The 9th Court Usurps Power!


Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

9th Circuit Appellate Justices Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

 

Justin Smith reasoning demonstrates the hypocrisy and idiocy of the American Left’s rabid reaction to President Trump temporarily banning immigration and refugees from seven nations that Islamic terrorism is a hotbed of death.

 

JRH 2/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The 9th Court Usurps Power!

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/13/2017 7:19 AM

 

President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the President’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’état, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.

 

It has universally been acknowledged for over 230 years that the President, the United States Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority and great leeway in all matters of immigration and foreign policy and national security [Judge Napolitano & NRO], which places the recent ruling of leftist activist judges Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) and William Canby Jr. (Carter appointee) on par with an act of treason. These two judges are so willing to give President Trump a political black eye, allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” campaign statements to be used in the evaluation of his executive order, that they have ignored the law, circumvented the Constitution and violated the separation of powers clause between coequal branches of government; and, they have blatantly dismissed the reality  of refugees, who can’t prove who they are and whether or not they have any ties to Islamic terrorist groups, while allowing district judge James Robart, another leftist activist judge (notwithstanding being a Bush appointee), to absurdly overrule the President of the United States on border security during wartime.

 

There is not any manner of violation against the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Immigration Act in President Trump’s travel ban. Trump isn’t discriminating against anyone, but rather, he is looking at seven nations from a security threat assessment, which were already determined to be state sponsors of terror by former President Obama and his advisors, addressed in Section 1187 (a) (12) of an Obama-era provision of the immigration law.

 

And also in his executive order, President Trump expressly cites 1182 (f), enacted in 1952, which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants … “. [Blog Editor: bold-italics is Editor’s]

 

In 1893, America was detaining approximately 20 percent of all hopeful immigrants reaching Ellis Island, due to sickness and disabilities, and anarchists and the insane were automatically rejected [Blog Editor: History.com point 4-  Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States]. About two percent of these immigrants were judged unfit to become U.S. citizens and sent home on the next ship. By the 1920s, our government established quotas based on nationality and skill. And the majority of Americans have always understood that just like anyone has the right to decide who enters their home, so too, our nation has that same sovereign right.

 

No “moral obligation” to these refugees exists that can compel us to allow them to enter without knowing for certain who they are. The moral obligation to open our doors, often mentioned by the Leftists and International Communists, doesn’t mean America must throw reason and caution to the wind.

 

People who do not share our values — Islamofascists seeking to reach America’s shores and murder Americans — and anti-American “refugees” seeking to transform America into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.

 

Why weren’t all of these anti-American leftist judges evoking Emma Lazarus and Lady Liberty lifting her lamp “beside the golden door” when President Clinton sent little 6 year old Elian Gonzalez back to a communist dictatorship in Cuba, under the executive branch’s broad power? Or when President Obama turned away real refugees fleeing Castro’s oppression “yearning to breathe free“? [Blog Editor: See Also Breitbart & 100% Fed Up]

 

America doesn’t have to destroy its cultural identity by helping foreigners, but this is precisely what Democrat commie bastards such as President Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy intended to accomplish through the 1965 Immigration Act. This one law has eroded our cultural identity severely and created extremely detrimental demographic changes over time. And most recently, former President Obama specifically brought in one million immigrants from Muslim majority countries like Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though these countries were the origin of terrorists that have already attacked America.

 

Many of America’s “progressive” Leftists consider the destruction of America, as we know it, to be a desirable goal, however, most Americans reject their fundamental change. Americans who love this country want a strong America, that will be able to defeat the dangerous ideologies currently threatening Western Civilization.

 

Rebuke the disingenuous pious progressives who decry those of us supporting the President’s executive order as anti-immigrant and issue flowery utterances on sanctuary, when sanctuary is for the truly persecuted innocents, like the Christians in the Middle East. Exercising our first responsibility to protect ourselves and Our Beloved America bears no shame.

 

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ala) stated that Trump’s executive order was “plainly legal” under both statute and the Constitution, adding: “No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the President. This misguided ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court.

 

Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala) said, “Unfortunately, American lives are at risk until this unfounded and reckless [9th Court restraining] order is reversed by the Supreme Court.”

 

How can Americans trust unreliable and corrupt courts with our national security? The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be both constitutional and a tax, after Obama called it a “penalty” for years. The courts have overturned the will of ‘We the People’ in numerous referendums and centuries of traditions and hundreds of state and federal laws, so that they could manufacture non-existent rights to abortion and deviant, perverse homosexual “marriage” [coupling], rights that cannot and never will be found in Madison’s Constitution.

 

Judges and justices are not empowered by the Constitution to make U.S. law or govern the nation. Those duties fall solely to Congress and the President.

 

Pat Buchanan observed on February 10th that President Andrew Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s “prohibition” against moving the Cherokee Indians across the Mississippi and to the western frontier. He also noted President Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney, when Taney declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.

 

President Trump must simply defy U.S. District Judge Robart’s overly broad and illegal restraining order, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He must order Homeland Security and his State Department and Justice Department to continue executing his executive order which is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and existing law, because his act is a rare and righteous moment in this war against terrorism, the Islamofascists, the Radical Left of America and the International Communists, who seek our demise. And a Constitutional crisis is much preferred over more murdered innocent Americans.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

9th Circuit Uses Semantics to Deceive Americans


e-pluribus-unum-vs-multiculturalist-left

When the 9th Circuit Appeals Court upheld a Lower Court stay on President Trump’s Executive Order temporarily banning citizens, refugees, and immigrants from seven nations that are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism, it demonstrated how Leftist Activist Judges ignore the Constitution in favor of Leftist utopianism. The American Left might as rip up the Constitution and burn the scraps of paper.

