosystems listed include landscape, habitat, forests, rangelands, riparian and other species, riparian areas, and Tribes.
Since 2002 more GIS and Spatial Data have been collected on the basin for the purpose of eventual full control through ecosystem management. Here are GIS ecosystem maps showing the numerous mapping details they capture. Now that all of this data has been collected and strategies developed prior to the 2014 renegotiation start date, let the two countries begin talks. And, because the U.S. Department of State has a specific mission to the UN, they support incorporating ecosystem management strategies into the treaty.
All groundwork has been completed to finalize the takeover of Idaho through a renegotiated treaty using ecosystem management.
United Nations
Agenda 21, Chapter 15 and Agenda 2030, Goal 15 address the need for ecosystem protection and restoration. There is also the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (signed by the U.S. in 1993) which outlines targets for ecosystem management by 2020. Did you read that? 2020, 4 years from now. It would be fair to say they are on the last leg of getting it done. Let's see what else UN wants for ecosystem management.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has launched a program for "assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services", and "evaluate the future impacts of today's policies or management decisions". Federal agencies have already incorporated ecosystem services into their work include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and basically all DOI agenciesalong with others, even creating another program to enact it, the National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP). UNEP also has several bookletson ecosystem management if you would like to know more.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also has an agenda for ecosystem management and created the Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework 2012-2020 for countries to use as a guide. It can be downloaded to read. This "Framework seeks to leverage the organization’s status as a trusted partner of governments..." meaning the expectation that governments use the framework in policy decisions which is exactly what the DOI is doing. Again a 2020 date for framework implementation.
One other UN organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), has partnerships which includes the DOI as a partner, along with the USFS. The IUCN has a special Commission on Ecosystem Management, including a Red List of Ecosystems the DOI can use, plus a transboundary water assessment and management program.
Although not signed by the U.S. or Canada, the UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC) is recognized as the "most authoritative source of international water law". The UNWC aims to be the global water instrument, the authoritative source of international water law, and create frameworks for water governance arrangements which includes transboundary water and ecosystem protection. If the U.S. signs this convention it will put the Columbia basin under further, and complete, UN rule.
The United States Entity, comprised of the BPA and the USACE, released a document, Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 on 12/13/13, meeting the UN regionalism goal. One noteworthy recommendation is on page 5, Ecosystem-based Function. This is a scheme concocted by the UN, justified by climate change scare tactics, and is really about taking final control over land, resources and humans. It is also called "Ecosystem-based Adaptation", ecosystem based management, and can be separated out into different areas such as fisheries, mountains, and even disasters. At least this outline exposes the truth, "...there has been increasing international recognition of the need to manage human activities...". All four Idaho representatives, Risch, Crapo, Simpson, and Labrador urged the adoption of this treasonous renegotiation document.
The USGS sits on the U.S. National Committee for UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme (IHP) with one interesting function, "Recommending U.S. programs for participation in the UNESCO International Hydrological Programme.", and there are several programs. What this means for the hydropower generated by Columbia River dams is uncertain. It is difficult to ascertain just how the Columbia River Basin became "international". But, being designated as such, it places the basin under International Waters Governance, as part of the GEF International Waters Governance Project. GEF stands for Global Environment Facility and much of its funding comes from the private sector. Regardless, it also involves Idaho dams, so it will affect us as well.
In the United Nations World Water Development Report 2016, everything you would want to know about how the UN will control our water is explained. On page 57-58 it describes changing our water use to a "green" economy which means industrializing our agriculture and urban water infrastructure as two examples, using UN business partnerships. This explains the Common Core emphasis on STEM and vocational education, preparing our children for the workforce needs of these industries. Pages 58-61 cover Agenda 2030 Goal 6 and related water goals. The UN will manage water through their Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRM), which the Idaho Water Resource Board follows. Transition to renewable energy investment starts on page 83, addressing hydropower and urban infrastructure, which is why the UN bank partners are buying water utilities in preparation for the takeover. The Idaho Department of Water Resources was given a special mention on this page also. Yes, the UN monitors water use in the United States. Ecosystems are covered from page 26-28.
The UN believes transboundary waters should be under international rule with focus on the "use, development, protection and conservation of water resources." Since the Columbia Basin has somehow been declared international, it looks like the treaty renegotiation is primed for more UN involvement.
Briefly on the social pillar. As previously posted in the December, 2015 archives on Tribes being used by the federal government to take land and water from American citizens, Tribal rights are not being ignored in the treaty negotiation, including Idaho Tribes. Emphasis on salmon, tribal resources, and culture will be part of the talks, with full UN backing on Tribal water rights.
Summary
If all of this gobbledegook has left you bored to tears or brain dead, there is a more simple explanation. The UN wants control of water, and they want it bad as water is the most valuable resource needed for everything.
The intent is expanding the treaty to include the full Columbia Basin, not just the original river. With ecosystem management, defined by the UN and implemented by their federal buddies, public land will not only be affected, but private land as well. The goal is taking basin water resources, from basin water drops to storage, then controlling its use in agriculture, industries, and urban infrastructure, among other uses. Forcing Idaho into a "green economy" means expensive technology will be needed for redesigning water use in all areas, and the federal government taking more land for their renewable energy projects. UN business partners, many of them banks, will be investing in this green technology while the federal government will ban land use and take private land away through regulations causing economic devastation, what they are doing to ranchers. Agricultural farmers will be next. Common Core will educate your child to those new industrial technology needs. The UN has multiple water partners supporting this agenda. Ecosystem data is made available to UN business partners so they can take advantage of energy projects once we are stripped of our land.
Idaho will soon die, there will be nothing left of our state. This will truly be the death of Idaho. The UN controls our forests, government agencies implement UN objectives on our land, our cities are being redesigned by the UN, we are being forced off our land into cities, children are being indoctrinated on UN ideology...there is nothing left but ecosystem management to finish us off. Our water will be taken and controlled, we will be told where and how we can enjoy the outdoors, if at all. Jobs will be determined by UN corporate industries. Yet Idahoans don't listen, state legislators refuse to address this out of the fear it looks like a conspiracy. It is not a conspiracy, it is right there in front of everyone. And we do nothing. Shame on us, shame on us.
We should be in the streets demanding our legislators remove us from every illegal, treasonous, unconstitutional regulation that each corrupt federal agency forces on us, and demand that there will be no implemented UN objective in our state. We should be yelling at the top of our lungs that if this is not done, we will remove each legislator, and keep going through them until we find one that has the courage, and the love of Idaho, to do as we tell them, not ask, tell them. When will we be ready and have the courage to do this? We have 4 short years, the UN has given us the year. When?
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
EXPOSING THE BLM-PART 1 - THE UN CONNECTION
Throughout all posts the United Nations (UN) has been explicitly clear about usurping land Throughout the world in order to control not only the resources, but humans as well. Controlling how humans live and think, controlling how land and resources are used, and having global governance with laws and rights defined by the UN.
Previous posts have explained how the United States Forest Service is being run by UN dictates with continued mandates to lock up more forest through national monuments, wilderness areas, and forbidden use. The use of Tribes to remove land and resources from Americans is clearly outlined with their exploding partnerships to achieve these goals. Prior to the announcement of Agenda 2030 the UN has already sent their UN non-governmental organizations (NGO) out to convince local city and county officials to create city clusters for the benefit of the corporate world, which they proudly call “corporate governance“.
One federal agency making the news lately is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Although the January seizure and occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon by protesters was intended to highlight the BLM and its continued illegal confiscation of privately owned land, this BLM extortion was really not adequately exposed.
The Department of Interior (DOI) is a federal government agency that is systematically destroying America. Here is a chart of departments managed by the DOI, the BLM being one, all of which are resource based.
Because of complexities between government agencies, the BLM agenda will be broken down into overlapping issues of wilderness, desertification, ecosystems, and federal resource theft. Disputes over BLM land management occur because the BLM goal is eliminating private ranching, pushing ranchers off private property, preventing use by humans, stealing resources, and as in the case of forests, destroying BLM land via destructive land management policies.
Wilderness
According to the Idaho BLM site they control 541,812 acres of wilderness in Idaho, justifying this with Congress ensuring “…that an increasing population, expanding settlement and growing mechanization would not occupy and modify all areas of the United States.” Better get back on that birth control. America still has settlers?
The BLM defines wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain…Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions…”. Shame on you for wanting to enjoy land in your state, for which you are being taxed and banned from using. Here is a map of BLM wilderness and other land in Idaho.
For years there have been ongoing grazing and water right disputes between ranchers and the BLM. The UN, BLM, and other nefarious federal agencies hate grazing, claiming “unregulated grazing” has over the years caused “…damage to soil, plants, streams, and springs…”. Their solution is to reduce and restrict grazing, charge ranchers grazing fees, and use species protection for further restricted land use, justifying their obligation to “…ensure the long-term health and productivity of these lands…”. Bullcocky, the purpose is to removehumans from their land and take over the resources. These restrictions and fees are the basis for the Bundy and Hammond ranch conflicts.
For generations ranchers have used grazing to maintain land health, grazing can even be used to heal damaged land. Allan Savory, a noted ecologist, explains how grazing has restored neglected land in this video. Of course, he has his critics such as Idaho State University professor Dr. Ralph Maughan, who has probably never worked a piece of land in his life other than through a UN biased government agency.
Allowed activity is defined by the BLM as activity on or near wilderness land through “Resource Management Plans“. As an example, the Idaho BLM just approved the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Management plan. Among other requirements, through this plan the BLM dictates obsessive requirements for motorized vehicles, livestock grazing, hunting blinds, rock climbing, camping, recreation permits, visitor restrictions, trail use, and even bodily function requirements! The BLM is also obligated to “protect endangered species” such as the sage grouse, which ensures that you don’t “harrass” or step on mating nests. These restrictive practices are passed down from the Wilderness Act (WA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) or through other “special designations.” But the ruse is really to ban you from using the land.
It is well understood that wilderness and other “protected” areas are a focus of the UN. As noted in previous posts, the Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser, director of the Wilderness Society, a UN non-governmental organization (NGO). The UN has other deceitful “protection” plans through national monuments, conservation easements, and habitat reserves. But their swath of land theft will continue to grow though other hoaxes.
“In cooperation with UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre…” the United States Geological Survey (USGS) hands over information to the UN for data gathering and monitoring progress, and … “supports global analyses and policy decisions by maintaining World Database for Protected Areas (WDPA) Site Codes and data for International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)…”. Even the Idaho BLM is in the game using the IUCN Red List of threatened species to ban you from using Idaho land. Anticipate more species needing protection from you.
Part 2 will address Decertification
This article was reprinted with permission from
http://idahoansagainstagenda21.weebly.com/articles/archives/03-2016
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Bureau of Land Management - Part 2 Desertification
The USGS defines desertification as, "The alteration of arable land to dry, barren land due to prolonged drought or the deleterious effects of human intervention including overgrazing, overpopulation, or destructive agricultural practices." The most comical aspect of this definition is that the lack of use has caused more desertification. As noted in the Savory video, land not being used contributes to its destruction and it is the reintroduction of land use that brought its life back. As with forests, UN interference with responsibly managing forests has resulted in destruction. Why has desertification grown as an issue while the BLM has progressively restricted land use? Shouldn't this have lessened the problem?
Ironically, desertification is a United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO) fabricated word. Looking at a dictionary from the 1960's it is nowhere to be found. The closest is the word desert defined as an uncultivated, barren region, largely treeless and sandy. One should be alarmed the UN has infested dictionaries with propaganda.
With UN interference forest destruction by fire is well under way, leaving destroyed land behind. What to do? Light bulb on, contact the UN for expertise on how to restore it! The Great Basin Restorative Initiative (GBRI) was born from the DOI representative to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). One selected site for restoration was the Owyhee Upland area, an area integrated with the sage-grouse conservation program. And for all the BLM's alleged protection, the 2015 Soda fire decimated almost 400 square miles of land. Once again, the reduction of grazing to protect some bird from the endangered species list led to land destruction with certain "desertification" unless the BLM jumps in and "restores" it. Thanks BLM, glad to know you are self generating job protection.
Chapter 12 in Agenda 21 is devoted to the subject of desertification and "fragile ecosystems". "Combating desertification" should be a goal of national governments, identifying the BLM and USGS as just two participating federal agencies who took on the task.
Established in 1994, the UNCCD became the force behind desertification, Congress signing the Desertification Treaty in 2000. According to UNCCD, over 30 percent of the land in the United States is affected by desertification. By the time the UN is finished destroying land in the U.S., there may be no land left, except for them. A few UNCCD thematic "priorities" include "...poverty reduction... agriculture, water access, rangeland production and renewable energy." Keep the renewable energy in mind. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one offending agency implementing UNCCD, squandering U.S. dollars to other countries. The DOI also gives special mention to the UNCCD. One UNCCD objective is "...to become a global authority on scientific and technical knowledge in the fields of anti-desertification work (pg 8). The Global Policy Centre on Resilient Ecosystems and Desertification is a one stop shopping center for the DOI on policy recommendations. That is exactly what the federal government is doing, giving the UN full authority, on everything.
In Part 3 Ecosystems will be discussed.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Bureau of Land Management - Part 3 Ecosystems
Desertification isn't enough however, now ecosystems are introduced as a BLM issue, an agenda that will completely obliterate all land use. Again, the term is not found in a dictionary from the 1960's, but the BLM defines it as "...natural processes and systems are intricately linked over broad expanses of space and time." What it really means is there is potential harm to every insect, plant, water source, or animal species if humans are present. The only solution is to keep humans away.
Using wetlands as an example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is forging ahead to define any drop of water as needing protection. The BLM goes further, breaking down wetlands into riparian areas with "land management plans...provide protections for riparian areas including BLM’s no net loss of wetland/riparian habitat policy...to maintain, restore, and improve riparian areas to protect water quality, improve water retention and groundwater recharge, provide wildlife habitat, support biodiversity, and other goals." Now how are they going to accomplish this if humans are in the way?
And why wouldn't the EPA and BLM forge ahead with these decisions, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) expected wetlands to be "...integrated into decision-making as a vital component of the transition to a resource-efficient, sustainable world economy...". Keep the world economy in mind. Read the list of recommendations. Or read the Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016-2021 to learn what they will be doing to us over the next 5 years. In 2013 the UN NGO, Pacific Institute, wrote a report, Global Water Governance, about ecosystems and their conditions are "... likely to continue to decline unless action is taken to address acute threats and better manage freshwater resources." (pg 6) The UN has definitely activated action on this "acute threat".
The IUCN also has wetland recommendations for our DOI member to impose on its departments such as more conservation and preserving more wetlands. According to UNEP ecosystems can generate wealth and employment. Indeed, as the UN destroys land, there will be government jobs ready to fix it, and the wealth will come from taking resources that rightfully belong to states. Kootenai County has already fallen victim to this agenda under the Idaho Wetland Conservation Prioritization Plan - 2012 (NWPCP) with other Idaho targets identified.
Going back to the sage grouse, the DOI patted itself on the back for preventing the grouse from being listed on the endangered species list via "...support of partners like the Audubon Society (UN NGO), we have been able to help ranchers implement conservation strategies that improve sagebrush ecosystems, reduce risks to sage-grouse and keep working lands for working." Oh yeah? How many of those birds were destroyed in the Soda fire along with where they lived because of your strategies? Let the restrictions for human use begin.
But federal government ecosystem "protection" will expand, "... all species throughout the entire range will be listed as threatened or endangered.", including private land management. The BLM intent to expand its authority to take more land was found in 2010. As a UN NGO, IUCN is the creator of the Red List for ecosystems and endangered species. As a IUCN member the DOI and other federal agencies will follow these lists.
Indeed, don't forget Agenda 2030. "Goal 15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning..." and needing "... strong political commitment and national-level strategies...". Just 4 very short years to stop land and resource theft by the UN and federal government co-conspirators.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Bureau of Land Management - Part 4 Resource Theft
The Johannesburg Summit 2002 defines the U.S. responsibilities for land management. Program implementation includes, "internationally accepted principles for environmental management and governance"; "influence use of land...dealing with water and wildlife habitat"; "the ESA can constrain the use and development of private land"; "Government regulations, conservation easements, contracts, or other instruments that arise out of law, custom, and the operation of private markets serve to regulate both landowners' and society's rights to use land."; "The BLM and FS (Forest Service) are...mapping them using Geographic Information System"; "The BLM manages federal lands using multi-jurisdictional approaches to ensure that planning decisions are developed in concert with sustainable development concepts"; and "The U.S. Departments of State...and Interior...actively participated in activities to negotiate the International Convention to Combat Desertification".
And the federal government, having actively implemented these objectives, have enough structure in place to easily and rapidly control all land within the next 5-10 years because nobody is stopping them.
GIS deserves an explanation. It is the acronym for geographic information system which uses layers of geographic data to produce spatial analysis and derivative maps, while geospatial refers to the applications of geographic data. This means that every blade of grass, rock, water body, tree, elevation, city growth, or other land attribute and activity is marked and mapped. This video is short and explains what can be mapped while this video frighteningly explains just how much detail GIS can capture. As noted in the previous Johannesburg Summit report, the BLM uses GIS. What they don't tell you is that GIS information is passed on to the UN. See number 4 on page 4. The federal government, part of the UN cartel, hands over our GIS information and other data to the UN.
Going back to the Part 2 note, "Keep the renewable energy in mind", what is the BLM goal taking land? Most BLM land is rich in resources. Remembering the UN wants control of not only people, but resources as well, then BLM involvement in resource use should be scrutinized. Renewable energy projects on BLM-managed lands include wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Renewable energy projects are complicated and the reader is encouraged to learn more about it. It is also connected to the UNEP "world economy" statement in part 3. The DOI is pretty open about its intent in using public land for renewable energy.
Wind
Starting with wind farms, here is the BLM map of Oregon listing renewable energy projects, at this point Idaho does notrequire utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources as does Oregon.
There are two California wind projects in the works. One will be managed by AltaGas, a Canadian company, and the other in Tylerhorse, managed by Iberdrola, a company in Spain. According to Iberdrola, they ..."will be a leader in the transformation of the U.S. energy industry." They also clearly hold themselves to the UN sustainable development agenda. AltaGas supports the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why are wind projects being farmed out to foreign companies? Aren't there any wind developers in the United States? About 75, but bets are on each one of them is connected in some way to a foreign corporation or the UN. It makes sense that the BLM actively needs more land, free from humans, to develop these projects.
While there is no requirement for wind farms in Idaho we do have some. Here is a dandy USGS interactive map that pinpoints where the farms are located with added information. Private land owners can contract with a wind developer and are paid to have the turbines placed on their property. One such farm is in American Falls. The Energy Integrity Project explains why wind farms are economically detrimental for all of us.
Solar
Called "Solar Energy Zones" or SEZs, the BLM created the "Western Solar Plan" which contain these zones. Their first zone brought in "$5.8 million for the U.S. Treasury". Now cows and people just might cause interference in these zones and the BLM does cite that "human resources" could get in the way. Note we aren't people, we are resources to be drawn upon or eliminated. Anyway, Idaho hasn't been sucked into this plan yet, but with the new aggressive ecosystem management requirements it probably won't take that long to force Idahoans off their land, as in the attempts with the Hammond case in Oregon, and the GIS mapping is already in progress. If the cows get in the way of solar development the BLM must notify them. And what are the ranchers suppose to do when their grazing rights are taken from them and they can no longer afford to live there? Sell their land to the BLM for peanuts and move, and that is what is happening. Taking water and grazing rights, raising grazing fees, and seizing land with refuge and wilderness areas are just BLMploys to force humans off the land, leaving it ripe for resource seizure. Restrictive ecosystem management will be the nail in the coffin, for everyone. At least Oregon Representative Walden understands.
Now just who is the beneficiary, what company builds and manages these solar developments? Why one of them is Google, an UN business partner! Now Ivanpah, the outfit building this mess, is part of BrightSource, a global company and Clinton favorite, and has had some questionable history including defaulting on contracts, low energy production, and killing birds. $1.6 billion from the U.S. Energy Department, your tax dollar, was loaned to this outfit. Think Solyndra. But BrightSource has some good backing from other UN business partners Morgan Stanley and Chevron so the federal government was mindful in keeping more UN cronies in the loop.
