The Christian’s relationship to U.S. government


Christians concerned about speaking out publicly about a corrupt government NEED to read this post by Bob Livingston. Mr. Livingston very effectively contrasts and balances the concept of making a difference in government when the Bible also tells us to be subject to those in authority because earthly authority exists to thwart evil and protect community peace.

 

JRH 6/19/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Christian’s relationship to U.S. government

 

By Bob Livingston

Posted on June 19, 2017

Personal Liberty

 

U.S. Flag & Bible

 

“We must obey God rather than men

 

And thus spoke the Peter the apostle to the council, (Luke 5:29 NASB) in response to the high priest’s questioning about why he and the apostles were teaching Christ in the temple in defiance of the council’s instruction the day after an angel of the Lord released them from their prison.

 

And that’s the example the Christian must follow.

 

But in Romans 13, Paul tells us that we must be in subjection to the governing authorities.

 

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:1-7 (NASB)

 

Some of our more conservative brethren would tell us that there is little we can or should do or say in response to an abusive government because it is “established by God.” In fact, I know many of our conservative brothers and sisters who don’t even bother to follow politics at all or even vote, preferring instead to be content with being “in subjection.”

 

I have even seen some claim that if we so much as question the authority of our “leaders” or point out the corruptions of the politicians and government institutions that we are engaging in a spirit of rebellion; and not just rebellion against earthly authorities but against God. But is it? If we write or speak about corrupt government institutions, politicians or bureaucrats, are we acting contrary to God’s word in Romans 13?

 

To be a Christian, we are to be like Christ. In Matthew 23, Christ told His disciples that the scribes and Pharisees had seated themselves in Moses’ chair (had taken for themselves Moses’ authority) and they (the disciples) were to do what the rulers told them to do, but not do as the scribes and Pharisees did, because they were hypocrites. The scribes and Pharisees claimed to follow the law and held the people to the law but did not follow it themselves.

 

That sounds very much like the political class of today who walking the halls of power in the District of Criminal and in most state capitols.

 

Then Jesus called out the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites in the eight “woes” he uttered as recorded in verses 13 through 29, pointing out their wrongdoing.

 

The Apostle Paul was imprisoned, stoned, beaten and left for dead for obeying God rather than man. In Acts 22 we read that after Paul was seized in Jerusalem because he “preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place (Acts 21:28 NASB),” he was taken away by Roman guards at the direction of the Jews and stretched out with thongs so as to be scourged. The text reads:

 

But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman.” The commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” And he said, “Yes.” The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.” Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains. Acts 22:25-29 (NASB)

 

What Paul did here was to invoke his rights as a citizen. He did so again in Acts 25:11 when he appealed to Caesar over his imprisonment, defying the Jewish ruling authorities, who he believed he had not wronged.

 

So clearly our example in Scripture is we can use the legal rights available to us under the laws.

 

Now back to Romans 13. America’s is designed as a citizen-oriented representative government, not a monarchy or dictatorship. The Constitution was created as chains to bind men’s powers. Every politician in America swears an oath to abide by it. The powers they have they get from the Constitution.

 

So understanding Romans 13 in context of American government we should read Romans 13 this way, as Chuck Baldwin has pointed out:

 

Every person is to be in subjection to the [U.S. Constitution]. For there is no [Constitution] except from God, and [it is] established by God. Therefore whoever resists [the Constitution] has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed [the Constitution] will receive condemnation upon themselves. For [the Constitution is] not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of [the Constitution]? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for [the Constitution] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore [the Constitution] is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for [the Constitution is a servant] of God, devoting [itself] to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:1-7 (NASB)

 

The 1st Amendment protects (to some extent) our freedom to engage in speech and to petition government for redress of grievances. When we point out in speech or writing the corrupt nature of politicians and government institutions, and how they have exceeded the authority granted them under the Constitution, we are doing no more than Christ did when he called out the scribes and Pharisees, and no more than Paul did when he invoked his rights as a Roman citizen under Roman law.

 

So we can be politically active and not be in violation of God’s law. Telling our friends and neighbors that our institutions and politicians are corrupt is not a violation of God’s law. Guaranteeing our ability to inform others of the government’s transgressions so they can petition their representatives intelligently is precisely one of the 1st Amendment’s purposes. Engaging in political discourse or pointing out corruption is neither a violation of man’s law nor God’s. And we are to obey the law whether the “leaders” do so or not, as Christ told his disciples.

 

But we should also remember Paul’s admonition in Titus 3:2-5.

 

“…to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us…”

________________

Bob Livingston founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

 

© 2017 Personal Liberty ®

 

Purging History


Intro to ‘Purging History’

John R. Houk Editor

Posted June 10, 2017

 

Those horrible White slave owners of American history should be purged, right? NO!

 

Ending slavery was an awesome end result of the Northern States defeating the Southern States by the end of 1865. Regardless of the immoral slave culture these Southern Confederates tried to perpetuate, many were great Christians and supporter of the heritage of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

 

The break-away Confederate States had their capital city in Richmond Virginia. The Confederate’s primary general was Robert E. Lee from Virginia. Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was raised in what is now West Virginia, but was a part of Virginia at the beginning of the Civil War.

 

Why the emphasis on Civil War Virginia? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all came from Virginia – former British Colony turned into one of the original Thirteen States. Those three Virginians were extremely instrumental in the formation and founding of the sovereign United States of America.

 

Washington: Commander-in-Chief the Revolutionary War army that ultimately prevailed and forced the recognition of an independent United States; President of the Constitutional Convention AND the first President of the United States.

Jefferson: Writer of the Declaration of Independence; Revolutionary War Foreign Diplomat; much of Jefferson’s Virginia legislation influenced the U.S. Constitution but not a fan of the Constitution central government yet an ardent supporter once ratified AND third President of the United States.

Madison: Madison was involved in Virginia politics during the Revolutionary War widely influential in writing Virginia’s new State Constitution; wrote the drafts of the U.S. Constitution and designed the Bill of Rights – hence known as the Father of the Constitution; one of the principle writers of The Federal Papers used to encourage the ratification of the Constitution AND the fourth President of the United States.

 

Now I realize my little synopsis of Founding Father heroes of our American is hardly complete. Also I realize that many other influential Founding Fathers both in and out of Virginia are not mentioned. MY POINT is leading to the fact these remarkably influential Virginia Founding Fathers ALL were slave-owning Plantation businessmen of their day.

 

Should we allow the hysterical American Left to purge their names from U.S. history?

