To Article V or not to Article V


US Map- Reagan on Convention of States

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2016

 

Article V

 

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

 

When an Originalist talks about preserving the U.S. Constitution from the Leftist ideology of a “Living Constitution” you will rarely hear the subject of an Article V States originated Constitutional Convention. The reason for that is the interpretation of the parameters of an Article V Convention are a matter of controversial disagreement between the pros and the cons.

 

The pros from my perspective: Politics are too polarized for Congress to propose Amendments that shore up more completely the Rights of the Bill of Rights Amendments. Thus litigation and an Activist Court primarily of the Living Constitution interpretation has diluted what I believe is the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers’ vision for a limited Constitutional Republic. Such political gridlock thus can only be effective with a States called Constitutional Convention circumventing Leftist ideology and Special Interests money.

 

The cons as I understand them: There is a huge concern that a Constitutional Convention would rewrite a new Constitution rather than specific Amendments to the current Constitution that will eradicate America’s foundations that have made America an exceptional and great nation. Part of that concern is that Special Interest groups will vie for Left Wing change and Right Wing preservation or too far to the Right change that will still transform the American political process that will still be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers’ original vision.

 

Now that Justice Antonin Scalia has died under what I consider to be mysterious circumstances, Obama’s seven years of Executive Order abuse that legislative processes have failed to challenge in a Constitutional manner and the Dems demonstrating a propensity to fix the election process to allow an obvious crooked politician as Hillary Clinton to win the Dem nomination via Superdelegates; it is my humble opinion that the only shot to save America as a Christian influenced nation under a limited government is by a Constitutional Convention. Otherwise, another bloody civil war is in America’s future between America’s Conservatives who wish to preserve the Founding Fathers’ vision with Christian morality as the foundation for the government standard AND Liberals-Leftists-Progressives who believe the eradication of Christian influences in favor a Living Constitution social and political transformation. The Leftist vision will lead to Big Brother top-to-bottom management of the lives of Americans.

 

The inspiration for these thoughts are based on an email I received from the Oklahoma State version of the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise (NCFE) called the Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise (OCFE). The OCFE email I received is definitely against an Article 5 Constitutional Convention fearing some of the “cons” I wrote above. I am cross posting the email below so you can take an honest look. But first let’s look at a cross post from the Convention of States website.

 

JRH 2/19/16

Please Support NCCR

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

THE CASE FOR A CONVENTION OF STATES

 

  1. The Problem

 

VIDEO: The Convention of States Project is Here!

 

Posted by Convention of States Project

Published on Oct 11, 2013

 

Michael Farris, head of the Convention of States Project, explains why the federal government is broken and how a Convention of States can fix it.

 

http://www.conventionofstates.com

 

We see four major abuses perpetrated by the federal government.

 

These abuses are not mere instances of bad policy. They are driving us towards an age of “soft tyranny” in which the government does not shatter men’s wills but “softens, bends, and guides” them. If we do nothing to halt these abuses, we run the risk of becoming nothing more than “a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1840)

 

  1. The Spending and Debt Crisis

 

The $17 trillion national debt is staggering, but it only tells a part of the story. Under standard accounting practices, the federal government owes around $100 trillion more in vested Social Security benefits and other programs. This is why the government cannot tax its way out of debt. Even if it confiscated everything, it would not cover the debt.

 

  1. The Regulatory Crisis

 

The federal bureaucracy has placed a regulatory burden upon businesses that is complex, conflicted, and crushing. Little accountability exists when agencies—rather than Congress—enact the real substance of the law. Research from the American Enterprise Institute shows that since 1949, federal regulations have lowered the real GDP growth by 2% and made America 72% poorer.

 

  1. Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

 

For years, Congress has been using federal grants to keep the states under its control. Combining these grants with federal mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than respecting them as truly independent republican governments.

 

A radical social agenda and an invasion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While significant efforts have been made to combat this social erosion, these trends defy some of the most important principles.

 

  1. Federal Takeover of the Decision-Making Process

 

The Founders believed that the structures of a limited government would provide the greatest protection of liberty. Not only were there to be checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, power was to be shared between the states and federal government, with the latter only exercising those powers specifically granted in the Constitution.

 

Collusion among decision-makers in Washington, D.C., has replaced these checks and balances. The federal judiciary supports Congress and the White House in their ever-escalating attack upon the jurisdiction of the fifty states.

 

We need to realize that the structure of decision-making matters. Who decides what the law shall be is as important as what is decided. The protection of liberty requires a strict adherence to the principle that power is limited and delegated.

 

Washington, D.C., does not believe this principle, as evidenced by an unbroken practice of expanding the boundaries of federal power. In a remarkably frank admission, the Supreme Court rebuffed a challenge to the federal spending power despite acknowledging that power had grown far beyond the bounds envisioned by the Founders:

 

This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government’s role.  –New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).

What Does this Mean?

 

This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power—no matter who is elected. The only rational conclusion is this: unless some political force outside of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people. Rather than securing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington, D.C., is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchildren to the debts of the past.

 

The problem is big, but we have a solution.  Article V gives us a tool to fix the mess in D.C.

 

II. The Solution

We are approaching a crossroads.

 

One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to the restoration of liberty and an American renaissance.

 

The correct path can be found within Article V of the United States Constitution.

 

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

 

Watch the video below, created by our Convention of States team in Alabama, for an excellent overview of the Article V process.

 

VIDEO: Convention of States – Alabama

 

Posted by Convention of States Project

Published on Dec 31, 2013

 

Check out this awesome video from our COS team in Alabama! If you live in Alabama, check out their Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/COSProjectAL

 

Written by Amanda Read (www.amandaread.com)

Produced by Matthew Perdie (www.perdie.com)

 

Like Article V says, there are two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution.

 

  1. Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution at any time if 2/3 of both houses of Congress agree.

 

  1. A Convention of States can propose amendments if 2/3 of states submit applications for such a convention. These applications must all deal with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government).

The Founders knew the federal government might one day become drunk with the abuses of power. The most important check to this power is Article V. Article V gives states the power to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.

 

By calling a convention of the states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use.

 

After the states propose, debate, and vote upon the proposed amendments, they will be sent to the 50 states for ratification. Three-quarters of the states must agree for any of the proposed amendments to be ratified.