 

Paul Sutliff demonstrates how the 9th circuit is torching the U.S. Constitution with misinformation to justify Multiculturalist utopian goals.

 

JRH 2/11/17

Please Support NCCR

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

9th Circuit Uses Semantics to Deceive Americans

u-s-9th-circuit-deceives-american 

By Paul Sutliff 

February 9, 2017

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

The New York Post wrote an article on February 9th that clearly shows the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, carefully choosing words for the purpose of creating misinformation for the media to share with their readers and viewers regarding their actions against President Trump’s Executive Order. According to that article the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that an alien of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the three-member panel wrote.”

 

The terminology “perpetrated a terrorist attack” explicitly excludes all actions prevented or attempted that did not result in a terror attack. Why is this important? There are at least 38 terrorists who were killed or arrested as they worked to be supportive of the Islamic State AND who were also classified as immigrants/refugees at one time. In addition, there are at least 6 persons who were killed or arrested for attempting an act of terror who were second generation Americans refugees. I filed this information in a federally filed affidavit in September 2016 as an Expert Witness. You will notice people from countries other than the seven countries listed in Trump’s ban.

All the information in the graphs below originated in the Threat Knowledge Group last accessed in September 2016, whose site was disabled recently with President Trump’s appointment of Sebastian Gorka, with the exception of the information in the last column which I found. Actual sources for the information cited in the last column is provided in my Affidavit.

 

APPENDIX C 1

 is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees

 

APPENDIX C 2

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-2 

 

APPENDIX C 3

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-3 

 

APPENDIX C 4

 is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-4

 

APPENDIX C 5

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-5

 

____________________

Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the truth about Civilization Jiihad! https://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-68237-562-4

 

Lady Liberty Cried


tears-of-lady-liberty

Justin Smith makes a very cogent defense of President Trump’s ban on immigration from seven nations that are Islamic terrorist havens.

 

JRH 2/7/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Lady Liberty Cried

The Moral and Intellectual Clarity to Win

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/6/2017 12:37 PM

 

Lady Liberty had a single tear trickle down Her cheek on January 27th as Her breasts heaved with happiness and relief that a U.S. President, Donald Trump, was finally implementing a sound, logical and sane common-sense approach to who receives visas and permission to enter the United States. However, Lady Liberty cried profusely, upon learning that President Trump’s ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations was only temporary.

 

On January 27th, Pres. Trump placed a 120 day block on all refugees and a 90 day ban on travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia. Three of these countries are U.S.-designated sponsors of terror and the rest are war zones; this is about the safety and security of the American people, and it is far from discrimination against Muslims.

 

Congressional members of both parties have promised a biometric entry-exit tracking system on visas for over two decades, and the 9/11 National Commission on Terror Attacks on the United States recommended it thirteen years ago, noting that forty percent of all illegal aliens simply overstayed their visa just like many of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists. Section 7 of President Trump’s executive order calls for this biometric system that has long been delayed by lobbyists from foreign governments, universities, immigration legal firms and the ACLU.

 

And now, with the flames of violence fanned by the Leftist media, America is witnessing violent social convulsions from Berkeley, CA to New York City. Violent communists and anarchists, supported and largely financed by the American Communist Party and the billionaire trouble-maker George Soros, are attacking any conservative counter-protester with pepper-spray and poles, and they are setting fire to their cities.

 

The Washington Post quoted protesters outside the White House saying, “Islamophobia is unpatriotic” and chanting “Let them go … Let them in”.

 

Videos out of the University of California at Berkely show protesters screaming, “No borders, no nations, f— deportations! … No walls, no borders, f— executive orders!”

 

The Left fears that Trump’s executive order is the first step towards a return to pre-1965 immigration policies that favored Western Christians. The Progressive Communists of the Democratic Party have advocated their anti-Western, anti-Christian ideology for over four decades, and they have promoted open borders, globalization and endless immigration from the Third World, in order to destroy America’s Founding Principles through a dangerous form of multiculturalism that encourages ethnic separation and authoritarian government in a hellish “utopia”. [Blog Editor: I’m not always a fan of Natural News as a source nevertheless, this article paints a picture Americans are witnessing right before their eyes.]

 

If this executive order was truly a “Muslim” ban, as asserted by the Leftist “mainstream” media, why didn’t it include forty other Muslim majority countries, including Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, where Christians are regularly intimidated and persecuted?

 

Even if this had been the full Muslim ban once proposed by Trump, so what?

 

An indisputable fact, America is a nation of immigrants, but entering America is a privilege, not a right, and since 1882, Congress was seen as having broad authority over this issue, as our nation’s lawmaker. The U.S. President, too, has broad discretion, under the law, for national security purposes to bar a class of person detrimental to the U.S. from entering the country. Any country, including America, cannot maintain its national security, traditions, cultural identity – its heritage – unless it approves or denies entrants based on the country of origin.

 

Isn’t it revealing that every country listed by President Trump bans Israeli citizens?

