Trump’s New 70-Point Immigration Plan Is Bad News For…


President Trump’s 70-Point plan on immigration reform pretty much hits the head of the nail on accomplishing his campaign promise. He even offers a compromise bone on DACA to the Leftist Dems if they go along with funding The Wall and strengthening border security. But let’s be clear! The only way this plan doesn’t get through Congress is will be due to RINO members joining the Dem hysterical lies.

 

JRH 10/10/17 (H/T: Freedom Outpost email alert 10/9/2017 4:09 PM)

Please Support NCCR

***************

Trump’s New 70-Point Immigration Plan Is Bad News For DACA, Sanctuary Cities And Violent Gang Members

“…restore the rule of law to our immigration system, prioritize America’s safety and security, and end the lawlessness.”

 

By Jack Davis

October 9, 2017 at 7:27am

Western Journalism

 

President Donald Trump unveiled a vast overhaul of America’s immigration policies Sunday night.

 

The package would require that in exchange for any legislation to allow children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, Congress must approve funding a wall along the southern border, approve curbs on federal grants to sanctuary cities and fix the leaky border to stop potential gang members from crossing into the U.S.

 

Trump’s package of proposals would also give federal agents more ability to stop illegal immigrants at the border, detain them if they slip into the country and deport them faster.

 

“These findings outline reforms that must be included as part of any legislation addressing the status of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients,” Trump wrote in a letter to Congress. “Without these reforms, illegal immigration and chain migration, which severely and unfairly burden American workers and taxpayers, will continue without end.”

 

The proposals received support of many lawmakers and officials.

 

“President Trump has put forth a series of proposals that will restore the rule of law to our immigration system, prioritize America’s safety and security, and end the lawlessness. These are reasonable proposals that will build on the early success of President Trump’s leadership. This plan will work. If followed it will produce an immigration system with integrity and one in which we can take pride. Perhaps the best result will be that unlawful attempts to enter will continue their dramatic decline,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., praised the administration for “a serious proposal” and said that “we cannot fix the DACA problem without fixing all of the issues that led to the underlying problem of illegal immigration in the first place.”

 

When Trump announced that he wanted to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allowed children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, he said he was open to a deal with Congress to allow the estimated 800,000 DACA participants to remain.

 

“Anything that is done addressing the status of DACA recipients needs to include these three reforms and solve these three problems,” a senior White House official told The Washington Times. “If you don’t solve these problems then you’re not going to have a secure border, you’re not going to have a lawful immigration system and you’re not going to be able to protect American workers.”

 

“We would expect Congress to include all the reforms in any package that addresses the status of the DACA recipients,” one White House aide said on the conference call with reporters. “Other views had their fair day in the democratic process.”

 

But Democrats were outraged and accused Trump of racism.

 

“The administration can’t be serious about compromise or helping the Dreamers if they begin with a list that is anathema to the Dreamers, to the immigrant community and to the vast majority of Americans,” Senate Minority Leader Church Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a joint statement Sunday evening, according to The Washington Post. “We told the President at our meeting that we were open to reasonable border security measures … but this list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise.”

 

Others were not so restrained in their opinions of Trump.

 

“Congress should reject this warped, anti-immigrant policy wish list. The White House wants to use dreamers as bargaining chips to achieve the administration’s deportation and detention goals,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), vice chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus

 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., called the package of reforms “an extension of the white supremacist agenda.”

 

He said it is “fanciful thinking that you can sit down with a man who has based his presidential aspirations and has never wavered from his xenophobic positions. I never understood — I just never got it, how you go from Charlottesville and white supremacists to reaching an agreement with him.”

________________

Copyright ©2017 Liftable Media Inc. All rights reserved.

 

About Western Journalism

 

Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping readers with truth. Every day, WesternJournalism.com publishes conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters.

 

As Americans — and indeed, readers around the world — continue to lose trust in traditional newspapers and broadcast networks and their claims of objectivity and impartiality, Western Journalism is rapidly filling the gap as a trusted source of news and information. Western Journalism is staffed by an experienced team of editors, journalists and media experts who both recognize the stories that matter to everyday readers and provide a truthful and unfiltered view of current events.

 

Over 35 million unique visitors read WesternJournalism.com monthly, putting the site securely among the Top 200 most-visited websites in the United States, according to global traffic analysis by Alexa. Western Journalism continues to break new records in engagement and trust in a rapidly shifting media landscape.

 

Western Journalism is committed to its founding principles: truth, honesty, integrity and accountability. These values are demonstrated through accurate, insightful reporting of information and events happening around the world.

 

WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S., according to Quantcast.

 

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com.

 

Republicans Break Faith With America


I believe medical insurance reform is essential. I also believe the Obama/Dem effort at reform was a debacle of lies to Americans. Obamacare/ACA must be completely scraped to rebuild an actual affordable medical insurance plan. Justin Smith has the critique.

 

JRH 10/2/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

Republicans Break Faith With America

A System Going South

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 10/1/2017 1:23 AM

 

Americans need insurance plans that translate into real affordable health care and solutions for the mess created by Obamacare, which cannot be found in more Republican nonsense and Obamacare Lite bills, like Graham-Cassidy. More spending and continued regulation only moves America one-step closer to a nationalized single-payer health care system, and if Republicans truly believe Obamacare has harmed America, as often asserted, they have a duty to revitalize the free market segment of health care insurance, through a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

 

No matter how many welfare dollars Congress pours into these fabricated markets or any amount of price fixing they set, the exchanges are unsustainable, and Graham-Cassidy offered a permanent drain on this already strained system and the U.S. treasury. It also added a $700 billion dollar deficit next year to America’s $20 trillion dollar debt, without repealing a single Obamacare insurance regulation.

 

The only real solutions exist in a clean slate and a full repeal of Obamacare, ripping it up by the roots. At least a full repeal would save over a trillion dollars in spending over the next decade, instead of trying to save pennies on the dollar and leaving a poor health care system largely intact, through a bad bill like Graham-Cassidy.