 

Congress has no authority to stop such a process. The Founders made sure of that.

 

We are approaching a crossroads.

 

Which path will we choose?

 

III. The Strategy

Two goals separate our plan from all other Article V organizations:

 

  1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

 

  1. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state’s legislative districts. We believe this is very doable. But only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed.
Our Solution is Big Enough to Solve the Problem

 

Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.

 

A convention of states needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.

What Sorts of Amendments Could be Passed?

 

The following are examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a convention of states:

 

  • A balanced budget amendment

 

  • A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)

 

  • A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)

 

  • A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States

 

  • A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)

 

  • Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court

 

  • Placing an upper limit on federal taxation

 

  • Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

 

Of course, these are merely examples of what would be up for discussion. The convention of states itself would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments.

 

The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal government. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution.

The Grassroots

 

The leadership of the COS Project believes the success of a convention of states depends to a large extent on the American citizens. Our plan is as follows:

 

  1. We seek to have a viable political operation that is active in a minimum of 40 states.

 

  1. Our goal is to have local leaders–District Captains–in at least 75% of the districts in these states.

 

  1. District captains will organize at least 100 people in each of these districts to contact their legislator to support a convention of the states, and turn out at least 25 people per district at legislative hearings.

 

Legislators must know that our grassroots team will have their backs if they support a convention of the states. A widespread grassroots organization has been missing from the Article V movement. CSG’s President, Mark Meckler, was the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots—one of the largest tea party groups in the country. Michael Farris is the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. As such, he brings with him over 30 years of grassroots leadership and activism in all 50 states. We are rapidly building both a staff and a network of like-minded coalition members who will support this project once they see it up and running.

 

We believe that our unique application strategy combined with strong grassroots support will guarantee the success of this Project.

 

Only one question remains. Will you help us?

 

+++

Stop the MADNESS in Oklahoma

02/16/2016 04:09:51 GMT

Email Sent by: Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise

 

Dear Concerned American,

 

Several bills calling for a dangerous Article V Convention could soon come up for debate in the Oklahoma Legislature.

 

These bills put the Constitution at extreme risk and I need your help to stop them.

 

Some well-meaning Article V supporters think calling a constitutional convention will help create new “limits” on the federal government.

 

And many believe a constitutional convention can be limited to certain types or categories of changes.

 

But that simply is not true. Article V itself does not back up any assertions that a convention can be limited — and noted constitutional scholars agree.

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills.

 

Did you know the various special interest groups pushing different Article V Convention measures have formed a coalition?

 

All of these special interest groups claim to be working toward a convention limited to their own issue, yet they are working together behind the scenes.

 

Groups like Convention of States — who claim to want a convention to limit the federal government — are working with groups like Wolf PAC — who want to limit YOU.

 

Lawrence Lessig — a friend to Wolf PAC and former advisor to the Obama campaign — is also on the list of people pushing hard for an Article V Convention.

 

Lawrence Lessig advocates for legislation forcing you to fund the campaigns of candidates you don’t support by making campaign financing a mandatory, taxpayer obligation.

 

Like Wolf PAC, he wants a constitutional convention to pass an amendment that would limit your political speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

 

The Congressional Research Service quoted Lawrence Lessig in a recent report on Article V:

 

“The beauty of a convention is that it would provide a forum of possibility for conservative Tea Party types… as well as progressives.

 

The only requirement is that two-thirds of the states apply, and then begins the drama of an unscripted national convention to debate questions of fundamental law. It would be a grand circus of democracy at its best.”

 

A “grand circus” indeed!

 

Concerned American, it’s critically important you take action to stop this train wreck before it’s too late.

 

Call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then be sure to forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

Elected governments at all levels are trampling on your rights every day and it’s up to you and me to stop them.

 

But an Article V Convention would only add fuel to the fire.

 

As pointed out above — a convention CANNOT be limited, so proposals from the likes of Lawrence Lessig would be fair game.

 

And once everything is said and done, every existing amendment could be utterly dismantled.

 

Even if “conservatives” managed to propose an idea or two, it would be open season on the Constitution — nothing would be off-limits.

 

And what “conservative” victory could possibly justify new restrictions on your First or Second Amendment rights?

 

You’d think with views like Lessig’s, conservatives wouldn’t even be caught in the same room with him.

 

But he’s spoken at multiple conferences alongside conservative “leaders” in the movement — all promoting an Article V Convention.

 

These “conservatives” are working with liberals like Lessig, who want to use an Article V Convention to restrict your rights, yet they claim there is no reason for you to oppose a convention!

 

Literally hundreds of progressive organizations, such as Sierra Club, Code Pink, Alliance for Progressive Values, MoveOn, and “Occupy,” have been pushing for a convention since 2009.

 

Do you trust THEM to fall in line and rein in the government?

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

Some argue if a convention results in proposals to gut our Constitution, it would still take 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify.

 

We can’t even get 1/4 of the states to stand against Common Core.

 

Politicians involved in the convention process will be working double time behind the scenes to ensure their pet amendments get ratified.

 

And there’s no predetermined time limit for the states to ratify amendments unless the U.S. Congress proposes one, so politicians could have an untold number of legislative sessions to work toward their goal.

 

Don’t fall for it. Those holding power will stop at nothing to get what they want.

 

These bills simply MUST be stopped; please take action right away!

 

For Freedom,

 

Theodore A. Patterson

Executive Director

Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise

 

P.S. Several bills calling for a dangerous Article V Convention could soon come up for debate in the Oklahoma Legislature. These bills put the Constitution at extreme risk.

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

And after you call your state legislators, please help us mobilize a rapid defense against these bills by chipping in an emergency donation of $10 or $25 right away.

 

__________________

To Article V or not to Article V

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2016

________________

THE CASE FOR A CONVENTION OF STATES

 

National Leadership

 

Michael P. Farris

 

Citizens for Self-GovernanceSenior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, head of Convention of the States Project

 

Michael Farris is the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was the founding president of each organization. During his career as a constitutional appellate litigator, he has served as lead counsel in the United States Supreme Court, eight federal circuit courts, and the appellate courts of thirteen states.