 

Reuters reported on January 31st that the Council on American – Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood organization, was preparing a legal challenge. CAIR contends “the order targets Muslims because of their faith, contravening the U.S. Constitutional right to freedom of religion”.

 

Contrary to the assertions of Islam’s apologists, the so-called “religion of peace” is a manifest and existential evil ideology, and the Muslim Brotherhood is just as committed to the destruction of America and the West as its Al Qaeda and Islamic State associates. Islam and its followers are at the center of this debate regarding America’s national security, because they are at the center of so much terror and death around the world, a “religion” [ideology] that professes to be good and “peaceful” with millions of its faithful followers actively supporting or waging violent jihad, killing apostates, hanging homosexuals and stoning women.

 

Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi  shed fake tears over President Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban”, and yet Pres. Obama banned Iraqis in 2011 after two Iraqi terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, KY selling arms to terrorists back home in Iraq. Did they cry then? Did they cry for the victims of 9/11? Boston? San Bernadino and a litany of other U.S. cities? And have they shed a tear or castigated Japan for its nearly complete ban on Muslims? Americans might like to hear those answers.

 

Several independent studies (Rasmussen, Harvard, PEW) show that a full quarter of the 230,140,996 million “moderate” Muslims of Indonesia (total population 258,316,051 million) support the goals of the terrorist groups of Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. Overall, approximately one-third of all Muslims approve of Hamas and one-quarter hold Hezbollah in high esteem. And, just as troubling, 15 percent of Muslims in Turkey, a NATO ally, support suicide bombings.

 

Thousands of educated Muslims worldwide probably acknowledge that the violent terrorism of the Islamofascists, who are fighting in North Africa and the Middle East, is driven by a political ideology embedded in Islam, the Koran and the Hadith (the teachings of Mohammed). [Oxford & IrqaSense.com – pro-Islam] And while a few hundred of these enlightened Muslims might actually seek the reform of Islam, millions more of devout Muslims still follow the Koran quite literally, quickly dismissing any attempt to reform Islam as heresy; many of these are the same Muslims who refuse to fully integrate into any host nation they reside, as blatantly witnessed in the United Kingdom and France, and even in some parts of the United States.

 

From the Hadith: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror …” — Sahih al Bukhari 4:52:220

 

President Trump’s travel ban is more about the preservation of everyday ordinary American lives and liberty, and it has nothing to do with Islamophobia, racism, fascism or xenophobia. Anyone with a modicum of common-sense can understand that Muslim immigrants require greater scrutiny, especially in light of several past visa screenings that failed to identify foreign nationals who later committed Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks in America.

 

Isn’t now the time for the majority of Americans to demand an immediate and permanent ban on all Muslim immigration?

 

“We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people,” President Trump said, shortly after announcing the travel ban.

 

President Donald Trump has the moral and intellectual clarity to win this religious war, because he can name the enemy, and he has the courage of his convictions. He is already reminding Americans of their country’s proud heritage and exceptionalism, while he refuses to allow the intolerant Islamofascists to turn our tolerance and charity  —  our strength — into weakness.

 

America’s leaders cannot be so overly sensitive in defending other cultures that they stop defending ours. A sane immigration and refugee policy won’t make the Muslims hate America any more than they already do; they hate us simply because we exist. And in the end, if we follow President Trump’s lead, America will be kept safe and Americans will rediscover their Western identity and the Judeo-Christian principles that made America the Greatest Nation on Earth.

 

And Lady Liberty will smile again.

 

By Justin O. Smith

+++

lady-liberty-patriotism

Blog Editor: Quite separately from Justin’s submission, I found a video that might be of interest to readers that share my opinion that the American Left has an agenda to reshape America away from our Founding principles and traditional American values.

 

VIDEO: America Under Siege: Civil War 2017

 

Post by Capital Research Center

Published on Jan 19, 2017

 

They’ve fought to stop the inauguration
They’re fighting to destroy our nation

While 700,000 protesters are converging on Washington D.C. for Inauguration Day—in addition to anti-Trump rallies planned in dozens of cities across the country—the political groups behind the protests remain shrouded in mystery. As Fox News Channel first reported, Civil War 2017 uncovers an extensive network of neo-Marxist operatives coordinating highly disruptive and potentially violent protests from coast to coast.

Working with Dangerous Documentaries, director Judd Saul and conservative commentator Trevor Loudon have compiled a team of researchers and undercover operatives to probe the roots of the anti-Trump movement, highlighting the ultimate goals and ulterior motives. Mr. Loudon, a regular contributor to Glenn Beck’s online programming, is the foremost expert on the left-wing organizers of mass protests.

DangerousDocumentaries.com
CapitalResearch.org

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

One Quiet Man’s Fight for Freedom


in-memory-of-lavoy-finicum-american-patriot

It was about a year ago that LaVoy Finicum was shot to death by Federal and Oregon State law enforcement UNJUSTLY. Justin reminds us that government tyranny is very possible in America – especially in an America that has a Dem Party Administration that has consistently lied to Americans for EIGHT YEARS.