According to the BLM, "Distribution of revenue from renewable energy varies depending on the authority used.", but substantial money is made for the federal government from other energy projects. And plans have been started to site"...new transmission projects that would cross public, State and private lands." Has anybody notified the cows? Maybe dumping more of your tax dollar into the BLM will accelerate the takeover of land and resources, say 1.3 billion, that should hasten the job.
Uranium
One last resource to mention is uranium, which the BLM also wants, but it is a non-renewable form of energy used for nuclear production. Multiple federal agencies are involved with uranium mining as it is very profitable. Once again foreign companies are involved in reaping the profits such as Russia, again with a Clinton hand. This contributes to the "world economy" as do the foreign benefactors with solar and wind projects. Millions of dollars in tax credits and other federal gimmicks are given to companies for renewable energy. This money is being stripped out of America. It is no wonder America is dying.
Oregon Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Austrailian company Energy Ventures Ltd, gave a presentation for uranium mining in Malheur County, starting the process in 2011. On page B4 this 1987 USGS map shows areas of uranium in Harney county, Oregon. That is how long they have been drooling over the amount of money they can reap for their coffers.
This BLM energy map site shows maps for other Oregon projects on lands with "Federal Interest", Biomass EnergyProjects and Non-Renewable Energy Projects. At this time there were none listed for Idaho, but there is little doubt it will come as the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is working on renewable energy zones. Here is their policy resolution on forest and rangeland management. Why don't they just kick the UN out?
In 2014 the DOI was on the hunt for reclaiming and remediating uranium mines with multiple government (pg v) agencies involved. It was also noted that potential human risks indicate further restrictions on use may be required (pg 20). One more way to get you out of the way.
Renewable Energy Credits
This is where the story becomes more complicated, and corrupt. Renewable Energy Credits (REC) are part of the scam, and it costs you more money. Companies are issued these credits for solar and wind energy production. Utilities are forced to pay higher rates for these credits and that monetary loss is passed on to you with higher rates. This subject is beyond the scope of this post but it is one more BLM method for land and resource theft, being in charge of transmission grid permitting. And those pesky cows and humans just keep getting in the way, better move them out of the way and off the land. A fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has written about RECs on her website, Technocratic Tyranny, The Renewable Racket, and how it started with Agenda 21.
Conclusion
Ok, now it makes sense. The ultimate UN goal is to move humans off land, take control of resources, and feed their crony partnerships. This can all be justified with saving the planet. Hopefully the reader now understands why the BLM is an enemy and how we are being forced away from the land they control. It is all about taking and controlling resources. Very simple. A memorandum giving the DOI and other federal agencies a directive to create regulations advancing this land and resource theft was issued 11/3/15, completely bypassing Congress. And why not, Agenda 2030 has put a renewed emphasis on protecting ecosystems, habitat, wetlands, and species in Goal 15 with increased financing and national and local implementation.
Dear God, how long before Idahoans and Americans stand up for their Forefather's endeavors to give us the greatest Republic in the world? How much freedom and liberty must be stolen from us before we stand up and say it is ending now? Idaho, wake up, stand together in a mass protest against a foreign entity dictating our lives. It must be done now.
Throughout all posts the United Nations (UN) has been explicitly clear about usurping land Throughout the world in order to control not only the resources, but humans as well. Controlling how humans live and think, controlling how land and resources are used, and having global governance with laws and rights defined by the UN.
Previous posts have explained how the United States Forest Service is being run by UN dictates with continued mandates to lock up more forest through national monuments, wilderness areas, and forbidden use. The use of Tribes to remove land and resources from Americans is clearly outlined with their exploding partnerships to achieve these goals. Prior to the announcement of Agenda 2030 the UN has already sent their UN non-governmental organizations (NGO) out to convince local city and county officials to create city clusters for the benefit of the corporate world, which they proudly call “corporate governance“.
One federal agency making the news lately is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Although the January seizure and occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon by protesters was intended to highlight the BLM and its continued illegal confiscation of privately owned land, this BLM extortion was really not adequately exposed.
The Department of Interior (DOI) is a federal government agency that is systematically destroying America. Here is a chart of departments managed by the DOI, the BLM being one, all of which are resource based.
Because of complexities between government agencies, the BLM agenda will be broken down into overlapping issues of wilderness, desertification, ecosystems, and federal resource theft. Disputes over BLM land management occur because the BLM goal is eliminating private ranching, pushing ranchers off private property, preventing use by humans, stealing resources, and as in the case of forests, destroying BLM land via destructive land management policies.
Wilderness
According to the Idaho BLM site they control 541,812 acres of wilderness in Idaho, justifying this with Congress ensuring “…that an increasing population, expanding settlement and growing mechanization would not occupy and modify all areas of the United States.” Better get back on that birth control. America still has settlers?
The BLM defines wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain…Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions…”. Shame on you for wanting to enjoy land in your state, for which you are being taxed and banned from using. Here is a map of BLM wilderness and other land in Idaho.
For years there have been ongoing grazing and water right disputes between ranchers and the BLM. The UN, BLM, and other nefarious federal agencies hate grazing, claiming “unregulated grazing” has over the years caused “…damage to soil, plants, streams, and springs…”. Their solution is to reduce and restrict grazing, charge ranchers grazing fees, and use species protection for further restricted land use, justifying their obligation to “…ensure the long-term health and productivity of these lands…”. Bullcocky, the purpose is to removehumans from their land and take over the resources. These restrictions and fees are the basis for the Bundy and Hammond ranch conflicts.
For generations ranchers have used grazing to maintain land health, grazing can even be used to heal damaged land. Allan Savory, a noted ecologist, explains how grazing has restored neglected land in this video. Of course, he has his critics such as Idaho State University professor Dr. Ralph Maughan, who has probably never worked a piece of land in his life other than through a UN biased government agency.
Allowed activity is defined by the BLM as activity on or near wilderness land through “Resource Management Plans“. As an example, the Idaho BLM just approved the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Management plan. Among other requirements, through this plan the BLM dictates obsessive requirements for motorized vehicles, livestock grazing, hunting blinds, rock climbing, camping, recreation permits, visitor restrictions, trail use, and even bodily function requirements! The BLM is also obligated to “protect endangered species” such as the sage grouse, which ensures that you don’t “harrass” or step on mating nests. These restrictive practices are passed down from the Wilderness Act (WA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) or through other “special designations.” But the ruse is really to ban you from using the land.
It is well understood that wilderness and other “protected” areas are a focus of the UN. As noted in previous posts, the Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser, director of the Wilderness Society, a UN non-governmental organization (NGO). The UN has other deceitful “protection” plans through national monuments, conservation easements, and habitat reserves. But their swath of land theft will continue to grow though other hoaxes.
“In cooperation with UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre…” the United States Geological Survey (USGS) hands over information to the UN for data gathering and monitoring progress, and … “supports global analyses and policy decisions by maintaining World Database for Protected Areas (WDPA) Site Codes and data for International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)…”. Even the Idaho BLM is in the game using the IUCN Red List of threatened species to ban you from using Idaho land. Anticipate more species needing protection from you.
Part 2 will address Decertification
This article was reprinted with permission from
http://idahoansagainstagenda21.weebly.com/articles/archives/03-2016
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Bureau of Land Management - Part 2 Desertification
The USGS defines desertification as, "The alteration of arable land to dry, barren land due to prolonged drought or the deleterious effects of human intervention including overgrazing, overpopulation, or destructive agricultural practices." The most comical aspect of this definition is that the lack of use has caused more desertification. As noted in the Savory video, land not being used contributes to its destruction and it is the reintroduction of land use that brought its life back. As with forests, UN interference with responsibly managing forests has resulted in destruction. Why has desertification grown as an issue while the BLM has progressively restricted land use? Shouldn't this have lessened the problem?
Ironically, desertification is a United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO) fabricated word. Looking at a dictionary from the 1960's it is nowhere to be found. The closest is the word desert defined as an uncultivated, barren region, largely treeless and sandy. One should be alarmed the UN has infested dictionaries with propaganda.
With UN interference forest destruction by fire is well under way, leaving destroyed land behind. What to do? Light bulb on, contact the UN for expertise on how to restore it! The Great Basin Restorative Initiative (GBRI) was born from the DOI representative to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). One selected site for restoration was the Owyhee Upland area, an area integrated with the sage-grouse conservation program. And for all the BLM's alleged protection, the 2015 Soda fire decimated almost 400 square miles of land. Once again, the reduction of grazing to protect some bird from the endangered species list led to land destruction with certain "desertification" unless the BLM jumps in and "restores" it. Thanks BLM, glad to know you are self generating job protection.
Chapter 12 in Agenda 21 is devoted to the subject of desertification and "fragile ecosystems". "Combating desertification" should be a goal of national governments, identifying the BLM and USGS as just two participating federal agencies who took on the task.
Established in 1994, the UNCCD became the force behind desertification, Congress signing the Desertification Treaty in 2000. According to UNCCD, over 30 percent of the land in the United States is affected by desertification. By the time the UN is finished destroying land in the U.S., there may be no land left, except for them. A few UNCCD thematic "priorities" include "...poverty reduction... agriculture, water access, rangeland production and renewable energy." Keep the renewable energy in mind. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one offending agency implementing UNCCD, squandering U.S. dollars to other countries. The DOI also gives special mention to the UNCCD. One UNCCD objective is "...to become a global authority on scientific and technical knowledge in the fields of anti-desertification work (pg 8). The Global Policy Centre on Resilient Ecosystems and Desertification is a one stop shopping center for the DOI on policy recommendations. That is exactly what the federal government is doing, giving the UN full authority, on everything.
In Part 3 Ecosystems will be discussed.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Bureau of Land Management - Part 3 Ecosystems
Desertification isn't enough however, now ecosystems are introduced as a BLM issue, an agenda that will completely obliterate all land use. Again, the term is not found in a dictionary from the 1960's, but the BLM defines it as "...natural processes and systems are intricately linked over broad expanses of space and time." What it really means is there is potential harm to every insect, plant, water source, or animal species if humans are present. The only solution is to keep humans away.
Using wetlands as an example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is forging ahead to define any drop of water as needing protection. The BLM goes further, breaking down wetlands into riparian areas with "land management plans...provide protections for riparian areas including BLM’s no net loss of wetland/riparian habitat policy...to maintain, restore, and improve riparian areas to protect water quality, improve water retention and groundwater recharge, provide wildlife habitat, support biodiversity, and other goals." Now how are they going to accomplish this if humans are in the way?
And why wouldn't the EPA and BLM forge ahead with these decisions, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) expected wetlands to be "...integrated into decision-making as a vital component of the transition to a resource-efficient, sustainable world economy...". Keep the world economy in mind. Read the list of recommendations. Or read the Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016-2021 to learn what they will be doing to us over the next 5 years. In 2013 the UN NGO, Pacific Institute, wrote a report, Global Water Governance, about ecosystems and their conditions are "... likely to continue to decline unless action is taken to address acute threats and better manage freshwater resources." (pg 6) The UN has definitely activated action on this "acute threat".
The IUCN also has wetland recommendations for our DOI member to impose on its departments such as more conservation and preserving more wetlands. According to UNEP ecosystems can generate wealth and employment. Indeed, as the UN destroys land, there will be government jobs ready to fix it, and the wealth will come from taking resources that rightfully belong to states. Kootenai County has already fallen victim to this agenda under the Idaho Wetland Conservation Prioritization Plan - 2012 (NWPCP) with other Idaho targets identified.
Going back to the sage grouse, the DOI patted itself on the back for preventing the grouse from being listed on the endangered species list via "...support of partners like the Audubon Society (UN NGO), we have been able to help ranchers implement conservation strategies that improve sagebrush ecosystems, reduce risks to sage-grouse and keep working lands for working." Oh yeah? How many of those birds were destroyed in the Soda fire along with where they lived because of your strategies? Let the restrictions for human use begin.
But federal government ecosystem "protection" will expand, "... all species throughout the entire range will be listed as threatened or endangered.", including private land management. The BLM intent to expand its authority to take more land was found in 2010. As a UN NGO, IUCN is the creator of the Red List for ecosystems and endangered species. As a IUCN member the DOI and other federal agencies will follow these lists.
Indeed, don't forget Agenda 2030. "Goal 15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning..." and needing "... strong political commitment and national-level strategies...". Just 4 very short years to stop land and resource theft by the UN and federal government co-conspirators.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Bureau of Land Management - Part 4 Resource Theft
The Johannesburg Summit 2002 defines the U.S. responsibilities for land management. Program implementation includes, "internationally accepted principles for environmental management and governance"; "influence use of land...dealing with water and wildlife habitat"; "the ESA can constrain the use and development of private land"; "Government regulations, conservation easements, contracts, or other instruments that arise out of law, custom, and the operation of private markets serve to regulate both landowners' and society's rights to use land."; "The BLM and FS (Forest Service) are...mapping them using Geographic Information System"; "The BLM manages federal lands using multi-jurisdictional approaches to ensure that planning decisions are developed in concert with sustainable development concepts"; and "The U.S. Departments of State...and Interior...actively participated in activities to negotiate the International Convention to Combat Desertification".
And the federal government, having actively implemented these objectives, have enough structure in place to easily and rapidly control all land within the next 5-10 years because nobody is stopping them.
GIS deserves an explanation. It is the acronym for geographic information system which uses layers of geographic data to produce spatial analysis and derivative maps, while geospatial refers to the applications of geographic data. This means that every blade of grass, rock, water body, tree, elevation, city growth, or other land attribute and activity is marked and mapped. This video is short and explains what can be mapped while this video frighteningly explains just how much detail GIS can capture. As noted in the previous Johannesburg Summit report, the BLM uses GIS. What they don't tell you is that GIS information is passed on to the UN. See number 4 on page 4. The federal government, part of the UN cartel, hands over our GIS information and other data to the UN.
Going back to the Part 2 note, "Keep the renewable energy in mind", what is the BLM goal taking land? Most BLM land is rich in resources. Remembering the UN wants control of not only people, but resources as well, then BLM involvement in resource use should be scrutinized. Renewable energy projects on BLM-managed lands include wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Renewable energy projects are complicated and the reader is encouraged to learn more about it. It is also connected to the UNEP "world economy" statement in part 3. The DOI is pretty open about its intent in using public land for renewable energy.
Wind
Starting with wind farms, here is the BLM map of Oregon listing renewable energy projects, at this point Idaho does notrequire utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources as does Oregon.
There are two California wind projects in the works. One will be managed by AltaGas, a Canadian company, and the other in Tylerhorse, managed by Iberdrola, a company in Spain. According to Iberdrola, they ..."will be a leader in the transformation of the U.S. energy industry." They also clearly hold themselves to the UN sustainable development agenda. AltaGas supports the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why are wind projects being farmed out to foreign companies? Aren't there any wind developers in the United States? About 75, but bets are on each one of them is connected in some way to a foreign corporation or the UN. It makes sense that the BLM actively needs more land, free from humans, to develop these projects.
While there is no requirement for wind farms in Idaho we do have some. Here is a dandy USGS interactive map that pinpoints where the farms are located with added information. Private land owners can contract with a wind developer and are paid to have the turbines placed on their property. One such farm is in American Falls. The Energy Integrity Project explains why wind farms are economically detrimental for all of us.
Solar
Called "Solar Energy Zones" or SEZs, the BLM created the "Western Solar Plan" which contain these zones. Their first zone brought in "$5.8 million for the U.S. Treasury". Now cows and people just might cause interference in these zones and the BLM does cite that "human resources" could get in the way. Note we aren't people, we are resources to be drawn upon or eliminated. Anyway, Idaho hasn't been sucked into this plan yet, but with the new aggressive ecosystem management requirements it probably won't take that long to force Idahoans off their land, as in the attempts with the Hammond case in Oregon, and the GIS mapping is already in progress. If the cows get in the way of solar development the BLM must notify them. And what are the ranchers suppose to do when their grazing rights are taken from them and they can no longer afford to live there? Sell their land to the BLM for peanuts and move, and that is what is happening. Taking water and grazing rights, raising grazing fees, and seizing land with refuge and wilderness areas are just BLMploys to force humans off the land, leaving it ripe for resource seizure. Restrictive ecosystem management will be the nail in the coffin, for everyone. At least Oregon Representative Walden understands.
Now just who is the beneficiary, what company builds and manages these solar developments? Why one of them is Google, an UN business partner! Now Ivanpah, the outfit building this mess, is part of BrightSource, a global company and Clinton favorite, and has had some questionable history including defaulting on contracts, low energy production, and killing birds. $1.6 billion from the U.S. Energy Department, your tax dollar, was loaned to this outfit. Think Solyndra. But BrightSource has some good backing from other UN business partners Morgan Stanley and Chevron so the federal government was mindful in keeping more UN cronies in the loop.
According to the BLM, "Distribution of revenue from renewable energy varies depending on the authority used.", but substantial money is made for the federal government from other energy projects. And plans have been started to site"...new transmission projects that would cross public, State and private lands." Has anybody notified the cows? Maybe dumping more of your tax dollar into the BLM will accelerate the takeover of land and resources, say 1.3 billion, that should hasten the job.
Uranium
One last resource to mention is uranium, which the BLM also wants, but it is a non-renewable form of energy used for nuclear production. Multiple federal agencies are involved with uranium mining as it is very profitable. Once again foreign companies are involved in reaping the profits such as Russia, again with a Clinton hand. This contributes to the "world economy" as do the foreign benefactors with solar and wind projects. Millions of dollars in tax credits and other federal gimmicks are given to companies for renewable energy. This money is being stripped out of America. It is no wonder America is dying.
Oregon Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Austrailian company Energy Ventures Ltd, gave a presentation for uranium mining in Malheur County, starting the process in 2011. On page B4 this 1987 USGS map shows areas of uranium in Harney county, Oregon. That is how long they have been drooling over the amount of money they can reap for their coffers.
This BLM energy map site shows maps for other Oregon projects on lands with "Federal Interest", Biomass EnergyProjects and Non-Renewable Energy Projects. At this time there were none listed for Idaho, but there is little doubt it will come as the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is working on renewable energy zones. Here is their policy resolution on forest and rangeland management. Why don't they just kick the UN out?
In 2014 the DOI was on the hunt for reclaiming and remediating uranium mines with multiple government (pg v) agencies involved. It was also noted that potential human risks indicate further restrictions on use may be required (pg 20). One more way to get you out of the way.
Renewable Energy Credits
This is where the story becomes more complicated, and corrupt. Renewable Energy Credits (REC) are part of the scam, and it costs you more money. Companies are issued these credits for solar and wind energy production. Utilities are forced to pay higher rates for these credits and that monetary loss is passed on to you with higher rates. This subject is beyond the scope of this post but it is one more BLM method for land and resource theft, being in charge of transmission grid permitting. And those pesky cows and humans just keep getting in the way, better move them out of the way and off the land. A fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has written about RECs on her website, Technocratic Tyranny, The Renewable Racket, and how it started with Agenda 21.
Conclusion
Ok, now it makes sense. The ultimate UN goal is to move humans off land, take control of resources, and feed their crony partnerships. This can all be justified with saving the planet. Hopefully the reader now understands why the BLM is an enemy and how we are being forced away from the land they control. It is all about taking and controlling resources. Very simple. A memorandum giving the DOI and other federal agencies a directive to create regulations advancing this land and resource theft was issued 11/3/15, completely bypassing Congress. And why not, Agenda 2030 has put a renewed emphasis on protecting ecosystems, habitat, wetlands, and species in Goal 15 with increased financing and national and local implementation.
Dear God, how long before Idahoans and Americans stand up for their Forefather's endeavors to give us the greatest Republic in the world? How much freedom and liberty must be stolen from us before we stand up and say it is ending now? Idaho, wake up, stand together in a mass protest against a foreign entity dictating our lives. It must be done now.