 

Justin Smith wonders why We The People of America allow Confederate history to be scrubbed because of slavery? Here are some introductory words from Justin Smith:

 

This piece is by no means intended to defend the evils of slavery or the sins committed by slave owners. It is simply an attempt to illustrate the fallacies relied upon by the Left as they attempt to portray the Civil War only in the context of the slave issue; it truly was much more complex than most people understand, and this one article barely scratches the surface. Now however, the past is being improperly used as a tool of commie progressives to undermine America, as much as they are allowed by the normal population of America.

I hope this peaks the curiosity of many and moves them to halt these sort of movements whenever they arise near them or in their home towns.

 

JRH 6/10/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Purging History

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/8/2017 4:20 PM

 

Monuments honoring heroes of the Confederate States of America, American heroes in fact, are being removed from the public square, due to a successful presentation of oversimplified arguments and lies by the same progressive Leftist Democratic apparatus that seeks to fundamentally transform America. These assaults on the Southern heritage by politically correct propagandists and arrogant activist ideologues are assaults on our American culture and heritage, or “AmeriKKKa” as the Left calls America; and, it is nothing short of a cultural cleansing campaign, a purging of the truth and history and a national disgrace.

 

In 2015, the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP called for the destruction of the Stone Mountain Confederate Monument, that honors Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee and General Stonewall Jackson. They wanted the nearly 2000 square feet and 12 feet deep carving “sandblasted away”.

 

In February, the city council of Charlottesville, VA sought to remove Robert E. Lee’s likeness from its 100 year resting place. They have been temporarily blocked by a lawsuit filed by the Monument Fund and 29 other plaintiffs.

 

Soon protests arose in Charlottesville and NAACP President Rick Turner told the crowds: “I think a decision must be made to remove the statue by any means necessary.”

 

However, the City of New Orleans successfully removed the Battle of Liberty Place obelisk on April 24th and statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and General Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard on May 11th and May 17th, consecutively. The statue of Robert E. Lee was removed from New Orlean’s Lee Circle on May 19th, while other efforts are appearing nationwide, in places like Houston and Baltimore.

 

[Blog Editor: A great pro-history article at The Federalist.]

 

Starting in 1784, Thomas Jefferson and many righteous men afterwards attempted to abolish slavery until the end of the Civil War, including former slave owners such as James Madison. It is worth observing that while General Ulysses S. Grant owned one slave and his wife owned four slaves until 1859, General Robert E. Lee never owned any [Blog Editor: The no-slave claim is disputed. WaPo says yes & another source implies no. The “no” is representative of R.E. Lee’s disposition against slavery even though he managed his wife’s inherited slaves as a Plantation owner until Lee freed them by order of his father-in-law’s will.].

 

General Beauregard’s statue was taken down in the dark of night and Lee’s was coming down, when New Orlean’s Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D) revealed an astounding level of ignorance of history, stating: “They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These monuments celebrate a fictional sanitized Confederacy.” Landrieu could not be any more egregiously wrong.

 

On December 27th 1856, Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife: “Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country … a greater evil to the white than to the black race … nearly two thousand years [of Christianity] … and even among the Christian nations what gross errors still exist!”

 

Many Confederate generals did not want to secede and neither did Jefferson Davis. More than the issue of slavery that had profited both New England slave traders and Southern plantation owners, the South saw secession as a necessity in the face of the unfair tariffs the North had applied against the South from 1828 to 1832 and beyond. And so, they too pledged their lives, fortune and sacred honor as they seceded from an oppressive federal government to retain their sovereignty, their Constitutional rights and a free government.

 

President Abraham Lincoln was not any “Great Emancipator” himself. On August 22nd 1862, he wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, founder and editor of the New York Tribune, who supported a general amnesty for Confederate officials and angered Northeners by signing a bail bond for Jefferson Davis. In part the letter read: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

 

So why do the Leftist mobs of Antifa and Black Lives Matter castigate, impugn and demonize the character and honor of a noble man such as Robert E. Lee, while giving Ulysses S. Grant a pass?

 

General PGT Beauregard was a St Bernard Parrish native and a man of contradictions, who spent most of his non-military life in New Orleans. He fired the first shots in a war to preserve states rights and slavery, and yet in defeat, Beauregard argued passionately for the right of black people to vote.

 

So, Beauregard is impugned, while a statue of Senator Edward Carmack (D-TN) still stands in Nashville on the south side of Tennessee’s State Capitol Building. Carmack advocated for the repeal of the 15th Amendment, which granted black men the right to vote; he was also the editor of the ‘Nashville Tennessean’ and a coward, who was shot and killed, on Union St. in Nashville, as he hid behind Mrs. Charles Eastman after firing on Duncan Cooper, his nemesis.

 

It is nearly impossible to find any truth behind the Left’s assertions, that they are campaigning against the “white supremacy” symbolized by Confederate monuments, when most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves by the time the Civil War was burning hot. To claim that the majority of non-slaveholder soldiers, who fought for the South, could have fought and sacrificed their lives and those of their families, so a minority of wealthy aristocrats could retain the “right” to own slaves is preposterous on any analysis.

 

The logic behind these character assassinations make it inescapably clear that the Left will not be satisfied until every white figure who doesn’t pass their “progressive” scrutiny is cleansed from the Southern culture and American culture too. How much truth must be sacrificed to mold history to fit a single strain of a prevailing political ideology?

 

Mitch Landrieu and Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh and many other Democrats, along with some misguided and ill-informed “conservatives” say that these men don’t deserve to be honored. Who does then?

 

President McKinley had fought against “Stonewall” Jackson, as a teenager, in the Shenandoah. McKinley was at Antietam, the bloodiest single-day battle of the Civil War; and at the start of the Spanish-American War, when Southern volunteers and former Confederate soldiers paraded through Atlanta to fight for a united America, McKinley removed his hat and stood for the singing of ‘Dixie’.

 

Nearly half of the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention owned slaves or facilitated the slave trade. Is anything associated with Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other Founders now considered to be immoral too?

 

Are Americans really going to allow more monuments to be torn down? Are Americans going to sandblast Stone Mountain Confederate Monument and even Mount Rushmore, sandblasting away our American Heritage? I say “NO”.

 

Left unrestrained, the radicals of this nation will attempt to purge and destroy every vestige of anything remotely associated with any slaveholder. Our Constitution and even our Declaration of Independence have long been under their assaults, because both were written by white men and slave-owners, and these amended documents halt their own authoritarian agenda. They would scrap these documents altogether if they could, placing them in the dustbin of history and divesting them of honor.