 

Farris has been a leader on Capitol Hill for over thirty years and is widely respected for his leadership in the defense of homeschooling, religious freedom, and the preservation of American sovereignty. A prolific author, Farris has been recognized with numerous awards, including the Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship by the Heritage Foundation and as one of the “Top 100 Faces in Education for the 20th Century” by Education Week magazine.

 

Farris received his B.A. in Political Science from Western Washington University. He later went on to earn his J.D. from Gonzaga University School of Law, and his LL.M. in Public International Law, from the University of London.

 

Mike and his wife Vickie, have ten children and 17 grandchildren.

 

Mark Meckler

 

Citizens for Self-GovernancePresident

 

Mark is one of the nation’s most effective grassroots activists. After he co-founded and was the national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, he founded Citizens for Self-Governance to revolutionize American government. Founded in February 2012, this grassroots initiative expands and directs the ever-growing, bipartisan self-governance movement. Mark appears regularly on wide variety of television outlets, including MSNBC, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox Business and the BBC. He is the co-author of “Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution,” and writes regularly on Breitbart, the American Spectator, and SelfGovern.com. He also is an attorney who specializes in internet privacy law.

 

Mark and his wife live in Northern California with their two teenage children where they share their love of the outdoors, mountain-biking, soccer and horses.

______________________

Stop the MADNESS in Oklahoma

 

Please note: Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise (OkCFE), paid for this communication and is solely responsible for its content. OkCFE is a project of the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise (NCFE), an IRS 501(c)4 non-profit organization. Donations are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions.

 

101 Washington Street Falmouth, VA 22405 | (540)693-0737

www.NationalCouncilforFreedom.org

 

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

 

About NCFE

 

The National Council for Freedom and Enterprise is a 501c(4) dedicated to preserving the American way of life through defending the Constitution and free market system.

 

Americans are frustrated with an out-of-control federal government that treats the Constitution as a suggestion, and acts as though our liberties and freedoms are privileges granted by government that can be revoked at any time for any reason.

 

The American public understands that a government that governs least, governs best. And a government that is restrained and limited in scope allows for the free market system to flourish, creating liberty and prosperity for all.

 

We are tired of a government that taxes too much, spends even more and threatens our liberty at every turn.

 

Through educating every day Americans about the political process and the virtue of liberty and constitutional government, NCFE will affect real change.

 

Explaining ‘End/Telos’ of Romans 10:4


Christ is the End of the Law

 

More Thoughts on SCOTUS and Same-Sex Marriage

John R. Houk

© May 30, 2015

 

I belong to a secret Facebook group pertaining the First Amendment. A comment was left on this group pertaining a SlantRight 2.0 post entitled “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations”. Since the group is listed as “secret” I am hesitant to reveal the exact Facebook name or the name of the commenter. My sense is that those who post there may not wish to be harassed for their opinions. Thus I will identify the commenter as JP for anonymity reasons.

 

Just as a brief synopsis of “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” that post was about then future oral arguments pertaining to homosexual same-sex marriage being a States’ Rights issue rather than a Federal Government issue. If the supporters of Family and Biblical Values are to win validation of their arguments before SCOTUS then Leftists and homosexual activists will be prohibited from making same-sex marriage a Federally mandated national law and would place that decision in the hands of each individual State of America’s Union. This would reinstate State Laws that made it a matter of the rule of law that marriage would be defined as between man and a woman rather than Adam and Steve or Adriana and Eve.

 

With that in mind here is JP’s comment edited with spellcheck because comments made on the fly are often grammatically flawed (and even though I also I am guilty of on the fly grammatically flawed comments it is a pet peeve of mine):

 

I don’t understand why you reference the Old Testament for Christian Canon. Romans 10:4 – “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” KJV (Comment by JP)

 

The common mistake people make is that the Scriptures preached on by Early Christians and Jesus Himself were based on the Old Testament. And another comment mistake by Jim within Romans 10:4 is the word “end”. The Koine Greek word used in the days of the Apostle Paul was “telos”. That word has a more versatile meaning than just “end”. The explanation I found on the Denominational website from the United Church of God – an International Association:

 

In Romans 10:4, Paul’s words are translated: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Regrettably, most translators render the Greek word telos simply as “end” instead of giving Paul’s intended meaning of that word in this context. Reasoning incorrectly that faith makes the law void, they have adopted an illogical assumption that Paul plainly rejected in Romans 3:31. This passage reads: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

 

To discover the proper translation of a word that can be used in more than one way, its context has to be understood correctly before any effort is made to determine the right nuance of meaning that the author intended. Here is a simple example. One might ask a college student, “To what end are you attending college?” The word “end” in that context would refer to the “objective” or “goal” the student has in mind. Receiving a degree would be only the “end result” of his college years of learning, not the end to his ability or desire to learn.

 

The Greek word telos, translated “end” in Romans 10:4, can convey variations in meaning, including “’the aim or purpose’ of a thing” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, “End, Ending”). This is very clear in the New King James Version’s rendering of 1 Timothy 1:5, where telos is properly translated as purpose in the clause “the purpose of the commandment is love.” In this same verse the NRSV translates telos as “aim” and the NIV renders it as “goal.”

 

Paul uses telos in Romans 10:4 to convey that the objective or goal of the law—the “aim or purpose” of it—is to point us to the mind and character of Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:19; Philippians 2:5).

 

Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, is a perfect replica of what God’s law teaches. Pointing us to His character and work is the aim” of the law. Rendering of telos as “end” in Romans 10:4 distorts Paul’s intended meaning—something Peter forcefully warns us not to do (2 Peter 3:15-16).

 

[What Did Paul Mean by ‘Christ Is the End of the Law’? From UCG.org; 2/2/11]

 

The point is “the end” does not convey termination but rather the goal as in completeness. Christ completes the Law of the Old Testament by His Blood shed in death convicted under false accusations and human greed and arose from death three days later fulfilling the reasons for the existence of the Law. This does not make the commands of the irrelevant but encompassed in Blood bought Redemption which eliminates the penalties for breaking the Law.