 

JRH 1/24/17

Please Support NCCR

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

One Quiet Man’s Fight for Freedom

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/23/2017 7:38 AM

 

Destroyers are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state … ” — Nietzsche

 

Americans should pause and take some time to recall and celebrate the life of Robert LaVoy Finicum, an American patriot, who loved his family, God and country. He placed his life on the line in defense of all Americans’ right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, joining the ranks of thousands of other ranchers who have been fighting the overreaches of the federal government and the tyranny of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the past forty years. Robert LaVoy Finicum died on January 26th, 2016, one day before his 55th birthday, defending the U.S. Constitution and this America he loved so well.

 

By all accounts, LaVoy Finicum was “a quiet man who worked his to-do list from sun-up to sundown” (The Oregonian) and had a “light reading” list that included many history books, the U.S. Constitution and Alexis de Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’. He also thoroughly enjoyed his big family – his wife and eleven children – and their evening discussions on the Scriptures, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ ideas on freedom.

 

Although Finicum had generally viewed his interaction with the BLM to be “very good” over the years, he became active in opposing them in 2014, after the BLM fined him $12,000 and claimed his cattle had grazed on federal lands past his allotted permit time. He was also heavily influenced by his own research into the BLM and the high-handed tactics he witnessed the BLM employ against the Bundy family in 2014.

 

Finicum rode with Cliven and Ammon Bundy on their Nevada Ranch in April of 2014, along with hundreds of other supporters, in order to reinforce the fact that Bundy’s grazing and water rights, documented in an 1878 title, predated any BLM claims and had to be honored by the BLM. And when the BLM moved along Interstate 15 to confiscate Bundy’s cattle on April 5th, Finicum, the Bundy family members and well-armed supporters stopped them cold where they stood; this would become a sore-point for the FBI that carried over to the Malheur Wildlife Reserve occupation in 2016 and the stand-off near Burns, Oregon.

 

After the Bundy Ranch Stand-Off, LaVoy Finicum said: “I had to do a lot of soul searching. I realized that Cliven Bundy was standing on a very strong constitutional principle, and yet, here I was continuing to pay a grazing fee to the BLM.”

 

Finicum and the Bundy clan understood that the Enclave Clause [Thoughts from 2014 & 2016] (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution) did not allow government bureaucrats to act like kings and ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments, and it did not authorize the BLM to arbitrarily seize the water rights, cattle and property of ranchers and arrogantly nullify 200 years of constitutional history. They understood, much like the U.S. Supreme Court (New York v. U.S.), that the Constitution is not a tool to protect the sovereignty of the State or for the benefit of government officials, but rather, the Constitution secures all Americans’ liberties through the diffusion of sovereign power.

 

However, the BLM sees things differently. Many cases spanning the years can be found, that are similar to Raymond Yowell’s experience. The BLM garnished the $200 Social Security check of this former chief of the Shoshone Indian Tribe and seized 132 head of his cattle in 2002, for grazing “unlawfully” on government lands. The BLM sold Yowell’s cattle at auction and pocketed the money.

 

Between 2006 and 2012, the BLM had intimidated and finally charged Steven and Dwight Hammond with nine federal counts of arson for setting backfires on their own lands that supposedly spread to federal land. The Hammonds were subsequently imprisoned, released and then sent back to prison, even though the facts illuminated that some of those out-of-control backfires actually originated with BLM employees, in an attempt to stop several lightning strike fires such as the Granddad fire that burned 46,000 acres.

 

Politics played heavily in the cases regarding Steven and Dwight Hammond, because the BLM wanted the Hammond ranch. Gold mining companies like Calico Resource USA out of Vancouver, Canada and uranium mining concerns like Australian owned Oregon Energy LLC had their eyes on the area, and the BLM was hoping to profit and grow more powerful through the General Mining Law of 1872.

 

All the great ideas and principles that shaped America went with LaVoy Finicum, as he and many other American Patriots occupied Oregon’s Malheur (French for “misfortune” or “tragedy”) National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles from Burns, Oregon, in order to force the return of 188,000 acres to local control and the release of the Hammond brothers from prison. They acted through peaceful, political protest, even though they were armed to ensure the security of their protest, and they advocated for property and states’ rights, as they took a hard stand against federal ownership of 250 million acres in America and years of oppression by the BLM and several other government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Twenty-five days into the protest, Robert LaVoy Finicum, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Ryan Payne and Victoria Sharp headed to John Day, Oregon for a “singing” and a meeting with Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer to discuss their demands, explain their views to local people and seek a peaceful end to the stand-off. But they were ambushed along the way by the Oregon State Patrol and the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, which used combat-grade operation protocols rather than “civilian” deadly force standards, firing once without warning at the initial stop, according to many witnesses, and numerous times at the second roadblock using concussion and live rounds.

 

Does this remind anyone else of Ruby Ridge and the murders of Randy Weaver’s wife and son by the FBI?

 

If the federal authorities had been serious about desiring a peaceful resolution to this conflict, they could have coordinated with Sheriff Palmer to arrest Finicum, if just cause existed for an arrest (they knew Finicum’s destination). Instead they chose to shoot him numerous times and refuse him medical attention from Victoria Sharp, a trained EMT and his friend, as he lay on the snowy ground dying. They murdered LaVoy on a lonely, desolate stretch of Highway 395.

 

If the FBI had negotiated LaVoy Finicum’s peaceful surrender, as they certainly could have, he would simply have been taken into custody and released after his acquittal by a jury, just in the same manner that a jury acquitted his so-called “co-conspirators” in October 2016, including Ammon Bundy and a friend and activist, Shawna Cox. And, it should alarm everyone that the HRT agents initially concealed the fact they had fired their weapons during the stop.