 

Fortunately, Graham-Cassidy failed to be presented for a vote in the Senate, during the last week in September. It failed, after Susan Collins (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) made it clear they would vote “no”, keeping it from the 51-vote threshold in a reconciliation vote.

 

Only Senator Rand Paul held the moral high ground in his decision. On September 20th, Senator Paul told Real Clear Politics: “That [Graham-Cassidy] is not what I promised voters. I promised repeal [of Obamacare]. … Block granting Obamacare doesn’t make it go away.”

 

Described as “a lousy process”, the New York Times (September 26th, 2017) quoted Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska stating: “The U.S. Senate cannot get the text of a bill on Sunday night, then proceed to a vote just days later, with only one hearing — and especially not on an issue that is intensely personal to all of us.”

 

Senator John McCain complained Republicans should have worked with Democrats, to restructure America’s $3 trillion per year health care system, which is simply asinine, in light of the fact, Obamacare is an entirely Democrat partisan piece of legislation, and it widely restructured a vital part of the national economy. These same Democrats destroyed dozens of governing norms through their lies, and they manipulated the Congressional Budget Score, in order to coerce every American’s participation.

 

Perhaps, once the problems associated with Obamacare compound themselves or Obamacare actually collapses, the Democrats will make an honest effort to compromise on substantive changes, rather than seek more spending and regulatory controls on consumer choice. However, to date, these Commie Travelers have had millions of ideas on how to expand the welfare state and not a single one to save Americans from it.

 

Many Americans should already have the option of circumventing Obamacare through the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This act enables people to buy inexpensive insurance across state lines, by joining an insurance group or co-op through one’s workplace; and, it proves the U.S. really doesn’t need such an expansive program as Obamacare, which makes people pay for many services they don’t want or need, like abortion.

 

Americans want freedom of choice on their health insurance plans and plans with less comprehensive coverage than Obamacare allows, which would reduce the cost of premiums. They want the expansion of health savings accounts and an end to mandate taxes and penalties. And if possible, most of us would truly appreciate Medicaid reform.

 

Currently, the Alexander-Murray stabilization package offers subsidies to insurance companies to reimburse them for reducing out-of-pocket expenses for low income people and more freedom for sates to restructure their insurance markets. While the Democrats see the subsidy payments as essential, most Republicans, especially in the Freedom Caucus, see the subsidies as bailouts for insurance companies that would prop up Obamacare. Sensible leaders will not readily burn more of the taxpayers’ money in a system going south.

 

President Trump has the full authority to place a sunset deadline on the Obama administration’s unconstitutional subsidy payments, which it created to keep Obamacare from imploding, and he should do so immediately. Let the Democrats howl “sabotage”. There is not any political, policy or moral reason for the GOP to continue the payoffs.

 

The recent request for a twenty-three percent rate hike by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina [Blog Editor: BCBS asked for an updated a reduction to 14.1% 8/2/17] further illuminates the corruption within the current system. The company acknowledges that it would have asked for only an 8.8 percent increase, if President Trump had agreed to fund the federal subsidies through 2018, and so, the U.S. taxpayer gets raked over the coals and robbed blind by Obamacare once more.

 

Premium prices have doubled and quadrupled, and doctors are harder to find. Barack Obama promised Obamacare would boost the economy, but across America, small and large businesses report Obamacare impedes their ability to expand and hire.

 

One must wonder how much of the Republican Party’s reluctance to fully repeal Obamacare lies with lobbyist efforts and donations to Republicans. Records show that between 2011 and 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell received a total of $424,650 from Kindred Healthcare, Humana and Blackstone. Sen. Orrin Hatch received $133,500 from Blue Cross Blue Shield and Cancer Treatment Centers of America, while Sen. Lamar Alexander took $61,100 from Blue Cross Blue Shield and Community Health Systems in Franklin, Tennessee. And the list goes on.

 

After seven years of promises, where are the voices in the Senate offering passionate arguments for repeal? Where is the unified effort from the Republicans to speak for millions of Americans, who currently suffer under Obamacare’s spiking premiums and decreasing choices? It has all seemingly vanished, since repeal became a possible reality.

 

America’s well-being is more important than any political party’s legacy and any insurance company’s bottom line, and so, Republicans must not allow this abominable and failed Obamacare “law” to be prolonged and continue to hurt the American people in despicable fashion. The next Democratic administration will surely expand its reach and push towards a single-payer system, if it is not soon repealed, as suggested by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT).

 

The Republicans and America really do not have any reason to save a failed Obamacare, and they certainly cannot afford to let it become more entrenched, while it cuts a liberty destroying path through our society. Until Republicans gather the backbone to counter the ACA or fully repeal it, the Republicans have broken faith with the American people.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text enclosed by brackets and All source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Awan Funneling ‘Massive’ Data Off Congressional Server, Dems Claim It’s Child’s HOMEWORK


VIDEO: MeTV Hogan’s Heroes Promo

Wasserman Shultz & Sgt. Schultz

 

If you listen to the Mainstream Media (MSM) you probably are little aware of Imran Awan, the Pakistani national who served as a House IT guy for a lot of Dems including Debbie Wasserman-Schultz the former DNC Chairman (Chairwoman, Chairperson or whatever politically correct terminology you feel comfortable about) who fixed the Dem nomination for Crooked Hillary.

 

Apart from all the criminal enterprises Awan used to self-aggrandize himself and his immediate family, it appears Awan snatched terabits of data from the House Dems which went or was used for whatever is not yet public. (For my fellow computer illiterates, I just learned there is a difference between a terabit and a terabyte.)

 

All this time the Dems and their legions in the MSM have trying to paint President Donald Trump as the nemesis to the America that elected him to Office. AND YET the Daily Caller and Circa have uncovered that the Dems are attempting to pass the fake news that Awan’s much usage of terabits of data from House servers is nothing to see here, just forget about it and move on.