 

A history hidden away and purged is a half-truth and a lie, no history at all. America’s sins in slavery are despicable, abominable and dark, however, Her inalienable rights that served as the mechanism to end slavery are virtues to be praised, brilliant as a rising sun.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

All links as well as text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

The Drive To Literally Dismantle America


Earlier I posted Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh’s exposé of the UN diligently yet nefariously making a Marxist effort to steal national sovereignty with a World Constitution. As I was sharing this on social media, I ran into a Dee Fatouros post about an article that claims “Confederacy of Climate Change States” could be emerging to divide the USA to thwart Donald Trump’s make America great again national agenda.

The Fatouros post brings the realization that a very real war between the States is leaning toward probability. If such a conflict arises, a Federal government win can be called the 2nd Civil War. If the Eco-Marxist secessionist States win, it could be called the 2nd Revolutionary War.

 

It’s a good enough read to cross post.

 

JRH 6/9/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Drive To Literally Dismantle America

 

Posted by Dee Fatouros

June 9, 2017 5:50:00 AM 

The Realistic Observer

 

A dream map of America envisioned by its enemies, both foreign and domestic

 

The talk of a “Confederacy of Climate Change States” smacks of another overt attempt to break America apart, not only psychologically but physically as well. Coupled with the law defying Sanctuary Cities movement, which has now become a call for Sanctuary States, what other conclusion could possibly be reached.

What other federal laws will the governing bodies of these states choose to defy? This movement is not about federal over reach, it is about fomenting internal dissension to the point of defying the Constitution and tearing the U.S. apart.

Clearly a strong and united America is a threat to the globalist agenda. The de facto secession of several states on various issues is clearly a leftist/elitist undertaking designed to weaken the globalist threatening Trump administration. By sowing discord and urging sedition, such acts will lead to the destruction of a strong united America.

The plan to covertly bring America to its knees has been in the making over several decades. It is insidious. A Utopian ideology of a united world government that would insure everlasting peace has been sown into the American psyche over the generations. The scheme was progressing nicely, until the people awakened and decided enough is enough. They were angry over the fact that they were politically and economically being sold out by their own leaders in favor of non-Americans.

Despite the MSM blackout of the truth, many saw the betrayal of EU citizens by their own leaders and the resulting social/political devastation. They became wary and put Trump into the White House whom they felt was firmly on their side.

The rebellion of a huge segment of the awakened populace has led to an internal division unseen since the Civil War. The enemies within, ideological and/or totalitarian, continue their war against the values of their own nation in order to realize their intended goal, the Marxist dream of a World Government. The outcome remains to be seen.

Excerpt from the following article by Daniel Greenfield:

“The Climate Alliance of California, New York, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Virginia and Rhode Island looks a lot like the Confederacy’s Montgomery Convention. Both serve as meeting points for a secessionist alliance of states to air their grievances against the Federal government over an issue in which they are out of step with the nation.”

Full article well worth the read!

 

The Treasonous Secession of Climate Confederacy States

by  Daniel Greenfield

June 7, 2017

 

After President Trump rejected the Paris Climate treaty, which had never been ratified by the Senate, the European Union announced that it would work with a climate confederacy of secessionist states.

Scotland and Norway’s environmental ministers have mentioned a focus on individual American states. And the secessionist governments of California, New York and Washington have announced that they will unilaterally and illegally enter into a foreign treaty rejected by the President of the United States.

The Constitution is very clear about this. “No state shall enter into any treaty.” Governor Cuomo of New York has been equally clear. “New York State is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions.”


Cuomo’s statement conveniently comes in French, Chinese and Russian translations.

“It is a little bold to talk about the China-California partnership as though we were a separate nation, but we are a separate nation,” Governor Brown of California announced.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the radical leftist described California as “a real nation-state”.

Brown was taking a swing through China to reassure the Communist dictatorship of California’s loyalty to an illegal treaty at the same time as EU boss Juncker was bashing America and kissing up to Premier Li Keqiang at the EU-China summit. It’s one thing when the EU and China form a united front against America. It’s quite another when California and China form a united front against America.

The Climate Alliance of California, New York, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Virginia and Rhode Island looks a lot like the Confederacy’s Montgomery Convention. Both serve as meeting points for a secessionist alliance of states to air their grievances against the Federal government over an issue in which they are out of step with the nation.

“We’re a powerful state government. We have nine other states that agree with us,” Brown boasted.

Two more and Jim Jones’ old pal could have his own confederacy.

All the bragging and boasting about how much wealth and power the secessionist states of the climate confederacy represent sounds very familiar. But that wealth and power is based around small enclaves, the Bay Area and a few dozen blocks in Manhattan, which wield disproportionate influence.

Like the slaveowner class, leftist elites are letting the arrogance of their wealth lead them into treason. And as they look out from their mansions and skyscrapers, they should remember that the majority of working class people in California and New York will be far less enthusiastic about fighting a war to protect their dirty investments in solar energy plants and carbon credits funded by taxes seized from many of those same people in these left-wing slave states.

The declared intention of the Climate Alliance, in words appearing on the New York State government website, is to treasonously “convene U.S. states committed to upholding the Paris Climate Agreement”.

States cannot and are not allowed to unilaterally choose to “uphold” a treaty rejected by the President. Their leaders are certainly not allowed to travel to enemy nations to inform foreign powers of their treasonous designs and to solicit their aid against the policies of the United States government.

This is all the more treasonous at a time when the United States is on a collision course with the People’s Republic of China over North Korea’s nuclear weapons and trade agreements.

“It’s important for the world to know that America is not Washington,” Brown declared. “Yes, we’re part of the union, but we’re also a sovereign state that can promote the necessary policies that are required for survival.”

Governors don’t normally feel the need to declare that their state is still part of the union. But they also don’t announce that they’re a separate nation and then set off to cut separate deals with enemy powers. No state should be issuing, “Yes, we’re part of the union, but” disclaimers before going to China.

The disclaimer is the first step to leaving the union.

Governor Brown’s trip to China isn’t funded by California taxpayers. That might be a relief to that overburdened tribe except that it’s partially being paid for by the Energy Foundation. Behind that generic name for a pass through organization are a number of left-wing foundations who have been paying for American politicians to travel to the People’s Republic of China.

Donors to the energy foundation include Ecocrat billionaire Tom Steyer who has pumped millions into EF. Steyer’s finances are entangled with China and even with members of the Chinese government.

Steyer has accused President Trump of treason for rejecting the unconstitutional Paris Climate Treaty. But who are the real traitors here?