 

Upon her release, Shawna Cox made a plea before a mass of TV cameras and supporters, imploring: “We have to be vigilant people. Wake up America, and help us restore the Constitution. Don’t sleep with your head in the sand.

 

Isn’t it odd that FBI agents, who are sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution — lawyers all — regularly side with government imposed tyranny against U.S. citizens?

 

Arianna Finicum Brown, LaVoy’s 27 year old daughter, stated shortly after his death: “My Dad was such a good man, through and through. He would never want to hurt somebody, but he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved.

 

During LaVoy’s funeral, his brother, Guy Finicum remarked on LaVoy’s deep faith in God, adding: “He has absolute confidence that he will be with his family again. He believes that as much as he believes the sun will rise. And that’s what gave him the ability to do what he did. He always looked at a higher goal.”

 

When any government, including ours, puts forth its strength on the side of injustice and murders fine men like LaVoy Finicum, it reveals itself as a mere brute force, and it becomes apparent more than ever that tyranny rules. And other patriots are served warning to desist their opposition or meet the same fate.

 

And what are Americans to think of a government to which all the truly brave and just men in the land are enemies, standing between it and those whom it oppresses?

 

Robert LaVoy Finicum did not recognize unjust human laws, and he persistently stood for the dignity of human nature, knowing himself for a man, the equal of any government. He regularly fought against established injustices and the hypocrites of bureaucracies who seemed to ask, “Why do you assault us”. And LaVoy’s death — the death of an American hero — was like the planting of a good seed, and it is giving rise to a new crop of American heroes.

 

By Justin O. Smith

+++

Youtube video added by Blog Editor:

 

VIDEO: Video shows two camera angles of LaVoy Finicum shooting

 

Posted by The Oregonian

Published on Mar 8, 2016

 

In a video shown at a Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office press conference today, the aerial FBI video of the LaVoy Finicum shooting has been synced with a cellphone video Shawna Cox recorded from within Finicum’s truck.

 

The rest is The Oregonian subscription & social media information

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

One Step Too Far


un-agenda-2030

The United Nations (UN) has been unjustifiably harsh to the Jewish State of Israel for decades. The UN has taken up the cause of Muslim nations that are closer than despotism than a democratic republic process of governing. As most Americans I am a supporter of Israel’s existence unlike most Muslims, especially the Muslim Arabs that have adopted the name Palestinian.

 

The UN hatred of Israel is good enough for me for America to pull out of the UN and defund our support for that now very crooked international body. AND YET there are many more reasons for the USA to leave the UN. Justin Smith goes over some of those reasons in which the UN has an agenda to fray the sovereign borders of all nations.

 

JRH 11/18/17

Please Support NCCR

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

One Step Too Far

Repeal the United Nations Participation Act 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/16/2017 7:17 AM

 

One more day should not pass before the United States Congress votes to immediately halt all funding to the United Nations and end our membership in the U.N., largely comprised of our enemies, which falsely presents itself as an organization dedicated to worldwide freedom, liberty and “social justice” for all. Not only does the U.N. support terrorism, it is anti-American and anti-Israeli, and through U.N. schemes, like Agenda 2030 and “sustainable development”, the U.N. promotes tyranny and the subversion of any mechanism for freedom, such as our U.S. Constitution, thus promoting the suppression of the unalienable rights of all mankind.

 

The U.N. claims that it seeks to create a peaceful world and protect human rights, and yet, many of the world’s most troublesome and violent nations and human rights violators — Russia, China, Indonesia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Cuba — sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council. One should recall that the United States was removed from the U.N. Human Rights High Commission in 2001, in retaliation for the U.S.’s defense of Israel, an all-time high point for U.N. hostility towards the U.S.

 

U.S. taxpayers’ money far too often is placed against American values and interests, whenever the United States gives it to the U.N. This occurs because the U.N. majority of votes is held by the undemocratic 57 member nations of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the 120 member Non-Aligned Movement, chaired by Iran from 2012 to 2015. And so, the U.N.’s World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, heavily funded by the U.S., was able to pass dual-use nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, without batting an eye.

 

Did this promote peace? And does arming and supplying Hamas terrorists promote peace?

 

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees has embedded itself with Hamas terrorists, who have formed close ties with the Islamic State over the past two years, and rocket arsenals have been found numerous times in UNRWA’s U.S. funded schools. UNRWA-provided construction materials are used in Hamas tunnels, which are staging areas for terrorist attacks that kill innocent Israeli citizens; and, the Leftist Obama administration must tacitly approve of this Palestinian initiative, since it has sent $380 million annually to the UNRWA.

 

In 2011, did the Durban III Conference in New York and the U.N. legitimization of the Palestinian recognition initiative promote peace or an OIC agenda?

 

Shortly after Durban III, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton noted: “You just don’t read about it, you just don’t hear about it in the media. But the pervasiveness of the anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism is there as an undercurrent — all the time.”

 

And if the December 23rd, 2016 UN Resolution 2334 is not one step too far for the American people, just how far will we go with the U.N.’s madness? Not much further, I suspect, especially once one looks at the U.N. Resolution 16/18, the Small Arms Treaty and Agenda 2030.