WHY STATES CANNOT SUE TRUMP IN DISTRICT COURT
BY OREN LONG
Under the Constitution, States CANNOT sue Trump in Federal District Court. The Founders believed that, when a State sues the Federal Government, ONLY the Supreme Court should hear the case -- AND THEY SAID SO IN THE CONSTITUTION!
Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentences One and Two state, "In ALL (emphasis added) cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction. In all the other cases...the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact...".
This CLEARLY means that NO Federal District or Appellate Court can hear a case where a State sues the Federal Government, PERIOD! In legal parlance, it's called "Improper Venue", meaning that Federal District Courts have no "Standing" to hear the case. Given that Trump is the 'head' of the Federal Government, any State suing Trump is, in fact, suing the Federal Government. Ergo, said State MUST file directly with the Supreme Court and NOT in District Court.
In turn, this means that President Trump can legally and Constitutionally IGNORE any "Inferior" (Founders' Constitutional word) Court ruling, unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against him. IF the Supreme Court refuses the case, the President's Executive Order stands.
Further, IF this Clause of the Constitution was enforced, the Supreme Court would quickly tire of these mindless, endless 'State vs. Trump' cases and refuse to hear them, meaning that Trump's Executive Orders would stand. AND the States, realizing this, would stop filing these frivolous lawsuits. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
So, why does the President not know this? HE'S GETTING BAD ADVICE FROM THE "OFFICE OF PRESIDENTIAL LEGAL COUNSEL", an office comprised of largely Democrat lawyers, including Obama holdovers. THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO KNOW AND WILL NEVER TELL HIM!
Since the beginning I have tried to get this information to the President, to no avail. I guess I'm not "important" enough!
I hope that you (or someone in your audience) can contact the President directly and give him this information. I HAVE DONE ALL I CAN!
It's up to you.
Thank you,
Oren Long, Administrator, MA, Constitutional Scholar
Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentences One and Two state, "In ALL (emphasis added) cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction. In all the other cases...the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact...".
This CLEARLY means that NO Federal District or Appellate Court can hear a case where a State sues the Federal Government, PERIOD! In legal parlance, it's called "Improper Venue", meaning that Federal District Courts have no "Standing" to hear the case. Given that Trump is the 'head' of the Federal Government, any State suing Trump is, in fact, suing the Federal Government. Ergo, said State MUST file directly with the Supreme Court and NOT in District Court.
In turn, this means that President Trump can legally and Constitutionally IGNORE any "Inferior" (Founders' Constitutional word) Court ruling, unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against him. IF the Supreme Court refuses the case, the President's Executive Order stands.
Further, IF this Clause of the Constitution was enforced, the Supreme Court would quickly tire of these mindless, endless 'State vs. Trump' cases and refuse to hear them, meaning that Trump's Executive Orders would stand. AND the States, realizing this, would stop filing these frivolous lawsuits. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
So, why does the President not know this? HE'S GETTING BAD ADVICE FROM THE "OFFICE OF PRESIDENTIAL LEGAL COUNSEL", an office comprised of largely Democrat lawyers, including Obama holdovers. THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO KNOW AND WILL NEVER TELL HIM!
Since the beginning I have tried to get this information to the President, to no avail. I guess I'm not "important" enough!
I hope that you (or someone in your audience) can contact the President directly and give him this information. I HAVE DONE ALL I CAN!
It's up to you.
Thank you,
Oren Long, Administrator, MA, Constitutional Scholar
GOP Leadership's inaction on, and resistance to, Trump's agenda.
From Oren Long
I have developed a saying that explains the GOP Leadership's inaction on, and resistance to, Trump's agenda. It says, "Sometimes, the only way to win is to 'lose' and the only way to lose is to 'win' ". Please bear with me. It will all make perfect sense.
Republicans LOVE the trappings of power, but shy away from exercising the responsibility that goes with it. They are happy to be called "Congressman" or "Senator", but avoid using the power of their authority. Why is that; it makes no sense, UNLESS we ask, "What is the ultimate, long range goal of way too many in Congress?".
When we recognize that the vast, vast, VAST majority of former members of Congress NEVER return to their home districts or States, but just move to K-Street, receiving millions of dollars as lobbyists, it begins to make sense.
Leaders like Trump hold the GOP's feet to the fire, demanding action, upending the Washington power structure, and possibly threatening future opportunities for former Members of Congress. This is what Congress cannot or will not tolerate.
I believe the GOP would much rather lose every election for the next twenty to thirty years than see Trump succeed. They would be perfectly happy to be the "perennial out-of-power" Party rather than take any action. Power makes them nervous and timid. The "trappings" of power are all they seek, NOT ACTUAL POWER. Actually wielding their power and passing Trump's agenda would threaten their own futures. That cannot be allowed! Trump must fail if THEY are to succeed.
We constantly hear people warn the GOP that not accomplishing Trump's agenda (promises the GOP, themselves, have repeatedly and perennially made, even before Trump) will result in electoral disaster. I don't think they care! Even if they 'lose', they win.
I think that is EXACTLY what the Republicans in Washington are up to. I think they are trying to engineer the defeat of Trump's (and the voters') agenda in order to secure their own, personal success. They will throw themselves in the doorway at every opportunity to secure their own futures on K-Street. Huge, future paychecks are on the line!
Many say that the GOP greatly underestimates the electorate's fealty to Trump and their RAGE at the GOP and the Democrats. Again, I don't think they care! K-Street is waiting.
This also explains why Congress resists ANY form of Term Limits. The longer a member is in Congress, the more future lobbying power he/she has. Term Limits would destroy that and the size of future paychecks.
It really is that simple.
Personally, I do NOT see the GOP losing control of Congress. What I DO see is many GOP members of Congress losing primaries to actual conservatives, and the new members forcing Trump's agenda down Congress's throat. After a couple of elections, most of the GOP and Democrat obstructionists may well be gone -- IRRELEVANT! The dinosaurs will all be fat and happy on K-Street.
Oren
Republicans LOVE the trappings of power, but shy away from exercising the responsibility that goes with it. They are happy to be called "Congressman" or "Senator", but avoid using the power of their authority. Why is that; it makes no sense, UNLESS we ask, "What is the ultimate, long range goal of way too many in Congress?".
When we recognize that the vast, vast, VAST majority of former members of Congress NEVER return to their home districts or States, but just move to K-Street, receiving millions of dollars as lobbyists, it begins to make sense.
Leaders like Trump hold the GOP's feet to the fire, demanding action, upending the Washington power structure, and possibly threatening future opportunities for former Members of Congress. This is what Congress cannot or will not tolerate.
I believe the GOP would much rather lose every election for the next twenty to thirty years than see Trump succeed. They would be perfectly happy to be the "perennial out-of-power" Party rather than take any action. Power makes them nervous and timid. The "trappings" of power are all they seek, NOT ACTUAL POWER. Actually wielding their power and passing Trump's agenda would threaten their own futures. That cannot be allowed! Trump must fail if THEY are to succeed.
We constantly hear people warn the GOP that not accomplishing Trump's agenda (promises the GOP, themselves, have repeatedly and perennially made, even before Trump) will result in electoral disaster. I don't think they care! Even if they 'lose', they win.
I think that is EXACTLY what the Republicans in Washington are up to. I think they are trying to engineer the defeat of Trump's (and the voters') agenda in order to secure their own, personal success. They will throw themselves in the doorway at every opportunity to secure their own futures on K-Street. Huge, future paychecks are on the line!
Many say that the GOP greatly underestimates the electorate's fealty to Trump and their RAGE at the GOP and the Democrats. Again, I don't think they care! K-Street is waiting.
This also explains why Congress resists ANY form of Term Limits. The longer a member is in Congress, the more future lobbying power he/she has. Term Limits would destroy that and the size of future paychecks.
It really is that simple.
Personally, I do NOT see the GOP losing control of Congress. What I DO see is many GOP members of Congress losing primaries to actual conservatives, and the new members forcing Trump's agenda down Congress's throat. After a couple of elections, most of the GOP and Democrat obstructionists may well be gone -- IRRELEVANT! The dinosaurs will all be fat and happy on K-Street.
Oren
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion Since the War on Poverty began under President Lyndon Johnson, welfare spending has exploded to sixteen times its original size. In a new report from the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield tackle the welfare system, explaining how spending has skyrocketed since the 1960s.
So, how are poor households today doing? Rector and Sheffield offer a few statistics: eighty percent of America's poor households have air conditioning, two-thirds have cable or satellite television, half have a personal computer and 43 percent have access to the internet.
Source: "Opportunity for All, Favoritism to None," Heritage Foundation, 2015.
WHITE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED SINCE 1964 AND PAYING THROUGH THE TEETH FOR IT.
Incidentally, I was 17 at the time they spent my $22 Trillion, in the country barely 7 years from a nation that had never owned slaves, from a culture that had biases, aplenty.
Not against colored people.
Against white people like me.
$22 TRILLION, BEYOND THE NATIONAL DEBT WE CAN NEVER PAY DOWN, A DEBT THAT WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE SLAVERY DEBT, WAS NOT ENOUGH?
WHAT IS, ENOUGH?
- America has spent more on welfare than defense since 1993.
- The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history.
- Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
- One-third of all Americans receive benefits from at least one welfare program.
So, how are poor households today doing? Rector and Sheffield offer a few statistics: eighty percent of America's poor households have air conditioning, two-thirds have cable or satellite television, half have a personal computer and 43 percent have access to the internet.
Source: "Opportunity for All, Favoritism to None," Heritage Foundation, 2015.
WHITE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED SINCE 1964 AND PAYING THROUGH THE TEETH FOR IT.
Incidentally, I was 17 at the time they spent my $22 Trillion, in the country barely 7 years from a nation that had never owned slaves, from a culture that had biases, aplenty.
Not against colored people.
Against white people like me.
$22 TRILLION, BEYOND THE NATIONAL DEBT WE CAN NEVER PAY DOWN, A DEBT THAT WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE SLAVERY DEBT, WAS NOT ENOUGH?
WHAT IS, ENOUGH?
The Grass Roots Opposition Is Taking Hold
It seems the grass roots opposition to the swamp is taking hold despite everything the Establishment/Swamp/Deep State is trying to do to derail it. What I believe needs to happen now is for the public in every State to push for a State/People controlled Article V convention. The establishment is terrified that the people will do that and learn they are in complete control of the government when they unite together to block the self interests of the elites and special interest groups that have systematically stolen the power of the people over the Government. The establishment will do everything they can to stop the people from taking back their proper powers and turning the government back into their servant instead of their master.
The battle lines have been drawn, and now all that's necessary is for the people to keep them moving forward against the hidebound and corrupt establishment to take back what was stolen from us over the years.
As I see it there are three things necessary to block the special interest groups and corrupt politicians from derailing us.
1. We need to either repeal or severely modify the number one threat to our sovereignty; the 14th Amendment. It was originally created to insure the voting rights and citizenship of the Freed Slaves. However the three words "No State Shall" were the contentious words that flipped the intent of the Constitution from being the chains that reined in the power of the Federal Government into the chains the Federal Government placed on the States and the people.
2. We absolutely must repeal the 16th Amendment to reinstate financial control over Irresponsible Government spending, and choke off the technically unlimited money supply that the Federal Government seems to think is it's personal property. It will also put a limit on the ever expanding debt the Government creates with their refusal to create a budget and stick to it through always raising the debt ceiling at every turn.
3. We absolutely must repeal the 17th Amendment because the Senators were never intended to directly represent the people but were intended to represent their States exclusively as directed by their State Legislatures. The fact they are now directly elected by the people is not now, and never was what the Founders and Framers of the Constitution meant for them to be. The people were bluffed into pushing through the 17th amendment, an amendment originated/promoted solely by Congress, as all the other amendments have been to date. This amendment gave the Senators the capability of ignoring the wishes of their respective States and promoting the agendas of their respective political parties.
All three of those amendments removed the checks and balances the Founders drew into the Constitution to prevent such an occurrence of Federal Superiority as we now have with the Federal Government riding roughshod over the States and the People while only paying heed to the Elitist Special Interest Groups which are destroying the basic Freedoms and Liberties of the American People. I know there are other just as worthy amendments we need to put in place to restore our rightful power over the Government, and to keep SCOTUS from overruling Legislation like the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act Congress enacted to control and force the Federal Government to balance the budget.
Excerpt from the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia:
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, officially the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, U.S. budget deficit reduction measure. The law provided for automatic spending cuts to take effect if the president and Congress failed to reach established targets; the U.S. comptroller general was given the right to
order spending cuts.
Because the automatic cuts were declared unconstitutional, a revised version of the act was passed in 1987; it failed to result in reduced deficits. A 1990 revision of the act changed its focus from deficit reduction to spending control.
What happened to the Graham-Rudman Act? Part of the Act was declared unconstitutional in 1986. The law itself was reworded in 1987, but the Balanced Budget Act of 1990 effectively killed the law in its application. However, the original Gramm-Rudman Act sparked an initiative that did lead to somewhat balanced budgets during the latter part of the Clinton Administration. Even today, spending caps - one of the fundamental concepts of the original act are still in law today.
As you can see this act would have insured Fiscal Responsibility, however the SCOTUS declared this law the people of America wanted was declared Unconstitutional because there was nothing in the Amendments that authorized it. Many people say "What good does it do to make amendments since the Government ignores the Constitution any way" I'll tell you what good it does. The usual Legal Vehicle the Federal Government uses to usurp the intent of the Constitution is SCOTUS rulings, since SCOTUS is essentially part and parcel of the existing political establishment complete with the various agendas of the party in power when the Justices were appointed.
The bastardization of the 14th Amendment from it's original intent into what is fueling the craziness of immigration laws today is directly the sole responsibility of SCOTUS rulings. Did you know that the original Income Tax law was declared Unconstitutional by the Then presiding SCOTUS? That ruling was almost immediately overturned by the 16th Amendment which Congress rammed through using scare tactics and there is some speculation that it was not properly ratified but simply declared ratified by then Secretary of State Knox. My point is; It has been CONGRESS proposing all the amendments, and doing so primarily for Congressional benefit instead of benefit to the people.
In my opinion it is the aforementioned pseudo dictators in Government that are the prime movers against the people taking back control. They use the very same Scare Tactics/Terrifying Rhetoric to try and dissuade the people from reestablishing their power through the Constitutional method the Founders supplied in Article V. Article V is basically the Constitutionally Legitimate and Legal way to bloodlessly. overthrow a corrupt Government which is following it's own agenda and is not responding to the peoples wishes. The people are making themselves heard in State Elections where they are throwing out the Progressive hacks and replacing them with candidates who seem to be more in tune with mainstream America. Time will tell if these new players are what they seem to be.
So, in the mean time, We The People, need to get together and construct the Constitutional bridge back to our rightful powers. That bridge can be secured only through the amendment process, and you know that Congress "WILL NOT" voluntarily cede the powers they have slowly stolen from us over the previous decades. It's up to us to decide if we want to resurrect the Actual Republic the Founders gave us, or if we want to become Sheep like subjects like we were under the King.
Never Forget the FACT the powers that be want us to forget; Each State of the Union essentially is a Sovereign Nation unto itself, and that Sovereign Nation has voluntarily elected to form a Union of Sovereign States for Mutual Protection and Prosperity, as well as to secure the blessings of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for ALL of it's Citizens in perpetuity. It's now up to us, the Citizens of that Union, to secure the original intent along with the original checks and balances the Constitution was framed to protect.
The Tradesman
The battle lines have been drawn, and now all that's necessary is for the people to keep them moving forward against the hidebound and corrupt establishment to take back what was stolen from us over the years.
As I see it there are three things necessary to block the special interest groups and corrupt politicians from derailing us.
1. We need to either repeal or severely modify the number one threat to our sovereignty; the 14th Amendment. It was originally created to insure the voting rights and citizenship of the Freed Slaves. However the three words "No State Shall" were the contentious words that flipped the intent of the Constitution from being the chains that reined in the power of the Federal Government into the chains the Federal Government placed on the States and the people.
2. We absolutely must repeal the 16th Amendment to reinstate financial control over Irresponsible Government spending, and choke off the technically unlimited money supply that the Federal Government seems to think is it's personal property. It will also put a limit on the ever expanding debt the Government creates with their refusal to create a budget and stick to it through always raising the debt ceiling at every turn.
3. We absolutely must repeal the 17th Amendment because the Senators were never intended to directly represent the people but were intended to represent their States exclusively as directed by their State Legislatures. The fact they are now directly elected by the people is not now, and never was what the Founders and Framers of the Constitution meant for them to be. The people were bluffed into pushing through the 17th amendment, an amendment originated/promoted solely by Congress, as all the other amendments have been to date. This amendment gave the Senators the capability of ignoring the wishes of their respective States and promoting the agendas of their respective political parties.
All three of those amendments removed the checks and balances the Founders drew into the Constitution to prevent such an occurrence of Federal Superiority as we now have with the Federal Government riding roughshod over the States and the People while only paying heed to the Elitist Special Interest Groups which are destroying the basic Freedoms and Liberties of the American People. I know there are other just as worthy amendments we need to put in place to restore our rightful power over the Government, and to keep SCOTUS from overruling Legislation like the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act Congress enacted to control and force the Federal Government to balance the budget.
Excerpt from the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia:
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, officially the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, U.S. budget deficit reduction measure. The law provided for automatic spending cuts to take effect if the president and Congress failed to reach established targets; the U.S. comptroller general was given the right to
order spending cuts.
Because the automatic cuts were declared unconstitutional, a revised version of the act was passed in 1987; it failed to result in reduced deficits. A 1990 revision of the act changed its focus from deficit reduction to spending control.
What happened to the Graham-Rudman Act? Part of the Act was declared unconstitutional in 1986. The law itself was reworded in 1987, but the Balanced Budget Act of 1990 effectively killed the law in its application. However, the original Gramm-Rudman Act sparked an initiative that did lead to somewhat balanced budgets during the latter part of the Clinton Administration. Even today, spending caps - one of the fundamental concepts of the original act are still in law today.
As you can see this act would have insured Fiscal Responsibility, however the SCOTUS declared this law the people of America wanted was declared Unconstitutional because there was nothing in the Amendments that authorized it. Many people say "What good does it do to make amendments since the Government ignores the Constitution any way" I'll tell you what good it does. The usual Legal Vehicle the Federal Government uses to usurp the intent of the Constitution is SCOTUS rulings, since SCOTUS is essentially part and parcel of the existing political establishment complete with the various agendas of the party in power when the Justices were appointed.
The bastardization of the 14th Amendment from it's original intent into what is fueling the craziness of immigration laws today is directly the sole responsibility of SCOTUS rulings. Did you know that the original Income Tax law was declared Unconstitutional by the Then presiding SCOTUS? That ruling was almost immediately overturned by the 16th Amendment which Congress rammed through using scare tactics and there is some speculation that it was not properly ratified but simply declared ratified by then Secretary of State Knox. My point is; It has been CONGRESS proposing all the amendments, and doing so primarily for Congressional benefit instead of benefit to the people.
In my opinion it is the aforementioned pseudo dictators in Government that are the prime movers against the people taking back control. They use the very same Scare Tactics/Terrifying Rhetoric to try and dissuade the people from reestablishing their power through the Constitutional method the Founders supplied in Article V. Article V is basically the Constitutionally Legitimate and Legal way to bloodlessly. overthrow a corrupt Government which is following it's own agenda and is not responding to the peoples wishes. The people are making themselves heard in State Elections where they are throwing out the Progressive hacks and replacing them with candidates who seem to be more in tune with mainstream America. Time will tell if these new players are what they seem to be.
So, in the mean time, We The People, need to get together and construct the Constitutional bridge back to our rightful powers. That bridge can be secured only through the amendment process, and you know that Congress "WILL NOT" voluntarily cede the powers they have slowly stolen from us over the previous decades. It's up to us to decide if we want to resurrect the Actual Republic the Founders gave us, or if we want to become Sheep like subjects like we were under the King.
