Judge Jeanine: IMPEACH OBAMA


Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement foto 5-3-14

 

Congress has impeached a President for lying under oath about have sex with a White House intern. President Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impending impeachment and to make a deal of a pardon for any wrong doing. Judge Jeanine Pirro asks to the equivalent, “Why not impeach a President for lying about Benghazi?” That is a paraphrase. Below is the Tea Party News Network (TPNN) coverage of the Judge’s opening statement on her Fox News show on Sunday May 3rd.

 

JRH 5/5/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Judge Jeanine: IMPEACH OBAMA

 

By Jennifer Burke

May 4, 2014

TPNN

 

Describing the Obama Benghazi scandal as the biggest cover-up since Watergate, Judge Jeanine Pirro, on FOX News’ Justice with Judge Jeanine, does what she does better than anyone; connect the dots and lay out the facts of corruption. The topic for her Saturday show was Obama’s culpability in the cover-up of Benghazi. (watch video below)

 

Judge Jeanine calls out not only Obama, but several of the other major players who, rather than seek answers and justice about the terrorist attack at Benghazi on September 11, 2012, sought to cover-up the truth about the attack to protect Obama’s re-election chances.

 

She calls not only calls Obama out for his lies, deception, and hypocrisy, but she questions just where his loyalty lies.

 

To add insult to injury, you (Obama) condemn anyone who says something negative about Islam. Mr. President, it’s not about them, it’s about us! You represent us! You’re supposed to protect us! And, instead of condemning the terrorists, you criticize free speech. I don’t even think you believe in the First Amendment, and you’re certainly not a man of your word.

 

In one of her most powerful statements, she says with Obama’s use of what happened at Benghazi to attack free speech, “Before our eyes, the terrorists become the victims and the American victims become irrelevant.”

 

In true Judge Jeanine fashion, she holds nothing back as she calls for the impeachment of Barack Obama for dereliction of duty, stonewalling Congress, and caring more about his re-election than he did about protecting Americans.

 

Mr. President, it’s called an abrogation of duty. You have not taken your oath to honestly and faithfully execute the duties of your office. As commander in chief, you have not protected us.

 

This dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment. Your cover-up was for political advantage. The promotion thereafter virtually everyone involved in your conspiracy. And the stonewalling of Congress, the denying of access to key witnesses, all add up to a classic cover-up. And what’s that? You were elected? There is no contract with someone who thinks that the American people are nothing more than pawns in an all-consuming power play to change who we are as a nation. You swore to protect and defend the American people, but instead you left Americans to die, not lifting a finger to help them.

 

Mr. President, none of us want to believe that our president would let Americans die, but the arrogance, the failure to act, the lies, the cover-up make it clear that you, Mr. President, have defrauded the American people. You, Mr. President, have violated your constitutional oath. You have not faithfully executed your duties in the Office of the President.

 

Fraud and deception in a quest for power – that about sums up the Obama presidency which should be brought to an end with his impeachment.

 

WATCH this powerful opening statement by Judge Jeanine.

 

VIDEO: Judge Jeanine: Mr. President you have not protect us

 

Youtube Version: Benghazi: Judge Pirro Calls for Impeachment of Barack Obama

 

Posted by WesternFreePress

Published: May 3, 2014

 

Judge Jeanine Pirro indicts Barack Obama for abrogation of duty and violation of his oath of office as Commander in Chief. Pirro cites the Benghazi cover-up as the biggest cover-up since Watergate.

 
From “Justice with Judge Jeanine”, May 3, 2014

 

________________________________

About Jennifer Burke

 

Jennifer Burke became politically active for the first time at the Porkulus Tea Party in Seattle in February 2009. She was a speaker at the Seattle Tax Day Tea Party at Westlake Center on April 15, 2010, was featured in a popular Tea Party video, Proud to be a Teabagger, that has gone viral on YouTube and many top conservative blogs, and was a speaker at the WA 4 WI rally in support of Scott Walker. View all Posts by Jennifer Burke

 

Copyright © 2014 TPNN · TEA PARTY NEWS NETWORK · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

No Progressive Utopia for Me


Obama's Gangster Govt.

I found these Justin Smith thoughts on his Facebook Notes page.  It is similar to a post linked to on the NCCR blog entitled, “Revolt” (SlantRight 2.0 version). Justin puts a voice to the fact of what he calls “Progressives” are breaking the U.S. Constitution with no rebuke from the voters or the Courts. He speculates that unless Americans wake up to the Leftist annulment of the Constitution our only recourse for a free America would be the same choice our Founding Fathers struggled with and culminated in the Declaration of Independence. If ballots do not overcome this Left Wing transformation of our America, will bullets be necessary? If we wake up late and move with bullets, will the true Americans have enough bullets to defeat Left Wing despotism?

 

JRH 4/24/14

Please Support NCCR

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

No Progressive Utopia for Me

(The above link goes to a March 31 post of same title)

 

By Justin O. Smith

April 22, 2014 1:39am

Justin Smith Facebook Note

 

There may come a time where violence is all that’s left to us. I don’t advocate it as a first choice, But what makes anyone think that an Administration that doesn’t even respect the existing Constitution will respect amendments coming out of an Article V States Convention or States Rights decisions under the 9th and 10th Amendments? The Constitution was designed for governance by moral men, and our leaders are of the poorest moral character in history and have strayed far from Our U.S. Constitution.

The Founders were afraid of “elective despotism” and gave us Article V as a counter, and failing that, the 2nd Amendment – True, it would be an uphill fight, since many would side with the Progressives, but the True American Patriot would honor his oath to the Constitution, former and present law enforcement and military, and side with Our American Heritage and the Constitution and Freedom, not the altar of the Super State – the Leviathan.

We’re not to that point yet, but things certainly are looking pretty bleak; Future Generations’ Destiny Hangs in the Balance and the next two election cycles are critical.

The following is an excerpt from an article I wrote that appeared on two blog sites and in two local papers here in Murfreesboro, TN (The Rutherford Reader and the Daily News Journal):

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. (Isaiah 5: 20; 7: 15 NKJV)”

“After recent events, I have serious concerns over whether or not our traditional process will correct the course of our government’s trend towards authoritarian rule in time to save us. In past years, our differences were sorted out within the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. What are we to do when one side decides to no longer be bound by the rules? The Progressives may have been born American citizens, but they are no longer American in their intentions for our nation. And, when the government, led by Obama and these Progressives, becomes lawless, it is not illegal or treason to finally take to the streets in protest/civil disobedience, at the very least, in the defense of the U.S. Constitution and America – to finally hold the criminals in the Obama Administration accountable through armed revolt should it persist in its treason, since many of America’s veterans, past and present, took an oath to defend the U.S. against “enemies both foreign and domestic.”

………… https://oneway2day.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/revolt/

Someone once told me: “When is violence justified, when violence is used against us. Preemptive violence is not justified. Ballots, not bullets.”

My answer was that when they coerce citizens to do something against their will with the threat of violence, such as authorizing IRS agents to arrest one for not signing on to the ACA, an unConstitutional law (no matter how many hoops they jumped through to find otherwise) and many, many such extralegal/illegal laws amass, or rules and regulations with the weight of law as through the EPA, then too is revolt a duty.

That was the point of the last paragraph above the provided link. The ballot is foisting upon us the very tyranny we seek to escape, because of a coalition of the weak and minorities, who have found that they can vote themselves benefits and PRIVILEGE without consequence. Can we turn it around at the ballot? It’s hard to say – much probably depends on people realizing that it’s their own greed and actions destroying the nation. But the Founding Fathers recognized this phenomena and wrote about it extensively in the Federalist Papers – they called it ELECTIVE DESPOTISM. [Bold emphasis is Blog Editor’s]

I’m fighting tooth and nail within the system, such as it is. I’m even on board with the Article V movement for the moment, even though I do not see it doing much against the Progressives, with their current mindset of “KEEP POWER NO MATTER THE COST.”

How far are You and Your like-minded friends willing to go? Until the nation is completely crippled or destroyed by these anti-American MarxoFascists? I, for one, am staying vigilant and watching the approaching storm. I’m not about to allow them to destroy the future of My Children and GrandChildren Without a Damn Good Fight, whether they actually fire the first shot or not – NOT IF IT MEANS THAT AMERICA IS “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED” INTO THEIR VERSION OF A TOTALITARIAN “UTOPIA”.

The Founders fought the Revolution over a whole lot less grievances and with a whole lot less than we face at the moment. If we wait for the Progressives to fire on us, we will have waited too late, especially if the tipping scale has gone farther towards the Left in the electorate – not to say we have to fire any shots first. But we certainly should be mounting Maidan type protests.

_______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Brackets and links in Justin’s essay indicated additions by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Bundy Ranch Reports You Probably Didn’t Hear from MSM


Cliven Bundy

Cliven Bundy

 

John R. Houk

© April 23, 2014

 

Below is some information that hopefully brings some clarity that the Mainstream Media (MSM) if failing to report to the American public. If you have been paying closer attention than I you may have already realized the BLM attack on Bundy Ranch and the Bundy cattle is yet more nefarious scandals from the Democratic Party. Particularly from Senator Harry Reid (NV-D) who is the Senate Majority Leader. As the Senate Majority Leader you have to realize that places Read into one of the most powerful positions in the U.S. government. Senator Reid is no rookie to nefarious scandals but he seems to be made of the same Teflon that many powerful Dems of the past and present. Including the Clinton family and our current President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama. I’d say it would be a good guess Obama has his hands in the Leftist cookie jar of terminating property rights and Liberty that Senator Reid seems more associated with in this current exploitation of We the People.

 

These posts are largely the work of Justin O. Smith who as a contributor had sent his own report on the BLM vs. Bundy Ranch standoff, “Violations of the Constitution”. I have also incorporated corroborating reports outside of my Smith conduit ending with a WND report that shows how the MSM is smearing Cliven Bundy’s image with false or warped quotations to make him look like a violent Right Wing terrorist. That imaging by the MSM and Senator Harry Reid is a load of evil propaganda on the scale of the evil Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

 

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels

 

After you read the below reports you should be shocked on the path of so-called “Change” President Obama and comrades are taking the USA.

 

JRH 4/22/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Cliven Bundy Update from Daughter

 

Posted by Justin O. Smith

Statement by Shiree Bundy Cox

April 11, 2014

Justin Smith Facebook Note

 

Here’s a statement made by the daughter of Cliven Bundy! It will help many get what’s going on___

At least it should___

Words from Shiree Bundy Cox:

I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.

 

Somewhere down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be used to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

 

In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortuous. Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they’re desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

 

Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

 
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are they are my father’s property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfield Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

From Justin O. Smith on Bundy’s Daughter and a Cross Post

 

(4/21/14 8:37 PM)

Via Facebook Message

 

Hey John, Concerning the email and the cross post on Bundy’s daughter’s statement___ Good deal John. People need the REAL TRUTH and they surely are not even getting it from the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Brit Hume or FoxNews, and they damned certain aren’t getting it from the Progressive Marxofascist media of MSNBC. And Thanks John.

 

If WE allow the federal government to trample on property rights and the Constitution in such egregious fashion, when they are so obviously acting in a lawless, illegal and unConstitutional manner, then there will be no stopping them when they come for our private property. Perhaps the lines are not so clear cut or perhaps we don’t have near the support base that the Bundys were fortunate enough to organize.

 

All America must stay vigilant, because this was merely an opening salvo in a Greater War, a Massive All Out Assault on All of Our Private Property Rights … coming down the pike at light-speed at the Commands of Obama, Exec Order 13575, and the Marxofascist Progressive political hacks of the EPA.

 

When One of Us Sees Our Neighbor Under a Bundy type Siege, WE MUST ALL RUSH TO THEIR ASSISTANCE TO RENDER AID AND SUPPORT AND DEFEND THEM AND THEIR PROPERTY, UNTIL SUCH TIME THE PROGRESSIVE STATISTS ABANDON THEIR UTOPION VISION -THEIR HELL – FOR OUR BELOVED AMERICA!!!

 

God Bless You and God Bless America.

 

Your Friend, Justin

Chat Conversation End

Sent from Mobile

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment with Dana Show

(Hat Tip: Allen West Republic and Justin Smith via AnnMarie Mckcracker)

By danaradio

April 11, 2014

Dana Show

 

By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

 

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

 

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

 

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight, video via Jim Hoft.

 

VIDEO: Dana Loesch on Ilegal (sic) Bundy Cattle: If the Cows Were Illegal Aliens They’d get EBT Cards

 

[Blog Editor: This is the part Justin Smith shared]

 

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his herd’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

 

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

 

**One last thought: For those conservatives saying that since BLM arrived in the late 90s, it’s the law now, well, so is Obamacare.

++++++++++++++++++++++

See Also: Warren Buffet and his role in Nevada

Hat Tip: Lawrence Mcknight on Facebook Share

+++++++++++++++++++++++

BLOCKBUSTER: STRAIGHT FROM A RANCHER’S MOUTH

 

By Jim Stone

April 15, 2014

FourWinds10.com

Shared via Justin smith via Shane Comeback

[Justin Share-Comment: This EXPLAINS A GREAT DEAL BEHIND THE BLM’s MOTIVATION……Bribes, Water Rights and a whole lot of MONEY INVOLVED!]

 

Immediate family friend of the Bundy’s tells it all in a mail sent to Jimstonefreelance.com

 

This is the jackpot of details you have never seen anywhere else, and if you did, they originated here, spread it around, ARCHIVE AND POST! (please link back to here when posting elsewhere) A Rancher TELLS ALL:

 

B Hunt wrote:

 

I live in SW Utah. I grew up on a ranch less than 100 miles from the Bundy’s ranch. My father knows Cliven Bundy. I know Cliven’s son Ryan. This is not a hoax, it is an action of force by the BLM.

 

The BLM was going to sell the cattle at one of the smallest cattle markets in Utah. No cattle markets in Nevada would take the cattle without a properly signed brand inspection (which the BLM cannot obtain without Cliven Bundy’s signature). The BLM paid the owner of the Utah cattle market $300,000 to do the sale (‘R’ Livestock Connection in Monroe, Utah, owned by one Scott G. Robbins, according to the Utah Business Entity Search). Utah Governor Herbert stepped in and forbid them from bringing the cattle into Utah without the legally required health and brand inspections (which again, require Bundy’s signature) and that no feral cattle are allowed to be imported at all (per Utah statute). Because Bundy claims ownership over maybe 350-500 head of branded cattle, the other 500-700 estimated head of cattle would all be considered feral. BLM officially backed off, but we suspect they are still secretly shipping them through Utah without any permission to do so, to “private” buyers in Colorado. The contract cowboys that the BLM hired to do the roundup are from Sampson Livestock in Meadow, Utah (traitors one and all).