 

With the treason gene dancing nimbly through her mind daily in December 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton colluded with the 57 Islamic nations of the OIC to abrogate the First Amendment. They met in New York City to formulate a strategy that would convince the U.S. Senate to ratify U.N. Resolution 16/18, which criminalizes any criticism of Islam, essentially criminalizing free speech and a bedrock of our U.S. Constitution and our American heritage.

 

The Small Arms Treaty, adopted in April 2013, is another anti-American U.N. initiative aimed at the Second Amendment. It prohibits exporting conventional weapons, including personal firearms, to nations with poor human rights records. Since U.N. officials regularly fabricate “human rights abuses” against the U.S., this “treaty” would be a strong nuisance, if applied against us. Registration of all firearm imports down to the final purchaser is also demanded, which would be used as the next step towards private firearms confiscation and heavily resisted in America.

 

The U.N. currently strives to implement Agenda 2030, with its expected $3 to $5 trillion annual price-tag, and its undisguised plan for global socialism and fascism [i.e. corporatism]. Goal Ten calls on U.N. members and every single person worldwide to “reduce inequality within and among countries”, which can only be made possible, according to the U.N., “if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed”. Basically, this confiscates Western wealth, shrinks their economies through Big Government policies and “redistributes” [gives] their money to authoritarian/ totalitarian Third World regimes, rather than their impoverished victims, keeping the tyrants in power.

 

Agenda 2030’s premise that the world’s current rate of consumption is “unsustainable” is based on fallacies straight out of Malthusian philosophy. The West does not have to reduce their consumption of everything — meat, cars, electrical appliances, convenience foods, air-conditioning, or expansive and modest housing — as suggest by U.N. globalists, in order that poor countries can have more and the world can achieve a “sustainable” balance. All that is required is keeping the independent spirit of freedom alive that opens the creative and innovative minds of men, which has always led to a prosperous reality.

 

Agenda 2030 will be forced on all the citizens of nations willing to use government coercion. Nowhere does it protect individual rights and the unalienable rights granted to all men by our Creator. Its ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ absolutely denies individuals parental control over their children and the right to self-defense.

 

Thankfully, U.N. treaties, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed by any U.S. President do not hold any enforceable weight of law, even through “customary international law”, without the U.S. Senate’s imprimatur and a two-thirds majority vote, contrary to assertions by globalists, American leftists and Obama’s State Department. And even then, the U.S. Constitution cannot be superseded by international law.

 

Is it any wonder that former U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced legislation every year he was in Congress to withdraw our membership in the U.N.?

 

All Americans, who wish to preserve freedom and liberty for their children’s children and beyond, must eradicate the U.N.’s clear and present danger to the sovereignty and survival of the United States. We must fervently urge President Donald Trump and the 115th Congress to totally repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and expel the U.N. from the United States completely, releasing the $7.7 billion wasted on the U.N.’s validation of tyrants for better uses in America. And from this day ’til the end of time, let America stand only with those nations that are willing to bear any burden and fight the good fight against any foe to assure that future generations live in Freedom and Liberty.

 

By Justin O Smith

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Social Censorship and Racism


John R. Houk

© January 16, 2017

 

I have had my issues of being placed in Facebook and G+ jail under the (FALSE) accusation of posting inappropriate thoughts that violate social community rules. I am guessing many other Conservatives and Counterjihad writers sharing the truth without profanity have also experienced a social ban here and there. Social Ban = Social Jail.

 

The social network via Yahoo Groups (ccpga – Restricted Group) posted a link that exposes this jail phenomenon. Sadly Yahoo Groups are not as active as other social groups; nevertheless, the relatively small members at ccpga are quite active. It is there where I found a link to Constitution.com exposing the idiotic censorship at Facebook.

 

The Facebook poster – Grant Phillips – wrote about the racism involved with teenage Black adults torturing a White disabled mentally challenged young man. Phillips’ thought was pertaining to the MSM not being outraged by “kids” torturing a disabled White man yet contrarily the MSM does not get steamed by the Obama Administration alerting the public to Islamic Terrorism after a terrorist murderer shouts Allahu Akbar. Or calling Black protesters destroying, looting and burning cities are just misunderstood people. Implying Black-Americans need to demonstrate such frustration because of years of oppression. The reality is such actions make Americans displeased and contribute more to racist reactions to show their displeasure.

 

Anyway, read the Constitution.com article which should go viral to protest Facebook censorship and I dare say a cover-up.

 

JRH 1/16/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Facebook Bans Yet Another Conservative Viral Post that Only Tells the Truth

 

By Onan Coca 

January 15, 2017

Constitution.com

 

About a week ago a gentleman named Grant Phillips, who in and of himself is not famous or celebrated for any particular reason, posted an important and thoughtful note to Facebook.

 

His argument, written in the wake of the vile Chicago hate crime that saw four African-American adults livestream their kidnapping, abuse, and torture of a special needs white man, was well-written and completely factual. Here’s what Phillips had to say:

 

If you yell “f*ck white people” while torturing a special needs white kid, the city of Chicago won’t call it a hate crime and the superintendent will say it’s “just a bunch of kids.” If you yell “Allahu Akbar” right before blowing yourself up in a public area, POTUS won’t call you an Islamic terrorist. If you burn down cities and destroy property, you’re a misunderstood protester fighting oppression. But if you voted for Trump, you’re a violent racist and white supremacist.