 

JRH 9/27/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

Awan Funneling ‘Massive’ Data Off Congressional Server, Dems Claim It’s Child’s HOMEWORK

 

By Luke Rosiak

September 26, 2017 7:20 PM 

The Daily Caller

 

Democratic congressional aides made unauthorized access to a House server 5,400 times and funneled “massive” amounts of data off of it. But there’s nothing to see here, Democrats told The Washington Post: They were just storing and then re-downloading homework assignments for Imran Awan’s elementary-school aged kids and family pictures.

 

A congressional source with direct knowledge of the incident contradicted the Post’s account, saying that now-indicted IT aide Imran Awan and his associates “were moving terabytes off-site so they could quote ‘work on the files’” and that they desperately tried to hide what was on the server when caught, providing police with what law enforcement immediately recognized as falsified evidence and an indication of criminal intent.

 

WATCH ROSIAK’S REPORTING ON AWAN CASE SO FAR:

 

Youtube version of Daily Caller VIDEO: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Corruption Continues: Awan Brothers IT Scandal

 

Posted by The Daily Caller

Published on Jul 31, 2017

 

Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak investigates a story that further embroils embattled former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz in an ever-growing scandal.

 

The Post described the amount of data improperly flowing out of the congressional network as “massive.” One congressional source told Circa it was “terabits.”

 

A terabyte is a million megabytes; a terabit is about one-tenth of that. Awan’s three children are in elementary school or younger. A book report in Word document format could clock in at under a megabyte, even if it were 100 pages long. To fill a terabyte with family photos, a person would need 250,000 photos.

 

Rules aside, there would be little reason for a staffer to upload his children’s homework and family photos to a congressman’s server. For one, cloud services such as Google Drive and Google Photos readily provide that functionality, with a web interface. The congressional computer was a server with no monitor, so you couldn’t view the photos on it, and they had to have been uploaded onto it by another computer. It makes little sense that Awan would upload personal data from a home computer onto a House server only to re-download it.

 

Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, was the sole person that was supposed to be authorizing the Caucus server, and she could have uploaded pictures of her children without attracting attention.

 

Yet she accessed it only 300 times as part of her job, while other people — including Awan’s two brothers and his friend Rao Abbas — accessed it 5,400 times. It’s unclear why extended family and friends would be uploading Awan’s kids’ homework and pictures more than their own mother would.

 

The Post did not note the “massive” outgoing data and unauthorized access until the 40th and 42nd paragraphs of its story, after it had quoted multiple defense attorneys and ventured into a lengthy and seemingly irrelevant but humanizing backstory on Awan’s childhood.

 

Its print headline was “Evidence Far Exceeds Intrigue” in the probe, yet it quoted only a congressional staffer who, The DCNF’s congressional source said, would not have been able to make assurances that there was nothing to the criminal investigation, because Congress has been fire walled from the criminal probe since it was turned over.

 

The Post also did not specify that data was also being backed up online via unofficial Dropbox accounts. Wasserman Schultz has acknowledged that the accounts were used for congressional data, and that she has used the service in violation of House rules “for years.”

 

The server was under the auspices of Xavier Becerra, who left Congress Jan. 24 to become California attorney general and asked for the server to be wiped at that time. Police first asked for a copy and received what they identified as an elaborately falsified image, leading police to ban them from the network immediately because they viewed it as an attempt to tamper with a criminal investigation and an indication of clear criminal intent, The DCNF reported before the Post story ran. The Awans were banned from the House network Feb. 2.

 

The Post reported:

 

By midsummer [2016], with the approval of the House Administration Committee, the Inspector General’s Office was tracking the five employees’ logins. In October, they found “massive” amounts of data flowing from the networks they were accessing, raising the possibility that an automated program was vacuuming up information, according to a senior House official familiar with the probe.

 

Initially, investigators could not see precisely what kind of data was moving off the server due to legal protections afforded by the Constitution’s “speech and debate” clause, which shields lawmakers’ deliberations from investigators’ eyes.

 

Investigators found that the five IT employees had logged on at one server for the Democratic Caucus more than 5,700 times over a seven-month period, according to documents reviewed by The Post. Alvi, the only one of the five who was authorized to access that server, accounted for fewer than 300 of those logins, documents show.

 

The invocation of “speech and debate” suggests that Democrats barred law enforcement from looking at the apparent data breach. The Post — which has highlighted the importance of cybersecurity and the intolerability of hacks on government — suggested finding any of this odd would be “unfounded conspiracy theories and intrigue.”

 

Yet, according to a senior congressional official familiar with the probe, criminal investigators have found no evidence that the IT workers had any connection to a foreign government. Investigators looking for clues about espionage instead found that the workers were using one congressional server as if it were their home computer, storing personal information such as children’s homework and family photos, the official said.

 

There are indications that Awan is less than a doting family man, and that he would use his congressional position for ill. Three women have called police on him in the last three years. One is his stepmother, Samina Gilani, who said she was kept “in captivity.” In court documents, she alleged: “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police [he] will do harm to me and my family members back in Pakistan and one of my cousins here in Baltimore … Imran Awan did admit to me that my phone is tapped and there are devices installed in my house to listen my all conversations … Imran Awan introduces himself as someone from U.S. Congress or someone from federal agencies.”

 

A second told police she felt “like a slave,” and a third said she “just wanted to leave.” The latter two were apparently in romantic relationships with Awan, who lived in small apartments in Alexandria, Va. that he paid for while he lived with his wife.

 

Awan began selling off many of the multiple houses that his family owns around the time he learned he was subject of the cybersecurity probe, and wired money to Pakistan, resulting in Awan and his wife being indicted for bank fraud.

 

The Post confirmed that Democratic IT aides had no experience, such as Rao Abbas, who worked at McDonald’s. But it did not mention that an Iraqi politician tied to Hezbollah sent $100,000 to a company the family set up while working for Congress, and that Awan had a secret account unknown to authorities, 123@mail.house.gov, that was tied to the name of an intelligence specialist working for Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana. The intelligence specialist denies knowing anything about the account.