 

From what I understand, Cliven Bundy owns both the Water Rights and Grazing Rights to all of the land where his cattle run. If Bundy failed to use them, the Grazing Rights would revert to the BLM and would be retired, while the Water Rights would revert to the State of Nevada, likely to be sold to the highest bidder (which would probably be a bidding war between mineral companies that are behind this action with the BLM and the City of Las Vegas which is thirsty for water and has had multiple attempts to buy water–through eminent domain from Utah farmers and ranchers–from Utah, which were all blocked by the Utah Legislature and Utah Governor Herbert). Chances are, the BLM has already filed a claim on the water rights so that they can sell to the highest bidder (instead of the state) and are trying to get the cattle off to show that Bundy cannot use the water beneficially (much like what the US Forest Service and BLM both tried to do to Wayne Hage).

 

Now, for Cliven Bundy, he’s not fighting this for his cattle or his own livelihood. He recognizes that he will probably die before this fight is over. He has said multiple times that he is fighting this to wake people up about the tyranny of the Federal Government and also to help wake up the western states about getting the rights to their own land back from the federal government, which has repeatedly shut down ranchers and closed off land. (MO = 1st, get all the ranchers, farmers, Native Americans, and foresters that use the land for positive, sustainable production off of the land; 2nd, grab up all the resources; 3rd, close off the lands to public access including camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, boating, shooting, etc.; 4th, sell off the resources to the highest bidder regardless of what that will do to the land, the local environment, or the economy; 5th, collect royalties on the resources in perpetuity; 6th, reduce and eliminate all SLS and PILT payments to the states, impoverishing them beyond belief.)

 

Anyway, thanks for posting about this. It is important for us to be able to raise the appropriate resistance.

 

My Response:

 

Thank you for sending your valuable insight. This contained the details we were all missing.

 

From this we can now firmly conclude:

 

1. The BLM’s actions are not only flatly illegal, they are unlawful, and not only unlawful, they are so unlawful that it took bribing someone with a $300,000 payoff to get them to accept stolen cattle from a Government agency. I do not think that could be topped ANYWHERE else in the world, other than with something like a Mexican drug cartel.

 

So we have a clear cut case of unlawful and prosecutable actions by the BLM in this case.

 

2. The real goal is to shut down public access to these lands. Obviously Cliven Bundy was not a jerk, and he let people go back there to explore. I myself have done a LOT of back country exploring, and noticed in the early 2000’s that they closed down all the back roads about a half mile before the destination they used to go to [in order] to discourage people from exploring the wilderness. Rather than drive the whole way, you had to get out and walk a considerable distance to scenes such as Swazy’s leap, Paul Bunyans Wood Pile, and practically anywhere else you would want to go while out 4 Wheeling. And in the desert sun, that long of a walk was usually tough to do. This resulted in these types of locations no longer being visited, which effectively equaled a shut down.

 

3. The motives are for profit. Rather than manage the lands responsibly, the BLM is stealing it from its rightful holders via corrupt actions and legal loop holes, and selling it off to corporate interests. This is cold hard proof that America is not a democracy, or more importantly a Republic, it is in fact a fascist dictatorship where corruption rules and rights, freedom and honor are irrelevant.

 

The BLM killed hundreds of desert tortoises on purpose

 

They say they had to kill them because they did not have the funds to care for them. Here are two really good solutions to that “problem.” 1. Just take them out in the desert and turn them loose. -OR- 2. They could have taken the three million dollars they said the Bundy raid will cost them, CALLED OFF THE RAID, and SAVED THE TURTLES with that three million. If they had three million to destroy Bundy, they had it for the turtles as well but did not use it for that because tyranny comes first.

 

Steeped in arrogance and incompetence, once again a Federal agency fails to see the obvious. Or perhaps they do see it but they could care less about nature and instead operate as the enforcement arm of a band of high ranking thugs.

 

The truth, in the words of a Bundy

 

Mike Combs By SHIREE BUNDY COX:

 

[Blog Editor: Jim Stone posts the same exact info that Justin Smith did toward the very top. Except Stone gives “Mike Combs” the credit as the source. I am loathe to repeat the same thing I discovered from a Justin Smith Facebook post. So if you wish you can scroll of for Shiree Bundy Cox’s thoughts. Then I’m uncertain if the next sentence is from Jim Stone, Mike Combs or Shiree Bundy Cox; however it is not in Justin Smith’s recounting of the Bundy daughter’s explanation.]

 

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks

 

April 10 2014

 

Bundy Ranch is REAL

 

UPDATE: The Nevada Militia has shown up at the Bundy ranch to kick the BLM out. The governor of Nevada celebrated the arrival of the militia and spoke in support of the Bundys, issuing the statement “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans”.

 

As I suspected, the Bundy’s ranch is on land that the Fed wants to mine for minerals and they need the water that is reserved for the cattle to conduct mining operations. The land has been assessed to have high grade deposits of minerals that are good for military applications and the Fed wants the Bundys out of the way. Adding to the problem is that much of the land is prime real estate, and the Fed wants it to sell it off. EVEN MORE DAMNING is that the best and most prime real estate is actually owned by the Bundy’s which means the BLM is trespassing on much of it anyway. It is neither state nor federal land. There have been numerous attempts to kick the Bundy’s off their property so a tycoon can come in and put a residential development in. So as is the norm, a turtle or fly or slug or whatever has been used as an excuse for an eviction, when multibillion dollar corporations wanting the land for mining operations and real estate tycoons wanting the most prime areas are the real reason, and the muscle of the government most likely bought by campaign contributions is being used to get the Bundy’s off the land after the Bundy’s refused really good offers for it from potential buyers.

 

The BLM is getting so anxious to get the cows off the land that they are running many of them to death, and that is why the backhoes are there to bury them. The BLM has hired Blackwater mercenaries to snipe anyone who “does not belong” there.

 

Bundy Ranch comments:

 

“Feds say it will cost 3 million dollars to round up the cattle and dispose of them”

 

My response: I have the solution to the problem. Hire a bunch of cattle rustlers to go in there and steal all the cattle. They will GLADLY do it for FREE. Then just give the Bundy’s the “three million” for their grief.

 

“Feds say this is being done to save the desert tortoise”

 

My response: I don’t think cows eat turtles. If the cows were devastating competition for them, they would have been gone in the 1800’s.

 

About the “free speech” zone: Has tyranny gone so far that it even has to control where people shout to the desert wind? Obviously so, which is why that same tyranny thinks cows threaten turtles now. Or is it that the land those cows graze on is in fact being sold to China? Maybe Warren Buffet wants it. Who knows? But turtles rule. And they will taste good in China.

 

UPDATE: The cattle are not being killed and buried, they are in fact being taken by BLM supported cattle rustlers, as I said would be common sense. These rustlers have been given brand new trucks and trailers to do it, and they are selling the cattle at auction FOR PROFIT. THEY ARE SELLING THEM AT AUCTION, THE SAME WAY THE BUNDY FAMILY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A LIVING. So HOW DO YOU GET A $3 MILLION LOSS OUT OF STEALING A FORTUNE IN CATTLE AND SELLING IT? GOOD QUESTION, THE ONLY ANSWER TO WHICH IS OBVIOUS OUT OF CONTROL CORRUPTION.

 

The area is 600,000 acres. That is HUGE. And if you get out of your car on any of the roads you are immediately arrested and taken to federal prison, for committing a federal crime. Infrared sensors are in place all throughout the desert now, and there are numerous private corporate “Blackwater” snipers on the hills. No one has been shot yet, but the state is certainly set for that.

 

Rising up peacefully is NOT the answer. You cannot peacefully remove any tyranny, tyranny laughs at people who think “peace” can bring about change in a system enforced by state sponsored violence. They brought the guns to the party FIRST.

-Original post- After looking over some of the videos and seeing what is going on out in Nevada, I firmly believe this is no hoax.

 

Citing illegal land usage, the BLM moved in on a ranch which has been in place since the Wild West days, and had paid cattle rustlers go in and steal the cattle. Some of the cattle were also killed and buried with backhoes. The only difference between this and Waco is that at Waco people were actually targeted and killed, and with the Bundy ranch, a family legacy was destroyed. Both were grave rights violations.

 

I believe that what happened with the Bundy ranch was the result of continuous encroaching regulations and arrogance of the government, and that the Bundy family actually still had a truthful right to continue using the land under the law. Most likely the BLM was given unlawful orders to destroy the ranch and its cattle and they followed through on them. I am still looking into this story and will post updates. I have been to many protests, and know the CIA ones from the real ones. The video Farganne posted was of a real one, I have no idea why he doubts it.

 

This is a mirror image of the destruction of the hog farmers in Michigan, where a totally out of control government rolls around in arrogance like the pigs they killed will roll in _____

 

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MUST SEE: Citizens Rise Up – The Real Nevada Story the Media Won’t Show You (Video)

 

By Gina Cassini

April 13, 2014

Top Right News

 

Nevada Standoff: April 12th – A historic day when the people rose up and forced tyrants to retreat.

 

The media’s version of the end of the Bundy Ranch siege is that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) simply “left” the ranch and “returned” the cattle out of the goodness of their hearts. CBS News even outrageously reported that the BLM “released the cattle to help restore order and avoid violence“! This despite widely-seen video of BLM thugs tasing Bundy’s son and shoving a pregnant woman to the ground. And the protesters never threatened violence in any way during the nearly one-week siege.

 

The real story was that the BLM refused to give back the cattle, and would not leave the property or disarm, to which they had agreed. The result was an epic standoff that reporter David Knight described as being like “something out of a movie.”

 

Supporters of Bundy advanced on a position held by BLM agents despite threats that they would be shot at, eventually forcing BLM feds to release 100 cattle that had been stolen from Bundy as part of a land grab dispute that threatened to escalate into a Waco-style confrontation.

 

WATCH and then SHARE using the links above…

 

VIDEO: The REAL Bundy Ranch Story: Feds Forced to Surrender to American Citizens

 

Posted by John B

Published April 13, 2014

 

Here is the video you WILL NOT SEE on the mainstream media. The BLM did NOT simply “leave” and return the Bundy cattle. They were going to KEEP the cattle — until a group of brave patriots and cowboys from 7 Western states stood up to sniper guns and FORCED the release themselves.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Justin Smith shared Debbie Paulsen’s video.

Shared April 14, 2014

 

This is as American as it gets!

Debbie Paulsen

Posted April 12, 2014

This is as American as it gets! The Cavalry today at the #BundyRanch!! This is from Stand with The Bundys ~ video by Sam Suazo ~ (had to save it and repost it as the group’s closed) — with Maureen McKnight.

 

Facebook Video Link: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202848578268636

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hat Tip: Jim Lester via Operation “American Spring” set for May 16, 2014: Target Washington, D.C.

National Tea Party Facebook Group

April 21, 2014 9:55pm

 

VIDEO: Former BLM Employee Reid Bunkerville & the Military Industrial Complex at Bundy Ranch

 

Posted by PrePackagedNews

Published Apr 18, 2014

 

Please read this whole description to subscribe to Next News Network, All the links provided … great channel to follow, X Employee Reid Bunkerville at the BUNDY RANCH | You saw his proof. Now meet BLM Whistleblower Rusty Hill who uncovered the corporations and shady land deals connected to Reid Bunkerville LLC, Zion Bank Corp, and BLM lands surrounding the Bundy properties.

This is Why The BLM Wants Cliven Bundy’s Ranch Gone 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfbpN…

Check out 1865, a little History of How we Legally have no Rights to any American Land
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/chron/…

Bundy Ranch Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch?r…

Cliven Bundy’s YouTube Channel
Cliven D. Bundys Range War
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iygs0…

Contact the Nevada State Governor and tell him we don’t want Agenda 21
http://gov.nv.gov/contact/

Clark County Sheriffs Number. 1-702-828-3233

Directions to Bundy Ranch in NV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_bmL…

Bundy Ranch Directions to in NV 10252109_691608087563344_669004420819185­1126_n Clark County Sheriffs Number. 1-702-828-3233

The Act of 1865, Land Grab
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/chron/…

Mirror w/ More Links Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGJX…

======= The Declaration of Independence (1776) ========

That whenever any Form of Government “Becomes Destructive” of these ends, it is the “Right of the People” to Alter or to Abolish It, and to Institute New Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Clarke County info mapper:

http://gisgate.co.clark.nv.us/gismo/g…

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AMERICA’S NEWEST HERO: MEET THE REAL CLIVEN BUNDY

Calling Reid a ‘warmonger,’ Nevada rancher reveals why he’s unafraid of feds

 

By Sarah Kupelian

April 22, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

Cliven Bundy doesn’t normally do interviews on Sundays. But this Easter Sunday, the 67-year-old Nevada cattle rancher stepped out of his church, leaned up against the side wall and talked to America about what really matters to him deep down, revealing a side to him not normally seen in media interviews.

 

The first order of business, of course, was the Nevada standoff that has mesmerized the nation, and his response to Sen. Harry Reid’s incendiary accusation that the Bundy side are a bunch of “domestic terrorists.”

 

“The thing about what Harry Reid’s saying,” the rancher told radio talker Dianne Linderman on Talk Radio Network’s nationally syndicated “Everything That Matters” show, is that “he seems to be a warmonger, saying let’s have civil war!”

 

In fact, Bundy said, “We people are not gonna put up with that no more. We’re not gonna have them guns pointin’ at us anymore. Not when we’re talking about an army of ‘We the People’ against ‘We the People.’ We can’t allow that to happen in America. That’s civil war!”

 

Bundy confirmed that he and the ranchers and others standing with him, tired of being abused by a government with unlimited power, are ultimately willing to die for their stance. But, he added, “I do respect the United States government. I pledge allegiance to that flag and honor it very much. But [the government] has its place. It doesn’t have its place in the state of Nevada and … Clark County, and that’s where my ranch is. The federal government has no power and no ownership of this land, and they don’t want to accept that.”

 

Then, maybe because it was Easter Sunday, the interview went in a very different direction.

 

Asked by Linderman what makes him so unafraid in his current situation, Bundy replied:

 

“I don’t stand alone. I have all of the prayers from lots of people around the world, and I feel those prayers. And those prayers take the tremble out of my legs. And I can stand strong and straight. And you know the spirit from our heavenly Father, I seek that every morning on my knees. And he gives me some guidance, and I go forth and I actually feel good. My health is good, my spirit is good and I feel strength. I do, I feel strength, I feel even happiness. And I have no idea where I’m going with this. It’s a day-by-day spiritual thing for me.”

Toward the end of the interview, Linderman asked, “One more question: Is there anything you’d like to say to the American people? Because I truly believe you’re a patriot.”

“You know,” replied Bundy, “I woke up, I got out of my house, went down to my trail and watched the sun come up over the hills and the mountains here. And, of course, I thought of Jesus. And then the thought that I thought was that we the people of America, not only of America but of the whole world, what Jesus would want us to do, was forgive. Forgive our enemies, and He’ll take care of all the rest. So my message to the world today is: Forgive your neighbors, forgive your wives, forgive your husbands and children, and feel the love of Jesus. That’s what He suffered for.