Never Forget the FACT the powers that be want us to forget; Each State of the Union essentially is a Sovereign Nation unto itself, and that Sovereign Nation has voluntarily elected to form a Union of Sovereign States for Mutual Protection and Prosperity, as well as to secure the blessings of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for ALL of it's Citizens in perpetuity. It's now up to us, the Citizens of that Union, to secure the original intent along with the original checks and balances the Constitution was framed to protect.
The Tradesman
The lib who moved to Indiana
Article and Commentary:
Article
Calif. Lady Never Imagined That She Would End Up in Trump Country… But When She Moved to Indiana She Message to Lib Friends Back Home BY USRELATED · SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Flyover country. Bible belt. Middle America. Coastal elites in liberal cities have all sorts of terms for “red states,” but they all seem to convey one message: Conservative areas of the country are somehow backward and should be avoided.
That’s the impression one California writer had about America’s heartland. Leah Singer never imagined that she would end up in Trump Country… but when she moved to Indiana not long ago, her entire perception changed.
In an editorial piece published last weekend in the Indianapolis Star, the author sent a clear message to liberal friends back in California and throughout the country: You might be wrong about “red states.”
“I used to say I’d never move to a red state. And then I did. And it’s changed my life for the better,” Singer admitted.
As a “California girl,” the writer explained that the left-leaning west coast sees itself as a bastion of “diversity,” but Singer hinted that it was less of a paradise for anybody who didn’t parrot the liberal talking points.
“I was raised in California, where we like to believe diversity is applauded and opportunities abound,” she explained. “In many ways, California’s blue state bubble can be a very safe place to live if you subscribe to the popular liberal politics.”
In other words, it was diverse only if you thought and talked the same as everyone else, which kind of defeats the point. Regardless, Singer was a bit apprehensive about starting her new life in a conservative region.
“Over and over, I was questioned about why I would ever leave the Golden State for a ‘flyover’ red state. This phrase alone troubled me, and the implied perception that one flies over the Midwest just to get to their East or West coast home,” she stated.
Like sheltered people naively asking about a faraway land they’ve only vaguely heard about, the writer’s west coast friends had a lot of curiosity about how things were in America’s heartland.
“As I settled into life in the Midwest, I heard the same assumptive questions: ‘Did everyone you know vote for Donald Trump?’ ‘Are there African-American, Jewish, Asian, LGBTQ people in Indiana?’ ‘Do people make fun of you for listening to National Public Radio?’” Singer recalled.
The coastal transplant quickly realized that her past impressions of conservative America were nowhere near the reality.
“As I got to know my new Midwest home, I realize how living in a bubble and subscribing to the Middle America stereotypes is truly damaging to this country,” she explained.
“Never does one ask how the Indiana public schools provide many opportunities that have been cut from California’s public schools because of one budget crisis after another,” Singer continued.
“Never does one ask about the low cost of living that is allowing us to pay off the mountain of debt we accrued in California. And never does one ask about my fellow community members, who are running successful businesses, enriching the city’s arts and making a difference for the local environment.”
She noticed something that “enlightened” coastal liberals often ignore: Places such as California may not be as truly diverse as they pretend to be.
“Southern California is diverse racially and religiously; it really is not with respect to class or working poor,” the writer revealed.
“This is especially the case in San Diego County, where it’s becoming more difficult for middle-class families to own a home or afford rent, with 41% of homeowners and 57% of renters spending 30% or more of income on housing, all while incomes stay stagnant, according to the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.”
In simple terms, many places in liberal enclaves have become so expensive to live that economic diversity is a thing of the past. It’s a bit like pretending that a gated community where everyone is a doctor or lawyer and drives a BMW is “diverse” — different racial boxes may be checked but it’s all a bit boring.
In the end, Singer’s positive experience with the midwest helped her realize that many coastal elites purposely bury their heads in the sand when it comes to real diversity within the United States.
“(H)ow many of these people travel within their own country to get to know the ‘other?’ Why travel the globe, but not make an effort to get to know your Midwest neighbor?” the author asked.
“Living in Indiana, I now have an understanding of America that I did not before. I wish more people living outside the middle took the time to get to know the others living a few states away. I did, and I am a better person because of it,” she concluded.
She may not completely realize it, but Singer has stumbled upon an important fact. Liberal obsession with diversity often shuns true multiculturalism — a variety of opinions, thoughts and political stances — and instead focuses on the “feel good” categorization of irrelevant traits like skin color.
In many of the most important ways, conservative areas of the country are advancing while liberal neighborhoods face major problems.
Thankfully, people like Singer are having their eyes opened once they actually escape their bubble… and they’re realizing what conservatives have known for decades: Small town America might be on to something after all.
H/T CT
Please press “Share on Facebook” if you think elites might learn a few things from the heartland!
Original article can be read at: http://www.usarelated.com/calif-lady-never-imagined-end-trump-country-moved-indiana-she-message-lib-friends-back-home/
Commentary by Oren Long:
I really liked the article written by the lib who moved, with trepidation, to Indiana.
She hit everything that needed to be said, EXCEPT ONE. She danced around the obvious fact that California libs THINK they are "diverse" when, in fact, they are not. They think they are Real when, in fact, they are not. She failed to correctly identify exactly WHY California libs fail. In short, they cannot see the obvious. They CANNOT see P E O P L E They see only (as Limbaugh so astutely points out) groups. They have NO CONCEPT of humanity or individuality -- NONE! -- only political conformity. They are not "Real". Instead, they are mere shells of human beings, robots who just think they are human if you will. They go through life thinking they know something that they, in actuality, know nothing about. So sad.
To make my point, let me give you a passage from my favorite children's book, "The Velveteen Rabbit". It is the story of a stuffed toy rabbit that eventually became a real rabbit. The Velveteen Rabbit 'lived' in the nursery with all the other toys, including a 'Skin Horse' that had been in the nursery longer than all the other toys. Here is the passage:
"Only the Skin Horse was kind to the Velveteen Rabbit. The Skin Horse was very wise and had lived longer in the nursery than any of the other toys. He knew that nursery magic is very strange and wonderful, and only those playthings that are very old and experienced can understand it.
What is REAL, the Rabbit asked the Skin Horse one day. Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?
Real isn't how you are made, said the Skin Horse. It's a thing that happens to you. It takes a long, long time. That's why is doesn't often happen to toys that break easily, or who have sharp edges, or have to be carefully kept. When a child REALLY loves you, then you become Real.
I suppose you are REAL, said the Rabbit.
The Skin Horse smiled. The boy's uncle made me Real many years ago. AnD once you are Real, you can't become unreal again. It lasts for always.
The Rabbit sighed. He thought it would be a long time before this magic thing called Real happened to him."
To me, the salient part is the description of toys (libs) that never become Real AND how one becomes Real -- through love, true love, of others FOR WHAT THEY TRULY ARE, NOT WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO BE OR THINK, ERRONEOUSLY, WHAT THEY ARE!
Enjoy,
Oren
"Citizens Healthcare Proposal"
Repeal and Replace – An Easy Replacement for Obamacare
Any health care plan must have more than a political foundation and should parallel the astounding success of the American economy rooted in our Founding Principles – Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
A summary of aA complete health care plan is primarily a commercial enterprise that allows for innovation and correction.
a)Reciprocity. Each state must recognize insurance policies purchased in other states.
a)Citizens/residents of any state may purchase health insurance in any state.
a)No process or procedure governing health insurance shall be regulated by the Federal Government.
"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
Co-authored by Jerry Todd toddyo1935@att.net (661) 213-6288 and Jim Coles III 308guy@reagan.com with editing by Bob Webster - Mailing address: 816 River Oaks Drive Bakersfield, CA 93309Presented to the Association of Mature American Citizens for consideration at its Conference on February 18-19, 2016 in Holley in the Hills, Florida.
Gerald V. Todd
816 River Oaks Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93309-2855
(661) 213-6288
Toddyo1935@att.net
Any health care plan must have more than a political foundation and should parallel the astounding success of the American economy rooted in our Founding Principles – Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
A summary of aA complete health care plan is primarily a commercial enterprise that allows for innovation and correction.
- Mandates. All Federal requirements for inclusion in health care policies are hereby repealed.
- The provision of health insurance is a commercial activity, including health savings accounts to be managed by the individual states with these exceptions:
- Reciprocity - Each state must recognize insurance policies purchased in other states.
- Citizens/residents of any state may purchase health insurance in any state.
- No process or procedure governing health insurance shall be regulated by the Federal Government.
- The decision to purchase health insurance is an individual choice; no citizen shall be compelled to purchase health insurance.
- Consumers may choose health care insurance a la carte costed-out on an individual basis.
- Employers have a choice to provide health insurance as part of employee benefit programs.
- The cost of health care insurance benefits provided shall be exempt from taxation of any kind.
a)Reciprocity. Each state must recognize insurance policies purchased in other states.
a)Citizens/residents of any state may purchase health insurance in any state.
a)No process or procedure governing health insurance shall be regulated by the Federal Government.
- Types of health insurance policies shall include:
- Minimal insurance to cover emergency medical treatment.
- Well care plus emergency medical care.
- Basic general plans to cover well care, emergency medical care and routine ongoing medical treatments including doctor office visits, testing, and follow up care.
- Insurance companies may offer limited, temporary insurance at the catastrophic care level.
- The regulatory process is a state, not a Federal responsibility
- Federal funding of medical care shall be as a last resort under catastrophic care.
- All health care-health service providers shall provide lifesaving treatments in emergency situations whether the patient has health insurance or not.
- The patient shall be fully responsible to pay for compensating the health care provider for services rendered. However, this provision does not prohibit health care providers or service institutions from offering “charity care” and/or deferred/reduced payment for such services based on patient need.
- Tort Reform - Americans longing to return to excellence, accessibility, and affordability in health care should encourage their state to emulate the positive effects tort reform has on malpractice liability in the state of Texas.
- 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 if such participation would violate his or her beliefs.
- 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.
"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
Co-authored by Jerry Todd toddyo1935@att.net (661) 213-6288 and Jim Coles III 308guy@reagan.com with editing by Bob Webster - Mailing address: 816 River Oaks Drive Bakersfield, CA 93309Presented to the Association of Mature American Citizens for consideration at its Conference on February 18-19, 2016 in Holley in the Hills, Florida.
Gerald V. Todd
816 River Oaks Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93309-2855
(661) 213-6288
Toddyo1935@att.net
What Can Be Done with Felonious Members of Congress?
Source: From the Desk of Frank Kuchar, Constitutionalist.
What Can Be Done with Felonious Members of Congress?In 1989 when the Exxon oil tanker Valdez ran onto the Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef in Alaska and polluted the waters along 1,000 miles of Alaskan shoreline because its captain was drunk, protestors took to singing a parody of this old children’s song: “What do you do with a drunken sailor, early in the morning? Make him captain of an Exxon tanker.”
The question could be raised similarly about what do you do with a felonious, and perhaps traitorous member of Congress? Well, for the Democrats, you place them in positions of leadership (at least until the member’s actions become known widespread). By now I’m certain most, if not all, of those reading this have heard the reports of how Democratic Representative and former head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, hired Muslim individuals to be her IT technicians. These technicians had access to hers and a number of other Democratic Representatives’ computers and who knows how much sensitive data in our government files. These same individuals defrauded us taxpayers and one was even caught trying to flee the country. We now learn that Congresswoman Schultz continued payments to him and some of the others after they had been blocked from having access to the House computer network and could not perform the work for which they supposed had been engaged.
So what can be done with members of Congress who act so egregiously? There’s the standard answer – vote them out of office. Yet as someone who twice attempted in the primaries to oust a long, long-term Congressman , that is seldom done as they have too much money, influence and too many connections. However, there is another way, but it takes more political courage than those sitting in Congress seldom exhibit.
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution contains this remedy:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”
I would say that Congresswoman Schultz’s actions certainly meet that rather low bar of “disorderly Behaviour” wouldn’t you? There should be an immediate appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate her actions, and when all is brought forth, the other members of Congress should expel her. But we all know that will never happen because far too many of those in Congress could also fall into similar condemnation. After all, there is that long-standing principle of “Honor among thieves” in play with members of our Congress. Would that we’d just have a smattering of pure, plain old “honor”.
Download a PDF copy of Frank's Declaration of Reclamation From the Desk of Frank Kuchar, Constitutionalist.View this email in your browser What Can Be Done with Felonious Members of Congress? In 1989 when the Exxon oil tanker Valdez ran onto the Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef in Alaska and polluted the waters along 1,000 miles of Alaskan shoreline because its captain was drunk, protestors took to singing a parody of this old children’s song: “What do you do with a drunken sailor, early in the morning? Make him captain of an Exxon tanker.”
The question could be raised similarly about what do you do with a felonious, and perhaps traitorous member of Congress? Well, for the Democrats, you place them in positions of leadership (at least until the member’s actions become known widespread). By now I’m certain most, if not all, of those reading this have heard the reports of how Democratic Representative and former head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, hired Muslim individuals to be her IT technicians. These technicians had access to hers and a number of other Democratic Representatives’ computers and who knows how much sensitive data in our government files. These same individuals defrauded us taxpayers and one was even caught trying to flee the country. We now learn that Congresswoman Schultz continued payments to him and some of the others after they had been blocked from having access to the House computer network and could not perform the work for which they supposed had been engaged.
So what can be done with members of Congress who act so egregiously? There’s the standard answer – vote them out of office. Yet as someone who twice attempted in the primaries to oust a long, long-term Congressman , that is seldom done as they have too much money, influence and too many connections. However, there is another way, but it takes more political courage than those sitting in Congress seldom exhibit.
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution contains this remedy:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”
I would say that Congresswoman Schultz’s actions certainly meet that rather low bar of “disorderly Behaviour” wouldn’t you? There should be an immediate appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate her actions, and when all is brought forth, the other members of Congress should expel her. But we all know that will never happen because far too many of those in Congress could also fall into similar condemnation. After all, there is that long-standing principle of “Honor among thieves” in play with members of our Congress. Would that we’d just have a smattering of pure, plain old “honor”.
Download a PDF copy of Frank's Declaration of Reclamation
The question could be raised similarly about what do you do with a felonious, and perhaps traitorous member of Congress? Well, for the Democrats, you place them in positions of leadership (at least until the member’s actions become known widespread). By now I’m certain most, if not all, of those reading this have heard the reports of how Democratic Representative and former head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, hired Muslim individuals to be her IT technicians. These technicians had access to hers and a number of other Democratic Representatives’ computers and who knows how much sensitive data in our government files. These same individuals defrauded us taxpayers and one was even caught trying to flee the country. We now learn that Congresswoman Schultz continued payments to him and some of the others after they had been blocked from having access to the House computer network and could not perform the work for which they supposed had been engaged.
So what can be done with members of Congress who act so egregiously? There’s the standard answer – vote them out of office. Yet as someone who twice attempted in the primaries to oust a long, long-term Congressman , that is seldom done as they have too much money, influence and too many connections. However, there is another way, but it takes more political courage than those sitting in Congress seldom exhibit.
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution contains this remedy:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”
I would say that Congresswoman Schultz’s actions certainly meet that rather low bar of “disorderly Behaviour” wouldn’t you? There should be an immediate appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate her actions, and when all is brought forth, the other members of Congress should expel her. But we all know that will never happen because far too many of those in Congress could also fall into similar condemnation. After all, there is that long-standing principle of “Honor among thieves” in play with members of our Congress. Would that we’d just have a smattering of pure, plain old “honor”.
Download a PDF copy of Frank's Declaration of Reclamation From the Desk of Frank Kuchar, Constitutionalist.View this email in your browser What Can Be Done with Felonious Members of Congress? In 1989 when the Exxon oil tanker Valdez ran onto the Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef in Alaska and polluted the waters along 1,000 miles of Alaskan shoreline because its captain was drunk, protestors took to singing a parody of this old children’s song: “What do you do with a drunken sailor, early in the morning? Make him captain of an Exxon tanker.”
The question could be raised similarly about what do you do with a felonious, and perhaps traitorous member of Congress? Well, for the Democrats, you place them in positions of leadership (at least until the member’s actions become known widespread). By now I’m certain most, if not all, of those reading this have heard the reports of how Democratic Representative and former head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, hired Muslim individuals to be her IT technicians. These technicians had access to hers and a number of other Democratic Representatives’ computers and who knows how much sensitive data in our government files. These same individuals defrauded us taxpayers and one was even caught trying to flee the country. We now learn that Congresswoman Schultz continued payments to him and some of the others after they had been blocked from having access to the House computer network and could not perform the work for which they supposed had been engaged.
So what can be done with members of Congress who act so egregiously? There’s the standard answer – vote them out of office. Yet as someone who twice attempted in the primaries to oust a long, long-term Congressman , that is seldom done as they have too much money, influence and too many connections. However, there is another way, but it takes more political courage than those sitting in Congress seldom exhibit.
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution contains this remedy:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”
I would say that Congresswoman Schultz’s actions certainly meet that rather low bar of “disorderly Behaviour” wouldn’t you? There should be an immediate appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate her actions, and when all is brought forth, the other members of Congress should expel her. But we all know that will never happen because far too many of those in Congress could also fall into similar condemnation. After all, there is that long-standing principle of “Honor among thieves” in play with members of our Congress. Would that we’d just have a smattering of pure, plain old “honor”.
Download a PDF copy of Frank's Declaration of Reclamation
Guest Author Oren Long.
"The Most Damaging Law Ever Passed."
I often ask myself, "What one, single law has done the most damage to freedom, the Republic, and the Will of the People?" NO, it's not the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments, though they, singularly and collectively, did great damage. So, what law am I talking about?
C I V I L S E R V I C E ! ! ! !
Before I start, let me say that I am not naïve. I know that there is no way, short of a revolution, that Civil Service will EVER be done away with! Sadly, that's just the way it is.
I know the arguments for Civil Service: "Get politics out of government service", "Keep experienced workers", "Eliminate favoritism", "Make government more efficient", "Insert professionalism into government service", yadda, yadda, yadda.
Like Communism, they all sound sooo wonderful -- ON PAPER! But, in reality, in the real world, the exact opposite happened. Politics has infected every aspect of Civil Service in the form of the Deep State, with embedded holdovers using their personal political ideologies to resist and undermine the Will of the People and elected officials. "Experienced" employees use their tenured, secure positions to both undermine administrations and avoid work and/or responsibility. Intra-agency favoritism is still with us and always will be; it's just human nature. Civil Service has made government almost impervious to change, resistant to even the most modest improvement. My mother had a saying, "If you want a situation made worse, call the government". "Professional" government employees are often arrogant and condescending toward those they supposedly serve. We have all experienced all of the above when dealing with government.
Before Civil Service, every elected official was free to replace all government employees under their control with people who would work for his/her agenda. New and fresh ideas were welcomed and often implemented.
Before Civil Service, the Will of the Electorate was reflected in every agent and agency under the control of elected officials. There were no "holdovers" from previous administrations who could or would attempt to undermine an incoming administration. Again, the Will of the People was reflected in each and every agency. If the People did not like what officials and/or their administrations were doing, they could and would replace them at the next election.
Before Civil Service, there was no such thing as a life-time, career, self-serving government employee enjoying career status, high pay, retirement, and life-time job security with maximum benefits and even Union protection. There was no such thing as minimal work for maximum pay. A complaint from a constituent was taken very seriously and government employees were often fired, and without recourse. Government service was just that -- service and not a guaranteed job regardless of performance or the lack thereof.
Was the pre-Civil Service system perfect? Of course not. But, to my mind, the cure has proven to be worse than the disease.
The election of President Trump has exposed the glaring deficiencies of Civil Service. We now, CLEARLY, see the power and influence of the Deep State, those self-serving, career, ideological, highly politicized, and VICIOUS Civil Service employees who cannot be fired and will literally stop at NOTHING to undermine the Will of the People and the President's agenda. They care NOTHING for what the People want, instead adhering mindlessly to Party ideology and their HATRED of both President Trump and the People themselves.