 

Facebook to Phillips – Removed post

facebook-to-phillips-removed-post

 

Mr. Phillips’ post quickly went viral reaching over 100,000 people without much pomp or circumstance, a true miracle considering Mr. Phillips lack of fame. The quick expansion of the message must have bothered someone at Facebook, though, because within a few days Facebook had removed the post for violating “community standards.” Apparently, Facebook’s community standards doesn’t appreciate completely honest, factual, and researchable information.

 

Now, on Facebook, Phillips and his friends, along with many other conservatives, are responding by reposting his message far and wide across the social media network. One of his friends argued, “Facebook is showing an increasing proclivity for punishing Conservative views. Let’s not let them get away with it.”

 

I agree, let’s make sure that Facebook knows we won’t let them get away with their suppression of conservative views.

___________________

Social Censorship and Racism

John R. Houk

© January 16, 2017

_________________

Facebook Bans Yet Another Conservative Viral Post that Only Tells the Truth

 

Onan Coca

 

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.

 

Copyright © 2017 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved.

 

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST


constitution-convention

Intro to ‘THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

Edited by John R. Houk

By J.B. Williams

Posted December 30, 2016

 

I am a great believer in the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. And by foundation, I mean the rough Original Intent (more detail of Originalism) of America’s Founding Fathers that were invested in framing our Republic’s Founding Document.

 

That being said, I am hardly a Constitutional expert. Academically I proceeded only to a Bachelor of Arts in History from a small college in the central part of Washington State (the more Conservative side of the Leftist State and in a day and time when Profs were fairly equal in Liberal and Conservative viewpoints).

 

BUT, I can read the Constitution and The Federalist Papers (the selling point of the Constitution). THIS MEANS lame duck President Barack Hussein Obama – a self-described Constitutional expert – has gone to great lengths to promote the concept of a Living Constitution which essentially tosses out the Original Intent to be replaced with a make-it-up as you go along rule of law to fit whatever Elitist concept of man-law is valid for the day.

 

J.B. Williams has some thoughts on Original Intent that most will agree with and some – including myself – thoughts Originalists might have to think twice about.

 

JRH 12/30/16

Please Support NCCR

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

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

 

By J.B. Williams

December 29, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

 

After many years of abusive and tyrannical federal intrusions into state, local and private personal affairs, protected freedoms and liberties, well beyond the constitutional authority granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, it has become necessary to return to our founding principles and values, to restate and enforce the Rule of Constitutional Law in preservation of our once free republic.

 

It has also become socially popular to proclaim the name of constitutionalist, an indication of both knowledge of and reverence for our Charters of Freedom. Yet too many constitutionalists are not even vaguely familiar with the Charters of Freedom, often calling for alterations to our form of self-governance in the name of constitutional conscience, but at odds with constitutional text, wisdom and intent.

 

The Obama Administration has indeed been historic in many ways, first and foremost, the failed but extreme effort to “fundamentally transform” our sovereign Constitutional Republic into a secular socialist member of a criminal global commune. No previous President has ever done so much to destroy the republic or their own political party, Obama having lost the Democratic Party more than 1000 political seats in less than eight years.

 

The 2016 revolt of the people that resulted in the historic election of political outsider Donald J. Trump also resulted in Republicans gaining control of both chambers of Congress, 2/3 of the state governorships and all but 13 of the 50 state legislatures. In short, the Obama era has been disastrous for both the country and his party.

 

Still, even Barack Hussein Obama claims constitutional expertise and reverence, as he works day in and day out to destroy everything the Founders created some 240 years ago. Like many modern lawyers trained in Common Law [noun: common law is the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes;] instead of Constitutional Law based in Natural Law, experts with a left-leaning agenda may be experts, but use that expertise to undermine and subvert the Rule of Constitutional Law rather than uphold and preserve it. Three great examples of this is demonstrated by the open assault on States’ Rights, the call for congressional term limits and the end of the Electoral College.

 

Because the vast majority of Americans stopped being forever vigilant in self-governance long ago, many now seek what they believe to be shortcut solutions to solve the natural consequences of a society no longer informed or engaged in self-governance. These notions are at odds with both constitutional text and intent.

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

 

People have referred to the U.S.A. as a “democracy” for far too long. The Founders took great pains to avoid establishing a pure “popular vote” only form of democracy, referred to by our Founders as nothing more than “mob rule.”

 

To assure that the U.S.A. would never be a pure democracy ruled by popular referendum alone, the Electoral College was created to prevent an entire nation from falling under the rule of “the mob” huddled in a handful of high population centers which always lean left politically due to the inherent challenges of inner city life.

 

The 2016 election provides a perfect example of exactly what the Founders had in mind when they established the Electoral College. Of our 50 states in the union, Trump won 30, or 60%. Of our 3142 counties across the country, Trump won 2523 (80.3%) to Clinton 490 (15.6%). Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would have (allegedly) won the 2016 election by popular vote (pure democracy), despite 80.3% of the counties and 60% of the states voting against her.

 

I say “allegedly” because the actual popular vote numbers are horribly tainted by vote fraud and illegal alien votes in places like California. We actually don’t know (and never will know) the real outcome of the legitimate popular vote, which is again, why the Electoral College exists.