 

In full disclosure about the secret Facebook group, at the time I posted these thoughts on this First Amendment group I had forgotten the secret group’s purpose was a bit more specific than all the aspects of the First Amendment. When I shared these Christian concepts to the secret Facebook group the main focus of this group was Islam in relation to the First Amendment. I posted Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” straying from the groups designed purpose. I chose the First Amendment issue of Free Speech and the Religious Freedom to my opinion allowing Christian Americans to practice their Biblical faith which finds the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent before the sight of God Almighty. Thus on a State to State basis a plurality of Americans could vote individually as a Tenth Amendment Right on the definition of Marriage since the subject is not specifically addressed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

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.

 

As I shared the secret group I posted on focused on Islam described in the right hand column as:

 

DESCRIPTION

For the creation & promotion of an amendment of the First Amendment which will permit proscribing Islam by law.

First Rough:

Any institution which recruits or retains members by force, seeks to supplant this constitution with its canon law, promotes offensive warfare or was created for the personal emolument of its founder is not protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment and may be proscribed by law.

 

There is very little chance of congressional passage and state ratification, but if properly publicized, the proposal will cause Muslims to s**t bricks, exposing themselves and their cult to full scrutiny.

 

On a personal level I have no problems with Muslims practicing a peaceful Islam that excises the portions of the Quran regarded as the very words of their Allah deity that commands violent Jihad in the present time forcing non-Muslims to submit to Islam by conversion. OR if choosing not to convert then submitting to the superiority of Islam over one’s own religious beliefs on penalty of offending Islam, the Allah deity or Mohammed resulting in a death sentence, violent punishment or imprisonment. Also Muslims should endeavor to transform (as opposed to the current purist Islamic reform flowing globally) the Hadith and Sira that supports the violent portions of the Quran advocating present time death, physical punishment or imprisonment for rejecting and thus offending Islam. Also Christians and Americans in general should realize that the Quran recorded in Mecca prior to Mohammed fleeing to Medina are peaceful and tolerant of non-Muslim faiths especially calling for an appreciation for Jews and Christians, BUT from Medina onward the Quran recorded is violently hostile toward non-Muslims which singles out forced submission of Jews and Christians who don’t convert with an OR ELSE caveat in the Medina suras. AND Christians and Americans should be aware that the Quran IS NOT recorded in chronological order – the Mecca and Medina suras are interspersed according to size rather than time frame.

 

In moving along back to the homosexual lifestyle pertaining to same-sex marriage vs. Traditional Marriage let it be known I probably should not have shared that particular post to the secret Facebook group focused on Islam in relation to the First Amendment; ergo I must say to my fellow members of the group I say, “Oops”.

 

This is an apology to the secret group, but I stand with God Almighty to assert a homosexual lifestyle is an abomination to His Presence. This is when I typically a homosexual activist claim something idiotic like, “God made me Gay and hence I was born Gay.” I find the homosexual activist assertion idiotic not based on science, but rather based on the God inspired Word in the Holy Bible.

 

Homosexuality condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Thank God the Father emptied His Divine characteristics to be born as a man from a woman in Jesus Christ the Son of God. In Christ the penalty of the Law that is in the Old Testament has been rendered complete in Jesus. The penalty is not terminated but postponed in this life. The Last Judgment determines each person’s final eternity based on the heart-faith in following the Way of the Risen Savior thus determining if their name is in the Book of Life or not. Since Christ rose from the dead the final penalty or blessing occurs in that Last Judgment. That which is important that God finds homosexuality an abomination in the old covenant and the new covenant sealed in Christ’s Blood:

 

Leviticus

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

Romans

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 18-19 NKJV)

 

If SCOTUS rules in favor of homosexual activism making same-sex marriage a part of the rule of law without the path set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then SCOTUS is unconstitutionally enacting a law that should either be left to the described Amendment process through the vehicle of Congress and/or the States.

 

Article V

 

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

 

TAKE NOTE that the Supreme Court of the United States and the Executive Branch are not a part of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The only way that SCOTUS can act constitutionally to assuage the lot of homosexuals is to rule that it is more than a lifestyle but is a genetic occurrence. Even though you will homosexuals claim biological science is in their favor the actual science is hardly concrete in people being genetically born a homosexual. And ironically committed homosexuals are not even united on the OPINION of genetics.

 

If clear cut genetics is ever proven then science might be created by the heterosexuals that are actually needed to make children to engineer genes or the workings of inner anatomical organs responsible for sexual preference to eradicate the homosexual gene. Such genetic engineering would not fall under the category of murder but on the medical procedures that Leftists so often demand for women called “Choice”.

 

Homosexual activists point to the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for claiming specific rights for homosexuals just as any other citizen of the United States. I’m not a lawyer but it seems if homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic occurrence then how can the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to assign specific rights as equal to genetically born individuals?

 

People are not born a Democrat or Republican. People are not a Communist or a Capitalist.

 

People born into a human race is mentioned into the Constitution. Ironically people are not into a specific genetic religion, but they choose a religion or atheism or I could care less. BUT the Constitution specifically gives genetically born human beings the Constitutional Freedom to choose a religion or no religion.

 

NO WHERE in the Constitution are people who choose to be a homosexual have named specific rights for choosing that as a lifestyle to be respected by race, creed, religion or lack of religion.

 

The Constitution does provide for independent ideology in the First Amendment with Free Speech. The Constitution does not provide marriage between a same religion, a different religion, a religious person and an atheist, only Democrats can marry, only Republicans can and I think you get the idea. People marry as people.

 

If a majority of people in a given State view male/female marriage as natural law then marriage can so be entered. Frankly if homosexuals choose to enter into some kind of contractual mutual obligations and expectations I don’t see anything unconstitutional with that choice. But defining same-sex marriage a natural part of nature is ungodly in the sight of God. How do I know that? HE SAID SO IN THE HOLY BIBLE.

 

America is a secular nation founded under the platform of Christian Religious Liberty. Forcing a Christian to accept something as lawful is unconscionable and according to the First Amendment infringes on the right of a Christian to practice their faith which is unconstitutional.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to after the Civil War to ensure liberated African-American slaves had the same protections and rights as pre-Civil War free non-slaves. In other words the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with civil protections and civil rights based on the genetics of human beings not on the choices of aberrant lifestyles.