This should be nothing new to any of us. How many times have we all tried to deal with government employees (Federal, State, and Local) only to be ignored and even insulted. And, there isn't a damned thing we can do about it! We literally have ZERO recourse! But, we have all grown up under the current system, blindly accepting it as the way things are. Government employment has become the ultimate, secure job, to the extent that many train for and seek it instead of accepting it as a stepping-stone to bigger and better things. And, We the People have blindly accepted Civil Service as a good thing when, in reality, it has undermined the very fabric of the Republic and Representative Government. Most cannot even imagine a world without Civil Service. REALLY?!
Politicians love to run on the platform of downsizing government and making it more efficient and responsive. But, once elected, they find they are fighting the Deep State, those Civil Servants who resist each and every attempt at change. It is as though our votes never counted. It is as though the election never happened. It is as though both we and those we elect are invisible and irrelevant. AND, WE ARE!!!
The Deep State, hiding behind the shield of Civil Service, has become the power behind the throne of politics. Every politician and Party, once elected, tries to increase the size of government and embed ever more Civil Servants into the Deep State, knowing that even after leaving office, the Deep State and its ideologues will continue to push their agenda, often against the Will of the People and any new, incoming administration. The Deep State is the unseen enforcement arm of government, impervious to the Will of the People and even those elected to run it.
Again, I am not naïve. I know it will not change. I just wanted you to know.
Oren Long
Mangus Colorado quote on the article:
"Oren is correct civil service Unions in governments at all levels lets the Unions sit at the table of government and divides the spoils. The Unions feed the elected money and people for free to staff campaigns. Taxpayer are then left out and have zero visibility into the negotiations."
"The Most Damaging Law Ever Passed."
I often ask myself, "What one, single law has done the most damage to freedom, the Republic, and the Will of the People?" NO, it's not the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments, though they, singularly and collectively, did great damage. So, what law am I talking about?
C I V I L S E R V I C E ! ! ! !
Before I start, let me say that I am not naïve. I know that there is no way, short of a revolution, that Civil Service will EVER be done away with! Sadly, that's just the way it is.
I know the arguments for Civil Service: "Get politics out of government service", "Keep experienced workers", "Eliminate favoritism", "Make government more efficient", "Insert professionalism into government service", yadda, yadda, yadda.
Like Communism, they all sound sooo wonderful -- ON PAPER! But, in reality, in the real world, the exact opposite happened. Politics has infected every aspect of Civil Service in the form of the Deep State, with embedded holdovers using their personal political ideologies to resist and undermine the Will of the People and elected officials. "Experienced" employees use their tenured, secure positions to both undermine administrations and avoid work and/or responsibility. Intra-agency favoritism is still with us and always will be; it's just human nature. Civil Service has made government almost impervious to change, resistant to even the most modest improvement. My mother had a saying, "If you want a situation made worse, call the government". "Professional" government employees are often arrogant and condescending toward those they supposedly serve. We have all experienced all of the above when dealing with government.
Before Civil Service, every elected official was free to replace all government employees under their control with people who would work for his/her agenda. New and fresh ideas were welcomed and often implemented.
Before Civil Service, the Will of the Electorate was reflected in every agent and agency under the control of elected officials. There were no "holdovers" from previous administrations who could or would attempt to undermine an incoming administration. Again, the Will of the People was reflected in each and every agency. If the People did not like what officials and/or their administrations were doing, they could and would replace them at the next election.
Before Civil Service, there was no such thing as a life-time, career, self-serving government employee enjoying career status, high pay, retirement, and life-time job security with maximum benefits and even Union protection. There was no such thing as minimal work for maximum pay. A complaint from a constituent was taken very seriously and government employees were often fired, and without recourse. Government service was just that -- service and not a guaranteed job regardless of performance or the lack thereof.
Was the pre-Civil Service system perfect? Of course not. But, to my mind, the cure has proven to be worse than the disease.
The election of President Trump has exposed the glaring deficiencies of Civil Service. We now, CLEARLY, see the power and influence of the Deep State, those self-serving, career, ideological, highly politicized, and VICIOUS Civil Service employees who cannot be fired and will literally stop at NOTHING to undermine the Will of the People and the President's agenda. They care NOTHING for what the People want, instead adhering mindlessly to Party ideology and their HATRED of both President Trump and the People themselves.
This should be nothing new to any of us. How many times have we all tried to deal with government employees (Federal, State, and Local) only to be ignored and even insulted. And, there isn't a damned thing we can do about it! We literally have ZERO recourse! But, we have all grown up under the current system, blindly accepting it as the way things are. Government employment has become the ultimate, secure job, to the extent that many train for and seek it instead of accepting it as a stepping-stone to bigger and better things. And, We the People have blindly accepted Civil Service as a good thing when, in reality, it has undermined the very fabric of the Republic and Representative Government. Most cannot even imagine a world without Civil Service. REALLY?!
Politicians love to run on the platform of downsizing government and making it more efficient and responsive. But, once elected, they find they are fighting the Deep State, those Civil Servants who resist each and every attempt at change. It is as though our votes never counted. It is as though the election never happened. It is as though both we and those we elect are invisible and irrelevant. AND, WE ARE!!!
The Deep State, hiding behind the shield of Civil Service, has become the power behind the throne of politics. Every politician and Party, once elected, tries to increase the size of government and embed ever more Civil Servants into the Deep State, knowing that even after leaving office, the Deep State and its ideologues will continue to push their agenda, often against the Will of the People and any new, incoming administration. The Deep State is the unseen enforcement arm of government, impervious to the Will of the People and even those elected to run it.
Again, I am not naïve. I know it will not change. I just wanted you to know.
Oren Long
Mangus Colorado quote on the article:
"Oren is correct civil service Unions in governments at all levels lets the Unions sit at the table of government and divides the spoils. The Unions feed the elected money and people for free to staff campaigns. Taxpayer are then left out and have zero visibility into the negotiations."
Guest Author Oren Long
Article III and Trump's Immigration E.O.
I know President Trump's Immigration Executive Order is "old news", but I have been trying to get someone to listen ever since Trump first issued his E.O. and Federal District Courts first struck it down. I have written and emailed Congress, radio talk show hosts, the White House, and even the Office of Presidential Legal Counsel, all to no avail. When we consider that 97% of 2016 campaign contributions from the Justice Department went to Hillary and only 3% went to Trump, it becomes painfully apparent that the Justice Department itself, including the Office of Presidential Legal Counsel, is part of the anti-Trump crowd. In other words, they already know what I am about to tell you, but they do not want the President to know.
In posting this information it is my hope that someone, somehow, can get it to the President and/or his inner circle. There HAS to be a way!
Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentence One of the Constitution states, "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE MAY BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (emphasis added)".
Since the States of Maryland, Washington, and Hawaii, through their Attorneys General, filed the original suit against the President's Executive Order, they became "Party" to the suit. Ergo, by Constitutional mandate, they were required to file directly with the Supreme Court, NOT IN DISTRICT COURT! Therefore, again by Constitutional definition and mandate, Federal District and/or Appellate Courts have NO JURISDICTION in the matter, PERIOD!
The Founders CLEARLY did not want Federal District and/or Appellate Courts refereeing issues between the States and the Federal Government. They CLEARLY believed that the Supreme Court was the only, proper Venue in such cases. They were CLEARLY wary of local or regional judges, with possible parochial prejudices, imposing personal biases on cases of such national importance.
Therefore, to my read, the President is free to proceed with his Immigration E.O. unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and strikes it down. This, under the legal premise that "Inferior" (Founders' word) Courts are "Improper Venue" and their rulings are null and void and without force of effect since said Courts lack Jurisdiction.
This is reinforced by the very next sentence in Article III, "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction...". Again, the Founders CLEARLY believed that some cases were just too important to be left to the whims of local Courts.
IF (and it's a huge "if") the President did as I suggest, I am confident that the Left, the Media, Washington, and all other anti-Trumpers would scream "Constitutional Crisis". So, what else is new?
Further, IF the President did as I suggest, it would almost certainly force the Supreme Court to take the case and settle the issue once and for all. IF the Supreme Court refused to take the case, the President's E.O. would stand under the legal and Constitutional premises stated above. This would force said States to re-file directly with the Supreme Court as Constitutionally mandated. Either way, it's a win!
Oren Long
In posting this information it is my hope that someone, somehow, can get it to the President and/or his inner circle. There HAS to be a way!
Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentence One of the Constitution states, "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE MAY BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (emphasis added)".
Since the States of Maryland, Washington, and Hawaii, through their Attorneys General, filed the original suit against the President's Executive Order, they became "Party" to the suit. Ergo, by Constitutional mandate, they were required to file directly with the Supreme Court, NOT IN DISTRICT COURT! Therefore, again by Constitutional definition and mandate, Federal District and/or Appellate Courts have NO JURISDICTION in the matter, PERIOD!
The Founders CLEARLY did not want Federal District and/or Appellate Courts refereeing issues between the States and the Federal Government. They CLEARLY believed that the Supreme Court was the only, proper Venue in such cases. They were CLEARLY wary of local or regional judges, with possible parochial prejudices, imposing personal biases on cases of such national importance.
Therefore, to my read, the President is free to proceed with his Immigration E.O. unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and strikes it down. This, under the legal premise that "Inferior" (Founders' word) Courts are "Improper Venue" and their rulings are null and void and without force of effect since said Courts lack Jurisdiction.
This is reinforced by the very next sentence in Article III, "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction...". Again, the Founders CLEARLY believed that some cases were just too important to be left to the whims of local Courts.
IF (and it's a huge "if") the President did as I suggest, I am confident that the Left, the Media, Washington, and all other anti-Trumpers would scream "Constitutional Crisis". So, what else is new?
Further, IF the President did as I suggest, it would almost certainly force the Supreme Court to take the case and settle the issue once and for all. IF the Supreme Court refused to take the case, the President's E.O. would stand under the legal and Constitutional premises stated above. This would force said States to re-file directly with the Supreme Court as Constitutionally mandated. Either way, it's a win!
Oren Long
Proposal for the XIV Amendment Repeal and Replacement to Restore the Republic and Reinstitute the Original Checks and Balances to the US Constitution
Alternative Proposal for the XIV Amendment Repeal and Replacement to Restore the Republic and Reinstitute the Original Checks and Balances to the US Constitution
Original author unknown:
All proposed modifications/clarifications in ( ) in bold italicised print Amendment XIV 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.
(Section 1. modified/clarified version; All persons born of United States Citizens or of Legal Immigrant Parents including Naturalized Parent or Parents, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and the State where they reside. Neither the Federal Government nor State Governments shall make or enforce any law which abridges the protections of the Bill of Rights, or of the main body of the Constitution. Nor shall the Federal Government or the State Governments deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. Furthermore the Federal Government and the State Governments shall provide EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL JUSTICE under the law. The Federal Government shall not deprive the States of the protections granted the citizens of the United States.)
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
( Section 2. Simplified; Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States counting the number of persons of the age of majority, that age being currently 18 years old. This may not be abridged except for participation in open armed or unarmed rebellion against the United States.) Section 3.No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
( Section 3 simplified; No person having engaged in open armed rebellion, or armed terrorist acts involving deadly infernal machines, electronic devices, or arms of any nature, against the United States, and those convicted of a Felony, shall not be allowed to hold any Governmental office unless the disability is removed by two thirds of both houses of Congress.)Section 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
( Section 4 simplified; No public debts shall be paid stemming from debts incurred by rebellious States or Persons engaged in open armed rebellion or acts of terrorism as previously defined, against the United States) Section 5.The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
(Section 5. clarified; The Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this article, by appropriate Legislation Which does not abridge any portion of the Constitution ,Bill of Rights, or Amendments to that Constitution)Section 6.
( New Section 6. All previous rulings under the prior 14th amendment are now held to be null and void from the ratification of this replacement amendment forward..)
THIS COULD BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO TOTALLY REPEALING THE 14TH AND INSTEAD MODIFYING IT TO CONFORM TO THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT.
Original author unknown:
All proposed modifications/clarifications in ( ) in bold italicised print Amendment XIV 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.
(Section 1. modified/clarified version; All persons born of United States Citizens or of Legal Immigrant Parents including Naturalized Parent or Parents, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and the State where they reside. Neither the Federal Government nor State Governments shall make or enforce any law which abridges the protections of the Bill of Rights, or of the main body of the Constitution. Nor shall the Federal Government or the State Governments deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. Furthermore the Federal Government and the State Governments shall provide EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL JUSTICE under the law. The Federal Government shall not deprive the States of the protections granted the citizens of the United States.)
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
( Section 2. Simplified; Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States counting the number of persons of the age of majority, that age being currently 18 years old. This may not be abridged except for participation in open armed or unarmed rebellion against the United States.) Section 3.No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
( Section 3 simplified; No person having engaged in open armed rebellion, or armed terrorist acts involving deadly infernal machines, electronic devices, or arms of any nature, against the United States, and those convicted of a Felony, shall not be allowed to hold any Governmental office unless the disability is removed by two thirds of both houses of Congress.)Section 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
( Section 4 simplified; No public debts shall be paid stemming from debts incurred by rebellious States or Persons engaged in open armed rebellion or acts of terrorism as previously defined, against the United States) Section 5.The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
(Section 5. clarified; The Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this article, by appropriate Legislation Which does not abridge any portion of the Constitution ,Bill of Rights, or Amendments to that Constitution)Section 6.
( New Section 6. All previous rulings under the prior 14th amendment are now held to be null and void from the ratification of this replacement amendment forward..)
THIS COULD BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO TOTALLY REPEALING THE 14TH AND INSTEAD MODIFYING IT TO CONFORM TO THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT.
From: Shelly Kennedy ;
Fellow Conservative:
GOP leaders in Congress have completely surrendered control over federal spending to the Democrats.
The new spending bill written by House Speaker Paul Ryan(R-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) represents yet another betrayal of the voters who elected them.
Instead of fighting for President Trump's budget priorities, the bill funds Planned Parenthood, it funds sanctuary cities, it subsidizes Obamacare, and it fails to fund the border wall.
We gave them the House, the Senate, and the White House yet nothing has changed. President Trump was prepared to fight the Democrats, but GOP leaders in Congress refused.
What is the point of electing Republicans if they won't fight?
This is why it is so important for Republican voters to elect true conservatives in the upcoming midterm elections. Electing Republicans who won't stand up for our principles is pointless.
TAKE ACTION
Please call the senators below and urge them to oppose the fiscal year 2017 spending bill.
John Cornyn (R-TX) – (202) 224-2934
Tom Cotton (R-AR) – (202) 224-2353
Ted Cruz (R-TX) – (202) 224-5922
Joni Ernst (R-IA) – (202) 224-3254
Ron Johnson (R-WI) – (202) 224-5323
James Lankford (R-OK) – (202) 224-5754
Mike Lee (R-UT) – (202) 224-5444
Rand Paul (R-KY) – (202) 224-4343
Marco Rubio (R-FL) – (202) 224-3041
Ben Sasse (R-NE) – (202) 224-4224
Tim Scott (R-SC) – (202) 224-6121
Pat Toomey (R-PA) – (202) 224-4254
A vote for this bill is a vote to force American taxpayers to fund sanctuary cities, to fund Planned Parenthood, and to bailout insurance companies under Obamacare.
The bill even specifically prohibits the use of any funds to build the border wall that so many Americans voted for last year.
If Mitch McConnell wants to pass this spending betrayal, he should be forced to do it with the Democrats so the entire country can see what a dismal failure this bill is.
Thank you for standing strong for freedom and for being willing to fight for conservative leadership.
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli II
President
Senate Conservatives Action
Fellow Conservative:
GOP leaders in Congress have completely surrendered control over federal spending to the Democrats.
The new spending bill written by House Speaker Paul Ryan(R-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) represents yet another betrayal of the voters who elected them.
Instead of fighting for President Trump's budget priorities, the bill funds Planned Parenthood, it funds sanctuary cities, it subsidizes Obamacare, and it fails to fund the border wall.
We gave them the House, the Senate, and the White House yet nothing has changed. President Trump was prepared to fight the Democrats, but GOP leaders in Congress refused.
What is the point of electing Republicans if they won't fight?
This is why it is so important for Republican voters to elect true conservatives in the upcoming midterm elections. Electing Republicans who won't stand up for our principles is pointless.
TAKE ACTION
Please call the senators below and urge them to oppose the fiscal year 2017 spending bill.
John Cornyn (R-TX) – (202) 224-2934
Tom Cotton (R-AR) – (202) 224-2353
Ted Cruz (R-TX) – (202) 224-5922
Joni Ernst (R-IA) – (202) 224-3254
Ron Johnson (R-WI) – (202) 224-5323
James Lankford (R-OK) – (202) 224-5754
Mike Lee (R-UT) – (202) 224-5444
Rand Paul (R-KY) – (202) 224-4343
Marco Rubio (R-FL) – (202) 224-3041
Ben Sasse (R-NE) – (202) 224-4224
Tim Scott (R-SC) – (202) 224-6121
Pat Toomey (R-PA) – (202) 224-4254
A vote for this bill is a vote to force American taxpayers to fund sanctuary cities, to fund Planned Parenthood, and to bailout insurance companies under Obamacare.
The bill even specifically prohibits the use of any funds to build the border wall that so many Americans voted for last year.
If Mitch McConnell wants to pass this spending betrayal, he should be forced to do it with the Democrats so the entire country can see what a dismal failure this bill is.
Thank you for standing strong for freedom and for being willing to fight for conservative leadership.
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli II
President
Senate Conservatives Action
What Is Happening To Our Nation Must Stop
Part I
What is happening today to our nation?
There seems to be an evil influence casting a shadow over the land. Today's Democratic Party, has gone far beyond liberal, who are these new Progressive Democrats? Have they finally become completely Socialist?
The new Democratic Party has changed over the last century. The actual core values, centered upon dictatorial prowess and draconian agendas remain the same, but they used to be kept hidden from the public. They have always strove to present a public persona that manifested a false semblance of respectability. The once free press in America has been co-opted and taken over by the monied elitist class, has abandoned unbiased reporting and now openly and aggressively aides and abets a transforming and development of America into an iron fisted oligarchy.
The last time the Democrats acted similarly to this behavior, we had a brutal civil war. Eleven States seceded from the Union when a Republican was elected. Now, true to hypocritical form, the ultra/liberal/progressive State of California is actively pursuing the possibility of withdrawing from the Union. Same party, Same tactics, concern that the Same results could be pending?
Do the Democrats, having failed to elect their corrupt little darling Hillary, think they can manage to drive President Donald Trump from office? Do they work to diminish and obstruct him at every turn to put him in his place? Do they think their stall tactics that grind national government to a halt will escape their blame and visit this failure to the newly elected administration? This continuing attitude is a cause for grave concern. It is the deliberate usurpation of the will of the American Public.
Party hacks like Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, lead a determined obstructionist group of non-legislators. They are being helped by turncoat establishment RINO's like Senators Collins, Murkowski, McCain and Graham in obstructing the confirmation of Trumps cabinet picks. A president deserves his cabinet to function and move the new direction of elected government agenda forward. This past election the American People voted for change of direction.
No other president in history, being compared to by the pundits to the first president George Washington, has had this much trouble or delay. Highly partisan federal judges sitting on benches in judicial districts that seek to liberally obstruct conservative principles, have entered into the fray. President Trump has issued legitimate/legal orders concerning Immigration and National Security, keeping good to the promise he ran on and promised to voters, and 3 unelected judges seek to defy his order and his executive power.
As defined by the Enumeration of Powers within the Constitution, which has historically been recognized as settled law, they seek to legislate from the bench, a power and a responsibility that is not bestowed to them in our system of government. Other presidents, including the previous one, have used these legal powers with no objections to their orders. Why the disrespect for President Trump?
It smacks of the Democrats actually refusing to play by the rules…. when they lose.
What began as first a disinformation campaign waged against candidate Trump during the elections process, has escalated in activity and deign. It looked like standard churlish partisan bullying and politics, but has now progressed much further into the dangerous condition of increasing civil unrest and rioting. There even have been calls for assassinations and mutiny by the military, from far-left sources. Images of the massive nation wide race riots of the 1960's are as far afield as these are today, and equally as divisive for our nation.
Part II
Where is this organized and highly financed professional dissension coming from?