 

“I thank the people for their prayers and, again, I put my faith in my heavenly father and … we’re OK.”

 

Bundy’s wife, Carol, expressed the same faith to this writer when booking the radio interview: “This is the Lord’s battle,” she said. “He is calling the shots, and we are just standing here.”

 

Listen to Dianne Linderman’s entire 18-minute Easter interview with Cliven Bundy:

[Blog Editor: Most of my blogs will not allow WND embedded video. You will have to go to the WND article to listen to it.]

 

__________________________

Bundy Ranch Reports You Probably Didn’t Hear from MSM

John R. Houk

© April 23, 2014

____________________________

Cliven Bundy Update from Daughter

 

_________________________

The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment with Dana Show

About Dana Loesch

 

_________________________________

BLOCKBUSTER: STRAIGHT FROM A RANCHER’S MOUTH

 

Copyright 2014, Fourwinds10.com

 

JimJonesFreelance.com

 

____________________________

MUST SEE: Citizens Rise Up – The Real Nevada Story the Media Won’t Show You (Video)

 

© 2014 Top Right News. All Rights Reserved.

___________________________

This is as American as it gets!

 

Debbie Paulson Facebook Video of Bundy Ranch Calvary

 

______________________________

Former BLM Employee Reid Bunkerville & the Military Industrial Complex at Bundy Ranch

 

Via National Tea Party Facebook Group

 ________________________________

AMERICA’S NEWEST HERO: MEET THE REAL CLIVEN BUNDY

 

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com

Campaign Pitch about Current Police State-like Activities


Jim Hayden - Running for Prez 2016

Jim Hayden commented on the post “So the Police State Begins?” via the Facebook group Patriotic Defenders of the Constitution (listed as a secret group). I like Mr. Hayden’s thoughts I am just uncertain of his actual clout or the political vehicle he will be using to run for the Office of President of the USA in 2016.

 

As the Blog Editor I inserted the title based on the comment.

 

JRH 4/22/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Campaign Pitch because about Current Police State-like Activities

 

By Jim Hayden 

April 18, 2014 7:35pm

Patriotic Defenders of the Constitution

 

This is yet another reason to get active and join our campaign to restore our Constitution and the Republic it established.

If we had over 60 million supporters right now we could put an end to these atrocities.

Last weekend a day before the BLM backed down and while tensions were still High I told Obama and Holder to stand down and call off their dogs. Within 24 hours they backed down threatening to attack from a different direction.

Over the decades I have maintained 2 very important points:

 

(1 there are only 2 types of land listed in the Constitution, Private and public. Private land CANNOT be legislated or regulated by the local, state or federal governments.

 

(2 Public land is owned by We the People and is to be used for public use. That means the Bundy’s own the land they are accused of trespassing on. Them along with the rest of us.

Therefore the government (local, state or federal) DOES NOT have the authority to charge us for the use of land and property that legally belongs to us. Not only that but under the Constitution there is no such thing as “Government Property”. Everything the government has belongs to us the American people. That is right every Secret, Tor Secret [Blog Editor: Well, I just learned what a “Tor Network” is] and any other document maintained by the government belongs to the American People. That means the American People have a RIGHT to know whatever secrets the government is trying to hide. While the government is denied the ability/authority to know any of our personal and private information.

So everything the government has is our personal property.

Jim Hayden for President in 2016
https://www.facebook.com/jimhayden2016

Jim Hayden for President in 2016
http://www.jimhayden2016.org

 

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Jim is a United States Combat Marine who is running for President of these United States. Jim is a Constitutional Conservative who firmly believes the Constitution and the Republic it created can be saved.

Let’s Call it GOOD McCarthyism for a Good America


Leftists Keep Changing the Name

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2014

 

Senator Joe McCarthy led a campaign to expose Communists in the U.S. government and influential people in the private sector. Today that campaign is used as a pejorative phrase to paint a picture of modern day witch-hunts.

 

Senator McCarthy began his campaign in the early days of Soviet expansionism just after WWII during an era that history has marked as the Cold War. Essentially the Cold War was U.S. Free Enterprise Liberty vs. USSR Leninist-Stalinist Communist visions for life on planet Earth. American Constitutionalism regardless of some historical flaws had proven to be a success while Soviet Communism was proving to be dictatorial totalitarianism in which personal liberties were trampled upon to force conformity to a State imposed way of life. People were lied to which would bring about some kind Karl Marxian socio-political mythological utopia for the betterment of humankind.

 

The difference is that American Liberty proved to be innovative in science, technology and particularly commerce that brought so much prosperity to American citizens that even the American working poor fared better for individuals than anywhere else in the world – particularly better than citizens under the thumb of Soviet Communism.

 

And yet the Soviet government propaganda machine was convincing that the People’s Soviet Socialist Republics lived in a paradise of equal benefits for all its citizens. And even though it was a lie there were a significant amount of American citizens that fell for the lie promised after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution that ended Czarist Russia. So even prior to WWII there were Communist sympathizers in the USA that had no problem with believing Marxist-Socialist ideals would make a better America. I have no doubt that the decade labeled The Great Depression between 1929 and a significant amount of the 1930s began to add to that Marxist mystique. Couple that with Stalin’s Soviet survival of the Nazi onslaught that made its way all the way to Moscow before American military aid enabled the Red Army to stiffen and begin repelling the Nazi war machine. To Soviet credit it has to be admitted that no direct Western military units were involved in the Soviet military victories of WWII. We provided military aid and a Western Front and the rest was up to Stalin to create a viable Eastern Front to place Hitler’s Nazis in the wedge of the Allied vice.

 

Suspicions arose almost immediately in the post WWII world between American military might and the cancerous Soviet agenda to infect the rest of the world with Soviet Communism. The Soviet establishment of Communist puppet States being set up in Eastern Europe including one-third of the Red Amy occupied Eastern Germany solidified antagonism between the USA and the USSR. The free Western Europe confronted Soviet military aspirations evidenced by the “Eastern Bloc” Communist puppet states with the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO provided a Western Europe united front against the USSR with the American military machine acting as a prince among equals. A historical Turkey-Russia rivalry led to a NATO invitation to Turkey (probably much to Greece’s displeasure).

 

The Cold War then was a clash political visions that spilled outside the boundaries of historical European conflicts. The boots on the ground military clashes never directly occurred between NATO and the USSR; however there were plenty of global clashes between client states that received U.S. and/or Soviet support based on the National Interests of the Cold War adversaries. Mao Zedong ultimate victory on Mainland China can be traced to Soviet support, the Korean War was a Cold War conflict, the Vietnam War was a Cold War conflict, and Third World nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America revolutions and counter-revolutions were a Cold War conflict and so on.

 

In the midst of all this Senator Joe McCarthy from Wisconsin took it upon himself to expose Communists in government, scientists functioning in sensitive classified areas, influential people in Hollywood and so on. Admittedly the First Amendment entitles Americans to embrace Marxist-Communism as long as there is no threat of armed rebellion against the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution actually provides a path to amend itself or toss the whole document out peacefully to design a new Constitution for the rule of law in the United States of America. Joe McCarthy’s exposé campaign rang a bell in American hearts and minds because WWII adversaries in the Nazis and the brutal Japanese brought righteous indignation to the surface on a national scale. Although Americans were war weary with WWII vanquishing the enemies of the American way of life was a relief. Nuclear weaponry and the totalitarian nature of the Soviet government reawakened a sense of righteous indignation that there was a threat to Liberty. This time the threat was the fear of an atomic blast. America ended WWII by unleashing two atomic blasts on Japanese soil. By the 1950s both the USA and the USSR had the missile capability to unleash nuclear blasts on each other’s homeland. If we did it before why wouldn’t the Soviets do it now? The American view of Communist Ruskies was that of ideological psychopaths. Hitler was an ideological psychopath that unleashed a 12 MILLION strong Holocaust of which about half were Jews. The Japanese didn’t use death camps like the Nazis but their Asian invasions were brutal that resulted in the deaths of millions of civilians which included the brutal rapes of women.

 

With this mindset in Americans in the 1950s, Joe McCarthy’s Communist hunting made him an initial hero as a defender of the American way of life rooting out traitors that would transform our beloved America into a Communist nation. Senator McCarthy began to run into a problem in the Communist hunt. He began to focus too close to powerful men in government. So when it was discovered his list of Communist agents in government was a bit inflated, McCarthy’s credibility began to sink meteorically. Instead of warning McCarthy to tone down his vocal rhetoric to that which he could actually prove, Liberals in Congress began to excoriate and humiliate Joe McCarthy as a paranoid egotistical man who cared more about fame than about exposing real Communist threats to America. Senator Joe McCarthy became so discredited that today the word McCarthyism denotes an evil witch-hunter turning good people into the picture of an evil that is not there.

 

Here is an excerpt of a book review of M. Stanton Evans biography on Joseph McCarthy that I cross posted on my original SlantRight.com website (The original Intellectual Conservative book review by Bernie Reeves is no longer available):

 

In 1995, the NSA and CIA turned the wheel of history toward the truth by declassifying the Venona files, intercepted messages from Moscow to their American agents from 1942 until 1964. And lo and behold there they are: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lachlan Currie and hundreds of other American Soviet agents working for the US government – code names and all. Not only were these alleged victims guilty, they and their apologists made fools of us all. Yet, what followed in the national press after Venona was resounding silence.

After Venona sank in, despite violent opposition by the usual suspects, some of the more rational members of the intellectual Left – such as the venerated historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. – opined that McCarthy may have been right after all, but he was a bad person and he did great harm to innocent people. Then it was back to the same shopworn clichés, such as “McCarthy didn’t uncover one communist.” Actually, according to Venona, he was way short in his estimations, but the anti-McCarthy propaganda machinery churned on to be sure history goes their way. Recently, George Clooney’s nifty propaganda stunt in the film Good Night and Good Luck was an example of the conspiracy to continue to malign McCarthy in the light of Venona, allowing the smug anti-McCarthy fellow travelers to sweep the facts under the rug and move on in their obsessive manipulations to protect their own.

Final Verdict

And that’s where things stood until November 2007 with the publication of Blacklisted by M. Stanton Evans, columnist, editor and former director of the National Journalism Center in Washington, DC. Drawing on previously classified FBI and governmental files – and new information available from Venona – Evans upends the McCarthy myth and turns the tables on the real guilty parties: Presidents Truman and Eisenhower; a majority of Congress; heads of several government agencies; lawyer Joseph Welch (who hurled the famous words at McCarthy: “have you no shame”); and …

 

 

… If the evidence was made available, McCarthy would be a hero rather than a pariah “blacklisted by history.” Instead, as is usually the case, history was manipulated and public policy stained due to the intelligence community’s obsessive desire to keep their secrets – no matter the consequence to the well-being of the nation. (From post: The Truth Be Told: The Real Story Of Joe McCarthy; By Bernie Reeves (Intro by John R. Houk); SlantRight.com; 1/9/08)

 

Now I say all this about Joe McCarthy because Communism is again backdooring its way into American government with America’s actual Manchurian Candidate in President Barack Hussein Obama. Now-a-days the harbinger of Soviet nuclear war threatening to impose a Communist state on the American way of life is no longer overtly there. Russia is again beginning to arise as a competitor to American National Interests however that emerging threat is not Communism but rather Putin inspired Nationalism to make Russia a respected super power to be reckoned with again.

 

The irony of today’s current Marxist-Communist threat to America is happening via political manipulation through Dem Party lies and propaganda promising, what? It is a promise of a new transformed America that will make Americans better people experiencing a better way of life. The great deception here is that the Dems running this transformation are not telling American voters that this new transformed American utopia is a State managed society notifying us what to believe, think and own. Christianity is attacked watering down morality. Diverse cultural thinking is being imposed to water down American Liberty and traditional Christianity. Homosexuality and transgender freaks are now normal by Judicial fiat, the real Islam is being obfuscated to Americans as a religion of peace when its own theology promotes violence to confront non-Muslims and Muslims that stray from Sharia AND encouraging immigrant cultures to be retained rather than insisting on assimilation to the culture that brought our successful American constitutional experiment to the world.

 

All these Dem Party moves are intended to use the Constitution to dilute the Original Intent into meaninglessness or eventually just do away with the heritage of our historical documents which define what an American is. Why? Because those Dems desire to transform (Obama’s Change) into a Marxist-Socialist new America rendering Liberty, Free Enterprise, Ownership and the Christian faith into interesting footnotes in history.

 

In case you have come this far and you are lost because we all know that I am not an erudite writer, let me spell it out socratically. Do you want to live in an America in which individual Liberty is trumped by government-speak telling you what to believe? Do you want to live in an America that begins to intrude unjustly and oppressively on how you worship or do not worship? Do you want to live in an America that imposes excessive taxes to fund programs that intrude in American lives more than promoting the general welfare? Do you want to live in an America that allows the murder of an unborn person because that person is considered a slave as an appendage to a female body?

 

You should recognize most of the answers to these questions are actively in this present time are already a “YES”. America’s Founding documents from the Mayflower Compact, on to the Declaration of Independence and our United States Constitution had supporters that would have answered “NO”.

 

Now … If you read this blog you probably know that I am not what people would label as an original thinker. Typically my own thoughts are written down due righteous indignation of the moment. This is what caused the above thoughts.

 

I read an article that is a synopsis of a Trevor Loudon speech that was posted by the initials TMH which was authored by the pseudonymous person going by the name Bookworm on the blog NoisyRoom.net. Personally I find all the anonymity annoying but I know some people just don’t want to be bugged in this world where Internet harassment is too often a fact of life. The article is entitled, “A Revolutionary Idea To Win The White House And Save The World”.

 

The author writes about Communists in government and Loudon’s revolutionary solution to change the transformation strategy of Dem Party closet Communists. It is a good read. I’ll give a bit of a spoiler that should inspire you to read the whole thing.

 

Loudon surmises correctly the Republican Party consists of Conservatives that gravitate toward their pet interests. For example: GOP Establishment, Tea Party Conservatives, Libertarians, Social Conservatives, Pro-Lifers and Evangelicals. Loudon’s solution to reverse the curse of Marxist-Dems transforming our American heritage is a dream team Republican ticket including a pre-announced Cabinet. Loudon implies this dream team would be unbeatable and the Dems would lose their political clout.

 

JRH 4/14/14

Please Support NCCR

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

A Revolutionary Idea To Win The White House And Save The World

Posted by TMH

From Bookworm Room

NoisyRoom.net

 

Last night, I got to hear Trevor Loudon, the New Zealander who believes, as Ronald Reagan did, that America is truly a shining city on a Hill and the world’s last, best hope against global totalitarian rule. It is this belief that has taken Trevor from his once quiet life in New Zealand to America, on an endless round of research and talks, all aimed at convincing ordinary Americans that their country is at risk (as is the world’s security), but that Americans can turn it around and revitalize a constitutional America.