 

Here are insightful words about the Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment:

 

The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

 

Some may say, “Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We’ve evolved since then.”

 

That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don’t have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have “evolved” on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently “evolve”—they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That’s the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!

 

 

… the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?

 

 

… Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights. The “born that way” justification doesn’t work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement “marriage,” which means the logic behind it is absurd. …

 

 

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution. READ ENTIRETY (Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage; By Frank Turek; Townhall.com; 3/17/15)

 

Here is the Fourteenth Amendment of which SCOTUS will issue an opinion on same-sex marriage:

 

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (The US Constitution: 14th Amendment; website author – Fred Elbel; 14thAmendment.us; Copyright 2007-2014 – all rights reserved.)

 

Here is some truth to read pertaining the homosexual activist propaganda that a majority of American voters support same-sex marriage:

 

The headlines of most opinion polls and news stories say the same thing: Gay marriage is inevitable, by the people’s choice.

 

In February, a CNN/ORC survey of more than 1,000 people found 63 percent support for same-sex marriage.

 

This “supermajority of Americans” reflects the constant growing and widening support for the nuptials, said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.

 

In recent days, USA Today, The Washington Post and ABC News also have declared an end to the national battle on marriage.

 

“There’s no turning back,” said an April 19 article in USA Today, citing its poll of 1,000 adults taken with Suffolk University. Some 51 percent of those adults said they favored allowing gay couples to marry, with 35 percent opposed and 14 percent undecided.

 

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Thursday found 61 percent support for same-sex marriage — with 78 percent support in the under-30 age group.

 

A Public Religion Research Institute survey of 40,000 Americans — which also found majority support for same-sex marriage — revealed …

 

 

In contrast, an amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court says it is “simply not true” that large majorities of Americans support a redefinition of marriage.

 

Real opinions are made at voting booths, and in 39 elections, in which nearly 85 million votes were cast in 35 states, more than 51 million people voted to keep marriage as a man-woman union, campaign and polling analyst Frank Schubert and the National Organization for Marriage said in their brief in Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

With a margin of 60.9 percent to 39.1 percent for traditional marriage, that is “an overwhelming landslide in American politics,” they wrote.

 

Although some polls indicate wide support for same-sex marriage, others show majority opposition to it or public support starting to drop, the brief said.

 

Also, many polls showing support for same-sex marriage may be worded to catch a “yes.”

 

“People generally want to be ‘for’ something, rather than ‘against’ something,” the National Organization for Marriage brief said.

 

Another factor, intended or not, is the “priming” of people with questions about legal rights before asking them about the right to marry. Without such priming, the Gallup Poll’s support for same-sex marriage dipped by an average of 6 to 7 points, the brief said.

READ ENTIRETY (Gay marriage defies opinions of American majority, legal brief tells Supreme Court; By Cheryl Wetzstein; Washington Times; 4/23/15)

 

What you should notice in that Washington Times article is that polls controlled by a Left-oriented Mainstream Media supports the agenda to restructure Family Values in America to reflect a decimation of Biblical Morality to be replaced with a Secular Humanism in which a mercurial humanity decides which morals have value and which morals are pointlessly archaic.

 

When a majority of American voters lean to defining American culture to an antichrist motif rendering Christianity irrelevantly archaic that will be the real beginning of the end of Constitutional Liberty America’s Founding Fathers intended for the United States of America.

 

JRH 5/30/15

Please Support NCCR

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

See Also: “Focus on the Family President Reacts to Oral Arguments in SCOTUS Marriage Case

 
Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment’s First Section

Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?

The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation

Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say

 

Homosexuality & Choice: Are Gay People ‘Born This Way?

 

IRS has become Political Abusive Attack Dog


BHO Fake Outrage toon

John R. Houk

© October 28, 2014

 

The 16th Amendment legitimizes the existence of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

 

Amendment XVI

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

Your donation matters.

 

Taxing Power

 

Tax

 

Income Tax

 

Taxable Income (16th Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

 

HOWEVER, the 16th Amendment does not overrule the Bill of Rights (1st ten Amendments to Constitution) pertaining to the Civil Rights and Liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. And yet the IRS has mysteriously acquired the authority to seize property and bank accounts with the presumption of guilt BEFORE a criminal trial.

 

My son sent me a Daily Caller news story that focuses on small business owner Carole Hinders. Ms. Hinders has made the news ironically largely due to a NY Times articles about her and other small business owners being assaulted by the IRS without actual proof the law is being broken. Between yesterday and today Carole Hinders’ story his hit web in a huge way. The irony is all the sides of the political spectrum are displaying outrage over the abuse of power being exercised by the IRS. Could it be that Leftists and Conservatives can join forces over a constitutional issue affecting American citizens?

 

VIDEO: IRS Seizes Innocent Grandma’s Bank Account

 

Published by InstituteForJustice

Published: Oct 27, 2014

 

Carole Hinders has worked hard at her family-owned restaurant, Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Food, for 38 years. The federal government took her entire bank account using civil forfeiture, even though she did nothing wrong. Now, they are refusing to return her money, so Carole and the Institute for Justice have teamed up to fight back.

http://www.endforfeiture.com

 

Perhaps Congress can wise up and use this unified voter outrage to take some immediate legislative action to curb the power of the IRS. If Congress can enact a statesman form a legislative action pertaining to the IRS, you must realize it would only be a temporary fix. Most prominently these days the IRS is a political tool used by Obama against Conservative opponents, however there are more than one Federal agency that uses a law that has to be unconstitutional. State and Federal law enforcement ALSO utilize the Civil Asset Forfeiture law to seize property and money from American citizens. The thing is the public has looked the other way with government seizures because it is the primary weapon of law enforcement to pin down real criminals especially the kind that has built a criminal empire. Who can be unhappy about taking down criminals, right?

 

The thing is citizens like Carole Hinders or even those that have property that stifles the agenda of local, State or Federal authorities can have their property seized. WITHOUT A TRIAL!

 

As Americans on a grassroots level we have to figure out the legalese that protects law-abiding citizens while at the same go after moneyed criminals that break the law pretending to be law-abiding citizens.