 

Imran Awan: A Continuing DCNF Investigative Group Series

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+++

 

The IT guys in the House criminal probe could read these members’ emails

 

The Awans and their associates collected more than $5 million in pay from congressional offices, often drawing chief-of-staff level pay though there is reason to believe many didn’t even show up. They are suspected of cybersecurity violations.


The money is broken down by year, congressional office and family member paid:


Imran, Abid and Jamal Awan and Hina Alvi, Natalia Sova and Rao Abbas.

Show current members only
Click a year to sort by payments that year

READ THE REST OF THE CHART

____________________

Follow Luke on Twitter. Send tips to luke@dailycallernewsfoundation.orgPGP key.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

 

© Copyright 2010 – 2017 | The Daily Caller

 

The End of the Line


In the 2016 election cycle I was a Cruzer. I only became a Trumpster after he sealed up the GOP nomination for POTUS. Frankly, I completely enjoyed much of his campaign rhetoric. However, Trump’s reputation as the great deal maker led me to believe he would not deliver on some or much of his campaign promises.

 

Why? Deals require give and take to accomplish most of a desired goal. This would mean deals will step on some toes on both the Left and the Right.

 

The problem I am seeing is too many Conservative toes are being stepped on largely because the GOP Establishment has blocked the Trump agenda AND there is an obvious Deep State hand countering President Trump’s agenda.

 

The Deep State thing for a Deal Maker is demonstrating decisions I have a problem with as well. Many of the Trump supporters that helped him win the election in 2016 have been dealt out of Executive staff jobs probably under the false hope Deep Staters will comply on some of the goals.

 

I believe Justin Smith would agree due to this critical editorial on how President Trump is dealing with DACA illegal immigration status.

 

JRH 9/25/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

The End of the Line

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/24/2017 8:42 AM

 

President Donald Trump was elected, in part, to halt illegal immigration and persuade Congress to help him in the endeavor, and although his recent extirpation of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was a fine and necessary end to an illegitimate and unConstitutional use of an executive order, President Trump’s subsequent meeting and agreement with Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, on September 13th, ended in statements of support to legalize “Dreamers” through legislation. Trump basically lent his name and a new sense of urgency to a legislative amnesty, that certainly doesn’t put America or Her people first.

 

America must not take on the added burden and consequences that will follow any poorly outlined legalization of these DACA recipients. President Reagan’s 1986 amnesty for three million illegal aliens added fifteen million to our population, and, without specific codified pre-conditions, which President Trump and the Democrats seem prepared to ignore, 800,000 DACA folks will add approximately four million new Democratic voters and Republican serfs, while the promise of border security in the future, similar to the 2013 Gang of Eight bill, is never realized.

 

As long as anyone is eligible for amnesty, they will receive amnesty, so it seems. Nearly twenty years after the 1986 amnesty, the Ninth Circuit Court was still granting amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, who unbelievably claimed they were unfairly denied, because they weren’t residing in America for the first amnesty.

 

On September 14th, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stated: “Every time anybody in Congress or in the administration starts talking about, … ‘a deal for amnesty for this or to legalize that’, then we get a huge surge in people coming across our southern border”.

 

How can President Trump not see, that if he gives the Democrats the amnesty they seek now, he will never receive the promised, although unspecified, border security measures in the future? We’ve been down this road before. Is Trump really so politically naive?

 

No deal on DACA in Congress is better than a bad deal. Let DACA die in six months, and each DACA recipient can petition the immigration courts, utilizing existing U.S. law, on a case by case basis. If this upsets a bunch of future Democratic voters, who shouldn’t be here anyway, how is this America’s problem?

 

Any potential Congressional deal on DACA, that might have existed, has already been undermined, by Trump’s tweet he might “revisit” his decision, if Congress doesn’t legalize DACA. His suggestion that DACA illegal aliens have nothing to fear also makes a deal less likely.

 

Hardcore opponents to any amnesty deal are unlikely to soften their position, in the face of an army of lawyers for La Raza, who are feverishly working for continued open borders and a constant flow of illegal aliens into America, with no end in sight. They understand that racist La Raza advocates seek to “reconquer” the Southwest and destroy white Christian America and America’s predominant Western European culture. Only a fool aids in their own destruction.

 

The Dreamers do not have any standing or right to demand anything from us, especially something so precious as U.S. citizenship and all its endowments, or even legalization, and yet, they have made these demands repeatedly and finally acquired DACA. Emboldened by Trump’s sympathy for them, they are now demanding the legalization of all illegal aliens in America.

 

During a recent press conference with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, illegal alien protesters chanted, “All of us or none of us … all eleven million”. They used the Progressive statistic and the assertion that only 11 million illegal aliens reside in the U.S. currently, when the figure is actually much closer to 30 million [Blog Editor: Pew & U.S. Govt. stick with 11 million; disputed by Daily Signal, former Mexico Ambassador to U.S. and Cairco.org]; and, the mere fact they demand legalization, rather than politely request it, is astounding and exhibits their complete lack of respect for America.

 

The majority of DACA recipients are no longer children, as many dishonest politicians would have us believe. They are largely between twenty and thirty-six years old, and by the time they applied for college or some security sensitive areas of employment, they certainly were aware of their illegal alien and “undocumented” status. Whether they have known of their illegal status for two or twenty years, why have they not corrected their situation through legal channels over the years?

 

Some softhearted Americans propose giving legal residence to Dreamers, who pass tough background investigations, pay any owed back taxes, complete high school and enroll in college, get a job or join the military. While this may seem like a good solution, many other Americans see this as a slap in the face of legal immigrants, who came to America properly, and all Americans who fought, bled and died in defense of the Constitution and America.

 

When President Trump said, “We’re not looking at amnesty. We’re looking at allowing people to stay here”, isn’t that a de facto amnesty?