Other major EF donors include the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Bloomberg and George Soros.

There is something deeply troubling about a governor’s treasonous trip being funded by private interests with business ties to a foreign power. If Democrats were really serious about rooting out influence by foreign powers, they would be taking a very close look at Brown’s backers.

But the greater outrage is that the governors of secessionist states are using a manufactured crisis to conduct “diplomacy” with foreign governments in defiance of the policies of the United States.

Washington’s Jay Inslee was recently talking Global Warming in a meeting with Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. “We’re both very strongly engaged on issues of climate change, on issues of openness to trade, on leadership on refugees as well,” Trudeau declared.

“We share an incredible commitment to defeating climate change,” Inslee flattered him. “And it is a great pleasure we have a national leader on the North American continent who is committed to that.”

And he didn’t mean the President of the United States.

Inslee’s fondness for the illegal Paris Climate treaty is unsurprising as his own efforts on Global Warming similarly depended on unilateral moves that lacked legislative support. But that is a problem for Washington’s Constitution. His participation in a secessionist pact is a problem for our Constitution.

And the problem isn’t limited to the Climate Alliance.

California and many of the other entities declaring that they will enforce an illegal treaty are also sanctuary states and cities. They are choosing not to follow Federal law while implementing foreign treaties that they have no right to unilaterally participate in.

This is a treasonous situation that is more troubling in some ways than the original Civil War because it involves states making open alliance with enemy powers such as China and welcoming them in. State governments are undermining the united front of the national government in the face of the enemy.

“California will resist this misguided and insane course of action,” Governor Brown ranted. The logic of “resistance” has inevitably turned into treason.

A civil war is underway. In the last election the territorial majority of Americans rejected the rule of a minority of wealthy and powerful urban enclaves. Outside of their bicoastal bases, the political power of the Democrat faction has been shattered. And so it has retreated into subversion and secessionism.

“China is moving forward in a very serious way, and so is California,” Brown declared. “And we’re going in the opposite direction of Donald Trump.”

While Democrats have spent the better part of the previous week waving their arms in the air over a back channel with Russia, one of their faction’s leading governors is openly allying with China against the President of the United States. And the treasonous Democrat media is cheering this betrayal.

Brown and his colleagues are in blatant violation of the Logan Act. Their actions are in violation of the United States Constitution. And all this is another dark step on the road to another civil war.

If the climate confederacy is not held accountable for its treason, the crisis will only grow. (emphasis mine)

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: Frontpage Mag 

________________

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

 

DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World and our own Constitution Will Be Diced


The American Left and global Left hate President Trump and his America First agenda to the point of irrational behavior. If you are an American patriot you should ask yourself, “Why?”

 

There are undoubtedly many valid answers as to the why. Here is one extremely valid reason for Leftist irrational behavior toward President Trump: To get sovereign-minded American patriots distracted from recent United Nations action at instituting a one-world government:

The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)

 

 

Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a “world constitution for global governance,” an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.

 

The above quote is an exposé at the Canada Free Press (CFP) written by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh about the United Nations instituting a form of global Communism using the earth’s environment as an insidious pretext.

JRH 6/9/17

Please Support NCCR

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

DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World and our own Constitution Will Be Diced

 

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh 

June 8, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. The Draft Covenant is the “Environmental Constitution of Global Governance.”

The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.

 

The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’

 

The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.

 

All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.

In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

 

Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).

 

The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”

 

The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)

 

The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”

 

  • Article 2 describes in detail “respect for all life forms.”

 

  • Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”

 

  • Article 5 refers to “equity and justice,” code words for socialism/communism.

 

  • Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.

 

  • Article 19 deals with “Stratospheric Ozone.” Rex Communis is the customary international law regime applicable to areas beyond national jurisdiction: in particular to the high seas and outer space.” (p. 72)

 

  • Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we endorse this document, we must fight a non-existent man-made climate change.

 

  • Article 31, “Action to Eradicate Poverty,” requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.

 

  • Article 32 requires recycling, “consumption and production patterns.”

 

  • Article 33, “Demographic policies,” demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.” In the Malthusian model, humans were supposed to run out of food and starve to death. In a similar prediction, this document claims that the out-of control multiplication of humans can endanger the environment.

 

  • Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.

 

  • Article 37 discusses “Transboundary Environmental Effects and article 39 directs how “Transboundary Natural Resources” will be conserved, “quantitatively and qualitatively.”

 

  • According to the document, “conserve means managing human-induced processes and activities which may be damaging to natural systems in such a way that the essential functions of these systems are maintained.”

 

  • Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.

 

“Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.

“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”

“Sharing Benefits of Biotechnology” is a similar requirement to the Law of the Sea Treaty which demands that final products of research and development be used freely, no matter who develops an idea or how much it costs to bring that idea to the market.

 

  • Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.

 

  • Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, and/or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

 

  • Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.

 

Writers of the Draft Covenant are approximately 19 U.S. professors of Law, Biology, Natural Resources, Urban Planning, Theology, Environmental Ethics, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, chair of the IUCN Ethics Working Group, two attorneys in private practice in the U.S., a judge from the International Court of Justice, a U.S. High Seas Policy advisor of the IUCN Global Marine Programme, foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, and 13 members of the UN Secretariat, including the Chairman, Dr. Wolfgang E. Burhenne. (2006-onwards)

Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a “world constitution for global governance,” an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.

 

Article 20 is of particular interest because it forces the signatories to DICED “to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” When President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, “climatologists” from Hollywood and millennials brainwashed by their professors that CO2 is going to destroy the planet and kills us all, took to microphones and podiums to express their displeasure with such a “criminal” decision.

 

It did not matter that the President explained in a very logical manner that this accord was nothing else than an economic scheme to steal and redistribute wealth from the United States to the third world while real heavy polluters like China and India were allowed to continue to pollute until 2030 when, at that time, they could be bribed to reduce their pollution and perhaps China would install smokestack scrubbers.

 

President Trump explained how many millions of American jobs would be lost and how our energy generation is getting cleaner while we are exploring other forms of energy.  Once President Obama declared that the science has been settled, the science provided and the IPCC modeling had been adjusted to fit the globalist man made global warming agenda, so called anthropogenic.

Since none of Al Gore’s predictions of islands under water due to the melting of ice cap have turned out true, we have more ice than ever this year, the globalists changed the title of their global warming hoax to climate change. Who would object to that term? Everybody knows that climate changes but it is not because of humans spewing CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t see any liberals who have stopped breathing and passing gas. But we do see Hollywood jet set everywhere sail in their expensive yachts, build mansions on the most beautiful beach side properties in the world, right after they chew humanity out for destroying the planet with our very existence and civilization.