 

Trevor’s talk was eye-opening and exciting. He devoted the first quarter of his talk to detailing how significant numbers of Congress people are currently members of communist organizations or were once open communists (who, significantly, have never repented and reformed). In the second quarter of his talk, Trevor explained the communist long game, one that started in the 1960s or before, which enabled communists to infiltrate and co-opt American institutions. In the third quarter, Trevor got started on amnesty, which is the Left’s single most important initiative. Finally, when we were all completely depressed, Trevor offered the most revolutionary idea I’ve ever heard for winning the White House in 2016 (but we have to start working on it now, or maybe yesterday.)

 

I’ll never be able to replicate Trevor’s passion, knowledge, or oratorical brilliance, but I can offer you a short summary of each part of his talk. I urge you to read this entire post, because it will inform you and inspire you in ways you may not have previously imagined. If you can’t wait to see what the idea is, just scroll down, because I’ve marked clearly where I’ve spelled out Trevor’s revolutionary idea for re-taking the White House.

 

The communists in Congress: It’s become fashionable of late to deny that communism still exists (“Communists? Hah! It’s just a handful of Russian KGB agents and a few old hippies in San Francisco. Even China isn’t communist any more.”)

 

Alternatively, scoffers will acknowledge that communism is still around, but assure people (especially ignorant, vulnerable young people) that it’s essentially harmless. This latter argument effectively erases the 20th century, along with the murder and enslavement of tens of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain, in China, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, and in Cuba, not to mention large swathes of Latin America and Africa. Modern communists, we’re told, are just nice people who want to save us from the economic depredations of capitalists as well as the moral and social slavery of traditionalists, especially religious traditionalists.

 

Because we’ve been told for the past four decades that American communism is a harmless chimera, we currently have 51 House members and 14 Senators all with strong, documented Communist ties. As Trevor said, while these people couldn’t pass the FBI investigation necessary to become a janitor at Fort Hood, the fact that they won an election (often through fraud and voter manipulation), means that they were able to walk right through the front door of our government. They now hold the levers of power controlling taxes, the military, national security, the border, education, etc. They dictate government policy and their goal is antithetical to the America created under the Constitution. Rather than being a government of limited powers, they are working to create a government of absolute powers.

 

Many of the names Trevor recited will be familiar to you because the media routinely gives them a lot of airtime to explain why Progressive plans (which are just re-labeled communist ideas) are good for America: Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Charles Rangel, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc. — they’re all on the list. You can read about these people in Trevor’s newest book, THE ENEMIES WITHIN: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress. There, Trevor provides detailed evidence documenting Congress peoples’ ties to communist groups, communist front groups, communist individuals, and communist liaisons.

 

Even Trevor acknowledges that it makes one sound like a conspiracy theorist to call all these serving members of Congress communists or fellow travelers, but the documentation is there. This isn’t a case in which Trevor is trying to convince a room of people wearing tinfoil hats that “Nancy Pelosi was in San Francisco on July 7, 1967, a mere four days after Mr. Communist Bigshot gave a speech in Minneapolis in which he said, ‘July is a great month in San Francisco, because it’s not so hot,’ which was clearly a coded reference telling her to subvert more of America’s youth by selling acid in Haight Ashbury.” That kind of imaginary dots connecting invisible lines is true conspiracy stuff and Trevor doesn’t traffic in that garbage.

 

Instead, what Trevor offers are verifiable facts: Membership records and newsletters from openly communist organizations or communist-front groups, decades-long close associations between Congress people and open members of the Communist Party, etc. No imaginary dots or invisible lines here. These are cold, hard, very unpleasant facts. So yes, more than a quarter of the American Senate has strong and documented communist ties, and these Senators, because the Democrats control the Senate, hold powerful positions in our country.

 

The communist long game: None of what’s happened since 2008, says Trevor, is a coincidence. Every single part of the current Democrat agenda originated, not in small town, old-fashioned American Democrat Party outposts, but, instead, in hardcore communist circles. For example, Quentin Young, who died recently at around age 90, was a physician and an open communist. Indeed, he was so open that, during the Vietnam War, he traveled to North Vietnam and offered his medical services to the Vietcong (those would be the same Vietcong who were killing American soldiers and torturing American POWs). Young was also Obama’s next door neighbor and his personal physician. Young was also Obama’s adviser on Obamacare. Kind of makes you think, doesn’t it?

 

The most significant example of the communist long game is America’s unions. Up until the 1990s, the AFL-CIO, America’s most powerful private sector union, was headed by rabidly staunch anti-communists. The AFL-CIO’s platform specifically stated its opposition to communism. That all changed in 1995 when Thomas Donohue took over the AFL-CIO’s presidency from Lane Kirkland. The anti-communist platform went out the window, and the AFL-CIO was suddenly inundated by openly communist members. With that membership change came a push to get communist or communist-friendly people into government.

 

With the AFL-CIO’s reversal on communism, and its open-door policy for communists, something happened that we oldsters never saw before the mid-1990s: Unions became integral parts of the Democrat election process. More money than ever before went from unions to politicians. Union works devoted themselves to “get out the vote” efforts, handling everything from registering voters (living or dead), to canvasing, to getting people to polls (legal or illegal), and to staffing polls. What this meant was that every Democrat elected due to union efforts owed the unions big time — and what the union leaders demanded were political acts entirely consistent with demands that communist had been making for decades: socialized medicine, socialized student loans, socialized banking, etc.

 

Amnesty: Today’s communists are interested in socializing this and that, but they actually have one absolutely overriding goal: amnesty. It’s not because communists (aka Progressives aka socialists aka leftists) love Latin Americans more than the rest of us do. Heck, it’s not about love at all. It’s about creating a permanent Democrat majority. Texas is the pivot point: If Democrats can turn Texas blue (which also means that Arizona and New Mexico and other still-reddish Southwestern states will turn solid blue), it will become numerically impossible for Republicans to take the White House, not just in the short term, but in the long, long term . . . maybe forever, because a solid Democrat majority will change the rules to preclude anything but a one-party White House and, if possible, Congress.

 

Again, this is not a conspiracy theory. Trevor detailed speeches and writings from people involved in the amnesty movement (including Antonio Villaraigosa, the L.A. mayor who turned LA into an illegal refuge), boasting about the 8 million new voters they are planning on having in order to change forever America’s political identity.

 

When conservatives oppose amnesty, it’s not because they hate Latinos, anymore than the Democrats love them. It’s because conservatives understand that the point behind amnesty isn’t to reward “acts of love” or to be charitable or to preserve human rights or to prove we’re not racists. Instead, it’s our recognition (based on Democrat admissions) that amnesty is dedicated to a single goal: destroying America’s two-party system through a tidal wave of newly legal, permanently-Democrat-Party voters. Opposing amnesty is about preserving constitutional government, not about discriminating against the illegal aliens that the Democrats (with the president’s cheerful collusion) are inviting into America and into the voting booth.

 

But . . . but . . . what about the Republicans who are supporting amnesty (a group that includes most of the Republican leadership)? Surely amnesty can’t be so bad, given that it’s not reasonable for these people to commit political suicide, right? Wrong. The Republican leadership owes as much to the American Chamber of Commerce as the Democrat Party owes to the unions. The Chamber of Commerce doesn’t care about Left or Right, constitution or totalitarianism. It cares about the bottom line, and the bottom line is always better if labor is cheap.

 

I am absolutely not calling Chamber of Commerce members Nazis, but it’s worth [it to] remember from a political, not genocidal, perspective, that one of the reasons German industrialists supported the Nazis was that they got free slave labor and they got to keep their profits. The cheapest labor in America is the illegal alien or newly legalized citizen with no English and no skills. Trevor says that it’s no coincidence that the most pro-amnesty Republicans are the ones who receive the most money from the Chamber of Commerce.

 

That explains the RINOs and GOP’s support for amnesty? But what about the fanatical, hysterical union support for amnesty? Doesn’t illegal immigration and amnesty hurt union members for the same reason that the Chamber of Commerce likes it, by lowering wages? Yes. And the unions, both leadership and members, understood that right up until 1995. The old leadership’s opposition to communism wasn’t just ideological, it was pragmatic. Open borders lowered wages and otherwise depressed working conditions for ordinary Americans.

 

The new union leadership, though, doesn’t care about its members’ well-being. Members are merely cash cows subject to mandatory dues that ultimately pay for the union members’ own slaughter.

 

There is hope for the future: By the time Trevor finished the first 3/4 of his talk, all of us listening were depressed. I looked around and saw slumped bodies and sad faces. Not to despair, though, since Trevor held out hope and, as I said, offered a revolutionary idea for a Republican comeback. He broke this last part of his talk into three segments: the Tea Party, Reagan’s victory, and what we can do.

 

The Tea Party: In 2008, all the ducks were in a row for a complete, irreversible Leftist takeover of America’s political system. What stopped it, Trevor said, was something unforeseeable, and that black swan was the Tea Party’s organic and meteoric rise.

 

Thanks to the Tea Party, the Democrats only got 2 years of legislative victories and, since then, they’ve been on the defensive. At every level — local, state, and national — Tea Partiers roared out their disapproval at this, the greatest flowering of the American communist party.

 

No wonder that the backlash was so immediate and so vicious (racist, racist, war on women, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, racist). The Tea Party had to be destroyed and quickly too. Trevor attended a major socialist/communist party event and said it was dead boring. All they did was talk about how terrible the Tea Party is and how it could be destroyed.

 

Trevor said that we in the Tea Party are feeling demoralized now, since Obama took back the White House in 2012. What he says we’re missing, perhaps because we’re too close to things (unlike a New Zealander, who gets a long view), is how big our victory was. We’re like “Baby Supermen,” he said, because we don’t realize the type of power we have. Instead, we focus on our losses and then retreat to lick our wounds, yielding the floor once again to the indefatigable left.

 

Tea Partiers also have a problem with the GOP itself, which bitterly resents the upstarts who disagree with the GOP’s “go along to get along” policies and, most especially, with its Chamber of Commerce-funded press for amnesty, cheap labor, and a permanent Democrat majority. There is hope, though.

 

Reagan: Trevor reminded us that, when Reagan emerged from California in 1976 and strode onto the national scene, the GOP hated him. The Ohio GOP refused to let him speak there. Essentially, the Grand Old Party, which Reagan later owned, blackballed him, denying him the 1976 primary, which went to Gerald Ford. Reagan, however, spent the next four years coalition building like mad. With his sunny personality; his gift for taking complex subjects and presenting them in simple, but not simplistic, terms; and his unabashed love for America, he brought everyone under his umbrella. He won by a landslide that originated with his newly cohesive base, revitalizing America.

 

Trevor acknowledged that things are different now. Obama and his team will have had eight, not just four, years to pursue their agenda (even with the Tea Party operating as a counterweight and drag). The news and entertainment media are intractably in the bag for the Left and will throw themselves into the breach in 2016, especially for a Hillary/Michelle ticket. And we’re having conservative civil war headed by the GOP’s desire to destroy the Tea Party.

 

Ah, that GOP. That nasty, weak, corrupt, amnesty-loving GOP. We Tea Partiers would like to see it gone, just as the GOP would like the Tea Party to vanish. There’s an unpleasant reality, though, that Trevor says the Tea Party must acknowledge: We don’t have the time — just 2.5 years until 2016 — to put together the election infrastructure that the GOP already has. Moribund and corrupt though it may be, the GOP is the only game in town for winning elections. The task, then, is to preempt and co-opt the GOP, just as Reagan did.

 

The Tea Party also needs to stop trying to convince independents to get on board. Trevor pointed out what we all know: You don’t win elections by getting lukewarm support from fundamentally disinterested people. You win elections when your base is incredibly excited and the lukewarm people want to join in the fun (as happened for Obama in 2008). The GOP, Trevor added, will also want to join the fun, primarily because the institution cannot afford to walk away from the seat of power. It happened in 1980 with Reagan and it can happen again.

 

The main problem the conservative base has is this fragmentation and internal hostility, which extends beyond the GOP versus Tea Party fight. Libertarians, social conservatives, and Evangelicals are also part of this cranky, disparate mix of people who are definitely not statists, but still can’t hang together enough to create a political wave advancing constitutional freedoms. The big question, then, is How can we bring these disparate groups together, enthusiastically, to win in 2016, which will be our last chance at wresting the country from the communist-backed Democrats?

 

Here’s Trevor’s revolutionary idea

 

Trevor has what I think of as a brilliant, inspired, out of the box, crazy, entirely possible idea. To build a coalition, you need to promise something to everyone. That seems impossible when you consider how the various conservative groups have such vastly different issues. One person cannot possible be all things to all conservative voters. TREVOR SAYS THAT ONE PERSON DOESN’T HAVE TO BE ALL THINGS. The next Republican candidate should identify his running mate and cabinet now, to make sure that the GOP doesn’t suck all the money out of the system by 2015 and then funnel it to Romney (part II) or Christie, neither of whom can excite the base and, therefore, neither of whom can win.

 

Here’s as much of Trevor’s dream ticket as I can remember. It should be promoted, in its entirety, from the get-go (say, starting next month, or maybe yesterday):

 

o   President: Ted Cruz, a committed conservative who can talk brilliantly (and a man who happens to be Hispanic).

 

o   Vice President: Allen West, a committed conservative, a military commander (and a man who happens to be black and I adore him).

 

o   Treasury Secretary: Rand Paul (Tea Partiers and libertarians get their fiscal conservatism)

 

o   Secretary of State: John Bolton (the neocons get their national security)

 

o   Energy Secretary: Sarah Palin (Tea Partiers — and most Americans — get their cheap energy)

 

o   Labor Secretary: Scott Walker (Right to Work across America)

 

o   Attorney General: Mark Levin or Trey Gowdy, deeply committed constitutional conservatives

 

o   Education Secretary: A strong supporter of homeschooling

 

 

And so on, down the line, with the Republican ticket being fully formed from top to bottom. Every conservative will know heading to the voting booth that the Republican ticket offers something to him or her personally. That gets out votes.

 

Someone pointed out that the obvious problem with this list, which is the fact that all of these people want to be president themselves, and will not want to be subordinated to Cruz or West. Instead of joining forces, they’ll simply form the same circular firing squad that they formed in 2008 and 2012, and mow each other down again, with the Democrats cheering them on from the sidelines.

 

Yes, Trevor, acknowledged, some people are going to have to sacrifice their immediate presidential dreams in favor of presenting a strong united front. While the notion of self-sacrifice isn’t usually high on a politician’s list, perhaps they can be brought to see that a little self-sacrifice now provides long-term selfish benefits in the future. By following his radical campaign plan, all these talents and egos can win in some way in 2016, setting the template for each of them to strike out on his or her own in 2024. Alternatively, they can selfishly commit political and party murder-suicide in 2016, forever ending any possibility that a Republican will take the White House.