 

Trump also enjoys repeatedly talking about the massive, impenetrable, “big and beautiful” wall he still intends to build, which gained him monumental support during his campaign. However, he fluctuates between insisting it will be built and rationalizing why it isn’t being built. How disappointed many have become, as they discover they were cheering for routine maintenance at the border and more sensors.

 

It is mind-boggling to witness President Trump prepare to give away the farm, without getting any concessions from the Democrats, other than a vague reference to “border security” that will disappear under the next Democratic president. Legislating DACA without including E-Verify and the RAISE Act is feckless. Changes to the proposed DACA legislation must ensure that they can’t bring their entire tribe with them, from the miserable Third World hellholes they abandoned.

 

When asked if a bill that gives legal status to DACA recipients could pass without funding for a border wall, Representative Dave Brat (R-VA) said: “No way. I don’t think DACA is passable with a wall. We would also need to require E-Verify and end chain migration.”

 

No one will be left to listen to their lies, if President Trump and today’s Republican leadership, along with the Democrats, pass any type of amnesty for the illegal aliens in DACA, or any others too. They will have crossed a line of no return, without the support of many of their voters, who are tired of shouting their demands at the deaf ears of GOP elitists. Millions of Republicans will no longer offer any loyalty to a party that has broken one promise after another, and DACA amnesty will be the end of the line.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”


The best intro to this essay submission from Justin Smith can be summed up from an excerpt:

 

Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

JRH 8/6/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/5/2017 3:36 PM

 

The Founding Fathers believed that government’s role in religion should be limited. We cannot discount that the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” either establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Rather than articulate an affirmative responsibility for government to protect religion, the Founding Fathers felt it was enough to keep the government out. If nothing else, the language of the First Amendment makes it clear the goal was to restrain government when it came to religion. There is no suggestion the Founders felt the establishment clause and the free exercise clause were in any way competing. Otherwise, why would the Founders include the two clauses together?

 

The point was to keep government out of both realms. Both clauses were needed because it was not sufficient to restrain government from establishing a state religion; government also had to be restrained from any attempt to interfere with religious practices and beliefs. The negative language of the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that promotes religion, provided the judgement does not promote one religion over others.

Before the bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education (1947), the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America.

 

The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s an interesting thought on how the Left and Activist Judges misused the 14th Amendment to rob the Original Intent of the First Amendment:

 

When did things change?

 

Charles Darwin theory’s that species could evolve inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve. This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the “case precedent” method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

This occurred near the same time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, introduced by Republicans in Congress to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South. The evolutionary “case-precedent” method provided a way to side-step the Constitutional means of changing the Constitution through the Amendment process.

 

Activist Justices began to creatively use the 14th Amendment to take jurisdiction away from the states over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, farming, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

 

Freedom of religion was still under each individual state’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

 

In 1937, FDR nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, who also concentrated power by writing decisions taking jurisdiction away from the states in the area of religion. He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a state” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.” READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (THIS IS HOW ATHEISM BECAME OUR OFFICIAL ‘RELIGION’; By BILL FEDERER; WND; 1/15/16 9:01 PM)

 

Now I can’t vouch for this being Justin Smith’s thought on the 14th Amendment, but using the effect of Darwinism in the development of Case Law to have more authority than Original Intent is enlightening to me.]

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist [Blog Editor: Federalist/Anti-Federalist Perspectives – HERE, HERE & HERE], clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

The First Amendment compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed, then government acting to remove religion from the public sphere would have seemed to Our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to Our Founding Principles.

It is almost as if Justice Black decided the First Amendment was equivalent to the biblical admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, under the assumption that a discernible distinction could be made without conflict between what was Caesar’s and what was God’s. The whole point of the First Amendment’s attempt to protect freedom of religion is that over time Caesar tends to intrude upon God.

 

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollom v Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) that religious education provided by churches on public school grounds in Illinois during the school day was unconstitutional. Then in 1952, in Zorach v Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), the Supreme Court found that allowing New York students to leave school grounds for religious education was constitutional. Dissenting in Zorach, Justice Black wrote, “I see no significant difference between the invalid Illinois system and that of New York here sustained.” If Justice Black, the author of the court’s majority opinion in Everson, could not distinguish these cases, how could state, county, city or municipal school officials be expected to make the distinction reliably?

 

A Godless public square could not be more antithetical to what Our Founding Fathers thought they were achieving when drafting the First Amendment, and the Courts distort precedent whenever they use the Establishment Clause to crush all things religious Ironically, the very language crafted to protect religious freedom has now reached the point at which Americans can only be assured freedom from religion in all places within this nation, with the possible exceptions of prayer confined to church and free expression of religion confined to the privacy of one’s home.

Jefferson made a poignant remark in Notes on the State of Virginia, which clarifies his thinking: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?[Blog Editor’s Emphasis]

 

Why didn’t the Supreme Court choose this text for their ruling? [Blog Editor’s Emphasis] Or his use of “natural rights” in other documents? Justice Clarence Thomas once stated: “… this Court’s nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than “judicial predilections … It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public square and the public schools, it is replaced by other religions, including Secular Humanism, which is specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court.”
In order to combat this assault on religious freedom and religious liberty, to date, twenty-one states have enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts since 1993. Currently, ten states [5/4/17 – 9 States] are considering legislation on the topic this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Virginia amended their state RFRA, but otherwise no states have passed their legislation.
For eight decades, the ACLU has been America’s leading religious censor, waging a largely uncontested war, until recently, against America’s core values, utilizing every fallacy, piece of misinformation and outright LIE imaginable in its war against religious liberty, with the support of much of the current Marxist media; both are intent on destroying traditional America, including the nuclear family. We now live in a country where our traditional Christian and Jewish faith and religion — civilizing forces in any society — are openly mocked and increasingly pushed to the margins, and our weapon to stop them is the Founding Fathers’ own words and their Original Intent regarding the U.S. Constitution.
Ultimately, two very diverse thinkers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams concluded, that without virtue based on a solid belief in God, Liberty was inevitably lost. In other words, if the Supreme Court, through the efforts of Communists, atheists and fools and ACLU prompting, succeeds in removing the Judeo-Christian God from American public life, a foundation pillar upon which American liberty has depended will have been removed, perhaps irretrievably. Without the open expression of religious freedom so fundamental to American liberty that it is written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, American Liberty will not long persist.