How did man become the main perpetrator of climate change? How did we become so powerful that we can change climate with our very existence but, if we pay carbon taxes to the third world, we correct our guilt of existing, of breathing, and we turn climate into a favorable proposition for all – no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no droughts, no hail, no torrential rains, no earthquakes, no tsunamis, nothing but serene climate year after year.

The Club of Rome, the premier environmental think-tank, consultant to the United Nations and the alleged writer of U.N. Agenda 21’s 40 chapters, explained, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy is the humanity itself.”

Environmentalists tell us that the science is “settled” yet 31,000 scientists have signed a petition against the theory that humans are causing climate change. There is certainly a need to reduce pollution of our oceans, rivers, soil, and air but humans are not causing climate change. Temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much higher when there was no industrial activity or even humans.

 

The Vostock ice core samples taken by a team of Russian and French scientists proved beyond any doubt that CO2 concentrations in deep ice were six times higher than they are today. There are more serious variables that affect the climate, including solar flares, volcanic activity on earth and in oceans, and oceanic currents. Then there is the deliberate government weather tampering by seeding clouds from flying airplanes with various chemicals in order to “mitigate the effects of global warming.”

Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University said, “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Prof. Chris Folland from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research explained, “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, also said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about social justice and equality in the world.”

Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation, said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

The sad thing is that many mayors around the country have decided to disobey President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Accord and reported publicly that they will continue their membership even though such a move is illegal under our Constitution. Art. VI, paragraph 2, states, …”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; any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

According to the Tennesseestar.com, the mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry, said that “The Constitution does not apply here in Nashville: ‘I am committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement . . . Even if the President is not.’”

Mayor Barry, who is joined by the mayors of Knoxville, Madeline Rogero, the mayor of Chattanooga, Andy Berke, and “187 U.S. mayors, mostly Democrats, representing 52 million Americans,” have decided to ignore Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits states governments, including towns in those states, from “entering into any treaty, alliance, and confederation.”

These dissenting mayors have not pledged their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution but to the Global Covenant of Mayors, one of the arms of implementation around the globe of U.N. Agenda 21, now morphed into Agenda 2030. Using grants from our own government, the Compact of Mayors and the European Union’s Covenant of Mayors have influenced initiatives at the local, city, and state governments, forcing their globalist agenda called “visioning” on the hapless population who are now forced to accept decisions made by mayors and boards of supervisors that are robbing them of freedom of movement, of their property rights, of the use of their cars, of farming, in the name of “transitioning to a low emission and climate resilient economy,” a pie in the sky goal. The real goal is to transform and redistribute the wealth of developed countries and to arrest their development by eventually curbing completely the use of fossil fuels and turning them into a more primitive society dependent on unreliable solar and wind power. Such a global society would have no borders, no sovereignty, no suburbia, no private property, no cars, and would be controlled by the United Nations umbrella of octopus NGOs.

There is no surprise that there is such a drive from the left to have a Convention of States (COS) in order to replace our U.S. Constitution with their own environmental constitution of the world, which is called The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED).

James Delingpole wrote in a recent article at breitbart.com that “Global warming is a myth – so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.”

The scientific “consensus” about the global warming lie, cited by the left without hesitation, is not science and President Trump was right in pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate agreement, an agreement based on the pretense that the massive lie of global warming is true.

India alone needs $2.5 trillion between now and 2030 to comply with the requirements of the Paris Climate agreement, a sum which would come from the largest developed countries, mainly the U.S. And there are many other third world nations that would demand such redistribution of wealth from us in order to “decarbonize” and reduce pollution.

Delingpole cites in the above article the quote given in an interview to Dr. Charles Battig on November 13, 2010. Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Co-Chair of Working Group 3, stated, “We [UN-IPCC] redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”

Dr. Charles Battig amply documents the advancement of Agenda 21 in the United States via ICLEI and gives successful examples of municipalities who were able to extricate themselves from the global warming hoax pushed at the local level by the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an arm of U.N.’s many octopus Agenda 21 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who use federal grants, mayors, and local boards of supervisors to insinuate their own plans called “visioning” onto the local community who, most of the time, has no voting rights nor input into the plans.

 

Patrick Wood wrote in LinkedIn, Exposing: AGENDA 21, “It’s time to go tell your city leaders to kill climate change initiatives. #StopTechnocracy.” It is time that American mayors follow the U.S. Constitution and not the U.N.’s environmental Constitution called D.I.C.E.D.

______________

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh — Bio and Archives |

 

Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business, every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST

 

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Romanian Conservative is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.

 

Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education. Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com 

 

About Us — Canada Free Press

 

Canada Free Press (CFP) is a proudly independent, 24/7 news site, updating constantly throughout the day. More than 100 writers and columnists file regularly to CFP from all corners of the globe. CFP rides on credibility and is edited by a lifelong journalist.

 

Canada Free Press does not sell, loan or give out its mailing list to anyone. You will receive a confirmation email back to the email you entered. You must respond to the email in order to receive our mail out of latest news and opinion.

 

Although we have been posting to the Internet for more than 14 years, on May 15, 2012 CFP celebrated its eighth anniversary as a daily. Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership.

 

CFP senior journalist/editor Judi McLeod tries to answer each and every letter sent to CFP by readers. CFP’s main ongoing inspiration is to provide accurate and well-researched stories for a loyal readership that are not printed or posted elsewhere.

 

CFP’s Motto: “Because without America there is no Free World” is as meaningful today as it was when first adopted. America and the Free World must READ THE REST

 

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:


SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

 

Here is a quote that rings true about Lower Federal Courts striking down President Trump’s Executive Order travel ban from Islamic terrorist ridden nations or areas:

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law”.

 

The quote comes from journalist author Douglas V. Gibbs at the Canada Free Press speculating with some positive certainty that SCOTUS will strike down the Lower Courts to President Trump’s favor.

 

Gibbs’ positivism comes from the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Ergo Gibbs posits that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law spelled out in ink in the Constitution.

 

I pray Gibbs is correct. We are about to find out of a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court was worth waiting to elect him as President.

 

There are roughly two trains of thought on Constitutional interpretation: Original Intent of the Founders and the Living Constitution which can loosely interpreted to fit the Secular Humanist’s view of what society is or will be.

 

President Trump’s EOs ran into Left-Wing Activist Judges committed to the Living Constitution interpretation.