This in my opinion, is directly attributable to billionaire financier George Soros and his multi million dollar donations to political hacks and subversive activist groups. Their efforts, combined with his tenuous control/contributions to the Main Stream Media advance the environment of dissent. He joins with rich elitist buddies. This agenda seriously jeopardises the safety and security of The American Public by potentially exposing us to inimical violent forces hell bent on destroying us. A House divided stands extremely vulnerable.
The delay and destruction tactics of this insidious movement works to render America helpless and demoralized. There is a goal for the Proto-Oligarchs like Soros, that instability in our nation wants to take advantage of, A One world Order with them at the helm, where they can safely take over, having never been in personal danger to themselves, they allowed the unrest they have funded to undo us.
What Soros is 'allegedly' doing is insidious. He has already ruined the economies of Britain,Thailand,, damaged the financial structures of Russia and Japan. He has also made inroads into Asia and Europe. In fact in his native Hungary the government there is trying to block every group Soros owns or controls. Although he is not the richest man in the World, that title goes to Rothschild. I do believe (Soros) is acting as a proxy for the 13 richest families of the world to help consolidate their absolute power and control over humanity.
The progressive/liberal/socialist leaders are dictators in training. These factions work world wide and have been doing everything in their power to shatter all sense of morals and decency, honor and integrity, in nations striving for democratic government. The fascist doctrine of political correctness is the beginning salvo. Use rule of law and freedoms to advance in societies. Its not just happening here in America.
Islam even though it is repressive, misogynistic, and blatantly deadly, has been gaining acolytes at an alarming rate. Islamic model projects an unyielding code, and, where people do not have to, and are in fact not allowed to, think freely and decide for themselves.
What is the draw?
We are in a vicious war waged for our bodies, minds, and souls. I pray that we come to realize the fullness of the threats that we face as a nation before it is too late to reverse the process. This is a daily challenge to recognize through unfiltered lens, what we face and join together in greatest necessity to Stop Cold in it's tracks.
America today is a microcosm of the world embroiled in the turmoil of dramatically different philosophies. The fate of America is essential to the final fate of the world. These are the challenges and conditions that Trump is facing every day.
If he wins, America wins. If America wins…so does the freedom of the world.
Lady Boots &
The Tradesman
Mostly Lady Boots.
SOURCE The Organizations funded by George Soros:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
What is happening today to our nation?
There seems to be an evil influence casting a shadow over the land. Today's Democratic Party, has gone far beyond liberal, who are these new Progressive Democrats? Have they finally become completely Socialist?
The new Democratic Party has changed over the last century. The actual core values, centered upon dictatorial prowess and draconian agendas remain the same, but they used to be kept hidden from the public. They have always strove to present a public persona that manifested a false semblance of respectability. The once free press in America has been co-opted and taken over by the monied elitist class, has abandoned unbiased reporting and now openly and aggressively aides and abets a transforming and development of America into an iron fisted oligarchy.
The last time the Democrats acted similarly to this behavior, we had a brutal civil war. Eleven States seceded from the Union when a Republican was elected. Now, true to hypocritical form, the ultra/liberal/progressive State of California is actively pursuing the possibility of withdrawing from the Union. Same party, Same tactics, concern that the Same results could be pending?
Do the Democrats, having failed to elect their corrupt little darling Hillary, think they can manage to drive President Donald Trump from office? Do they work to diminish and obstruct him at every turn to put him in his place? Do they think their stall tactics that grind national government to a halt will escape their blame and visit this failure to the newly elected administration? This continuing attitude is a cause for grave concern. It is the deliberate usurpation of the will of the American Public.
Party hacks like Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, lead a determined obstructionist group of non-legislators. They are being helped by turncoat establishment RINO's like Senators Collins, Murkowski, McCain and Graham in obstructing the confirmation of Trumps cabinet picks. A president deserves his cabinet to function and move the new direction of elected government agenda forward. This past election the American People voted for change of direction.
No other president in history, being compared to by the pundits to the first president George Washington, has had this much trouble or delay. Highly partisan federal judges sitting on benches in judicial districts that seek to liberally obstruct conservative principles, have entered into the fray. President Trump has issued legitimate/legal orders concerning Immigration and National Security, keeping good to the promise he ran on and promised to voters, and 3 unelected judges seek to defy his order and his executive power.
As defined by the Enumeration of Powers within the Constitution, which has historically been recognized as settled law, they seek to legislate from the bench, a power and a responsibility that is not bestowed to them in our system of government. Other presidents, including the previous one, have used these legal powers with no objections to their orders. Why the disrespect for President Trump?
It smacks of the Democrats actually refusing to play by the rules…. when they lose.
What began as first a disinformation campaign waged against candidate Trump during the elections process, has escalated in activity and deign. It looked like standard churlish partisan bullying and politics, but has now progressed much further into the dangerous condition of increasing civil unrest and rioting. There even have been calls for assassinations and mutiny by the military, from far-left sources. Images of the massive nation wide race riots of the 1960's are as far afield as these are today, and equally as divisive for our nation.
Part II
Where is this organized and highly financed professional dissension coming from?
This in my opinion, is directly attributable to billionaire financier George Soros and his multi million dollar donations to political hacks and subversive activist groups. Their efforts, combined with his tenuous control/contributions to the Main Stream Media advance the environment of dissent. He joins with rich elitist buddies. This agenda seriously jeopardises the safety and security of The American Public by potentially exposing us to inimical violent forces hell bent on destroying us. A House divided stands extremely vulnerable.
The delay and destruction tactics of this insidious movement works to render America helpless and demoralized. There is a goal for the Proto-Oligarchs like Soros, that instability in our nation wants to take advantage of, A One world Order with them at the helm, where they can safely take over, having never been in personal danger to themselves, they allowed the unrest they have funded to undo us.
What Soros is 'allegedly' doing is insidious. He has already ruined the economies of Britain,Thailand,, damaged the financial structures of Russia and Japan. He has also made inroads into Asia and Europe. In fact in his native Hungary the government there is trying to block every group Soros owns or controls. Although he is not the richest man in the World, that title goes to Rothschild. I do believe (Soros) is acting as a proxy for the 13 richest families of the world to help consolidate their absolute power and control over humanity.
The progressive/liberal/socialist leaders are dictators in training. These factions work world wide and have been doing everything in their power to shatter all sense of morals and decency, honor and integrity, in nations striving for democratic government. The fascist doctrine of political correctness is the beginning salvo. Use rule of law and freedoms to advance in societies. Its not just happening here in America.
Islam even though it is repressive, misogynistic, and blatantly deadly, has been gaining acolytes at an alarming rate. Islamic model projects an unyielding code, and, where people do not have to, and are in fact not allowed to, think freely and decide for themselves.
What is the draw?
We are in a vicious war waged for our bodies, minds, and souls. I pray that we come to realize the fullness of the threats that we face as a nation before it is too late to reverse the process. This is a daily challenge to recognize through unfiltered lens, what we face and join together in greatest necessity to Stop Cold in it's tracks.
America today is a microcosm of the world embroiled in the turmoil of dramatically different philosophies. The fate of America is essential to the final fate of the world. These are the challenges and conditions that Trump is facing every day.
If he wins, America wins. If America wins…so does the freedom of the world.
Lady Boots &
The Tradesman
Mostly Lady Boots.
SOURCE The Organizations funded by George Soros:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
Don’t Just Keep the Electoral College; Repeal the 17th Amendment
Don’t Just Keep the Electoral College; Repeal the 17th Amendment
by Sheldon Richman (http://www.fff.org/author/sheldon-richman/)
In the heat of the electoral controversy — the worst possible time to make constitutional decisions — many people, such as Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton, are calling for an end to the Electoral College. Big mistake.
Someone once said, Don’t knock down a wall merely because you cannot immediately see what it’s good for. The same can be said for the Electoral College. We should keep in mind that the Founding Fathers were of somewhat better caliber than the politician you are likely to see on television, including those with presidential ambitions. The Electoral College was not an idea floating in isolation from the rest of the constitutional order bequeathed to us. It is an integral piece of a unified structure. The Founders seemed to have anticipated the architect Louis Sullivan’s motto, “Form follows function. ”
What was the function of the Constitution? To restrain the central government. The document is a device for dispersing power, because concentrated power is inimical to freedom. A related purpose was to thwart majorities that would trample individual freedom. There is an invisible line between democracy and mob rule. The main method the Founders hit on to contain central power and mob rule was federalism: the maintenance of the states as sovereign entities. Although the Constitution begins with the words, “We the People ” (to Patrick Henry’s consternation), in the late eighteenth century the union was seen as a confederation of states. “The United States ” once took a plural verb. The Bill of Rights concludes with the Tenth Amendment, which says in no uncertain terms that powers not delegated to the central government were “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ” That view prevailed until President Lincoln issued his bloody military dissent in 1861.
The Electoral College kept presidential elections consistent with the sovereignty of the states. Another part of the constitutional blueprint was the selection of the members of the U.S. Senate by the state legislatures. That was changed with the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, under the delusion that anything labeled “democratic ” was good. It was a case of pulling down a wall without asking what function it served.
What could be objectionable about having direct election of senators? A lot — if you bear in mind that the Founders’ rationale was to prevent the flow of power to the center. If the state legislatures picked the senators, the states would have representatives in one house of Congress. Those senators would tend to be more protective of state (fragmented) power than direct representatives of “the people ” would be. History seems to bear this out. By the way, it is untrue that under the old system “the people ” had no say in who their senators would be. Candidates for state legislatures usually declared whom they favored for the U.S. Senate.
The powers reserved to the states became known as “states’ rights.” This is an unfortunate term, a metaphor actually. States don’t have rights. Only individuals do. The term simply refers to the powers that the states have against the central government. Thus states’ rights in principle are protections of individual rights.
To be sure, states have abused their powers and violated individual rights. They continue to do so to this day. (Try carrying a gun or becoming a barber without your state’s permission.) But the central government also violates rights and has done so with increasing ferocity over the decades. The preference for states’ rights is merely a recognition of a tradeoff: decentralized power rather than centralized power. If government becomes intolerably oppressive, it is easier to change states than to change countries. Voting with the feet should be kept as cheap as possible.
That the Framers were men of wealth and property is no valid objection to their handiwork. Private property is indispensable to freedom and prosperity — even, or especially, for those who own little. Envious mobs are too easily whipped up by opportunistic politicians to keep property safe in a democracy. That’s one reason the Framers devised the Electoral College: it was to be a buffer between unruly majorities and the rights of the smallest minority, the individual.
So let us not knock down another wall — the Electoral College. Instead, let’s restore an old wall by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment!
http://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dont-electoral-college-repeal-17th-amendment/
------------
by Sheldon Richman (http://www.fff.org/author/sheldon-richman/)
In the heat of the electoral controversy — the worst possible time to make constitutional decisions — many people, such as Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton, are calling for an end to the Electoral College. Big mistake.
Someone once said, Don’t knock down a wall merely because you cannot immediately see what it’s good for. The same can be said for the Electoral College. We should keep in mind that the Founding Fathers were of somewhat better caliber than the politician you are likely to see on television, including those with presidential ambitions. The Electoral College was not an idea floating in isolation from the rest of the constitutional order bequeathed to us. It is an integral piece of a unified structure. The Founders seemed to have anticipated the architect Louis Sullivan’s motto, “Form follows function. ”
What was the function of the Constitution? To restrain the central government. The document is a device for dispersing power, because concentrated power is inimical to freedom. A related purpose was to thwart majorities that would trample individual freedom. There is an invisible line between democracy and mob rule. The main method the Founders hit on to contain central power and mob rule was federalism: the maintenance of the states as sovereign entities. Although the Constitution begins with the words, “We the People ” (to Patrick Henry’s consternation), in the late eighteenth century the union was seen as a confederation of states. “The United States ” once took a plural verb. The Bill of Rights concludes with the Tenth Amendment, which says in no uncertain terms that powers not delegated to the central government were “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ” That view prevailed until President Lincoln issued his bloody military dissent in 1861.
The Electoral College kept presidential elections consistent with the sovereignty of the states. Another part of the constitutional blueprint was the selection of the members of the U.S. Senate by the state legislatures. That was changed with the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, under the delusion that anything labeled “democratic ” was good. It was a case of pulling down a wall without asking what function it served.
What could be objectionable about having direct election of senators? A lot — if you bear in mind that the Founders’ rationale was to prevent the flow of power to the center. If the state legislatures picked the senators, the states would have representatives in one house of Congress. Those senators would tend to be more protective of state (fragmented) power than direct representatives of “the people ” would be. History seems to bear this out. By the way, it is untrue that under the old system “the people ” had no say in who their senators would be. Candidates for state legislatures usually declared whom they favored for the U.S. Senate.
The powers reserved to the states became known as “states’ rights.” This is an unfortunate term, a metaphor actually. States don’t have rights. Only individuals do. The term simply refers to the powers that the states have against the central government. Thus states’ rights in principle are protections of individual rights.
To be sure, states have abused their powers and violated individual rights. They continue to do so to this day. (Try carrying a gun or becoming a barber without your state’s permission.) But the central government also violates rights and has done so with increasing ferocity over the decades. The preference for states’ rights is merely a recognition of a tradeoff: decentralized power rather than centralized power. If government becomes intolerably oppressive, it is easier to change states than to change countries. Voting with the feet should be kept as cheap as possible.
That the Framers were men of wealth and property is no valid objection to their handiwork. Private property is indispensable to freedom and prosperity — even, or especially, for those who own little. Envious mobs are too easily whipped up by opportunistic politicians to keep property safe in a democracy. That’s one reason the Framers devised the Electoral College: it was to be a buffer between unruly majorities and the rights of the smallest minority, the individual.
So let us not knock down another wall — the Electoral College. Instead, let’s restore an old wall by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment!
http://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dont-electoral-college-repeal-17th-amendment/
------------
Is now the perfect time?
Contributors;
Lady Boots, Mangus Colorado, Tradesman
Is now the perfect time?
Congress, it seems, only acts in it's own interest in modern times. Therefore I ask, should The People now use their Rightful Constitutional Power to act peacefully, in their own and their respective State's best interests?
It is a question asked by many to many people to be ignored. Is now the perfect time
For the first time since 1928 that the
Republicans have control of both houses of Congress and have elected a Republican President. Should we put pressure on Congress to restore the Constitution to the point where it again rightfully puts "the chains of The Constitution" back on the Federal Government?
Is Now The Perfect Time?
“Bind government by The chains of The Constitution”. What does that mean? The Founders knew and measured the new government they wished to design by historic examples. True democracies that had formed central governments had devolved into intrusive behemoths, all had risen and fell. Knowing those lessons, they sought to create a guiding document, The Constitution, to keep it in check.
The Constitution was also created not to give people rights, but to protect and to secure the rights of the people, making them the masters of that Central Government. The Constitution is a limiting document, those limits are toward a central government. The rights enumerated, are rights spoken that MAY NOT BE INFRINGED UPON, but are not limited to only what is written, but to all of our God given Rights.
To see the excesses and usurpation of the peoples power to govern themselves, one only has to look at the last 151 years of incremental increases in the power of the Federal Government over the People and the States. In actuality the People and the States have been subjected to a slow poisoning set of amendments and enacted legislation, along with Partisan rulings by SCOTUS. Frogs in a slowly heated pot.
The origin of this incursion and usurpation was the 14th amendment. Granted, the original intent of that amendment was laudable and necessary. However it has been bastardized by subsequent power hungry elected officials through the years, along with the compliance of a sympathetic and Partisan SCOTUS rulings over those years, to become the antithesis of what the Constitution originally stood for. Basically those rulings culminated in the flipping the original power flow 180 degrees from it's original intent. The People must petition for an amendment Proposal convention, to take their rightful powers back.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was specifically to give Citizenship and Voting Rights to the Freed Slaves.
Nothing more!
It did not give citizenship to Native Americans nor Immigrant Chinese or their children born here. For an informative treatise on the subject please look at the information given on it at;http://www.14thamendment.us/ . That site even gives statements from Senators of that period on what it was supposed to cover and what it was not.
Now we are giving citizenship to "Anchor Babies”, as a result of a highly partisan SCOTUS ruling, arguable that went far beyond what was originally intended by the amendment, and made/gave SCOTUS 'Prima Facie' a "non enumerated power”, meaning to amend amendments by ruling from the bench and substituting their own interpretation into the mix. Critics of ‘legislating from the bench’ argue this is a modern day expansion beyond the role of a SCOTUS, which should simply rule on the constitutionality of law as it is clearly written.
See;http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html)
The SCOTUS should also have used the comments of the contemporary members of Congress, who originally penned the amendment, to see what they intended it to be limited to.
This Amendment must be repealed and/or modified to reflect it's original intent and remove a century and a half or SCOTUS Partisan Interpretations and more importantly, to prevent SCOTUS from using it again to Grow the Federal Governments Power and Scope..
The Three Words in the 14th Amendment that were used to flip the original power flow from the People to the States to the Federal Government were "NO STATE SHALL" and those words were only originally intended to stop southern states from figuring out ways around the Slaves Citizenship, and more importantly, around their voting rights. It actually took the 15th Amendment to secure those rights Legally and Figuratively 'Set Them In Stone'.
The next Amendment that absolutely must be repealed is the 16th Amendment. This amendment went directly against the Founders wishes. They knew the danger in a central bank had on the continued Freedom and Liberties of a Free self governed people.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 is the Specific section of the Constitutions Enumerated powers to Congress. It gave Congress the sole right to coin money and regulate the value of that money, and of Foreign coin (exchange rate) with respect to that money. It also required them to retain that power unto themselves until the 16th was foisted on an unsuspecting public during the Woodrow Wilson Administration. Congress originally set the Gold,Silver, and Copper standards for backing up the currency, and created Gold, Silver, and Copper coinage that retained a set value by law.
Many people think The 16th gave rise to a Privately Owned Bank that created Fiat Paper Money and surreptitiously set the value of it through a use of interest bearing loans similar to the LIBOR used in the UK. It is called the "Federal Funds Rate”. The Fed is not a privately owned except for the Banks, and that is a separate Corp that all members must buy shares in to become part of the FDIC. The stock is not traded nor can it be ( that's a closed loop Monopoly). The power in the Fed lies in the Board of governors the majority is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. The Board meets with some of the Fed bank Presidents in the minority and they set the Congress directed money and employment goals. Nothing was said about the interest rates. The money supply is supposed to be regulated by Congressional oversight and direction. So the myth that the Fed is some evil cabal is BS. The do not mint currency nor do they instruct the Mints only congress can do that using the Treasury Department to control the money supply.
Treasury bills are supposed to be the medium used to put the money in the system and to take money out of the system that is how the Congress is supposed to control the amount of currency out in the market. This then creates more demand for borrowing or to make it less attractive - thus the expansion or contraction is directly related to Fed actions and Congressional instructions. Still, NOTHING is said about the interest rates charged by the Fed to the banks they make overnight loans to and nothing is public knowledge about how much the Fed consortium of banks is making using our money supply.
This Monetary process remained stable with the paper (FIAT) money being tied to the Gold Reserves held by the Treasury, and the accepted rate was $35.00 an ounce. Two things happened during the FDR,JFK, and RMN administrations. During the FDR administration. By EXECUTIVE ORDER of FDR Gold was taken out of circulation as legal tender, (confiscated) from the public. Gold Certificates were no longer Legal Tender, all civilian held gold with a few highly regulated exceptions, was placed in the U.S. Gold reserves. The Gold certificates were replaced with the fiat paper money the Federal Reserve Notes the Fed issued. .
Until then all the paper money was basically Gold or Silver certificates and could be redeemed at any bank or U.S. mint for actual Gold or Silver. Currency was split from the Gold standard and the Federal Reserve could print money over and above the Gold reserves held by the Treasury by order of Congress. In fact FDR usurped the Constitutional enumerated powers and Congress when he issued that executive order geared to bail out the Federal Reserve. See http://www.moonlightmint.com/bailout.htm . Originally from 1913 to 1929 the results of paper money created a hollow Boom. After 1929 market crash neither the Federal Reserve nor the US Treasury held anywhere near enough gold to back all the Gold Certificates and Federal Reserve Notes that were in circulation.