 

Americans cannot and must not allow the Communists and atheists of this nation and the ACLU to secularize America to the point where our tolerance is turned into silencing and punishing religious speech. Life is valuable; marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman, and families are comprised of a male father and a female mother with any number of children. Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

King Calls For Wider Investigations of Obama, Clinton…


Rep. Steve King (R-IA) just became one of my new political heroes. He berated Congress in session (7/27/17) over ignoring ALL the Dem Party corruption while being hot to sick Robert Mueller on witch hunt to take down the Trump Administration.

 

Check it out:

 

VIDEO: BREAKING: [VIDEO] CONGRESS DEMANDS THE INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY CLINTON

 

Posted by Trumpet News

Published on Aug 1, 2017

 

The Gateway Pundit summarizes King’s message this way:

 

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) addressed Congress last Thursday in support of legislation that requires the Attorney General to turn over documents regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s involvement in various controversial cases.

 

The legislation passed 16-13 with King voting in favor of it. King addressed Congress with an impassioned and detailed inquiry/speech. … (Rep. Steve King Calls for Full Investigations Into Obama, Clinton, Comey, Soros, Lynch, and Others (VIDEO); By Carter; Gateway Pundit; 8/1/17 4:36 pm)

 

Below are the talking points in the AWESOME video you just watched from Rep. Steve King’s website.

 

JRH 8/4/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

King Calls For Wider Investigations of Obama, Clinton, Comey, Soros, Lynch, Abedin, and Weiner Scandals

 

Jul 27, 2017

Press Release

SteveKing.House.gov

 

Congressman Steve King released the following video of statements he made during Judiciary Committee debate of legislation requiring the Attorney General to provide copies of any document, record, audio recording, memo, correspondence, or other communication that refers or relates to a number of troubling aspects of James Comey’s tenure as FBI director.

 

In the course of his remarks, Congressman King recounted a litany of facts and events that reveal the corruption that surrounds many of the nation’s most prominent Democrats, as well as their disturbing pattern of using American taxpayer money to interfere in foreign elections. King’s entire remarks can be viewed here.

 

King concluded his remarks by asserting the trail of Democratic election corruption leads to Barack Obama, and that the examples he cites should be investigated fully.

 

Excerpted remarks:

 

On Barack Obama’s election interference in other countries:

 

“It’s pretty clear the Obama administration sent their people over to Israel to work against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Pretty much openly. Significant dollars invested in that campaign over there. The President of the United States, with at least the moral support of the people that had worked for him, in the country of Israel, [sought] to shift the results of the election against the seated Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu.”

 

 

“The Obama administration is a long ways from clean on this, as far as being involved in elections in other countries.”

 

On George Soros’ Use of Taxpayer Money to interfere in election in the Balkans:

 

learned the United States government, borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia, had handed over at least $5,000,000 in contracts transferred through USAID into George Soros’s organizations that were used to manipulate elections in the Balkans.”

 

On the need to reopen investigations into Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner:

 

The long string that we should be looking at with this investigation and special counsel that is our request here goes a long ways back. It goes clear back to Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, 650,000 emails, which we still have access to.”

 

On James Comey’s sham investigation of Hillary Clinton:

 

This [Comey’s Investigation of Clinton] is what looks like, on its face, a sham investigation. Plus, they destroyed a tremendous amount of information: at least 30,000 emails, crushed hard drives, bought bleach bit, hired outside contractors to scrub emails up. And we’re to take James Comey’s word for this, that there wasn’t enough substance there to bring a prosecution, even though a year ago, July 5th, James Comey delivered 15 minutes of a summary of prosecution that was completely convincing to me until we got down to the last couple sentences of that presentation which was, ‘well, we can’t prove intent.’ Well, curiously there is no requirement for intent in the two statutes that appear to be violated.”

 

I look back in the records to the previous October and previous April, Barack Obama stated into the news media record ‘Hillary Clinton would never intend to put our national security at risk; Hillary Clinton would never intend to harm America’s security. That’s the previous October and April. Well, James Comey latched onto that word, ‘intend’, and they made up new law and gave Hillary Clinton an exemption for this intent that they said they couldn’t prove which is absolutely proven by the facts [Comey] delivered to us in the summary that day.”

 

On Loretta Lynch:

 

“Not only does this trail lead through Hillary Clinton and James Comey, but the Loretta Lynch component of this as well. When you put this in place, and look at the example of them on the tarmac, it’s hard to imagine they sat there for 45 minutes and discussed grandchildren.”

 

On allegations Democratic Operatives went to the Ukraine to get dirt on Candidate Trump:

 

“That brings me to Alexandra Chalupa who went off as a DNC contractor to Ukraine to try to gather dirt on the Trump people. So, bringing this around, Mr. Chairman, I’ll conclude with this: the trail leads also to Barack Obama and we need to investigate all of this.”

 

________________

Steve King Bio on House Page

 

Steve King grew up in a law enforcement family in Storm Lake, Iowa. He attended Denison Community High School, where he met Marilyn Kelly, whom he married in 1972. They have lived in Kiron since 1976 and are members of St. Martin’s Church in Odebolt. Steve and Marilyn have three grown sons and seven grandchildren.

King studied math and science at Northwest Missouri State University. He started King Construction in 1975 and built the business up from one bulldozer. He brings valuable knowledge to Congress as an agribusinessman and a small business owner for 28 years. King’s oldest son now owns the construction business.

He served in the Iowa State Senate for six years. He was a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Judiciary Committee, Business and Labor Committee, the Commerce Committees, and chair of the State Government Committee. He worked in the State Senate to successfully eliminate the inheritance tax, enforce workplace drug testing, enforce parenting rights, including parental notification of abortions, pass tax cuts for working Iowans, and pass the law that made English the official language in Iowa.