 

Trevor emphasized repeatedly that this revolutionary idea — running a president, veep, and entire cabinet in one fell swoop — must be done now. Any delay means conservative money is gone, the circular firing squad forms, GOP money rescues Romney or Christie from the bloodbath, the base stays home, the independents stay home, the Democrats win again, and America becomes a permanent socialized state that has abandoned all of its allies around the world, and serves as a materials-supplier to the world’s dictators.

 

If you think this is a good idea, act on it: Share it with your local conservative groups, put it out on Facebook, make clever posters, contact conservative leadership. Do whatever you can do. We have a very small window of time, and very limited resources, to reverse a trajectory that, if not changed by 2016, will be fixed forever.

______________________________

Let’s Call it GOOD McCarthyism for a Good America

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2014

________________________________

A Revolutionary Idea To Win The White House And Save The World

 

© 2014 NoisyRoom.net

 

[Blog Editor: Information enclosed in brackets are added by the Editor]

The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave – or What?


Uncle Sam - Americans Resist Tyranny

John R. Houk

© April 9, 2014

 

… Considering the fact that this nation reelected a communist in spite of the undeniable damage that he has done, I must conclude that over fifty percent of our voting population are living in a state of total denial; bound and determined to remain that way.

 

The above paragraph is from Danny Jeffrey’s post “I…Conspiracy Theorist”. Until the post November election 2012 I was a dyed in the wool Republican. Being as such I supported Mitt Romney who tried to paint himself as a moderate with Conservative leanings. A cursory examination of Romney’s history as Governor of Massachusetts painted a closer picture of a RINO that was Left of center that socialized medicine in his State and showed a strain of social Liberalism in not denouncing homosexual marriage which was remarkable since Romney’s faith is as a Latter Day Saint (LDS aka Mormonism) which has shown itself as a socially conservative despite being a cult-like spin-off from the traditional Christian faith (yeah, I went there – get over it). I was under the losing paradigm of ‘anybody but Obama’.

 

That paradigm was and is a model for losing and Republicans LOST an election that they should have won if the Republican Establishment wanted to win more than try to push Conservative Tea Party supporters into insignificance. Romney failed to call out a debate moderator that openly lied supporting Obama’s Benghazi talking point. This made Barack Hussein Obama look like a man of truth when in fact BHO has been lying to Americans before his 2008 election and continued to do so throughout his First Term of Office (AND for that matter through to this very day).

 

It became obvious to me that as long as the Republican Establishment called the shots in the GOP, Conservative principles would rarely if ever see the light of day. It was at that point I also realized voters would believe any pile of trash supporting Obama’s Leftist transformation agenda to socialize America into a pseudo-Marxist nation. In case you didn’t realize it, Marxist principles of governing obliterates the Constitutional principles originally intended by the Founding Fathers which insured the American individual to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

 

Marxist utopianism is a stateless and classless society which will never happen because of the nature of humankind to be selfish. Ergo the Marxist path to seek the unattainable utopia is a state which defines right, wrong, acceptable, and unacceptable even if it imposes on the free conscience of an individual. In essence the Marxist state is the Founding Fathers’ greatest fear after gaining independence from Great Britain – state despotism.

 

American voters believed Obama lies in 2008. American voters put their trust in Obama for his First Term. AND American voters believed the reelection lies that led to an Obama victory in November 2012.

 

If American voters persist in believing Obama and Dem Party lies the path to state despotism will be unavoidable. So let’s reprise Danny Jeffrey’s quote above:

 

… Considering the fact that this nation reelected a communist in spite of the undeniable damage that he has done, I must conclude that over fifty percent of our voting population are living in a state of total denial; bound and determined to remain that way.

 

As long as American voters believe the Obama lies, gullible voters will lead the Conservative Americans – probable minority at this point – to a Marxist-like state. It will be too late to reverse the course of state despotism that gullible voters will impose on American Conservatives.

 

You have to be asking, ‘Well, what is the solution?’ or if you are living in a state of blind denial you might ask contemptuously, ‘What is your solution to maintain the American principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

 

I have to be honest. I am just a Joe American that recognizes the American experiment established by our Founding Fathers is slipping away. I am not a mover and shaker. But this one thing I do know. If you are an American that does not want to live under state despotism or you do not want your children and grandchildren to live under state despotism, YOU MUST begin to arm your minds with the concepts of American Liberty. Share those concepts boldly even in the face of ridicule of Leftist or brainwashed demagoguery that believes Obama’s transformation (aka change you can believe in) is what is making America good. Ask people to look around. Ask them what has Obama ‘change’ done that is good for the American way of life or the general welfare of what makes America good. Be armed with the answers to lies or brainwashed talking points that simply are wrong.

 

Boldly share that it is only in elections and voting that Liberty will be retained peacefully within our homeland. Don’t tell anyone to blindly vote for a Republican and definitely don’t vote for a Democrat. Make sure you are voting for a candidate that believes in constitutional Original Intent over the destructive paradigm of the so-called Living Constitution. Originalism is faithful to the Founding Fathers vision for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Living Constitutionalism is a warped Leftist ideology that molds the Constitution to be interpreted in the way that makes a Socialist-Marxist society acceptable leading to the termination of Liberty.

 

There are many sources to educate yourself and others in Founding Father Originalism. Some may cost money that Joe Americans living in Obama’s America may not readily afford in their budget. As long as the Internet remains free there are also many sources that are free. Danny Jeffrey has been constructing one of those sources. He calls it the Fix Bayonets Library. Click on that link and begin arming yourself to operate as a free American citizen before you might have to choose to live, support or operate a second American Revolution to throw the bond of despotism off your backs that you may or may not win in blood.

 

If you haven’t read Danny Jeffrey’s “I…Conspiracy Theorist” yet, I am cross posting it below. Danny does a more eloquent job than I in presenting his case to become an avid reader of the Fix Bayonets Library.

 

 

JRH 4/9/14

Please Support NCCR

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

I…CONSPIRACY THEORIST

 

By Danny Jeffrey

April 9, 2014 2:06 PM

Fix Bayonets

 

Recently I published an essay entitledCan You Handle The Truth?It was a compilation of some of the series of essays that I have written regarding current events and the agenda that guides them. Yes, to some I would indeed be regarded a conspiracy theorist, and indeed I do write of a vast conspiracy that is taking place around us. The primary difference between other conspiracy theorists and myself is that I do extensive research and have a most annoying habit of presenting links to verifiable facts, gleaned from reliable sources.

At the readers’ comment section of that article I had the dubious pleasure of being visited by one of our Internet trolls. This person boldly chose to identify himself/herself only as ‘Anonymous’ and left the following simple remark:

Anonymous March 9, 2014 at 8:10 AM

I am sorry that you are so afraid.

 

I never delete a critical comment unless the language passes the bounds of decency. Being a firm believer in the First Amendment I support the right of even a troll to speak his/her mind and make a fool of themselves anytime they so choose; but, needless to say, I just had to reply:

DANNY JEFFREY March 9, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Mr/Ms Anonymous, you need not concern yourself with my level of fear, as I firmly believe that fear is a natural reaction to being on a field of battle. Of course every battle does have those fearless foolhardy souls around who fear nothing; predicting their destiny becomes so easy. When the battle finally subsides I shall watch for your name on the casualty list, and when I find it I shall waste not my time feeling sorrow. Some things are just meant to be.

In all honesty I do think of America as a battle field, and many would pinpoint 911 as the beginning of that battle. I place the starting date as much earlier; during the Johnson and Carter years when Progressivism, i.e. The Left, was given such a big boost, and now, after these many years some of us begin to understand the machinations of the Progressives.

The true beginning naturally dates back to the Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson time frame but their goals were largely rejected by the American public. Later FDR hastened the rush to hell with his New Deal and the only thing that saved us from communism then was World War II. Truman, JFK, Nixon and Reagan all opposed the leftward tilt that was slowly overtaking this nation, but in realms beyond their control Progressivism advanced, one slow step at a time, and now for all intents and purposes they have won.

The death knell for America was finally sounded when elected members of the GOP became afraid to tell the truth to the public, and they too began leaning left in order to remain in office.

It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I believe this to be factual. If you are unwilling to know it all then you are better off knowing nothing. Essentially we have three choices: Live with the fear born of knowing the truth no matter how horrid that truth is; live with the confusion of knowing just a little and be too frightened to delve further into the unknown; or go merrily along your way, totally oblivious to the reality that is about to descend on this nation.

The vast majority of the American public exist, to varying degrees, in the final two categories. Considering the fact that this nation reelected a communist in spite of the undeniable damage that he has done, I must conclude that over fifty percent of our voting population are living in a state of total denial; bound and determined to remain that way.

Then there is the group that is trying to ‘Wake Up America’. They are the ones with but a little knowledge and therefore they are dangerous. What they have in abundance is fear, and sadly, ignorance, and that ignorance is accompanied by a heaping helping of gullibility. They know full well that something is dreadfully amiss in our country and they go about trying to warn others, whilst not even beginning to comprehend the true danger themselves.

So very many still spread their posts across the Internet trying to rally others by announcing that Obama is incompetent. Anyone foolish enough to believe that probably is not going to be reading anything that I write so I need not concern myself about hurt feelings. These people are abject fools!

Even an incompetent politician is not going to release 68,000 convicted criminal aliens in one year. This act is not indicative of incompetence but points to a man with a plan.

From Frontpage Mag…
Obama Released 68,000 Convicted Criminal Aliens in 2013

 

I read an interesting thought many years ago: You only have to be right fifty one percent of the time to make progress. If you are right ninety eight percent of the time then you are phenomenal but at fifty one you can muddle along still slowly making headway. I am inclined to believe that 51 percenter is incompetent, but take a look at Obama’s record: Everything that he has done is counter productive. This is not incompetence. Yes, Obama is a 98 percenter in a downhill race, as destruction of America is his goal. And I might add that he is succeeding, with the compliance of the GOP.

Another interesting article from Frontpage Mag…
Obama Cancel Tomahawk Missile, Spends $400K on Camel Sculpture in Pakistan

 

Now I must ask you; is that behavior incompetence or is he intentionally wasting money that America does not have while crippling our military?

I do not like living in constant danger, but have no choice in the matter. Nor do I like living in ignorance, but there I do indeed have a choice. I have spent the last five years researching what is taking place around me and now I understand it, and that puts me into the category of a conspiracy theorist, and that label applies equally well to most of those who keep reading these essays. Any who deny that there is a conspiracy in place is either a total fool or is a liar, complicit in the ruin of this nation.

This past month has not seen much writing from me as I have been building an Internet library such as I do not believe you will find anywhere else. Since Obama has been in office I have sought answers to his agenda that seems so strange to many. It is Not strange. It is diabolical, and with data collected over these years I try to put the whole plan before you.

Glenn Beck, Trevor Louden, Daniel Greenfield, David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, a host of others and I have long begged Americans to do their own research. Whether from being disinterested, lazy, or too fearful, few do. Well, I have made it easy for everyone who really want to know. I have done that research, stored my data across eight different websites, and have now compiled it into my Fix Bayonets Library. The list of topics is very long, but they are all interrelated and I have connected the dots.

All that I ask of you is to access that library, read what I have learned from so much research, and pass it on to your Internet friends. You want to wake up America? You will not succeed by passing along the ravings of the people who grow rich by duping the gullible of this nation. You will wake no one by spreading hoaxes and sensationalism.

The truth is out there. I have found it and put it into a presentation that anyone can comprehend if they but take the time to read the truth instead of the latest hoax that comes down the pike. The library is essentially finished, and yet will never be finished as it is a work in progress. I shall continually update it with current events and breaking news.

We are running out of time and many fear that we may soon lose the Internet. I cannot foresee that happening as our entire way of life is now linked to the Internet, even the harshest governments in the world use it, with censorship of course. Our economy, from Wall Street, to industry, to our banks, and our welfare recipients are all dependent upon the Internet. It will not go away, but what will is the freedom of speech. Horowitz, Gaffney, Glenn Beck and I must be silenced. Therefore if you believe that one day you might want to know what is happening, you had better learn it now, while you still have the right.

When I began this essay it was my plan to close with a link to the library that I have built. This is the link to Fix Bayonets Library, but I shall go one better: I shall print the directory of that library below and each of those links lead to still more links that in turn leads to my indisputable sourcesCW, by the way is my collected writing on that topic. Try clicking a half dozen of those links and you will get an idea of the wealth of information put before you, and you don’t even have to put up with all of the advertising you find on those sensationalist sites. They are just in it for the money.

Learn three percent of what I know and you will be better equipped to deal with tomorrow.

 

Fix Bayonets Library

Fix Bayonets Library banner

INTRO TO LIBRARY (First time users please click)

HOW TO USE THE SEARCH FEATURE  (First time users please click)

NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED  TOPICAL

 

911 PHOTOS ESSAY   (PHOTO ESSAY)

 

911 VIDEO ESSAY  (VIDEO ESSAY) 

AGENDA 21  TOPICAL

AMERICAN PROTESTS  CW

 

AMERICANS CONVERTING TO ISLAM TOPICAL

ANTI ISRAEL-ANTI AMERICA TOPICAL

ATTACKING OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM  TOPICAL

 

BENGHAZI  CW

 

BLOGGERS AND THINK TANKS  TOPICAL

BREAKING NEWS (NEWSREELS)

CIVIL WAR-RIOTS-ANARCHY  CW

 

CLOWARD AND PIVEN  CW

 

CLOWARD AND PIVEN  TOPICAL

COMMON CORE TOPICAL

COMMUNISM  CW

COMMUNIST PARTY U.S.A.  TOPICAL

CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS AND BLOGGERS  TOPICAL

 

DEMOCRATIC PARTY  TOPICAL

 

DEMOCRATIC ELITE  TOPICAL

 

ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE (TOPICAL)

FEDERAL RESERVE TOPICAL

 

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

TOPICAL

FIRST AMENDMENT  CW

 

FOUNDING DOCUMENTS  TOPICAL

 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH CW

GEORGE SOROS  CW

 

GEORGE SOROS  TOPICAL

 

GLOBALISTS AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER  CW 

HOAX, SENSATIONALIST, AND SATIRE SITES, DISINFORMATION  TOPICAL

 

HOW TO RESEARCH AN INTERNET TOPIC  TOPICAL

 

HUMAN RIGHTS  CW

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION  CW 

IMMIGRATION AND OUR BORDERS  TOPICAL

ISLAM  CW

 

ISLAM AND STEALTH JIHAD TOPICAL

ISLAM AND THE U.S. TIMELINE  TOPICAL

ISLAMIC GROUPS  TOPICAL

ISRAEL  CW

 

LABOR UNIONS (TOPICAL)

LATEST NEWS (NEWSREELS)

LIBERALS  CW

 

MIDDLE EAST  CW

 

MUST WATCH VIDEOS  TOPICAL 

NEW WORLD ORDER TOPICAL

NEWS SOURCES  TOPICAL

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND AGENDA  CW

 

OBAMA’S ISLAMIC ROLE  TOPICAL

OUR MILITARY…BREAKING NEWS  TOPICAL

 

OUR MILITARY  CW

 

OUR MILITARY-MEMORIAL DAY  TOPICAL

 

OUR MILITARY-THE HISTORY OF ‘TAPS’   VIDEO

PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION  TOPICAL

PROGRESSIVE GROUPS AND FOUNDATIONS  TOPICAL

 

RACISM  CW

 

RELIABLE INTERNET SOURCES  TOPICAL

 

RINOS AND TRAITORS  CW

 

SAUL ALINSKY  CW

 

SAUL ALINSKY  TOPICAL

 

SECOND AMENDMENT  CW

 

SERIAL ESSAYS  CW 

SHARIA-THREAT TO AMERICA (VIDEO)

SOCIALISM TOPICAL

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE TOPICAL

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZING TOPICAL

TERRORISM  CW

 

TERRORISM  TOPICAL

THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT TOPICAL

THE HORRORS OF ISLAM (PHOTO ESSAY)

THE LEFT’S ISLAMIC AGENDA TOPICAL

THE RELIGIOUS LEFT  CW

 

THE RELIGIOUS LEFT  TOPICAL

THE SHADOW PARTY TOPICAL

THE UK’S TODAY IS AMERICA’S TOMORROW  TOPICAL

 

UK, EUROPE, EUROPEAN UNION  CW

 

U.S.-MIDDLE EAST INVOLVEMENT TOPICAL

UNITED NATIONS  CW

VIDEO BLOGGERS (VIDEO)

VIDEOS OF ISLAM (VIDEO)

VIDEOS OF PROGRESSIVISM  (VIDEO

)

VOTING  CW

_____________________________

The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave – or What?