During the JFK administration Kennedy did two things. In 1961 he issued an Executive Order ( 11110 on June 4, 1963) to stop the mint from selling Silver from it's reserves. He asked Congress to phase out Silver Certificates in favor of Federal Reserve Notes because of the disparity of silver prices for industrial usage being higher than the fixed price set for the U.S.Mint. That disparity saw 80% of the mint's silver reserve sold off before Kennedy stopped it. All redemption in silver ceased on June 24, 1968. In the 1970s, large numbers of the remaining silver dollars in the mint vaults were sold to the collecting public for collector value.
During the RMN administration Nixon and until 8/15/71 the Dollar was still pegged to Gold in the reserves but the catch was it could only be redeemed by foreign nations who exchanged it for our gold. After 8.15.71 Nixon issued the executive order that split the dollar off from it's stabilizing gold standard. It was the first time in human history where humanity did not tie it's money to metals, usually the metal gold. When Nixon removed the brakes he set the world on a continuous upward spiral of inflation. The move only benefited the massive world wide banking interests like the Rothschilds banking network. Speculation has it they were behind the original idea of creating the Federal Reserve because their motto was always "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" ..meaning he would actually be behind the scenes in control of any government he controlled the money supply of.
Knowing these things we need to decommission the Federal Reserve and it's stealth enforcement arm (the IRS) operating under the color of U.S. law and return the coinage of money to it's Constitutional requirement, the Treasury. With Congress making the decisions on what the money is worth and what will be used to back it up. I'm betting on gold and silver to stabilize our finances. At that point Congress could do one of three things:
1. It could keep the worth of the dollar at the present level of exchange for gold or silver, reissue gold and silver certificates, and freeze the exchange rates there.
2. It could increase the value of the dollar by setting the exchange rate with Gold and Silver and making the dollar buy less gold or silver say $800.00 dollars for an ounce of gold and $80.00 for an ounce of silver, thus increasing the buying power of the dollar and stabilizing it in world markets.
3. It could devalue the dollar by setting the exchange rate for an ounce of Gold at $2000.00 and the exchange rate for silver at $200.00 an ounce. Doing any of those things would break the control over our money by the Federal Reserve, and be the start of removing the Federal Reserve from our monetary process altogether. .
Or values can be set at any rate the Congress and not the Federal Reserve decides as its worth. That would also stop the printing of worthless money for as long as the standard held. It would stop currency speculation like what Soros used to break the bank of England with. All in All it would benefit the people of the United States and it would help create jobs in a stable market where production, and, supply and demand once again ruled.
The 17th Amendment is one of the most insidious amendments that was passed by bluffing the People and States into ratifying it.
If you ever chance to read the Constitution and Federalist papers you will see that the Senators were never intended to directly be elected by the public and neither were they ever intended to represent the public directly. If you doubt that please look up what has been called "The Connecticut Compromise"," The Great Compromise of 1787" or "Sherman's Compromise" respectively. See; http://connecticuthistory.org/the-connecticut-compromise/ For full background and information. Basically it was created Specifically to "Give EQUAL REPRESENTATION to all the individual States" in the Congress of the United States. The politicians know this but it seems they don't want the public to remember it. Originally and until the 17th Amendment was foisted on the people, using questionable means that spun the truth and created conflict and fear about the situation, Senators were selected by their State Legislatures.
The selection process was intended for the State Legislatures to have an EQUAL say in Congress and the Senators were their Representatives. The House on the other hand was the Peoples direct Representatives, and that is one of the reasons the Nation's purse strings were vested in the House. Perfect check and balance was in effect and government ran smoothly. The State Legislatures could and did tell their Senators what they could and could not agree to in Congress.
Consider another good check and balance built into Government by the Founders, the equal number of state senator's tenures in office was controlled by two things: the Constitution set the length a Senator could be in office until he had to stand for election/selection by his State Legislature, and he also served at the pleasure of his State Legislature. State legislatures could recall and remove him/her from office for cause, and replace him with someone else for the remainder of his term of office. Senators were to be held responsible to their State Legislatures and no one else (Political Party)
Now part of this is retained by the States through their Governors, who can appoint a Senator to office for the remainder of a term should the current Senator resign, die, or be removed for conduct unbecoming (usually in case of a conviction and jail term). Now, senators are not only NOT required to represent their States work where they live and are most accessible and accountable to the people who elect them. As a matter of fact, they can not legally directly represent the people. So that leaves their allegiance to only one entity, their Political Party and it's interests/agendas. That removes and/or negates most of the Constitutional Checks and Balances as well as the EQUAL Representation of their States Interests in Congress. We all can see where that has gotten us.
It is my hope that somehow President Trump will read this.
I encourage all and welcome to check out the online Free Constitutional Library site at; http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
Support for a States Petitioned Article V Amendment Proposal Convention is growing. The conservative cause has never been stronger in our federal government and state houses as well, at least not known in modern times.
We have two years with this majority strength to push forward with that edge to get much needed changes through in Congress.
The Tradesman
Congress, it seems, only acts in it's own interest in modern times. Therefore I ask, should The People now use their Rightful Constitutional Power to act peacefully, in their own and their respective State's best interests?
It is a question asked by many to many people to be ignored. Is now the perfect time
For the first time since 1928 that the
Republicans have control of both houses of Congress and have elected a Republican President. Should we put pressure on Congress to restore the Constitution to the point where it again rightfully puts "the chains of The Constitution" back on the Federal Government?
Is Now The Perfect Time?
“Bind government by The chains of The Constitution”. What does that mean? The Founders knew and measured the new government they wished to design by historic examples. True democracies that had formed central governments had devolved into intrusive behemoths, all had risen and fell. Knowing those lessons, they sought to create a guiding document, The Constitution, to keep it in check.
The Constitution was also created not to give people rights, but to protect and to secure the rights of the people, making them the masters of that Central Government. The Constitution is a limiting document, those limits are toward a central government. The rights enumerated, are rights spoken that MAY NOT BE INFRINGED UPON, but are not limited to only what is written, but to all of our God given Rights.
To see the excesses and usurpation of the peoples power to govern themselves, one only has to look at the last 151 years of incremental increases in the power of the Federal Government over the People and the States. In actuality the People and the States have been subjected to a slow poisoning set of amendments and enacted legislation, along with Partisan rulings by SCOTUS. Frogs in a slowly heated pot.
The origin of this incursion and usurpation was the 14th amendment. Granted, the original intent of that amendment was laudable and necessary. However it has been bastardized by subsequent power hungry elected officials through the years, along with the compliance of a sympathetic and Partisan SCOTUS rulings over those years, to become the antithesis of what the Constitution originally stood for. Basically those rulings culminated in the flipping the original power flow 180 degrees from it's original intent. The People must petition for an amendment Proposal convention, to take their rightful powers back.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was specifically to give Citizenship and Voting Rights to the Freed Slaves.
Nothing more!
It did not give citizenship to Native Americans nor Immigrant Chinese or their children born here. For an informative treatise on the subject please look at the information given on it at;http://www.14thamendment.us/ . That site even gives statements from Senators of that period on what it was supposed to cover and what it was not.
Now we are giving citizenship to "Anchor Babies”, as a result of a highly partisan SCOTUS ruling, arguable that went far beyond what was originally intended by the amendment, and made/gave SCOTUS 'Prima Facie' a "non enumerated power”, meaning to amend amendments by ruling from the bench and substituting their own interpretation into the mix. Critics of ‘legislating from the bench’ argue this is a modern day expansion beyond the role of a SCOTUS, which should simply rule on the constitutionality of law as it is clearly written.
See;http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html)
The SCOTUS should also have used the comments of the contemporary members of Congress, who originally penned the amendment, to see what they intended it to be limited to.
This Amendment must be repealed and/or modified to reflect it's original intent and remove a century and a half or SCOTUS Partisan Interpretations and more importantly, to prevent SCOTUS from using it again to Grow the Federal Governments Power and Scope..
The Three Words in the 14th Amendment that were used to flip the original power flow from the People to the States to the Federal Government were "NO STATE SHALL" and those words were only originally intended to stop southern states from figuring out ways around the Slaves Citizenship, and more importantly, around their voting rights. It actually took the 15th Amendment to secure those rights Legally and Figuratively 'Set Them In Stone'.
The next Amendment that absolutely must be repealed is the 16th Amendment. This amendment went directly against the Founders wishes. They knew the danger in a central bank had on the continued Freedom and Liberties of a Free self governed people.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 is the Specific section of the Constitutions Enumerated powers to Congress. It gave Congress the sole right to coin money and regulate the value of that money, and of Foreign coin (exchange rate) with respect to that money. It also required them to retain that power unto themselves until the 16th was foisted on an unsuspecting public during the Woodrow Wilson Administration. Congress originally set the Gold,Silver, and Copper standards for backing up the currency, and created Gold, Silver, and Copper coinage that retained a set value by law.
Many people think The 16th gave rise to a Privately Owned Bank that created Fiat Paper Money and surreptitiously set the value of it through a use of interest bearing loans similar to the LIBOR used in the UK. It is called the "Federal Funds Rate”. The Fed is not a privately owned except for the Banks, and that is a separate Corp that all members must buy shares in to become part of the FDIC. The stock is not traded nor can it be ( that's a closed loop Monopoly). The power in the Fed lies in the Board of governors the majority is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. The Board meets with some of the Fed bank Presidents in the minority and they set the Congress directed money and employment goals. Nothing was said about the interest rates. The money supply is supposed to be regulated by Congressional oversight and direction. So the myth that the Fed is some evil cabal is BS. The do not mint currency nor do they instruct the Mints only congress can do that using the Treasury Department to control the money supply.
Treasury bills are supposed to be the medium used to put the money in the system and to take money out of the system that is how the Congress is supposed to control the amount of currency out in the market. This then creates more demand for borrowing or to make it less attractive - thus the expansion or contraction is directly related to Fed actions and Congressional instructions. Still, NOTHING is said about the interest rates charged by the Fed to the banks they make overnight loans to and nothing is public knowledge about how much the Fed consortium of banks is making using our money supply.
This Monetary process remained stable with the paper (FIAT) money being tied to the Gold Reserves held by the Treasury, and the accepted rate was $35.00 an ounce. Two things happened during the FDR,JFK, and RMN administrations. During the FDR administration. By EXECUTIVE ORDER of FDR Gold was taken out of circulation as legal tender, (confiscated) from the public. Gold Certificates were no longer Legal Tender, all civilian held gold with a few highly regulated exceptions, was placed in the U.S. Gold reserves. The Gold certificates were replaced with the fiat paper money the Federal Reserve Notes the Fed issued. .
Until then all the paper money was basically Gold or Silver certificates and could be redeemed at any bank or U.S. mint for actual Gold or Silver. Currency was split from the Gold standard and the Federal Reserve could print money over and above the Gold reserves held by the Treasury by order of Congress. In fact FDR usurped the Constitutional enumerated powers and Congress when he issued that executive order geared to bail out the Federal Reserve. See http://www.moonlightmint.com/bailout.htm . Originally from 1913 to 1929 the results of paper money created a hollow Boom. After 1929 market crash neither the Federal Reserve nor the US Treasury held anywhere near enough gold to back all the Gold Certificates and Federal Reserve Notes that were in circulation.
During the JFK administration Kennedy did two things. In 1961 he issued an Executive Order ( 11110 on June 4, 1963) to stop the mint from selling Silver from it's reserves. He asked Congress to phase out Silver Certificates in favor of Federal Reserve Notes because of the disparity of silver prices for industrial usage being higher than the fixed price set for the U.S.Mint. That disparity saw 80% of the mint's silver reserve sold off before Kennedy stopped it. All redemption in silver ceased on June 24, 1968. In the 1970s, large numbers of the remaining silver dollars in the mint vaults were sold to the collecting public for collector value.
During the RMN administration Nixon and until 8/15/71 the Dollar was still pegged to Gold in the reserves but the catch was it could only be redeemed by foreign nations who exchanged it for our gold. After 8.15.71 Nixon issued the executive order that split the dollar off from it's stabilizing gold standard. It was the first time in human history where humanity did not tie it's money to metals, usually the metal gold. When Nixon removed the brakes he set the world on a continuous upward spiral of inflation. The move only benefited the massive world wide banking interests like the Rothschilds banking network. Speculation has it they were behind the original idea of creating the Federal Reserve because their motto was always "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" ..meaning he would actually be behind the scenes in control of any government he controlled the money supply of.
Knowing these things we need to decommission the Federal Reserve and it's stealth enforcement arm (the IRS) operating under the color of U.S. law and return the coinage of money to it's Constitutional requirement, the Treasury. With Congress making the decisions on what the money is worth and what will be used to back it up. I'm betting on gold and silver to stabilize our finances. At that point Congress could do one of three things:
1. It could keep the worth of the dollar at the present level of exchange for gold or silver, reissue gold and silver certificates, and freeze the exchange rates there.
2. It could increase the value of the dollar by setting the exchange rate with Gold and Silver and making the dollar buy less gold or silver say $800.00 dollars for an ounce of gold and $80.00 for an ounce of silver, thus increasing the buying power of the dollar and stabilizing it in world markets.
3. It could devalue the dollar by setting the exchange rate for an ounce of Gold at $2000.00 and the exchange rate for silver at $200.00 an ounce. Doing any of those things would break the control over our money by the Federal Reserve, and be the start of removing the Federal Reserve from our monetary process altogether. .
Or values can be set at any rate the Congress and not the Federal Reserve decides as its worth. That would also stop the printing of worthless money for as long as the standard held. It would stop currency speculation like what Soros used to break the bank of England with. All in All it would benefit the people of the United States and it would help create jobs in a stable market where production, and, supply and demand once again ruled.
The 17th Amendment is one of the most insidious amendments that was passed by bluffing the People and States into ratifying it.
If you ever chance to read the Constitution and Federalist papers you will see that the Senators were never intended to directly be elected by the public and neither were they ever intended to represent the public directly. If you doubt that please look up what has been called "The Connecticut Compromise"," The Great Compromise of 1787" or "Sherman's Compromise" respectively. See; http://connecticuthistory.org/the-connecticut-compromise/ For full background and information. Basically it was created Specifically to "Give EQUAL REPRESENTATION to all the individual States" in the Congress of the United States. The politicians know this but it seems they don't want the public to remember it. Originally and until the 17th Amendment was foisted on the people, using questionable means that spun the truth and created conflict and fear about the situation, Senators were selected by their State Legislatures.
The selection process was intended for the State Legislatures to have an EQUAL say in Congress and the Senators were their Representatives. The House on the other hand was the Peoples direct Representatives, and that is one of the reasons the Nation's purse strings were vested in the House. Perfect check and balance was in effect and government ran smoothly. The State Legislatures could and did tell their Senators what they could and could not agree to in Congress.
Consider another good check and balance built into Government by the Founders, the equal number of state senator's tenures in office was controlled by two things: the Constitution set the length a Senator could be in office until he had to stand for election/selection by his State Legislature, and he also served at the pleasure of his State Legislature. State legislatures could recall and remove him/her from office for cause, and replace him with someone else for the remainder of his term of office. Senators were to be held responsible to their State Legislatures and no one else (Political Party)
Now part of this is retained by the States through their Governors, who can appoint a Senator to office for the remainder of a term should the current Senator resign, die, or be removed for conduct unbecoming (usually in case of a conviction and jail term). Now, senators are not only NOT required to represent their States work where they live and are most accessible and accountable to the people who elect them. As a matter of fact, they can not legally directly represent the people. So that leaves their allegiance to only one entity, their Political Party and it's interests/agendas. That removes and/or negates most of the Constitutional Checks and Balances as well as the EQUAL Representation of their States Interests in Congress. We all can see where that has gotten us.
It is my hope that somehow President Trump will read this.
I encourage all and welcome to check out the online Free Constitutional Library site at; http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
Support for a States Petitioned Article V Amendment Proposal Convention is growing. The conservative cause has never been stronger in our federal government and state houses as well, at least not known in modern times.
We have two years with this majority strength to push forward with that edge to get much needed changes through in Congress.
The Tradesman
We Hold The Hard Won Advantage For Only A Short Period Of Time
With President Elect Trump, we now have the advantage, and we must act fast to press that advantage, to "Restore the Republic" before the Liberals make a counter move to destroy that advantage;
Our duty to take back America and make her strong again is just starting. We need to do it systematically and correctly. We need to see if President Trump will promote a States petitioned for Article V Amendment Proposal Convention where we can Repeal or Reverse or Modify the Progressive Amendments that flipped the Country into Federal hands, and only benefit the Status-Quo of the lifetime members of Congress and their Crony Capitalists.. Repealing or Fixing amendments like the 14th, to the point where it can no longer be used to promote/legalize Anchor Babies, OR, for any other reason except Voting Rights and the ORIGINAL Provision for citizenship rights for Freed Saves. It was Never Intended to give Citizenship to Foreigners children born here. The three words that flipped the Constitution, (NO STATE SHALL) must be removed if we want to preserve our Republic. Other Quasi-Constitutional intent following amendments, like the 16th and 17th must be repealed to restore the checks and balances provided in the Constitution by the Founders.
The 16th amendment was the Definitive Progressive take over of our Monetary system by the Rothschilds and other International Banking Concerns. It refuted the Constitutional Requirement in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5: the Coinage Clause, which states that Congress, and Congress alone, had a Constitutionally Mandated Duty, and Only Congress alone has that Power, ( To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; ); therefore what the Federal Reserve is doing is against the original intent of the Founders. I say that because by their interest rates, they directly affect the value of American Coin (money) and issue Fiat coinage in the form of legal tender bills (Federal Reserve Notes that have no backing like Gold or Silver as the Constitution specifies) in place of true Constitutionally created legal tender monies. It also is responsible for creating the Internal Revenue Service, and the IRS is in turn the Enforcement Arm of Primarily the Private Banking concern that is the Federal Reserve Bank, but the IRS is working under color of United States Law..This is unacceptable for a Free Nation. As is Private and Foreign Banks determining the worth of our Money.
The 17th Amendment was a major reversal of one of the most basic tenets of the Constitution, namely the EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS for the Individual States. The Senators were never intended to represent the people directly. They were originally meant only to Represent the States and were originally appointed by the State Legislatures. They were under the direct control of those State Legislatures. Two Senators were provided for every State regardless of it's size and population to give each State Equal Representation in Congress. The Senators served at the pleasure of the State Legislatures during their terms of office, and represented their States in matters of commerce and any law or regulation that would have legal impact on their States and their Legislatures. The Peoples Representatives were the House of Representatives, and that is why the House holds the purse strings in the Federal Government. This distribution of powers was responsible for Congress being responsible to the States and People of the United States instead of what we have now with the States and People responsible to their Political Parties. The problem is, since the truth about our Nation's Government has been purposely neglected in the school system, the people really think the Senators are supposed to be elected and represent them. This False Flag Educational Propaganda must be dispelled if the Republic is to survive.Remember it is only the Progressive Liberals that call the USA a Democracy when we are in actuality a Constitutional REPUBLIC.
There are other pressing matters that should be dealt with by Amendments. Namely; Term Limitations for not only Congress, but ALL Federal Elected and Appointed Positions except maybe the Supreme Court. But, in turn, set guidelines to make and keep the Supreme Court a Non-Partisan Non-Political Governmental Body (More on that later). Congress will not voluntarily limit their time in power, or any of their self bestowed benefits. So it's up to the people to avail themselves of the provision the Founders incorporated into the main body of the Constitution
(Article V ) and do it for them.
I for one believe that the limits must be for total service time as opposed to limits for specific offices where the politicians could just jump from office to office, position to position, The compensations for those positions should only be for the term served,commensurate with the prevailing average Salaries & Benefits within the constituents geographic areas, and the amounts over and above to be determined by the people, by popular vote within the respective States, and with no further pensions or excessive privileges granted during that term to extend beyond the time in office.