 

To eliminate the Electoral College would be to destroy the Founders constitutional guarantee to every state of the union under Section 4 of Article IV, a republican form of government, as opposed to a democracy.

 

So, why do many modern self-proclaimed constitutionalists demand an end to the Electoral College?

 

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

 

Many constitutionalists seek a quick fix for a general lack of public oversight of congress by arguing in favor of congressional term limits. Once again, this concept is wholly at odds with constitutional text and intent.

 

To be certain, past alterations in constitutional intent for congress, such as the 17th Amendment which ended states representation in the U.S. Senate by using popular vote instead of state legislatures to elect senators, along with the power of incumbency, has made the concept of term limits look attractive to many.

 

But as is the case with all alterations to the original design and intent, those alterations come at a high price. Some even seek term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court, at risk of great peril. Members of that court or any other can be removed from the court in an instant for anything deemed to be “bad behavior,” which should certainly include failing to uphold and enforce the Supreme Law of this land.

 

The House of Representatives (by congressional district) was originally intended to be the most powerful branch of the federal government, as it was designed to be the branch closest to the people with only two-year terms. Members are term limited to two years of service, unless the people re-elect.

 

The U.S. Senate was originally designed to represent States’ interests only, which is why senators were to be elected by State Legislatures (not popular vote) and each state assigned the same number of senators regardless of population, two per state. The passage of the 17th Amendment eliminated the U.S. Senate as a body representing State interests and essentially eliminate states’ rights in the process. Senators are term limited to six years of service unless reelected.

 

The problem is the people are not forever vigilant. Incumbency has become so powerful not just because of the money available to incumbent’s vs challengers, but because the people tend to reelect repeatedly unless a senator is such a bad actor that they simply must replace them.

 

The downside to additional term limits is that it is not the incumbents being tossed out, but rather the voters. The will of the people is overruled by the clock. No matter how good a member of congress might perform, they are forced to leave when the clock runs out. There are no guarantees that the seat will be filled with someone better suited to the position, just because the clock ran out. In fact, more often than not, we would end up with someone worse, as most decent and honorable people do not seek public office at all.

 

Had the Founders seen a need and benefit to additional term limits, they would have placed them in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. They didn’t… So, why do many constitutionalists seek to alter the Founders design when it comes to term limits?

 

STATES’ RIGHTS

 

The primary rights of every state of the union is to be secure in their independent sovereignty and they are guaranteed a republican form of government, not a democracy.

 

So, when the federal government becomes abusive or destructive of state sovereignty and rights, it is the power of each state to check the federal government and force it back into constitutional boundaries, alter or abolish it altogether.

 

For the past eight years of the Obama regime, many states have sought to check the federal government abuses by numerous means, from State Level 10th Amendment bills like The Balance of Powers Act to individual issue nullification efforts, or even chatter about State Conventions and secession, all of it thwarted by left-leaning politicians and courts seeking to expand federal authority beyond constitutional boundaries via broad interpretations of federal supremacy.

 

Now that Trump will be taking the reins of the federal government on January 21, 2017, even many democrat politicians are suddenly supportive of 10th Amendment protections against federal abuses of power – something they entirely opposed while their dictator-in-chief was in power.

 

But once again, many constitutionalists overlook the power of the 10th Amendment and the states to force the federal government back into constitutional compliance in their efforts to find a quick cure-all for federal tyranny. They know that the federal government was created by and exists at the pleasure of the member states, but fail to look to those states to solve federal abuses and expansions of power.

 

The truth of the matter is that no matter which political party or person is in power at the federal level at any given time, none of them will operate within constitutional boundaries unless forced to do so by the states and the people.

 

The Constitution vs. The Constitutionalists

 

Not everyone who claims the title of constitutionalist is one. Many have never even red the document much less the underpinning for everything in it, Natural Law. Thus, many find themselves working for “unconstitutional” solutions to problems easily remedied within the original constitutional text and intent.

 

Political points of view and related agendas drive the dialogue. People with progressive-leanings interpret constitutional text entirely different than those with libertarian-leanings. Those who think we are a democracy will interpret text entirely different than those who know why we are a republic. The agenda drives the interpretation, instead of the original text and intent driving the agenda.

 

No true constitutionalist believes that the original document can be improved upon with additional alterations. Every real constitutionalist knows that the document has been altered far too much already. The solution is not to alter it further, but rather to unwind some of the past alterations that have served only to undermine the original text and intent.

 

When considering which “constitutionalist” to follow in your political activism, look at who is seeking to further amend the original document vs who is looking to restore and enforce the original text and intent.

 

Despite the human tendency to see ourselves as the smartest person in any room these days, the reality is there is no one alive today who is wiser than the original Founders. There is no one alive today who can improve upon the divinely inspired work of our Founding Fathers.

 

Only someone who understands this is a true constitutionalist!

 

______________

© 2016 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

 

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He is co-author of the just released book – TRUMPED – The New American Revolution – with co-author Timothy Harrington, published by COFBooks.com. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, author and writer as well as a small business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization focused upon constitutionally protected Natural Rights under Natural Law. Williams also co-hosts TNALC Radio every Sunday evening at 5:00 PM ET with TNALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon and he receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com

 

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

Web site 3: www.COFBooks.com

Web site 4: www.TNALC.org

Web site 5: www.patriotvoice.net/TNALC

E-Mail: JB.USPU@gmail.com