 

The website End Civil Forfeiture explains the history of this practice in the USA and how State and Federal government have exploited this beyond the scope of the U. S. Constitution:

 

Civil forfeiture—where the government can take and sell your property without ever convicting or even charging you with a crime—is one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today. Civil forfeiture cases proceed against one’s cash, cars, or home, which means that property owners receive few if any of the protections that criminal defendants enjoy.   To make matters worse, when law-enforcement agencies take and sell your property, they frequently get to keep all the proceeds for their own use. This gives agencies a direct financial incentive to “police for profit” by seizing and forfeiting as much property as possible.

 

 

Although the Founders didn’t believe in this superstition, they used civil forfeiture as a way to enforce the collection of customs duties, which provided 80 to 90 percent of the federal revenue during that time. The government often could not try owners of smuggling ships themselves (often because they were overseas), and so civil forfeiture let officials seize their ships and cargo as a second-best option.

 

With minor exceptions during the Civil War and Prohibition, civil forfeiture remained a legal backwater. But as the War on drugs heated up during the early 1980s, so too did civil forfeiture. A key legal change occurred in 1984 when Congress established the Assets Forfeiture Fund. Previously, all federal civil forfeiture revenues were deposited into the government’s general fund. But after the 1984 amendments, federal agencies could retain and spend forfeiture proceeds—subject only to very loose restrictions—giving them a direct financial stake in generating forfeiture funds.  Similar amendments now allow law enforcement agencies in 42 states to keep and use some or all of the civil forfeiture proceeds they seize.

 

“Policing for Profit” Creates Incentives for Abuse

 

The changes at the federal and state levels led to an explosion of forfeiture activity. Because in most jurisdictions law enforcement can keep some or all of the proceeds from civil forfeiture, they have an incentive to seize and keep as much property as possible. …

 

… Here are four ways that civil forfeiture stacks the deck against property owners:

 

·         Burden of Proof: For the government to keep your property using civil forfeiture, it must prove that the property is connected to criminal activity.  But where criminal forfeiture requires the government to prove guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” under civil-forfeiture cases the government can prevail under much less rigorous standards.

 

·         Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Although many jurisdictions provide an “innocent-owner” defense that allows owners to get their property back if they had no idea that it was involved in a crime, most jurisdictions presume, however, that owners are guilty and force them to prove their innocence.

 

·         Legal Representation: Anyone who has watched a crime drama knows that the government must provide criminal defendants with an attorney if they cannot afford one. But civil forfeiture victims must either pay for a lawyer—which in many cases can cost more than the seized property is worth—or go it alone.

 

·         “Equitable” Sharing: Federal law provides a loophole called “equitable sharing” to law enforcement in states with good civil forfeiture laws.  This program allows state law enforcement to turn seized assets over to the federal government, which forfeits the property under federal law.  In turn, the feds give up to 80 percent of the forfeited property back to the state agency for its own use, even if state law would have required those proceeds to go into a general fund.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Civil Forfeiture: A Threat to Private Property and the Impartial Pursuit of Justice; By End Civil Forfeiture)

 

The only way I see to change all the law – civil and criminal – to protect the individual rights of law-abiding citizens is to amend the Constitution. I don’t care how much Leftists and Conservatives can agree on reforming the powers of the IRS, you know one day a President will come along to push the envelope of the Constitution citing case law to warp the legalese to go after political opponents. You do realize it won’t matter if that President is a Democrat or a Republican or the emergence of a Third Party to attain the White House, the legalese will be abused.

 

Unfortunately on a Federal level this nation’s governance is way too polarized to effect a Constitutional Amendment to change the definition and application of Civil Asset Forfeiture laws that protects the Rights and Liberty of law-abiding citizens as opposed to moneyed criminals. The only way to amend the Constitution via by-passing Congress is in the Constitution but in the 225 years our Founding document has been the foundation of America’s rule of law the by-pass Congress method to amend the Constitution has never taken place. Why?

 

The reason is political fear. No one active in government seriously thought of the ‘by-pass Congress’ method of amending the Constitution until the 20th century when political polarization seemed to become a hindrance to good governance. The method of offering an Amendment apart from Congress can be accomplish directly by the several States calling for a Constitution Convention. Neither the President, Congress nor the Judicial Branch can nullify or prevent such a convention from occurring. It would be the call of a majority of States. The fear is that a convention to amend the Constitution would evolve beyond the intentions of the reason the States called for it. The very real fear – both Leftist and Conservative – is a Constitutional Convention could take it upon itself to scrap the entire current Constitution. The fear is the potential for a Leftist vision or a Conservative vision to become the rule of law to the detriment of the losing side of the political spectrum.

 

I personally have wavered back and forth on the pluses and minuses of a Constitutional Convention. BUT NOW with the abuses of the IRS simply becoming way too egregious, something must be done. The best thing would be to scrap the whole current tax system developing a new paradigm whether it is income or National sales tax or a combination of both to be fair to the taxpayers while also still have the ability to go after the moneyed criminals of whatever kind of organized crime network might exist (violent criminals or white collar criminals). And whatever that standard is should be applied equally criminally and civilly according to the Fourth Amendment.

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Fourth Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

 

On a personal level I don’t feel comfortable to suggest a different tax system to shoot for. My primary concern here is the abuse of government power on the Civil Rights and Liberty of American citizens. The very reason and cause of the American Revolutionary War in which the British citizens of America’s Thirteen Colonies felt abused by unjust taxation, improper representation and the abuse of government authority.

 

WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.

 

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. READ THE REST (In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America; by the signing delegates and penned by Thomas Jefferson; Library of Congress)

 

TODAY I feel like the risk is necessary for the USA to have a Constitutional Convention. The Federal government cannot be trusted for a long term reform eliminating the IRS as a political attack dog of whatever political party. Just like the Founding Fathers felt a risk was necessary to throw off the bonds of an abusive government, it has become necessary to throw off the bonds of a politically oriented tax agency as well as other Federal agencies that have gone beyond bounds of the guaranteed Liberty of the Bill of Rights.