 

The Activist Judges struck down President Trump’s Travel Ban Eos by interpreting Donald Trump’s campaign speeches as being anti-Islam and so the EOs were aimed at discriminating against Muslims rather protecting American citizens.

 

If a majority of SCOTUS Justices follow the Living Constitution methodology of interpretation you can kiss Separation of Powers goodbye in the separate but equal Checks and Balances that Civics so often affirmed as a constitutional doctrine of the U.S. Government.

 

WHY?

 

Because a Living Constitution Judicial Branch becomes the dictator of laws made by man rather than the rule of law. A Judicial dictatorship was one of the great concerns of the Founding Fathers of the constitutionally created Judicial Branch:

 

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: August 18, 1821

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. (Thomas Jefferson – It has longQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

The Judiciary . . . 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. (The JudiciaryQuotes Database)

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Judge Spencer Roane

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: September 6, 1819

The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (The ConstitutionQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. (And it ProvesQuotes Database)

 

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 47

Categories: Separation of Powers

Date: January 30, 1788

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (The Accumulation of all PowersQuotes Database)

 

These are just a few quotes by the Founding Fathers on concerns of one Branch dominating the others thus promoting tyranny. To do a little reading on your own about the concerns of dominant Branch tyranny go to Quotes Database category Separation of Powers Quotations.

 

My concern currently is Judicial Tyranny which the concept of the Living Constitution enables. And it was Judicial Tyranny stemming from Living Constitution ideology that struck down the Executive Orders of President Trump.

 

The President has asked SCOTUS to expedite a decision on those Executive Orders. How SCOTUS rules will either strengthen Living Constitution Judicial Tyranny a take an important step toward Constitutional Supremacy.

 

Here is some further reading:

 

Why Judicial Supremacy Isn’t Compatible with Constitutional Supremacy; By RAMESH PONNURU; National Review; 9/10/15 4:00 AM

 

Living Constitution, fancy words for judicial tyranny; Posted by Dstarr; News from the Northwoods; 2/15/16 3:22 PM

 

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny; By Tenth Amendment Center; 6/4/12

 

A ‘Living Constitution’ for a Dying Republic; By Mark Alexander; The Patriot Post; 9/16/05

 

JRH 6/4/17

 Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

June 4, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

In Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed.  Among them is a law that gives the President the ability to prohibit persons from entering the United States if he believes they may be a danger to the national security of this country.

 

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting persons from “migrating” into the United States with legislation.

 

Based on the original intent of the United States Constitution, Trump’s travel ban regarding a few Muslim-majority countries who have proven they are sponsors of terrorism, and are willing to harbor terrorists, is completely constitutional.

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law.

 

There is no authority granted to the courts to strike down executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, so the actions of these judges have no foundation in constitutional law.

 

If President Trump understood all of these things, then he would simply tell the lower court judges to kiss off, and he would execute his travel ban, anyway.  The courts have no enforcement arm, and have no authority over his executive branch agencies.

 

However, the president decided to let the courts decide, and the next stop within days will likely be the United States Supreme Court.  A ruling is expected soon that would, based on their “opinion” and the current misguided view of the Constitution, lift a temporary stay on President Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue.  The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction.  It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited.  It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States.  As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.

 

The Democrats have somehow equated the rejection of Islam by conservatives as being akin to how Germany treated the Jews while under the NAZI regime prior to, and during, World War II.  The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.

 

As Commander in Chief, among his primary functions, the President must protect the country (national security), and that is what his travel ban executive order seeks to accomplish.  Despite what one may think, the reality is that terrorism runs rampant in Islam, and in the countries listed.  If Islam doesn’t want us fearing them, and having the inclination that all Muslims are either terrorists, or support terrorist activity, then Islam needs to clean its own house (if that is even possible).  The problem is, like the Germans who were not NAZIs in Germany, the moderate Muslims are a moot point.  The violent jihadists are the ones driving the message of Islam, so that is what we have to address, despite the alleged notion that the poor moderate Muslims are not in agreement with the violence.

 

We, as a nation, have the right to protect ourselves from any potential enemy, no matter what they choose to call themselves (regime, government, or religion).

 

While there is no timetable on how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling in the case (again, I am not a supporter of the unconstitutional concept of judicial review, but as the system is thought to be now, this is the last resort the President has. . . aside from ignoring the courts, and carrying out his duties despite their opinions), there are other lower court decisions also brewing regarding the issue.  Two federal appeals courts are also currently considering the issue, and a ruling from the 9th Circus is still pending.  Trump’s Justice Department, however, has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue now.

 

According to Fox News:

 

“The justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.”

 

The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security, as they should.  Bureaucrats and men in black robes should not be able to interfere with the duties of the President as Commander in Chief.  His job to protect the United States, while on some fronts are dependent upon Congress (such as when it comes to funding), is his to prosecute, and for judges to abandon the rule of law and act in a manner based on ideology regardless of the law is disgusting, and unconstitutional.

 

The executive order is the second one.  Rather than fight for the first one, the language was changed in a manner that was considered to be “bullet proof,” and then was issued March 6.  The revision, in addition to the added “bullet proof” language, also removed Iraq from the list of countries.

 

Officials say the new executive order only applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a valid visa.

 

The appeals court said its decision was based on what Trump said on the campaign trail about “banning Muslims.”

 

Chief Judge Roger Gregory called it an “executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

 

Intolerance?  The Islamic culture has declared war on the United States, and the liberal left Democrats are treating this like it is a slight misunderstanding.  What about Islamic intolerance?  How about we ban mosques in the United States until Muslim countries start welcoming the building of churches and synagogues on their lands.  Did you know if you fly into a Muslim country, if they search you and discover you have a Bible, it will be destroyed onsite?  What about the genocide against Christians occurring in Muslim-majority countries?  Is that tolerance?
During World War II, would these judges have considered a ban against persons from the axis powers intolerant?

 

By the way, the law that started this thing about the President’s authority to prohibit immigration began with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, which gives the president the allowance to restrict immigration into the United States if he believes the persons to be a danger to our national security.  It was passed during a time when we as a country were worried about communist infiltration.  Some Democrats weren’t too happy back then, either, despite the reality that it was a Democrat sponsored law.  Carter, Reagan and Obama all used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, but you don’t remember the courts worried about Obama’s use of it, do you?