King was elected to Congress in 2002 to represent Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District. During the 2012 election cycle, Iowa was redistricted to four districts. King now represents the Fourth Congressional District in the 114th Congress which includes: Ames, Fort Dodge, Mason City, Sioux City and Spencer. He brings personal experience, Constitutional principles, traditional marriage and family values and the perspective of representing one of the top producing agriculture districts in the nation to the people of Iowa’s Fourth Congressional District.

King serves on the Agriculture Committee. He has long been dedicated to adding value as close to the corn stalk and bean stem as possible, as …

 

 

King is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, where he sits on the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee and the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee. He believes the Constitution means what it says and that it should be read with the intent of our Founding Fathers in mind. King is never caught without a copy of the Constitution in his coat pocket. He is a strong advocate of the Rule of Law and enforcing our borders. King is a full-spectrum, Constitutional Conservative.

 

King, for more than a decade, has chaired the Conservative Opportunity Society, a powerful and legendary House caucus that has become the conscience of Constitutional conservatives in the U.S. Congress. (READ ENTIRETY)


 

 

Faux 28th Amendment, Yet Still Need Convention


John R. Houk

© July 25, 2017

 

I became a recipient of a Chain Email that has been circulating for some years. The Leftist fact checkers who have I have little trust for have debunking posts circa 2011. As far as the Conservative perspective goes I trust TruthORFiction.com. Truth or Fiction purposely presents their website in a retro format for reasons I am unclear.

 

The purpose of the Chain Email I received is to promote a 28th Amendment that makes members of Congress accountable to the same rule of law as every American citizen is. Before a reading of a single paragraph of this 28th Amendment the email provides examples of alleged improprieties that members of Congress and their families receive that Americans do not receive.

 

According to Truth Or Fiction the Chain Email is total poppycock. Here is a debunking excerpt:

 

Summary of eRumor: 

 

A chain email says that children of members of Congress and their staffers have their student loans forgiven.

The email also says that 35 governors have sued for a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit federal power.

 

The Truth: 

 

Both of these claims are false.

There is a Student Loan Repayment Program in place to help attract and retain federal employees, but it does not extend to family members. Elected officials, uniform service members and other government employees are eligible under the law.

 

Federal employees can have up to $10,000 in federally insured student loans repaid each year, and up to $60,000 repaid over their career, the Office of Personnel Management reports.

 

And the federal government does not forgive these loans, as the eRumor claims. The loans are repaid. That’s important because it means federal employees have to pay taxes on loan payments just like the rest of their salaries.

 

In 2013, $52.9 million in student loan repayments were made for 7,314 federal employees, the Office of Personnel and Management reports.

 

The email’s claim that 35 governors had sued the U.S. government for a 28th amendment is also false. The email says that the proposed 28th amendment would state:

 

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators, Representatives of Congress; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States

 

That same language was used in an eRumor that TruthorFiction.com found to be false in 2013. Click here for that story.

 

Both versions of the eRumor said that 35 governors had signed onto a petition for a constitutional convention to create the 28th amendment, but that’s not true.

 

At last count, three states had tried to force a constitutional convention. Resolutions in Kansas, Georgia and Indiana sought to balance state and federal power, the Huffington Post reports.

 

And under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, 34 states have to pass a resolution on the same subject to force a constitutional convention — not 38 states, as the eRumor claims.

 

READ THE REST (Children of Congress Members Don’t Pay Back Student Loans-Fiction! 35 Governors Have Sued the Federal Government to Create 28th Amendment-Fiction!)

 

And yet there are actual special benefits for members of Congress that the rest of us American citizens are not privy to. All the perks of the chain email simply don’t exist especially in 2017. Even though members of Congress make less than the private sector with more responsibilities, retirement benefits kick in according to time served and when reach a certain age:

 

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they’ve completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

 

The amount of a congressperson’s pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. (Salaries and Benefits of US Congress Members: The Truth; By Robert Longley; ThoughtCo.com; Updated 3/12/17)

 

As of 2014 members of Congress are tied into the same Obamacare health insurance rules as all of us according to Thoughtco.com (Ibid.). Read the CNN explanation of how Obamacare insurance exchanges works for Congress and their staff: How do Congress’ lawmakers get health care? By Ashley Killough; CNN [aka Communist News Network]; 7/18/17 Updated 7:19 AM ET)

 

Too bad the chain email didn’t address actual Congressional perks that We the People do not receive.

 

Senate Expense Account

 

 The Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA) is available to assist Senators in their official and representational duties. The allowance is provided for the fiscal year. The preliminary list of SOPOEA levels contained in the Senate report accompanying the FY2017 legislative branch appropriations bill shows an average allowance $3,306,570 per Senator. (Screw Obamacare, ‘We the People’ Want Everything Congress Has; By Lori; GlenBeck.com; 7/25/17)

 

Senate Furniture Expense

 

Each Senator is authorized $40,000 for state office furniture and furnishings for one or more offices, if the aggregate square footage of office space does not exceed 5,000 square feet. The base authorization is increased by $1,000 for each authorized additional incremental increase in office space of 200 square feet. (Ibid.)

 

House Personnel and Office Expense

 

$1,200,000.00

 

Members of the House receive a $250,000 budget for travel and office expenses. (Ibid.)

 

Special Class Beneficial Treatment

 

Members of Congress have long been treated as a special class with lifelong access to members-only parking spaces, elevators, dining rooms and exercise facilities (unless they become a lobbyist).

 

Grooming and Fitness Amenities

 

  • Taxpayer-funded, members-only gym

 

  • Taxpayer-funded, members-only salon

 

  • Taxpayer-funded, members-only barbershop

 

  • Taxpayer-funded, members-only tennis court (Ibid.)