John R. Houk

© April 9, 2014

____________________________

I…CONSPIRACY THEORIST

 

Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright. – Danny Jeffrey

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 7


No Nation Survives without Law

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2014

 

Dougindeap left a comment on the post “The Truth about Separation of Church and State” at NCCR which is a cross post of an Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) brochure that provides reasons for the concept of Separation of Church and State as SCOTUS has set in stone today is and was not a correct interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

 

It is my habit to usually post my perspective on a comment then place the comment below my thoughts. Since Dougindeap divided his comment into eight parts to refute the ADF points. So as I initially began to respond to Dougindeap’s original comment which resulted in various parts with the title “Disputing Separation Church/State” (which as of this writing is up to six parts). You can read an edited version of that comment at the end of my thoughts at SlantRight 2.0 or the NCCR blog. You can read Dougindeap’s unedited comment version at NCCR HERE. I am bucking my typical course and take a valiant effort to briefly take each of Dougindeap’s points to put in my two-cents. I say briefly because I can tell that the six parts of “Disputing Separation Church/State” could go on much longer than I desire to devote to the subject. I have to say something though because I disagree with Dougindeap as much as he disagrees with me. Sadly the slant of the reader’s politics will line the reader with Doug or myself.

 

So here we go.

 

dougindeap commented on The Truth about Separation of Church and State

April 2, 2014 at 8:12 PM

 

[Blog Editor: Dougindeap uses the abbreviation “ALF” when I suspect he was thinking Alliance Defending Freedom which would “ADF”. I mention this for clarity’s sake because we all post comments hurriedly in which typos or missing words occur and not as a criticism of Dougindeap.]

 

Dougindeap:

 

You have succeeded in gathering quite a collection of arguments about separation of church and state, nearly all of which I’ve seen and seen debunked many times. I won’t attempt to touch on every one of the many points, but will take the ALF items one by one.

 

1. While Jefferson’s first use of the term “separation of church and state” may have been in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he hardly was the first to use the term.

 

Certainly Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting public religious expression. ALF contends against a strawman. No one contends that Jefferson said any such thing.

 

It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

 

JRH:

 

I believe Dougindeap has correctly expressed the meaning of the First Amendment until he gets to the part I took the liberty to highlight with bold print.

 

When Doug says the government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, he is correct to the extent those individuals are under the direct mandate of the government. The problem is the Left Wing assumption that all instruments of the government are representative of the Federal government. THIS WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL INTENT of the First Amendment.

 

The Bill of Rights which are actually the first ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution provides an intent that must apply to the First Amendment as enumerated in the Tenth Amendment:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Just as Doug points out the First Amendment prevents the U.S. Congress to establish a State Church or to make any laws that prohibits the free exercise of religion. The Tenth Amendment brings specificity in that the State government or “the people” (implying local government such as Counties or cities) can define how individuals working as instruments of government are defined on the State and Local level. Hence the Federal government did not end Established Churches on the State level. The States individually disestablished State Churches as it became obvious the State Established Churches were slipping into the minority among Christian denominations in the various States. Ironically Massachusetts one of the most Liberal States in the American Union today was the last State to disestablish their State Church in the 1833. States’ Rights ended the Established Church in the USA and not the enforcement of the Federal government. In the same manner of Original Intent each State has the power of the law to limit or encourage government instruments such as employees from sharing their individual faith.

 

Dougindeap:

 

2. Justice Hugo Black was not the first to “insert” separation of church and state into American jurisprudence. Not by a long shot. A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court first used that term in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States, where it quoted Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists while interpreting the First Amendment.

 

JRH:

 

In Reynolds v. United States Dougindeap fails to mention the reason for the unanimity of SCOTUS in the 1878 religious Liberty case before them. George Reynolds a citizen of the then Territory of Utah was a Mormon that married more than one wife. Reynolds was convicted of bigamy. Reynolds demanded his First Amendment rights of Religious Liberty. The 1878 SCOTUS officially was more concerned about social norms than Religious Freedom. In Christian America in 1878 bigamy was not only illegal it was also a heinous sin. The reality of the 1878 SCOTUS decision was upholding traditional Christian values over the cult of Mormonism (Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints). Mormons then and now believe in the supremacy of the Book of Mormon and certain so-called Mormon prophetic pronouncements (Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) over the traditional Christian values of the Holy Bible. SCOTUS upheld the conviction of George Reynolds in 1878 unanimously. I have no doubts Mormons consider themselves Christians however their theology is so divergent from the orthodox practices of Christianity an intelligent evaluation even today would come to the conclusion Mormonism at best is its own religion and at worst a cult spin-off Christianity. It should be noted the powers that be in Mormonism had the remarkable revelation that marriage is between one man and one woman in order for the Utah Territory could become the sovereign State of Utah in 1890.

 

As to the 1878 SCOTUS unanimous opinion referencing the Jefferson to Danbury Baptists letter WallBuilders provides the actual intent of that Court opinion:

 

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

 

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added)[12]

 

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

 

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

 

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

 

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. (Excerpted from – The Separation of Church and State; By David Barton; WallBuilders.com; January 2001)

 

Dougindeap:

 

3. First, ALF tries to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

 

Second, it is ALF that has confused its history. Contrary to its assertion, Justice Black did not write that the Danbury letter may be accepted “almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.” Rather Chief Justice Waite wrote that in Reynolds v. United States. Black, moreover, did not repeat that statement in Everson.

 

Finally, the further notion, suggested by ALF and advanced by some, that the Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional separation of church and state in Everson is all Justice Black’s doing is laughable. It bears noting that all nine justices in the Everson case read the Constitution to call for separation of church and state, and indeed all of the parties and all of the amici curiae (including the National Council of Catholic Men and National Council of Catholic Women) did as well; no one disputed the principle, they differed only in how it should be applied in the circumstances of the case.

 

JRH:

 

Actually Hugo Black equally emphasized Jefferson and Madison together. Doug fails to mention that Black’s Majority Opinion included both Jefferson and Madison’s efforts on a State level in Virginia to disestablish any Church to receive tax support because such taxation would be discriminatory toward non-established Christian denominations. Hence Jefferson and Madison were not arguing the removal of recognized Christian Morality but rather the removal of taxpayers’ paying the salary of a State established Clergy. AND so yes, Hugo Black misappropriated the work of Jefferson and Madison use of a States’ Rights issue to apply to Federal authority. Hugo Black attempts to solidify the Church/State separation by adopting Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. How did Black connect a States’ Rights issue to Federal authority? Then Black used the presumption that the Fourteenth Amendment which officially ended Slavery in all the States by Federal rule of law, then by extension Black presumed the Fourteenth Amendment nullified the Tenth Amendment which in turn pertained to individual State sovereignty bowing to the will of the Judicial and Executive branches of government. This interpretation had the effect to keep the influence of Christianity outside the scope of State level and local level government parameters in the rule of law.

 

Dougindeap:

 

4. That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

 

Contrary to ALF’s supposition, separation of church and state rests on much more than just the First Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

 

JRH:

 

Doug mistakenly equates the lack of the words “Wall of Separation of Church and State” in the Constitute is the same as other civics terms not being the Constitution such as “Bill of Rights, separation of powers (i.e. in branches of government), checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty” and so on. The reason Doug is mistaken because all those other terms are specifically spelled out in the Constitution BUT the term “Wall of Separation of Church and State” is not spelled out AT ALL The First Amendment ONLY spells out that Congress cannot make a law to Establish a State Church and that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

 

Dougindeap:

 

5. While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

 

JRH:

 

Dougindeap quotes James Madison’s first writing of a proposed First Amendment: “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”. I suspect Doug is implying Madison’s influence spoke for all the Congressmen in constructing religious freedom as imputed by Federal government authority en toto as opposed to States’ Rights. That is DEFINITELY not the case because of House deliberation the First Amendment’s form ratified as law is what was sent to the States for ratification. Hence States’ Rights coupled with the Tenth Amendment became the actual Original Intent of the First Amendment which included the individual States upholding the primacy of the values of the Christian religion by which all Denominations upheld regardless of varying theological dogma.

 

Since the Declaration of Independence led to the Articles of Confederation which were then superseded by the U.S. Constitution in 1789 shows that the Founding Fathers bowed to the will of ‘We the People’ in the promotion of the very least the promotion of Christianity as what will maintain the general welfare of the people of the new USA.

 

Here’s an abbreviated list of the Continental Congress pushing Christian Morals and Values for the General Welfare (1774 – 1789):

 

1. Congress’ First Act: A Resolution to Pray – September 6, 1774

 

2. Congress Ordered Purchase and Printing of Bibles – September 11, 1777

 

3. Congress Expressly Promoted Religion – October 12, 1778:

 

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.

 

4. The Declaration of Independence – formally adopted it on July 4, 1776, and signed it August 2, 1776. The Declaration directly appeals to God at least four times

 

5. Congress Appointed Days Of Prayer, Thanksgiving, and Repentance – In the approximately fifteen years of its existence, the Continental Congress approved at least fifteen proclamations calling on the states to appoint days of special worship or honor to God. Dates enumerated from 1777 through 1787.

 

The above lists remarkable does not contain the Northwest Ordinance enacted by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation July 13, 1787. The legislation has 14 Sections and the Fourteenth Section has Six Articles. The purpose for the Northwest Ordinance was to establish a Central government rule of law for expansion westward from the Original 13 States and a method of admitting new sovereign States to the United States of America (then under the Articles of Confederation). Christianity and Religious Freedom combined are expressly part of the designs of the Northwest Ordinance.

 

Sec. 13. And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest: (Bold emphasis Blog Editor’s)

 

Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:

 

Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

 

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. …

 

The two bills James Madison vetoed was done correctly. The bills’ goals were to Establish the Episcopalian Church in the city of Alexandria within the District of Columbia and provide public funds to buy land for a Church in the Territory of Mississippi. On a Federal basis the First Amendment specifically states that Congress can make no law establishing a Church. AGAIN this has nothing to do with the laws enumerated to the several States not in the U.S. Constitution (Tenth Amendment).

 

My above thoughts on the history of the Courts and Church Establishment already refute the Doug’s claim that Church/State Separation issues is “hardly a new invention of modern courts.”

 

Dougindeap:

 

6. Dreisbach’s fundamental error is his largely unspoken and unexamined presumption that the Constitution’s separation of church and state is merely a First Amendment textual matter. As noted above, however, it is rather a bedrock principle of our Constitution, resting on much more than the First Amendment.

 

JRH:

 

Already proved this line of thinking is in error by Dougindeap.

 

Dougindeap:

 

7. The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

 

Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

 

JRH:

 

The only contention I can agree with Dougindeap is that the First Amendment prevents the Federal Congress from Establishing a State Church and that the Federal Congress cannot enact laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Everything else not forbidden by the U.S. Constitution is the purview of each State in the Union of the United States of America. The tiny url posted by Doug does not work or at least not in my Chrome or Internet Explorer browsers. When I Googled ‘Wake Forest Q&A primer on Separation of Church and State’ I discovered Dougindeap has been posting link since at least 2010. I can find no such document online from Wake Forest. Perhaps the closest thing I can find is a PDF document entitled, “Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law”. I found two links for this document: One by Wake Forest and another posted on the Anti-Defamation League website but both are the same document. Both documents are dated January 2010. The document is a collective work by a bunch of people that are on opposite sides of the Church/State Separation issues. The document is anything but definitive. The closest section talking about the First Amendment and Church Establishment is Chapter Two of the roughly 32 page document with End Notes longer if you include acknowledgements by Wake Forest’s (at least then) Director of Wake Forest University Divinity School and the Center for Religion and Public Affairs. The Chapter Two title is “Is the First Amendment the only constitutional or legal provision that affects these issues?

 

Chapter Two clearly expresses the First Amendment is functional as a Federal law in which there is a large degree of discretion on the State level of law in which the First Amendment does not address.

 

In connection to this PDF document (Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law), the “diverse” committee that truly consisted of representation of both sides of the political spectrum on Church/State issues was led by Melissa Rogers as the Director of Wake Forest University Divinity School’s Center for Religion and Public Affairs during the PDF document’s 2010 publication. Melissa Rogers is hardly neutral a person that looks equally on both sides of the coin on Church/State issues. Rogers is a downright and overt proponent of the revisionist Left Wingers choosing to exclude the merits of Original Intent of the Constitution in relation to the opinions of the Founders on how Christianity effects the general welfare of a good society. Even the Founding Fathers in James Madison (See also HERE) and Thomas Jefferson that were closer to the secularist Enlightenment discrediting of orthodox theology of Christianity agreed that Christian Morals and Values promoted a good society.

 

Dougindeap:

 

8. While some, including myself, grow tired of the semantic wrangling over the phrase commonly used to describe or name one of the Constitution’s fundamental principles, that principle—by whatever name—remains central and essential to the Constitution and our way of life.