 

The court’s attacks against the executive order has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with who wrote the executive order. Congress should drag these activist judges before Congress and make them answer to the legislative branch for their unconstitutional rulings, and then impeach each and every one of them for their bad constitutional behavior.  Congress should also pass law nullifying each and every one of those unconstitutional rulings (a power they have according to Article III’s “Exceptions Clause”).

 

The problem, in short, is not that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are letting them.

 

The judicial branch is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches.  They are not supposed to be a check against Congress or the President, other checks exist (or existed) to take care of that.  The judicial branch’s job is clear.  Their job is simply to apply the law to the cases they hear.  If they believe the law is unconstitutional or unjust, then they can issue an opinion so that Congress may reconsider the law.  What they are doing now has nothing to do with applying the law, or the rule of law.  These leftist judges are simply ruling against the president for political reasons, and then are misinterpreting the law to make it sound like their rulings are within the law.

 

They all need to be thrown off their benches, and either replaced, or those particular inferior courts need to be dismantled and the regions absorbed by another court – again, an authority that Congress has, but has been unwilling to wield.

________________

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:

SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

________________

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com

 

Bring FISA Warrants Back to the Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 3, 2017

 

Since September 11, 2001 I have been very supportive of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) siding on the side of Security looking for foreigners with Islamic terrorist sympathies. Which means I was ok with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) secret warrants to into domestic suspects that were foreign culprits or aiding and abetting Islamic terrorist sympathizers. I was quite ignorant that FISC was created by FISA by an act of Congress in 1978.

 

Even though I am not a great mathematician, it is not hard to figure out 1978 is way before 2001. That means the government was given legal authority to spy on Americans before Islamic terrorism. This is a HUGE Fourth Amendment violation issue.

 

Fourth Amendment:

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

The issue with a FISA secret warrant is that it fails with “probable cause” and/or “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

 

Much to the Leftists horror, I do not believe foreigners deserve the full scope of the 4th Amendment as do U.S. Citizens. Thus I am good with secret warrants on potential foreign adversaries of the U.S. Government and adversaries American citizens that should benefit from the full protections a citizen is entitled to.

 

But another sketchy issue has arisen largely to the admittance of Muslim immigrants and refugees into the USA. That sketchy issue is that 2nd generation sons and daughters of the original Muslim immigrants and refugees have become U.S. citizens (naturalized and natural born) entitled to the full protections the citizenry deserves.

 

Now that I am convinced that Obama ordered the intel organizations to spy on Americans for political reasons more than to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists or foreign spies, FISA needs to be abolished OR at the very least reformed to conform to the intent of the Fourth Amendment.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano more eruditely explains the constitutional ramifications of FISA secret warrants and the operation of FISC.

 

JRH 6/3/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Spying on You, Spying on Me, Spying on the President

 

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

June 2, 2017

Jewish World Review

 

“The makers of our Constitution … conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” — Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928

 

After the Watergate era had ended and Jimmy Carter was in the White House and the Senate’s Church Committee had attempted to grasp the full extent of lawless government surveillance in America during the LBJ and Nixon years, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA declared that it provided the sole source for federal surveillance in America for intelligence purposes.

 

FISA required that all domestic intelligence surveillance be authorized by a newly created court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Since 1978, FISC has met in secret. Its records are unavailable to the public unless it determines otherwise, and it hears only from Department of Justice lawyers and National Security Agency personnel. There are no lawyers or witnesses to challenge the DOJ or the NSA.

 

Notwithstanding this handy constitutional novelty, the NSA quickly grew impatient with its monitors and began crafting novel arguments that were met with no resistance. Those arguments did away with the kind of particularized probable cause about targets of surveillance that the Constitution requires in favor of warrants based on the probability that someone somewhere in a given group could provide intelligence data helpful to national security, and because the FISC bought these arguments, the entire group could be spied upon. The FISC unleashed the NSA to spy on tens of millions of Americans.

 

 

That was still not enough for the nation’s spies. So beginning in 2005, then-President George W. Bush permitted the NSA to interpret President Ronald Reagan’s executive order 12333 so as to allow all spying on everyone in the U.S., all the time. The NSA and Bush took the position that because the president is constitutionally the commander in chief of the military and because the NSA is in the military, both the president and the NSA are lawfully independent of FISA.

 

The NSA does not acknowledge any of this, but we know from the Edward Snowden revelations and from the testimony of a former high-ranking NSA official who devised many of the NSA programs that this is so.

 

The NSA’s use of FISC-issued warrants is only one of a half-dozen tools that the NSA uses, but it is the only tool that the NSA publicly acknowledges. FISC-issued warrants do not name a person as a suspect; they name a category. For example, it could be customers of Verizon, which includes 115 million people. It could be telephones and computers located at 721-725 Fifth Ave. in New York; that’s Trump Tower. It could be all electronic devices in the 10036 ZIP code; that’s midtown Manhattan.

 

When the NSA obtains a FISA warrant and captures a communication, the participants often mention a third person. The federal “minimization” statute requires the NSA to get a warrant before surveilling that third person. Last week, we learned that last month, the FISC rebuked the NSA for failing to minimize by continuing to surveil third parties to the sixth degree without warrants.

 

Here is an example of warrantless surveillance to the sixth degree. The NSA surveils A and B pursuant to a FISC-issued warrant; A and B discuss C; the NSA, without a warrant, surveils C talking to D; C mentions E, and D mentions F; the NSA surveils E and F without warrants, etc. This continues going out to six stops from the A-and-B conversation, even though this is prohibited by federal law. The final stop, which involves huge numbers of people, has been proved to have no connection whatsoever to the warrant issued for A and B, yet the NSA continues to spy there.

 

But it doesn’t stop there. The Bush interpretation of EO 12333 is still followed by the NSA. Its logic — “I am the commander in chief, and I’ll do what I need to do to keep us safe, and the NSA can do what I permit” — permits universal surveillance in flagrant violation of FISA and the Constitution. It was used to justify the surveillance of Donald Trump before he was inaugurated. It no doubt still is.

 

The availability of the information acquired by this massive spying is a serious threat to democracy. We know from the Susan Rice admissions that folks in the government can acquire intelligence-generated data — emails, text messages, recordings of telephone conversations — and use that data for political purposes. Just ask former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

 

And we know from recent tragedies in San Bernardino and Orlando, even Manchester, that the NSA is suffering from information overload. It has too much data to sift through because it does not focus on the bad guys until after the tragedies. Before the tragedies, it has no focus.