 

Citizens concerned for the future of their country, under a federal government that’s increasingly bloated, corrupt, reckless and invasive, have a constitutional option. We can call a Convention of States to return the country to its original vision of a limited federal government that is of, by and for the people. (Convention of States: This One Amendment Could Solve Forty-Five Problems; By Steve Robinson; The Maine Wire; 7/15/14)

 

Article Five of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the two ways to amend the Constitution:

 

Article V

 

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

 

Our current tax system is a progressive income tax:

 

A progressive tax structure is one in which an individual or family’s tax liability as a fraction of income rises with income. If, for example, taxes for a family with an income of $20,000 are 20 percent of income and taxes for a family with an income of $200,000 are 30 percent of income, then the tax structure over that range of incomes is progressive. One tax structure is more progressive than another if its average tax rate rises more rapidly with income. (Progressive Taxes; By Joel B. Slemrod; Library of Economics and Liberty)

 

DEFINITION OF ‘PROGRESSIVE TAX’

 

A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The United States income tax is considered progressive: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket. Basically, taxpayers are broken down into categories based on taxable income; the more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay once they cross the benchmark cut-off points between the different tax bracket levels.

 

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS ‘PROGRESSIVE TAX’

 

The U.S. progressive income tax is effectively a means of income redistribution. Individuals who earn more pay higher taxes; those taxes are then used to fund social welfare programs that are used primarily by individuals who earn less. Critics of the progressive tax consider it to be discriminatory and believe that a flat tax system, which imposes the same tax on everyone regardless of income, is a fairer method of taxation. (Progressive Tax; Investopedia)

 

Yup, IRS/Progressive Tax is evil. If small potatoes like me has to hire a tax service to figure out the complications of owing or receiving refund then it is evil. How do we replace the evil IRS? The suggestions I have read are the flat tax, fair tax, National Sales Tax or some kind of combination.

 

According to my search engine perusals it appears the Fair Tax seems to be the current favorite tax to terminate the IRS and end political head hunting. I personally see how the Fair Tax (which is actually a national sales tax) looks good on paper; however if things go south versions of the Fair Tax shows sales tax climbing anywhere from 50% to 70% of purchase or service to keep sufficient revenue flowing. Fair Tax proponents tell you the rate is 23% if everything goes as foreseen with a monthly prebate of cash from the government for families that make less than the poverty line in income. The prebate for a family of four below the poverty line utilizing the 23% sales tax rate would receive a monthly government check of $1,983.33 for an annual total of $23,800. Like I said that sounds favorable to me; however if the revenue collection does not complete the Federal budget, does anyone think the sales tax rate will remain at 23%?

 

The Flat Tax still sounds attractive to me. The first problem of a Flat Tax is an agency still has to be around to administer collection of the tax. My God, that agency CANNOT be the same bureaucracy of the Internal Revenue Service. Its management has become politically corrupt that bad things undoubtedly continue to occur. The management level portions of the current IRS must be jettisoned and a whole new agency created under strict guidelines that insures the enforcement of the Bill of Rights in the new tax agency’s collection methods.

 

However in full disclosure Fair Tax proponents do have problems with the Flat Tax. For one thing the politicians are looking for a Flat Tax rate that actually mind cause discomfort for poor to moderate income families while the more wealthy tax payers will jump for glee. I currently fit into the poor to moderate category that would feel a squeeze from higher taxes. On the other hand I also realize across the board less of a tax strain on higher wage earners to wealthy people will release entrepreneurial development that will result in better jobs, more available spendable money and hence a better economy which will also translate into more tax revenue without putting the bite on all Americans.

 

So here are website article with Flat Tax and Fair Tax plusses and minuses leaning to favoring one or the other (in no particular order):

 

o  Could The Fair Tax Movement Ever Replace The IRS? By Mark P. Cussen; Investopedia; 4/4/14

 

o   Flat Tax vs. Fair Tax; By Admin; Freedom Works; 7/6/11

 

o   FAIR Tax Abolishes IRS – Then What? By Peter J. Reilly; Forbes; 8/6/14 9:30AM

 

o   Summary: H.R.25 — 113th Congress (2013-2014) Introduced in House; (01/03/2013): Fair Tax Act of 2013 – Repeals the income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift tax. Redesignates the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the Internal Revenue Code of 2013.

 

A Constitutional Convention needs to restore Liberty as well as narrowly define the duty of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches to uphold restored and defined Liberty. Here’s part the Leftists will become apoplectic about: A Constitutional Convention needs to simultaneously protect Religious Freedom and NOT prevent religion from being a moral advocate politically to influence government. At the same time government specifically be defined as not involving or inserting itself on how a religion involves itself in politics UNLESS that religion’s specific purpose is to terminate the Constitution, overthrow the government and end the Liberty of the Bill of Rights. Separation of Church and State is a one-way street and not a two-way street. No government in religion but lots of religion as a moral pulpit to influence the morality of society. The Constitution needs to address the issue of preventing the laws and customs of foreign lands from being used as precedents in any judicial case law. There can be no foreign treaties entered into that contradicts the U.S. Constitution without an Amendment change to correspond to that foreign treaty. And as America has traditionally been the melting pot of many national peoples seeking a new life those people must be amenable to swear to abide and uphold the U.S. Constitution adopting the traditions of America first while honoring their former culture second.

 

Well that is the part of a Constitutional Convention I am certain Leftists will cry a convention run-amok. For our Republic to survive future generations the traditions that have made us a desirable melting pot must be preserved. Losing those traditions to some kind of transforming diverse multicultural Socialist Democracy that descends into cultural chaos polarized racially to the extent political polarization tears the nation apart under political ideology rather than preserve national patriotism. Oh yeah … Let’s really drive the Left looney. We should throw in personhood establishing the rights of an unborn baby rather than perpetuate the myth that an unborn baby is an appendage of a woman’s body.

 

JRH 10/28/14 (Hat Tip: Adam)

Please Support NCCR

 

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

Tony Newbill Emails 8/20 to 8/28/13


Ball & Chain of Economic Corruption

These emails focus on government shenanigans with implications of corruption and actions leading toward economic danger via manipulation. A couple of interesting email was a bit enlightening to me. Their theme is about regions within a State or States desiring secession. Here’s the novelty for me: they do not want to secede from the USA, rather they desire actual secession from their State to form a new State.
 