           

JRH:

 

Doug says he is getting weary of wrangling that Separation of Church and State is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. I myself am frustrated about Leftists trying so hard to prevent the historical nature of Christianity of being such a huge influence on the development of our nation. It is my belief that the Leftist efforts at historical revisionism is to transform America into a society that abandons Christianity as a Moral Foundation. Then replace Christianity with a Secular Humanist perspective as a foundation for societal morality. Such a humanist morality places the created on a pedestal above the Creator. No matter how lofty the ideals of man being inherently good, actual history shows that man is inherently evil. That inherent evil exists in human nature because God’s first created human being – Adam – betrayed God the Creator by agreeing with the serpent Satan and partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why did Adam consume the fruit? Satan told Eve, who Adam did not rebuke, believed the serpent that the fruit would make her and Adam like God knowing the difference between good and evil. Adam’s act of disobedience of God voluntarily sold his nature to the dominion of Satan. Since Adam was made the perpetual steward of God’s created Earth. That meant the earth also came under Satan’s control. Adam’s disobedience led to the punishment of being separated from God which is spiritual death. Humanity and Earth became cursed to a Fallen nature explaining an inherent evil nature. The inherent evil nature of man will inevitably lead to unwholesome if not downright wicked choices in which selfish desires overrule the general welfare of humanity.

 

The good news for humanity God the Creator promised a way out for Adam choosing Satan’s lie as truth rather than God’s holy union.

 

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:

 

“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel
.” (Bold Emphasis Blog Editor – Genesis 3: 14-15 NKJV
)

 

Verse 15 is God’s first Promise of a Redeemer to bring humanity back into right standing with God Almighty. Then and only then will humanity not need laws of a government to curb the inclination of a Fallen human nature. Secular Humanism is wrong, humanity is not essentially good.

 

JRH 4/5/14

Please Support NCCR

The Truth about Separation of Church and State


1st Amendment

 

I have been several parts of a series entitled Disputing Separation Church/State (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). As of this writing I am up to Part Six and there is more to come. In doing the reading for these posts I came across a PDF designed as a brochure to dispute the Leftist influence that has move American Courts to stretch the interpretation of the First Amendment beyond the scope of its original intent. As I said I am still continuing my series on the subject; however below is an excellent to the point and relatively brief synopsis of reasons the present exploitation of the rule of law pertaining to the separation of Church and State is not a legal concept in the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/31/14

Please Support NCCR

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

The Truth about Separation of Church and State

Contrary to popular opinion, the term “separation of church and state” is found nowhere in the United States Constitution.

 

From PDF Brochure:

Alliance Defending Freedom

 

While the First Amendment clearly forbids the creation of a national denomination, it says nothing about the so-called “separation of church and state.”

 

§  The term “separation of church and state” was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801, when he responded to their concerns about state involvement in religion. Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting public religious expression, but dealt with government’s interference in the public expression of faith.

 

 

§  It was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who first inserted the term “separation of church and state” into American jurisprudence in his majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education (1947). He wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

 

 

§  Black’s opinion was based on a previous misreading of Jefferson’s 1801 letter in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States (1878). Black also confused his history. In the opinion, he wrote that the Danbury letter was “almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment.”

 

 

§  The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” No mention is made of a “wall between church and state.”

 

 

§  The true purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing a national church, like the Church of England, or require that sectarian policy be forced on an individual state or on the federal government. While the amendment does recognize a “differentiation between church and the government, it does not mean that they could not cooperate with each other.”

 

 

§  In 2001, Daniel Dreisbach, Associate Professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University, wrote that Black was wrong to apply the term “separation of church and state” to the First Amendment. The danger of Black’s argument, according to Dreisbach, is that it gives constitutional reasons to “separate religion, religious values, and religious organizations from public life.” He continues: “If we can’t talk about religion in any meaningful way in public schools, religious citizens can’t communicate their faith in public life. [The public square] must be ‘sanitized’ of religious messages, and we are left with a strictly secular public life.”

 

 

§  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allies, along with other groups hostile to religious freedom, have used Black’s wording to:

 

o   Deny churches the right to rent public school facilities for Sunday worship services.

 

o   Have public displays of the Ten Commandments removed from public buildings.

 

o   Prohibit students from praying at graduation ceremonies or football games.

 

o   Threaten fixed income housing project residents with eviction for displaying signs about prayer in their apartment windows.

 

o   Tell an eight-year-old girl that she cannot pass out handmade Valentines that read “Jesus Loves You.”

 

o   Tell pastors that they do not have the right to speak freely from their pulpits applying Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections.

 

 

§  In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in ruling in favor of a public display of the Ten Commandments, wrote: “The ACLU’s argument contains…fundamental flaws… [It] makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

 

 

For almost four decades, the ACLU’s distortion of the “separation of church and state” went nearly unchallenged. Since 1994, Alliance Defending Freedom has taken the ACLU and its allies head-on to expose this distortion and restore the original intent of U.S. Constitution with regard to religious freedom. Since its inception, Alliance Defending Freedom has helped to win many groundbreaking cases in defense of religious freedom and expression. The result is that the so-called “wall of separation,” erected by Hugo Black and others, is slowly starting to crumble. With your prayers and support, Alliance Defending Freedom will continue to tear down the “wall of separation.”

_______________________________

About – ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: FOR FAITH. FOR JUSTICE.

 

Alliance Defending Freedom is a servant ministry building an alliance to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.

 

Recognizing the need for a strong, coordinated legal defense against growing attacks on religious freedom, more than 30 prominent Christian leaders launched Alliance Defending Freedom in 1994. Over the past 18 years, this unique legal ministry has brought together thousands of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations that work tirelessly to advocate for the right of people to freely live out their faith in America and around the world.

 

Building an Alliance for Victory

 

Unlike any other legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to empower its allies and READ THE REST

Be Warned about Muslim Immigration to the USA


Warning - Enter Sharia Controlled Zone

Intro to Ray Lanfear on Muslim Immigration

Editor: John R. Houk

March 31, 2014

 

Ray Lanfear posted a comment to a post I shared on the No Sharia 4 America Facebook group. Mr. Lanfear’s comment had little directly to do with the post “Islamic Jihad and the Doctrine of Abrogation” in which I wrote a bit of an introduction to an essay by Raymond Ibrahim. Mr. Lanfear writes directly about the danger of Islam gaining the same dangerous political clout in America it has in Europe due to near unrestricted immigration. I have waited unintentionally some time to cross post this comment. I wanted to do a just editing job (believe me, not that I am an expert editor) to prepare the comment for my blogs.

 

In the essay Mr. Lanfear encourages his readers to Google “theprojectmuslimbrotherhood” which I did just as he had written in his comment. I discovered that Mr. Lanfear has a WordPress blog which he tagged also as it is written in the comment. As of this date his blog (titled simply – raylanfear) tag for “theprojectmuslimbrotherhood” has two posts. One on 12/3/13 entitled, “America’s Families and Generations Beyond Tomorrow” and the more recent one on 3/17/14 entitled, “21st Century Issue Of Silence Today and Beyond Tomorrow”. The 3/17/14 post is nearly word-for-word to the March 7 comment he made at the No Sharia 4 America group.

 

So this is what I encourage you to do. First of all do the Google work to search for “theprojectmuslimbrotherhood.” If you are not familiar with the term I suspect you will be shocked about what the Mainstream Media fails horribly in not alerting you.  Then read Ray Lanfear’s 12/3/13 post and then read his 3/17/14 blog post to check up on my editing and to see some of bold emphasis on the blog. I am not cross posting his blog, rather I am cross posting an edited version of his comment. No matter what you do be alerted that there is a radical Islamic agenda mapped out against America. AND be alerted that the so-called Moderate Muslims do very little to denounce the radical Islamic agenda.

 

(BTW – the title used hear is an arbitrary one I am using based on the content of the No Sharia 4 America comment.)

 

JRH 3/31/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Be Warned about Muslim Immigration to the USA

 

By Ray Lanfear

March 7, 2014 3:25pm

Posted on: No Sharia 4 America

 

It’s time to be concerned America. Enough is enough. This is the main issue of the 21st Century. Over 500,000+ Muslim refugees mainly from Somalia under the refugee immigrant resettlement program are being relocated throughout America. Did you vote for that? No one voted for this!

 

Awareness is the issue folks, put the word out. Most families are simply far too busy just trying to survive, working two jobs, raising their children and do not have a clue what is taking place. Our mainstream news will not inform you due to political correctness. I have done the research for you. First, Google “theprojectmuslimbrotherhood” this is the doctrine to destroy America from within, and guess what they are succeeding.

 

One only has to look at England, Belgium, France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of Europe to understand the immigration issue. It is sad, what Paris has become, have you been there lately?

 

Multiculturalism is literally destroying Europe. There are now over 700 “Islamic no go Muslim Zones” within England, France and Germany. Islam is a political ideology; it is the antithesis of a free society. We are now approaching over 2400 mosques in America, along with 2.7 million Muslims here in the USA. The Mosques can be used for converting homegrown terrorists, as is the case in the Boston Marathon bombing. That number is supposed to double in the next decade.

 

Take a look at Dearborn, Michigan (they now have Muslim zones, where the police are afraid to enter. The Muslim immigration and mosques continue with Maine, Tennessee, Minnesota, New York, Indiana, S. Dakota, California and Colorado taking in most of the immigrants so far, your state could be next.

 

I have no issue with the peaceful Muslim that wants to integrate into our culture and follow our laws. The problem lies in that they want to dominate and force Islam and Sharia law upon us all. Why should America be forced into adapting to their culture? This is our America; we should not have to change one iota to accommodate them.

 

When good men and woman are quiet, evil always wins”. Forget about being labeled a racist, bigot or being politically correct. The time has come to speak up and take a stand. Again for the facts and truth just Google “theprojectmuslimbrotherhood,” it is a real eye opener.

 

They are making inroads into our schools, universities, cities and towns and even our own government. They want Sharia law and even our textbooks changed to put a more favorable light on Islam. When Jews, Christians, Priests, Infidels are being murdered and Churches are being burned down. Recently 59 students locked up in a school room, the building was set fire allowing no one to escape and anyone trying to escape was slaughtered by Islamic militants. Where is the condemnation from the nearly 3 million Muslims that are here? For the majority of them, there is total silence and none condemn the atrocities that continue to go on in Europe. That alone speaks volumes on their real intent.

 

Europe is losing the battle all ready and America will be next. What you do today will affect your children and grandchildren and future generations of Americans yet unborn. Stand up and be counted to defeat this real threat upon America. Voice your opinion, let your congressmen, senators, and school boards know how you feel on the issue. Forget about being labeled and do what is right for America. We need a permanent solution, time is running out. Let us not become the next Europe. Do it for your children and grandchildren’s future folks. As for me I refuse to be silent on the issue. Thank you and please comment with your viewpoint.

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

© Ray Lanfear

 

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 6


1st Continental Congress Prayer

By John R. Houk

© March 30, 2014

 

I began this post as a short introduction to Dougindeap’s comment on the post “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 2” left on my NCCR blog. However as I kept going and going (sorry about the length) I realized I just had to simply add this to the already part’s I had begun which prior to this post had reached Part Five. The way I handled this current post is by responding to Dougindeap’s Part Two comment in stages. If you wish to read Dougindeap’s Part Two comment before commencing my thoughts simply scroll down to the end of these thoughts where it is in entirety.

 

Dougindeap there is a context to the quotes. I sense that you cannot accept the context; which is the Founding Fathers’ belief in Christian Morality. There is only a controversy to the Founding Fathers’ stand on Christian Morality in Left Wing historical revisionism in the lack of understanding to the Christian gravitation toward American Deism. Many if not most of the Founding Fathers embraced a Christian Deism in varying degrees, but those degrees for the majority was the nearly universal context of Nature’s God – the Creator of Nature – being the Judeo-Context of God pertaining to a moral society. The few Deists that embraced the extreme deism from the evolution of the French Revolution was very low in rejecting morality as derived by Christianity. The great American Pamphleteer in Thomas Paine is an example of this small minority of American Deists that placed more stock in the goodness of man over the Biblical Truth of humanity’s Fallen Nature.

 

Dougindeap says,

 

In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. (Thus, whether you offer one or one hundred quotations of the sort you have presented, matters not one wit.) Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted in earlier comments.

 

The Founding Fathers’ religious beliefs in Christian Morality were viewed as necessary to prevent those in government from morally degenerating. Thus preventing the government from corrupting was and is the point for Christian people to step into positions to keep government good. Without goodness in government society becomes morally bankrupt which lends to worse government and eventually the very elitist despotism that led the American Founders to rebel against British Crown rule. Indeed the Constitution kept the government out of religion with a secular government, BUT the Founders expected Christian Morality to be the measuring stick that kept government good.

 

Dougindeap your comment implies the word “blessing” had many meanings beyond what a Christian would consider a blessing derived from the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s Diction. So I looked it up:

 

BLESS’ING, ppr. Making happy; wishing happiness to; praising or extolling; consecrating by prayer.

BLESS’ING,n. Benediction; a wish of happiness pronounced; a prayer imploring happiness upon another.

1. A solemn prophetic benediction, in which happiness is desired, invoked or foretold.
This is the blessing wherewith Moses–blessed the children of Israel. Deu 33.

2. Any means of happiness; a gift, benefit or advantage; that which promotes temporal prosperity and welfare, or secures immortal felicity. A just and pious magistrate is a public blessing. The divine favor is the greatest blessing.

3. Among the Jews, a present; a gift; either because it was attended with kind wishes for the welfare of the giver, or because it was the means of increasing happiness.

Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee. Gen 33. (Webster’s 1828 English DictionaryBlessings; http://sorabji.com/1828/. [Noah Webster’s1828 American Dictionary of the English Language is regarded by many as the finest English dictionary ever published. The dictionary is available in many forms.])

 

Dougindeap you have to explain to me what in this definition is weighted to a non-religious meaning.

 

Dougindeap says,

 

The Constitution’s establishment of a secular government is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. (Bold Emphasis Blog Editor)

 

As I pointed out the bold print above is or at least was true in one direction; i.e. keeping government out of religion, but not the other direction of keeping religion out of government. This is a truer statement: Secular in government and religious in moral foundation of government. And when the Founding Fathers would say “religious” or “religion” they were speaking of Christianity and NOT Secular Humanism. AGAIN, this is the context of the Founding Father quotes AND this makes those quotes extremely relevant.

 

Dougindeap uses selective Left Wing historical revisionism in using the most Christian of the Founding Fathers in John Adams and the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli between the USA and the Barbary Pirates. You can find a concise evaluation of the Treaty of Tripoli at Ministers-Best-Friend.com. You should read that entire evaluation; however after the Dougindeap quote from his comment I am offering an excerpt to get the truth out there about Left Wing revision history.