 

The now public rebuke of the NSA by the FISC is extraordinary, but it is also a farce. The FISC is virtually owned by the NSA. That court has granted 99.9 percent of requests made by the NSA since the court was created. Despite all the public revelations, the FISC looks the other way at non-FISC-authorized NSA spying. The judges of the FISC have become virtual clerks for the NSA. And the FISC has become an unconstitutional joke.

 

Where does all this leave us? It leaves us with a public recognition that we are the most spied-upon people in world history and that the president himself has been a victim. This fall, the NSA will ask Congress to reauthorize certain spying authorities that are due to expire at the end of the year. Congress needs to know just how unconstitutional, intrusive and fruitless all this spying has become.

 

Perhaps then Congress will write laws that are faithful to the Constitution — and if so, maybe the folks empowered by those laws will follow them.

________________

Bring FISA Warrants Back to the Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 3, 2017

_______________

Spying on You, Spying on Me, Spying on the President

 

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.

 

© 2017 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

 

About JWR

 

JWR is a free magazine published five days a week on the World Wide Web of interest to people of faith and those interested in learning more about contemporary Judaism from Jews who take their religion seriously.

 

Our inaugural editorial is also our mission statement.

Readers, individuals wishing to submit an article on “spec,” or make a tax deductible donation and those seeking advertising rates may contact JWR by email or by calling (718) 972-9241. Please note that all correspondence with JWR remains our property and may be used accordingly.

 

READ THE REST

 

© 1997- 2017 Jewish World Review

 

Is Trump/Russia Fake News More Important than Obama Spying?


John R. Houk

© May 26, 2017

 

The Left Stream Media is still hysterically chasing Fake News or more essentially anti-Trump propaganda, desperately trying to impugn the Administration that voters in a majority of States elected to Office.

 

AND YET this same Leftist MSM is suspiciously silent on the ever-increasing information that treasonous President Barack Hussein Obama had been spying on the American people he considered enemies before his reelection to President in 2012.

 

I found a Legal Insurrection news piece that displays declassified FISA documents about FISA Court rebuking Obama a mere two-weeks before the 2012 election cycle for spying on Americans via the National Security Agency (NSA).

 

You and I should wonder if the Obama domestic spying coupled with his Administration’s open lies about the Benghazi attacks would have changed that election victory toward Mitt Romney.

 

Obama has lied his way to every one of his election victories AND the MSM has been in – wait for it – in collusion with those lies that gullible voters were ensnared to favor Obama.

 

JRH 5/26/17

Please Support NCCR

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

FISA Court Reveal: NSA under Obama Illegally Spied on Americans

 

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers

May 25, 2017 at 8:35pm

Legal Insurrection

 

FISA Court: Illegal searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” yet media reaction subdued.

 

A Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court ruling was declassified and released this week.

 

The ruling reveals that the Obama administration engaged in widespread violation of NSA surveillance rules. The Obama administration was reprimanded by the FISA court for illegal searches that constitute “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

 

According to previously classified documents, this admission of methodical and long-term violations of Americans’ Constitutional rights was made on October 26th of 2016.

 

[Circa Tweet on Obama NSA Spying: https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/867439792979681280]

 

This seems newsworthy: friendly FISA court sounds alarm about Obama spying practices, 4th amendment violations, http://circa.com/politics/barack-obamas-team-secretly-disclosed-years-of-illegal-nsa-searches-spying-on-americans

Circa reports:

 

The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.

 

More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.

 

The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later.

 

The FISA court sanctioned administration officials and ruled that the searches constitute a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

 

Circa continues:

 

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.

 

From the FISA Court ruling:

 

Declassified FISA Ruling 1

 

Declassified FISA Ruling 2

 

Upstream collections refers to data routes between computer networks as opposed to those communications intercepted by Internet service providers.   Even these collections and the distribution of collected and unmasked data, however, are not permitted to be handled in a manner that violates Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

 

PJ Media reports:

 

As the FISA court explains, upstream collection refers to the interception of communications “as they transit the facilities of an Internet backbone carrier.” These are the data routes between computer networks. The routes are hosted by government, academic, commercial, and similar high-capacity network centers, and they facilitate the global, international exchange of Internet traffic. Upstream collection from the Internet’s “backbone,” which accounts for about 9 percent of the NSA’s collection haul (a massive amount of communications), is distinguished from interception of communications from more familiar Internet service providers.

 

Upstream collection is a vital tool for gathering intelligence against foreign threats to the United States. It is, of course, on foreign intelligence targets — non-U.S. persons situated outside the U.S. — that the NSA and CIA are supposed to focus. Foreign agents operating inside the U.S. are mainly the purview of the FBI, which conducts surveillance of their communications through warrants from the FISA court — individualized warrants based on probable cause that a specific person is acting as an agent of a foreign power.

 

. . . . In a nutshell, it is not possible to capture a single e-mail related to a single target as it transits the backbone routes (or “switches”) that connect networks. The NSA must instead capture packets of e-mail data — which include lots of e-mails beside the targeted e-mail. It sifts through these packets, finds and assembles the components of the email it was looking for, and then discards the rest. (A New York Times report by Charlie Savage earlier this week, in connection with a different FISA issue, provides a good explanation of this process.

 

By contrast, the relevant discussion in the FISA court opinion of “multiple communications transactions,” or MCTs, is brief and heavily redacted — see the opinion at 15–16.) Even if the NSA does exactly what it is supposed to do (i.e., sift and discard), this means American communications are being seized and subjected to an inspection — however cursory — in the absence of any warrant, probable cause, or foreign-intelligence relevance.

 

According to Circa, the ACLU responds to the “appalling lack of oversight” in our nation’s intelligence agencies.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.

 

“I think what this emphasizes is the shocking lack of oversight of these programs,” said Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU’s legislative counsel in Washington.

 

Watch the report:

 

VIDEO: New evidence Obama’s NSA conducted illegal searches

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on May 24, 2017

 

Documents show NSA systematically violated rights of countless Americans; chief Washington correspondent James Rosen reports

 

If you’ve noted that this is not being covered by the mainstream media, you’re not alone.

 

Newsbusters notes:

 

The lack of coverage by the Big Three, and the liberal media in general shows their bias against Trump and their favoritism to Obama. They rather focus on alleged accusations that so far have bared little fruit, instead of the legal opinion of federal judges exposing the highly illegal actions of a segment of President Obama’s administration.

 

______________________

Is Trump/Russia Fake News More Important than Obama Spying?

John R. Houk

© May 26, 2017

__________________

FISA Court Reveal: NSA under Obama Illegally Spied on Americans

 

© Copyright 2008-2017, Legal Insurrection, All Rights Reserved.