Travel Privileges

 

Staff schedulers often times make reservations for members of Congress via dedicated phone lines that Delta and other major airlines have reportedly set up for Capitol Hill customers. Airlines also permit members to reserve seats on multiple flights but only pay for the trips they take.

Free parking at the two Washington-area airports (At a rate of $22 per day, that represents almost $740,000 in forgone revenue annually for Reagan National). (Ibid.)

 

If Congress Member dies, Family Benefit

 

Family members of those in Congress who die, typically receive a full year’s salary as compensation ($174K). (Ibid.)

 

As to the 28th Amendment in the Chain Email, no such Amendment has even proposed in Congress nor has any State every tried to suggest a convened Constitutional Convention on the matter of equalizing Congressional benefits with American citizen benefits.

 

Some discerning Conservatives believe the Federal usurpation of power has exceeded the design of the Framers of the Constitution. These Conservatives believe Congress is too hamstringed to reverse the despotism of excessive Federal power over the We the People where the Founding Fathers believed power should reside. In this view the best Constitutional method of restoring power to the people is based in Article 5 of the Constitution:

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

– Article V, U.S. Constitution (From ConventionOfStates.com/Solution)

 

I as well lean toward a Constitutional Convention. But there is no surprise the American Left is not in big favor of a Convention. There are also Conservatives that fear a Convention not because they don’t recognize the problem of excessive Federal Power, rather these Conservatives fear an out of control Convention which the American Left may prevail potentially making the threat to American Liberty worse than the Dems and Leftist activist Courts already have.

 

This excerpt relays the fears:

 

Many people have voiced concern over the convention method of amending the Constitution. Our only experience with a national constitutional convention took place 200 years ago. At that time the delegates took it upon themselves to ignore the reason for calling the convention, which was merely to improve the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers also violated the procedure for changing the Articles of Confederation. Instead of requiring approval of all the state legislatures, the signers of the Constitution called for ratification by elected state conventions in only nine of the 13 states.

 

Another point of anxiety is that Article V of the Constitution says nothing about what a convention may or may not do. If a convention is held, must it deal with only one proposed amendment? Or could the delegates vote on any number of amendments that were introduced? The Constitution itself provides no answers to these questions.

 

Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention “would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land.”

 

Others, like Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, disagree with this viewpoint. Senator Hatch has said it is ironic when the people attempt to engage in “participatory democracy set forth by the Constitution, we are subject to doomsday rhetoric and dire predictions of domestic and international disaster.”

 

Of course, any amendments produced by a convention would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. We may soon see how this never-used method works if the balanced budget people swing two more states over to their side. (Do We Need a New Constitutional Convention; Constitutional Rights Foundation)

 

Here is the Convention of States rebuttal to the fears:

 

Much of the opposition to an Article V convention hinges on fears of a “runaway convention.” Convention opponents frequently argue that a convention is inherently unlimited and once it convenes it cannot be restricted in any way. …

 

The text of the Constitution itself clearly indicates that a convention can be limited in at least some ways. For instance, a convention under Article V is limited to “proposing amendments.” It is essentially a recommendatory body: it cannot ratify its own proposals. Thus, even an “unlimited” convention is limited in this critical respect, which prevents rash or unpopular amendments from becoming part of the Constitution.

 

Further, Article V specifies that certain topics are off-limits for a convention (and for Congress) to consider. The last portion of the article takes certain provisions relating to the import of slaves off the table until 1808, and forbids any amendment that deprives the states of equal representation in the Senate. There can be no question that certain topics are off-limits for a convention, since Article V itself imposes those limitations. That states legislatures may further limit the authority of a convention is shown by the historical practice and purpose behind Article V.

 

 

In short, the text of Article V, the history and purpose behind it, plus Congress’s own inaction, all indicate that an Article V convention can be limited to a particular topic or set of topics. Our Founders knew what they were doing when they voted unanimously to put the convention provision in Article V.10 A convention is not some all-powerful body with authority to unilaterally scrap our Constitution, though convention opponents often represent it in that light. It is a limited-purpose committee intended to give the states the ability to propose particular amendments that Congress never would. As such, the state legislatures can impose binding subject-matter restraints on the convention to ensure that it does not run away. (A Single-Subject Convention; By Robert Kelly, J.D.1 [1. Mr. Kelly is a practicing attorney and a member of the California Bar. He currently serves as General Counsel for Citizens for Self-Governance.]; Convention of States pdf)

 

Frankly I can think of some more important issues for the 28th Amendment of the Chain Email. The Left must submit to what made America great. The Left has done such an effective job of propagandizing their agenda that most Americans are not even aware of the Liberty and Freedom our Founding Fathers fought for against the British Crown despotism of the 1760s and 1770s. The witless supporters of the American Left have been slowly restoring Americans to the same despotism that led Thirteen British Colonies to demand Independence that eventually led to the U.S. Constitution of laws of We the People.

For those interested in the debunked Chain Email on the faux 28th Amendment, it is below.

 

JRH 7/25/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Proposed 28th Amendment and Congress

Chain Email

Editor Received 7/25/17

 

Please read 28th amendment

 

Please Read, and forward.   This will only take 1 minute to read!

28th Amendment, 35 States and Counting.

 

It will take you less than a minute to read this. If you agree, please pass it on. It’s an idea whose time has come to deal with this self-serving situation:

 

OUR PRESENT SITUATION!

 

Children of Congress members do not have to pay back their college student loans.

 

Staffers of Congress family members are also exempt from having to pay back student loans.

 

Members of Congress can retire at full pay after only one term.

 

Members of Congress have exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed, under which ordinary citizens must live.

For example, they are exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment.

 

And as the latest example, they have exempted themselves from Healthcare Reform, in all of its aspects.

 

We must not tolerate an elite class of such people, elected as public servants and then putting themselves above the law.

 

I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

 

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon their states. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

 

IF???

 

Each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days most people in The United States of America will have the message.

 

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

 

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the Citizens of the United States …

 

You are one of my 20.