 

Dougindeap says,

 

Lest there be any doubt on this score, note that shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” No need to resort to reading tea leaves to understand that. This is not an informal comment by an individual founder, but rather an official declaration of the most solemn sort by the United States government itself. Note that the Constitution provides that treaties, apart from the Constitution itself, are the highest law of the land.

 

Ministers-Best-Friend.com’s excerpt:

 

 

INTRO: In this Law Commentary we seek set the record straight about the paragraph quoted from Article 11 – assumeded (sic) – of the Treaty of Tripoli ratified by Congress on June 10, 1797during President John Adams’ administration. If there is one thing about the Treaty of Tripoli which anti-Christians cannot escape, it is the fact that no matter how you cut it, the supposed “non Christian section” (Article 11) of that treaty cannot be validated.

 

Wanting to disprove America’s Christian heritage, the Treaty of Tripoli cannot logically or historically be referenced as any “evidence” against the USA as a Christian nation whatsoever. The current modern Treaty of Tripoli so prevalent on the internet and many books and booklets, is totally fraud, a deliberate document of deceit, absolutely false, a complete forgery, and …

 

 

Furthermore, that one of only few presidents to ever be accused of atheism in a Presidential campaign – President Thomas Jefferson (holding “unusual Christian beliefs by any account”) that he led this effort to correct the forged document that made it “seem” the USA was not founded upon Christianity, is all the more compelling when carefully considered.

 

 

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, and James Monroe, all worked to correct the “forged and fraudulent” Treaty of Tripoli floating in the Arabic world at that time.

 

Nevertheless, because this topic arises so often among people who have never actually studied the subject matter in the first place, an expose’ of the facts surrounding that treaty is long overdue. Let the record speak for itself.

 

The section in question, Article 11 of that treaty reads as follows:

 

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” [Note: “Musselmen” means Muslim]

 

(source): Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America , Hunter Miller, Documents 1-40 :1776-1818 Washington : Government Printing Office, 1931. – Treaty of Tripoli

 

 

Short version of explaining the misunderstanding about the “Treaty of Tripoli”

1) There is no original Treaty of Tripoli in existence anywhere and there hasn’t been for well over 200 years.

 

2) The U.S. ratified Treaty of Tripoli cited today as “the original” was an English version copy of an Arabic version copy of the Arabic original (now missing).

 

3) There is NO Article 11 in the Arabic version of that treaty, experts now agree that Article 11 was spuriously inserted into the English copy, and most probably by the America diplomat Joel Barlow, who helped negotiate the treaty and who was himself a skeptic of Christianity.

 

4) When the tampered English translation version was presented to Congress for ratification in 1797, in spite of Article 11 inserted and included, they had to pass the treaty anyway out of political expedience and immediate urgency to quickly stop the carnage of militant pirate attacks upon American merchant ships in the Mediterranean Sea. Because of the situation at hand, there would be no time tore-draft such a treaty and run it through the diplomatic channels again.

 

5) Eight years later when America gained a military upper hand on the situation, this Treaty was renegotiated in 1805-6, and the “non-Christian” Article 11 phrase was conspicuously removed and absent!

 

6) Those who attempt to use the Treaty of Tripoli as so called evidence proposing that this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, typically ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which formally ended the Revolutionary War.

 

This Treaty, negotiated by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for America, because by this treaty Britain recognized the independence of the United States as a nation. The Treaty of Paris of 1783 begins with the words, “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity… It having pleased the Divine Providence” *

 

No qualified historian or explanatory references of any Congressional records have ever questioned, in the least, the validity of those revealing words of that treaty, as they do concerning the falsified Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. *(Treaty of Paris, 1783; International Treaties and Related Records, 1778-1974; General records of the United States Government, Record group 11; National Archives)

 

7) The Treaty of Tripoli argument used against Christian America on the part of secular humanists (their “strongest” isolated claim that America was not established upon Christianity) is one based on a shallow examination of a the document. Its claimed “non-Christian part” is readily admitted by non-biased experts to have either been fraudulent or some entry that is unaccounted for. By any standard, the argument lacks credibility due to its obviously spurious nature.

 

 

Joel Barlow was a known Christian critic, and it was Barlow who translated the original treaty from Arabic into English, which is the version that President John Adams and the US Congress ratified.

 

It is no surprise then, from the definitive study on the Treaty of Tripoli in the Hunter Miller Notes, Government Printing Office 1931 under “NOTE REGARDING THE BARLOW TRANSLATION”, that we read:

 

“As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all.

 

There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.

 

How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”

 

4

 

It’s interesting to see that the controversial “Article 11” was in some form of ascribbled (sic) letter.

 

If Barlow didn’t outright insert it himself, a likely explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty face to alleviate any worry of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an “infidel” (non-Islamic) nation like the United States.

 

The translator assumed this was part of the Treaty and translated it along with the rest of the document. More than likely the clauses of the original document (missing forever) were not numbered, so the translator would have numbered this as Clause 11 between Clauses 10 and 12, as he progressed in trying to organize it.

 

Concerning the true original text of the Treaty, it is documented that none now exists: “— (T)he first source of the texts of those collections was clearly a now missing copy, as is shown by the fact that they include a certification of the text as a copy – “The 1930 Annotation in 2ND Part Treaty with Tripoli 1796: Hunter Miller’s Notes, U.S. Govt .Printing Office

 

So the truth is that the original treaty was written in Arabic and presented to the Barbary Muslim nations in that manner, yet the Arabic treaty has no strange Article 11 in READ ENTIRETY (Blog Editor: Yes this is an excerpt and still there is much more. Read the entire post for the full benefit.)

 

The excerpt is lengthy but is very important for my fellow Conservatives to know that the Left Wing history revisionists are either misinformed or deliberately misleading people on John Adams claiming the USA is in no way founded on Christianity.

 

Dougindeap says,

 

It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

 

When the U.S. Constitution became the Law of the Land in 1789, the First Amendment (1791) and Church-State Establishment was interpreted to be reserved for each individual State which the Federal government would stay aloof but by NO MEANS mandated disestablishment of any of the State Constitutions that specified a State Church.

 

Nor did disestablishment come about as a consequence of the 1787 Constitution 217 or because of the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791. Nor was disestablishment spurred forward as a downstream consequence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Rather, disestablishment was a state-law affair that had already been percolating in some states when they first adopted constitutions in 1776 and which continued on until completed in 1833. Each state that once had an established church has a unique story to tell on its path to the adoption of religious voluntaryism.

 

… As to the First Amendment, it was well understood at the time of its ratification that the religion clauses (indeed the entire Bill of Rights) were adopted out of a felt need to restrain the new national government. 219 Thus the Establishment Clause, by its terms and its design, was to preserve—as a matter of residual state sovereignty—full authority in the states concerning how the law was to deal in any frontal way with the thorny matter of religion. 220 Indeed, it is not too strong to say that during the early republic, the First Amendment was of little use as a standard around which to rally the forces in support of disestablishment. 221 Rather, disestablishment was a state-by-state affair, and hard work at that. It was a veritable slog with the path forward marked by local concerns and local personalities, as opposed to an issue that some continental-spanning crisis had elevated to a matter of national importance. 222 (Dissent and Disestablishment: The Church-State Settlement in the Early American Republic; By Carl H. Esbeck; BYU Law Review; 11/1/04; Pg. 1449, 1450)

 

This historical fact pointed out by Esbeck further demonstrates that Christian Morality was the measuring stick for government. The First Amendment simply delegated the specifics to the several sovereign States of the early American Republic. The only guarantee was that the Federal government would make no law interfering or establishing a Christian Church on the Federal level.

 

Dougindeap’s point about a disestablishmentarian movement is correct but not because Americans were demanding secularism to overrule Christian Morality that was still considered the bedrock of good government. Rather the disestablishmentarianism movement proceeded because the Second Great Awakening (See Also HERE) spurred the growth of Protestant Denominations that essentially eclipsed and/or challenged the two most influential Denominations prior to the Second Great Awakening. The two mainstay Denominations were the Episcopal Church (formerly Anglican prior to the Revolutionary War) and Congregational Church. The Second Great Awakening spurred the Methodist Church and the Baptist Church to surpass the former majority Denominations in membership. AND THIS is what spurred disestablishmentarianism in the USA. Individual faith became more important than State institutionalized Established Churches which were typically either Episcopalian (the most preeminent) or Congregationalist. This was not a lack of interest of Christianity in government but rather a greater interest in individual Denomination members doing their part to promote good Christian men for Public Office. Of course this meant that prayer still occurred in schools supported by taxes. This meant the continued use of Public Institutions to give honor to God Almighty in the demonstration of Christian affirmation on Court Buildings, Public Buildings, City Buildings and so on to promote the general welfare of the blessings of the Christian God upon American citizens and government.

 

The American religious impulse had become popularistic, personalistic, and democratic. 241 The work of the faith was less focused on the institutional church and more on each individual; lesser attention was given to correct doctrine while greater emphasis was placed on practical living. 242

 

 

If a religious establishment is measured by the legal authority to assess taxes for church support, then disestablishment occurred in the remaining states in the following order: North Carolina (1776), New York (1777), Virginia (1776−1779), Maryland (1785), South Carolina (1790), Georgia (1798), Vermont (1807), Connecticut (1818), New Hampshire (1819), Maine (1820), and Massachusetts (1832−1833). Disestablishment in Virginia, 245 and to a lesser degree its occurrence in Connecticut and Massachusetts, has been written on extensively. (Ibid. pp. 1456, 1458)

 

Dougindeap finishes his comment on an Alex de Tocqueville quote observing that Americans had declared to him “…that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state.” The de Tocqueville quote continues: “…I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.”

 

Frankly I suspect Dougindeap was setting me up for an oft used quote attributed to de Tocqueville in the seminal work “Democracy in America,” but in which scholars have discovered is not actually in the de Tocqueville book:

 

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Found on a webpage that has a series of de Tocqueville quotes melded together as if they were written as one thought promoting Christianity as America’s foundation – http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/detocq.html)

 

The America is great because America is good quote has been used so much it has become a lexicon adage about America attributed to de Tocqueville. Prominent politicians and American leaders including a couple of U.S. Presidents have repeated the adage. Sadly the phrase is not found in “Democracy in America”.

 

John J. Pitney, Jr. wrote about the spurious quote:

 

… Nowhere do they appear in Democracy in America, or anywhere else in Tocqueville.

 

The authenticity of the passage came into question when first-year government students at Claremont McKenna College received an assignment: Find a contemporary speech quoting Tocqueville, and determine how accurately the speaker used the quotation. A student soon uncovered a recent Senate floor speech that cited the “America is great” line. He scoured Democracy in America, but could not find the passage. The professor looked, too – and it was not there.

 

Further research led to reference books that cautiously referred to the quotation as “unverified” and “attributed to de Tocqueville but not found in his works.” These references, in turn, pointed to the apparent source: a 1941 book on religion and the American dream. The book quoted the last two lines of the passage as coming from Democracy in America but supplied no documentation. (The author may have mistaken his own notes for a verbatim quotation, a common problem in the days before photocopiers.) The full version of the quotation appeared 11 years later, in an Eisenhower campaign speech. Ike, however, attributed it not directly to Tocqueville but to “a wise philosopher [who] came to this country ….”

 

 

It’s a shame that politicians are using a knockoff product when the real thing is so fine. Democracy in America offers profound analyses of the roles of religion, morality, and voluntary action, though its insights are subtler than the purple prose of the counterfeit.

 

 

Of course, after decades of repetition, it has in fact become an old adage. It just isn’t Tocqueville’s. (THE TOCQUEVILLE FRAUD; John J. Pitney, Jr.; The Weekly Standard; article found at Tocqueville.org; 11/13/1995)

 

So de Tocqueville’s legend did not actually pen, “America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” Nonetheless it does not make it any less true!

 

Here are some actual quotes that can be found in de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”. These quotes show the observation that Church/State separation only flows in one direction, viz. government separated from Christianity but not Christianity being separated from government (not necessarily in order):

 

“Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search the human heart? but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation, and to every rank of society.”

 

***

 

“… Society has no future life to hope for or to fear; and provided the citizens profess a religion, the peculiar tenets of that religion are of very little importance to its interests. Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.

 

It may be believed without unfairness that a certain number of Americans pursue a peculiar form of worship, from habit more than from conviction. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.”

 

***

 

“… Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man, and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of the intelligence. Contented with the freedom and the power which it enjoys in its own sphere, and with the place which it occupies, the empire of religion is never more surely established than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught beside its native strength. Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom.”

 

***

 

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.

 

I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send out ministers of the Gospel into the new Western States to found schools and churches there, lest religion should be suffered to die away in those remote settlements, and the rising States be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people from which they emanated. I met with wealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were born in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on the banks of the Missouri, or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus religious zeal is perpetually stimulated in the United States by the duties of patriotism. These men do not act from an exclusive consideration of the promises of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause; and if you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to find how much value they set upon the goods of this world, and that you meet with a politician where you expected to find a priest. They will tell you that “all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is, therefore, our interest that the new States should be religious, in order to maintain our liberties.”

 

***

 

Contented with the freedom and the power which it enjoys in its own sphere, and with the place which it occupies, the empire of religion is never more surely established than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught beside its native strength. Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom.

 

It is clear from these quotes that the Frenchman de Tocqueville admired that government did not interfere in the realm of religion/Christianity, but he also observed that Christianity so embedded in the American did indeed fortify America and that this indeed made America good. Even though did not say it would be a great analytical summation to say of de Tocqueville observations, “America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

 

JRH 3/30/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Dougindeap Comment to: Disputing Separation Church/State Part 2

(NCCR)

 

By Dougindeap

March 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM

 

You offer a string of contextless quotations with the evident aim of showing the religious views of various founders–as if that is the way history is understood or the Constitution is interpreted. Hardly.

 

While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another and held views such as you note regarding religion. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. (Thus, whether you offer one or one hundred quotations of the sort you have presented, matters not one wit.) Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted in earlier comments. Indeed, that aspect of the Constitution was noticed and discussed in the debates about its ratification, since some were disappointed the Constitution did not acknowledge a deity. Imagine their surprise at all you would now make of the Constitution’s allusion to the “blessings of liberty.” Suffice it to say that the term “blessing” has religious and non-religious meanings and usages. See Webster’s Dictionary (1828).

 

The Constitution’s establishment of a secular government is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

 

Lest there be any doubt on this score, note that shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” No need to resort to reading tea leaves to understand that. This is not an informal comment by an individual founder, but rather an official declaration of the most solemn sort by the United States government itself. Note that the Constitution provides that treaties, apart from the Constitution itself, are the highest law of the land.

 

It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

 

This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment:

 

“On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

 

____________________________________

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 6

By John R. Houk

© March 30, 2014

_____________________________________

Dougindeap Comment to: Disputing Separation Church/State Part 2

 

Edited by John R. Houk

© Dougindeap