To alleviate any and all questions about the Second Amendment, and the Rights it Protects:
I propose a Clarification Amendment, NOT to replace the original 2nd, but to clarify it's legal meaning by stating simply " The Second Amendment means it PROTECTS the God Given and Unalienable Rights every American Citizen over the Age of majority (18 currently) is entitled to own and carry firearms anywhere within the USA and it's Territories. Further; The Federal Government has No Authority Whatsoever, to Restrict or Infringe on that Constitutional Right for any reason Whatsoever, and any laws it has enacted are heretofore repealed and rendered null and void, and unenforceable.. States are forbidden to infringe or restrict these Rights except by Strict, Specific, and Universal Written Guidelines, agreed on by a citizens vote on specific exceptions, with a vote of 7/8 of the People in their State, for Mentally Deficient Individuals, and Convicted Felons. Those Exceptions, when agreed on by the Required Numbers of citizens of the State/States combined, SHALL become part of this Amendment. Furthermore; All States are required to acknowledge and abide by these rules for all American Citizens universally across the United States and it's Territories.
Now comes another important amendment; We need to form a balanced budget amendment, based on actual taxation revenues collected. Primarily those collected from the previous year and already in the United States Coffers. It would have to say that increased taxation would not be allowed to expand the budget, except when engaged in a Congressionally Declared War, or Natural Disaster of epic proportions. Penalties to Congress itself, would be incorporated if they could not present a Balanced budget to the President by the time specified. Furthermore the President shall have a Line Item Veto power, and no more automatically continued funding, for any Federal Program, except Critical services like but not confined to Military Pay and Provisioning shall be allowed. The line item veto may be overridden by a vote of 3/4 of Congress.
Since the President has the Authority to Make or Negate Treaties for the United States, I believe we should Petition President Trump to Remove the United Nations from United States Soil, and stop paying more than an EQUAL SHARE for it's continued existence, if it is not feasible to get out of it,altogether.. Furthermore I believe we should Petition President Trump to cancel the Trans Pacific Partnership, The North American Free Trade Agreement, and any other Treaty that does not benefit the United States, or Revamp them to give America the advantages the Progressives gave away.
As to my suggestions about the Supreme Court. A set of written guidelines needs to be created that insure every appointee regardless of political persuasion is judged by their 'ongoing track record of rulings' to insure they are within the parameters of United States Constitutional Law, and where appropriate, State Constitutional Law. These guidelines must be written in plain english the common man can readily read and understand the meanings of.
All these things are doable, and can be accomplished within the four year term of President Trump, Provided the people demand a full say in their Government, and enforce that say with appropriate amendments.
On a more personal note; I wonder if Trump will in fact override Obama's orders and release all the records Obama has successfully kept secret from the American people over the last eight years? I hope he does. We deserve to know what was hidden.
The Tradesman
Our duty to take back America and make her strong again is just starting. We need to do it systematically and correctly. We need to see if President Trump will promote a States petitioned for Article V Amendment Proposal Convention where we can Repeal or Reverse or Modify the Progressive Amendments that flipped the Country into Federal hands, and only benefit the Status-Quo of the lifetime members of Congress and their Crony Capitalists.. Repealing or Fixing amendments like the 14th, to the point where it can no longer be used to promote/legalize Anchor Babies, OR, for any other reason except Voting Rights and the ORIGINAL Provision for citizenship rights for Freed Saves. It was Never Intended to give Citizenship to Foreigners children born here. The three words that flipped the Constitution, (NO STATE SHALL) must be removed if we want to preserve our Republic. Other Quasi-Constitutional intent following amendments, like the 16th and 17th must be repealed to restore the checks and balances provided in the Constitution by the Founders.
The 16th amendment was the Definitive Progressive take over of our Monetary system by the Rothschilds and other International Banking Concerns. It refuted the Constitutional Requirement in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5: the Coinage Clause, which states that Congress, and Congress alone, had a Constitutionally Mandated Duty, and Only Congress alone has that Power, ( To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; ); therefore what the Federal Reserve is doing is against the original intent of the Founders. I say that because by their interest rates, they directly affect the value of American Coin (money) and issue Fiat coinage in the form of legal tender bills (Federal Reserve Notes that have no backing like Gold or Silver as the Constitution specifies) in place of true Constitutionally created legal tender monies. It also is responsible for creating the Internal Revenue Service, and the IRS is in turn the Enforcement Arm of Primarily the Private Banking concern that is the Federal Reserve Bank, but the IRS is working under color of United States Law..This is unacceptable for a Free Nation. As is Private and Foreign Banks determining the worth of our Money.
The 17th Amendment was a major reversal of one of the most basic tenets of the Constitution, namely the EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS for the Individual States. The Senators were never intended to represent the people directly. They were originally meant only to Represent the States and were originally appointed by the State Legislatures. They were under the direct control of those State Legislatures. Two Senators were provided for every State regardless of it's size and population to give each State Equal Representation in Congress. The Senators served at the pleasure of the State Legislatures during their terms of office, and represented their States in matters of commerce and any law or regulation that would have legal impact on their States and their Legislatures. The Peoples Representatives were the House of Representatives, and that is why the House holds the purse strings in the Federal Government. This distribution of powers was responsible for Congress being responsible to the States and People of the United States instead of what we have now with the States and People responsible to their Political Parties. The problem is, since the truth about our Nation's Government has been purposely neglected in the school system, the people really think the Senators are supposed to be elected and represent them. This False Flag Educational Propaganda must be dispelled if the Republic is to survive.Remember it is only the Progressive Liberals that call the USA a Democracy when we are in actuality a Constitutional REPUBLIC.
There are other pressing matters that should be dealt with by Amendments. Namely; Term Limitations for not only Congress, but ALL Federal Elected and Appointed Positions except maybe the Supreme Court. But, in turn, set guidelines to make and keep the Supreme Court a Non-Partisan Non-Political Governmental Body (More on that later). Congress will not voluntarily limit their time in power, or any of their self bestowed benefits. So it's up to the people to avail themselves of the provision the Founders incorporated into the main body of the Constitution
(Article V ) and do it for them.
I for one believe that the limits must be for total service time as opposed to limits for specific offices where the politicians could just jump from office to office, position to position, The compensations for those positions should only be for the term served,commensurate with the prevailing average Salaries & Benefits within the constituents geographic areas, and the amounts over and above to be determined by the people, by popular vote within the respective States, and with no further pensions or excessive privileges granted during that term to extend beyond the time in office.
To alleviate any and all questions about the Second Amendment, and the Rights it Protects:
I propose a Clarification Amendment, NOT to replace the original 2nd, but to clarify it's legal meaning by stating simply " The Second Amendment means it PROTECTS the God Given and Unalienable Rights every American Citizen over the Age of majority (18 currently) is entitled to own and carry firearms anywhere within the USA and it's Territories. Further; The Federal Government has No Authority Whatsoever, to Restrict or Infringe on that Constitutional Right for any reason Whatsoever, and any laws it has enacted are heretofore repealed and rendered null and void, and unenforceable.. States are forbidden to infringe or restrict these Rights except by Strict, Specific, and Universal Written Guidelines, agreed on by a citizens vote on specific exceptions, with a vote of 7/8 of the People in their State, for Mentally Deficient Individuals, and Convicted Felons. Those Exceptions, when agreed on by the Required Numbers of citizens of the State/States combined, SHALL become part of this Amendment. Furthermore; All States are required to acknowledge and abide by these rules for all American Citizens universally across the United States and it's Territories.
Now comes another important amendment; We need to form a balanced budget amendment, based on actual taxation revenues collected. Primarily those collected from the previous year and already in the United States Coffers. It would have to say that increased taxation would not be allowed to expand the budget, except when engaged in a Congressionally Declared War, or Natural Disaster of epic proportions. Penalties to Congress itself, would be incorporated if they could not present a Balanced budget to the President by the time specified. Furthermore the President shall have a Line Item Veto power, and no more automatically continued funding, for any Federal Program, except Critical services like but not confined to Military Pay and Provisioning shall be allowed. The line item veto may be overridden by a vote of 3/4 of Congress.
Since the President has the Authority to Make or Negate Treaties for the United States, I believe we should Petition President Trump to Remove the United Nations from United States Soil, and stop paying more than an EQUAL SHARE for it's continued existence, if it is not feasible to get out of it,altogether.. Furthermore I believe we should Petition President Trump to cancel the Trans Pacific Partnership, The North American Free Trade Agreement, and any other Treaty that does not benefit the United States, or Revamp them to give America the advantages the Progressives gave away.
As to my suggestions about the Supreme Court. A set of written guidelines needs to be created that insure every appointee regardless of political persuasion is judged by their 'ongoing track record of rulings' to insure they are within the parameters of United States Constitutional Law, and where appropriate, State Constitutional Law. These guidelines must be written in plain english the common man can readily read and understand the meanings of.
All these things are doable, and can be accomplished within the four year term of President Trump, Provided the people demand a full say in their Government, and enforce that say with appropriate amendments.
On a more personal note; I wonder if Trump will in fact override Obama's orders and release all the records Obama has successfully kept secret from the American people over the last eight years? I hope he does. We deserve to know what was hidden.
The Tradesman
The True Meaning Of The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Please post this where ever you visit on the WWW as the media and the other politicians do not seem to know our Constitution.
Jefferson and the Founders intended the second amendment to provide the citizens the power to throw off a usurping tyrannical government.
The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Thomas Jefferson
None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important. Thomas Jefferson
Please post this where ever you visit on the WWW as the media and the other politicians do not seem to know our Constitution.
Jefferson and the Founders intended the second amendment to provide the citizens the power to throw off a usurping tyrannical government.
The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Thomas Jefferson
None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important. Thomas Jefferson
Did Gowdy Arrange It So Hillary Could Be Investigated For Her Alleged Benghazi Perjury To Congress?
Source; http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/trey-gowdy-made-a-move-that-may-send-hillary-to-jail-after-all/
and http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/these-leaked-emails-prove-hillary-committed-treason/
It looks like Trey Gowdy is smarter than the Clinton Machine and the Obama Administration combined. It looks like he incorporated a fail safe catch all into both the Benghazi Investigation and a follow up into the E-Mail investigation that cross checked Hillary's veracity and found it to be wanting. In short, she perjured herself with conflicting statements under oath at the Benghazi investigation and the FBI investigation into the e-mail scandal.
The problem for Hillary is she said she never sent or received any classified e-mails on her server. That statement has been proven beyond a legal doubt it was a LIE.
Gowdy went on to corroborate the fact it was a lie when he questioned FBI Director James Cormey in his sworn testimony to Congress stating that she did, stating to Congress under direct questioning by Gowdy concerning the statement that no Classified e-mails were sent or received on Hillary'e server. The line of questioning Gowdy used forced the FBI director to admit Hillary should have known she was sending and receiving Classified information and Intelligence information..
excerpt from first source;
{( McClatchy D.C. reports:
“Comey acknowledged, however, that several of Clinton’s statements about the arrangement weren’t accurate. She testified for 11 hours in October on Capitol Hill about the 2012 fatal attacks in Benghazi, Libya, during which she said she’d turned over all her emails, she had not sent or received classified information with markings, she had used only one device and that neither she nor her aides had deleted work-related emails.
Comey said her statement that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified was not accurate.
“That is not true,” Comey said in a rapid-fire exchange with Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. “There were a small number of portion markings.”
Three emails were marked with a “(C),” which indicates material is confidential, the lowest level of classification, he testified.”))
Despite that set of statements Cormey tried to spin them and get out of the trap Gowdy set by saying that the "FBI" did not have evidence that Clinton Lied. However Gowdy's point was that Hillary was under oath testifying to Congress, and lied under oath, thus committing Perjury. With that Gowdy set the legal basis for another investigation about investigating Hillary for the Crime of Perjury. Congress has formally requested an FBI investigation to determine the charge of Hillary committing Perjury had any basis in fact. House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte made that formal request.
This brings us to the point where we must ask; Did Hillary commit Perjury by Lies or other False Statements made to Congress under Oath. If there is another investigation, will it also return another got out of trouble free card? Remember that Cormey verified under oath to Congress that the FBI investigators did find e-mails marked Classified on Hillary's server, How will they discount or cover that up? Could Hillary make a good case that she is so inept and incompetent, she actually did miss the Critical information of Marked e-mails showing they were in fact classified? What would that say about her ability to perform intelligently and in a suitable manner to effectively direct the Nation and keep it safe/secure as President?
Let's back track a little to open up some information about the Benghazi inquiry and what Hillary said about other issues critical to United States Safety and Security. First off there are conspiracy theories out there considering the Cover up was deliberately done to save the political fortunes and reputations of Obama and Hillary. That seems to be the leading Conspiracy theory. However there are more believable and darker theories out there that fit the actual facts found out in Retrospect by observed actions forward from that time. The second theory stems from the questions asked of Hillary when she testified before the Senate in 2013 by Rand Paul. Paul asked Hillary if she knew about the US arms shipments to Libya since 2011.
See video of Hillary at; https://youtu.be/jriU_cPU9Vk
and http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/these-leaked-emails-prove-hillary-committed-treason/
It looks like Trey Gowdy is smarter than the Clinton Machine and the Obama Administration combined. It looks like he incorporated a fail safe catch all into both the Benghazi Investigation and a follow up into the E-Mail investigation that cross checked Hillary's veracity and found it to be wanting. In short, she perjured herself with conflicting statements under oath at the Benghazi investigation and the FBI investigation into the e-mail scandal.
The problem for Hillary is she said she never sent or received any classified e-mails on her server. That statement has been proven beyond a legal doubt it was a LIE.
Gowdy went on to corroborate the fact it was a lie when he questioned FBI Director James Cormey in his sworn testimony to Congress stating that she did, stating to Congress under direct questioning by Gowdy concerning the statement that no Classified e-mails were sent or received on Hillary'e server. The line of questioning Gowdy used forced the FBI director to admit Hillary should have known she was sending and receiving Classified information and Intelligence information..
excerpt from first source;
{( McClatchy D.C. reports:
“Comey acknowledged, however, that several of Clinton’s statements about the arrangement weren’t accurate. She testified for 11 hours in October on Capitol Hill about the 2012 fatal attacks in Benghazi, Libya, during which she said she’d turned over all her emails, she had not sent or received classified information with markings, she had used only one device and that neither she nor her aides had deleted work-related emails.
Comey said her statement that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified was not accurate.
“That is not true,” Comey said in a rapid-fire exchange with Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. “There were a small number of portion markings.”
Three emails were marked with a “(C),” which indicates material is confidential, the lowest level of classification, he testified.”))
Despite that set of statements Cormey tried to spin them and get out of the trap Gowdy set by saying that the "FBI" did not have evidence that Clinton Lied. However Gowdy's point was that Hillary was under oath testifying to Congress, and lied under oath, thus committing Perjury. With that Gowdy set the legal basis for another investigation about investigating Hillary for the Crime of Perjury. Congress has formally requested an FBI investigation to determine the charge of Hillary committing Perjury had any basis in fact. House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte made that formal request.
This brings us to the point where we must ask; Did Hillary commit Perjury by Lies or other False Statements made to Congress under Oath. If there is another investigation, will it also return another got out of trouble free card? Remember that Cormey verified under oath to Congress that the FBI investigators did find e-mails marked Classified on Hillary's server, How will they discount or cover that up? Could Hillary make a good case that she is so inept and incompetent, she actually did miss the Critical information of Marked e-mails showing they were in fact classified? What would that say about her ability to perform intelligently and in a suitable manner to effectively direct the Nation and keep it safe/secure as President?
Let's back track a little to open up some information about the Benghazi inquiry and what Hillary said about other issues critical to United States Safety and Security. First off there are conspiracy theories out there considering the Cover up was deliberately done to save the political fortunes and reputations of Obama and Hillary. That seems to be the leading Conspiracy theory. However there are more believable and darker theories out there that fit the actual facts found out in Retrospect by observed actions forward from that time. The second theory stems from the questions asked of Hillary when she testified before the Senate in 2013 by Rand Paul. Paul asked Hillary if she knew about the US arms shipments to Libya since 2011.
See video of Hillary at; https://youtu.be/jriU_cPU9Vk
Speculation and part of the Theory says the arms ended up in the hands of ISIS as Julian Assange stated in a radio interview saying that Hillary's e-mails prove she pushed for the arms shipments to Syria
Excerpt from that radio interview sourced from the second source listed; {(“Julian Assange: So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.” )} Word has it that it was Hillary that was directly responsible for the operation that ousted and killed Muammar Gaddafi and a joint effort by Obama and Hillary that originated the operation which put Syria in the cross hairs. Fortunately the public support was missing and we didn't send in troops. However Obama DID arm the "Rebels". Those "Rebels consisted of ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters too. Imagine that, our sworn enemies were receiving weapons from our Leaders and using them against us. No wonder the Progressive controlled media is trying to discredit Hillary's e-Mails.
I have a serious question; Was it the Obama Administration, the Clinton Machine, The Progressive Elite who control the DNC, or all of them in concert that used the dis-information spin about it being Russia putting out those condemning e-mails for some esoteric possibility that they would somehow control the election. Bear in mind, if the Hillary supporters were to seriously question Hillary's motives and actions over her dealings in foreign policy and see it was only working to weaken America and strengthen our enemies, wouldn't that shoot down Hillary's chances of becoming an even worse President than Obama is?
It was not Trump that decided to ship arms to Syria knowing in advance that ISIS and Al Qaeda would gain full access to them, it was championed by Hillary, and fulfilled by Obama.
What scares the hell out of me is the fact that many astute political watchdogs are saying that Hillary, should she become President, she would in effect become a third term surrogate for Obama. I disagree with that assessment. I believe she would be more than twice as bad as Obama based on her past performances from the beginning as a college volunteer, through the Arkansas years, through Bills Presidency where she was ordered to stand down from the public eye by the DNC leaders, Through her various other government positions until now. Her track record indicates in the strongest terms, she is not temperamentally, ideologically, or politically competent to be the leader of the free world.
The Tradesman
Excerpt from that radio interview sourced from the second source listed; {(“Julian Assange: So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.” )} Word has it that it was Hillary that was directly responsible for the operation that ousted and killed Muammar Gaddafi and a joint effort by Obama and Hillary that originated the operation which put Syria in the cross hairs. Fortunately the public support was missing and we didn't send in troops. However Obama DID arm the "Rebels". Those "Rebels consisted of ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters too. Imagine that, our sworn enemies were receiving weapons from our Leaders and using them against us. No wonder the Progressive controlled media is trying to discredit Hillary's e-Mails.
I have a serious question; Was it the Obama Administration, the Clinton Machine, The Progressive Elite who control the DNC, or all of them in concert that used the dis-information spin about it being Russia putting out those condemning e-mails for some esoteric possibility that they would somehow control the election. Bear in mind, if the Hillary supporters were to seriously question Hillary's motives and actions over her dealings in foreign policy and see it was only working to weaken America and strengthen our enemies, wouldn't that shoot down Hillary's chances of becoming an even worse President than Obama is?
It was not Trump that decided to ship arms to Syria knowing in advance that ISIS and Al Qaeda would gain full access to them, it was championed by Hillary, and fulfilled by Obama.
What scares the hell out of me is the fact that many astute political watchdogs are saying that Hillary, should she become President, she would in effect become a third term surrogate for Obama. I disagree with that assessment. I believe she would be more than twice as bad as Obama based on her past performances from the beginning as a college volunteer, through the Arkansas years, through Bills Presidency where she was ordered to stand down from the public eye by the DNC leaders, Through her various other government positions until now. Her track record indicates in the strongest terms, she is not temperamentally, ideologically, or politically competent to be the leader of the free world.
The Tradesman
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 $700,000 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 $700,000 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 Congress James 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 Congress James 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/
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!
Huffington Post Article 04/25/2016 02:41 pm ET The War Against the 17th Amendment Max J. Skidmore Lecturer, 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
"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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
- 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
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.
Franklin Graham Warns Christians Will 'Lose This Country' If They Don't Vote
BY KATHERINE WEBER , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
February 10, 2016|8:32 pm
(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...
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...
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
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
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
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
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.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/dooley.asp
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
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.
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
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
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!!
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/
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/
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
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
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
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
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.
------------
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