JRH 9/28/13

Please Support NCCR

********************************
Get Ready For The Death Of The Petrodollar
Sent: 8/20/2013 8:57 AM
 
August 20, 2013 by Brandon Smith 
 
Even after seven years of writing macroeconomic analysis for the liberty movement and bearing witness to astonishing displays of financial and political stupidity by more “skeptics” than I can count, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of blind faith average Americans place in the strength of the U.S. dollar. One could explain in vast categorical detail the history of fiat currencies, the inevitable destruction caused by inflationary printing and the conundrum caused when any country decides to monetize its own debt just to stay afloat — often, to no avail.
 
Bank bailouts, mortgage company bailouts, Treasury bond bailouts, stock market bailouts, bailouts of foreign institutions: None of this seems to phase the gibbering bobbleheaded followers of the Federal Reserve cult.  Logic and reason and wisdom bounce like whiffle balls off their thick skulls. They simply parrot one of two painfully predictable arguments:
 
o   Argument No. 1: There is no way foreign countries will ever dump the U.S. dollar because they are so dependent on American consumers to buy their export goods.
 
o   Argument No. 2: There is no way the dollar’s value will ever collapse because it is the dominant petro-currency, and the entire world needs dollars to purchase oil.
 
I have written literally hundreds of articles over the years dismantling the first argument, pointing out READ THE REST
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
U.K. Gold ‘Exports’ To Switzerland Explode Due To Allocated and Asian Demand
8/20/2013 10:30 AM
 
The Great shift in Dollar rates is upon us.
 
Published in Market Update
20 August 2013
 
Today’s AM fix was USD 1,365.75, EUR 1,020.28 and GBP 871.29 per ounce.
Yesterday’s AM fix was USD 1,375.25, EUR 1,031.39 and GBP 878.47 per ounce.

Gold fell $6.40 or 0.47% yesterday, closing at $1,366.60/oz. Silver edged down $0.02 or nearly 0.09%, closing at $23.16. Platinum fell $14.52 or 1% to $1,504.49/oz, while palladium was down $10.75 or 1.4% to $749.75/oz.

Gold and silver both pulled back yesterday on profit taking and as stop loss limits triggered selling. There were jitters among some market participants as President Obama met the heads of the CFTC, SEC, CFPB, FHFA, NCUA, FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve.

 
 
Liquidated ETF gold holdings are being shipped from the U.K to Switzerland for refining into smaller one kilogramme gold bars, Australian bank Macquarie wrote in a note yesterday. These were then sent to Asia and bought by Asian investors. The note confirmed, what has been known anecdotally for some weeks.

This is contributing to the increased tightness in the physical market as large London Good Delivery bars (400 oz) are air freighted to Switzerland for refining into smaller kilo bars (32.15 ounces) for the voracious Asian market.

There is also an increasing preference for allocated storage in Switzerland by high net worths and family offices. Switzerland still has much of the world’s gold refining capacity and remains a favourite destination of investors and savers concerned about sovereign risk – including sovereign risk in the EU, U.K. and U.S.

Most of the gold ETFs holdings were held in London vaults, and U.K. gold ‘exports’ to Switzerland exploded from 92 tonnes in all of 2012 to a whopping 240 tonnes in May this year alone and a very large 797 tonnes in the first six months of 2013.

 
The 797 tonnes of gold “exported” from the U.K. to Switzerland is nearly 30% of total annual gold mining supply.
 
Investors appear to be switching from ETFs to allocated accounts, which are often held in Switzerland, Bloomberg noted. GoldCore have direct experience of this as we have seen flows from clients liquidating ETFs in the U.K., the U.S. and even Switzerland into the safety of allocated bullion accounts in Zurich and Hong Kong.

“Bail-ins” and the risk of being an unsecured creditor of investment and savings providers is one of the reasons for the flight to allocated gold.

 
Prudent and risk conscious gold investors and store of wealth buyers continue to focus on ‘return of capital’ rather than ‘return on capital’ and are therefore switching from the more high risk, in terms of counter party risk, ETFs to the safety of allocated bullion.

Store of wealth bullion buyers will use weakness to accumulate physical again due to the strong fundamentals

 
___  _____  ____  ____  ____
As The Crisis Deepens, Gold Flows East
 
Over the last three decades what began as a trickle of gold and silver moving east has become a flood. This is precisely what one should have expected. Loose and looser American fiscal and monetary policy has led to the export of dollar inflation to those countries – notably China – that have pegged their currencies to the dollar.

The obvious consequence of higher prices abroad has led to higher demand for precious metals as a store of value in the same countries.
Headline topics covered in July’s Insight:
 
  • Crisis: the new normal
 
  • In a zero sum game, someone has to be the loser
 
  • The business model: speculation
 
  • When the data is bad, make up the data
 
  • Gold and silver: huge demand meets too much leverage
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++
India on the verge of financial collapse
Sent: 8/20/2013 11:53 AM
 
These kinds of events in India will forge a new alliance to the SDR rather than sticking with the demands of a dollar regime that’s dependency on foreign parts supplies even from this country leaves it in a Position not able to negotiate for any loyalty to continue as its choice in Currency trade relations.
 
 
Stacy Summary: Here comes the tsunami following the 2007/2008 collapse in the West. And, once again, the IMF will create some magic credit against which to lend . . . the big question is, however, now in a post bail-in world, what happens to all the gold (and silver to a lesser extent) in which Indians hold their savings.
 
 
India’s financial woes are rapidly approaching the critical stage. The rupee has depreciated by 44% in the past two years and hit a record low against the US dollar on Monday. The stock market is plunging, bond yields are nudging 10% and capital is flooding out of the country.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why American Business and Jobs are Stalled and Never coming back under Democratic rule!!!!!!!
Sent: 8/20/2013 4:51 PM
 
EPA’s Secret And Costly ‘Sue And Settle’ Collusion With Environmental Organizations
 
 
In an affidavit, ATI informed the court that one of the two specialists EPA assigned to handle the CEI’s FOIA requests admitted that a supervisor instructed her and a colleague to perform no work on them. Then:
 
“Following this, EPA constructed a cul de sac of refusing to perform a search of responsive records until ATI agreed to pay estimated fees…which by law non-profits typically do not pay under FOIA…but which EPA then refused to provide.”
 
Quite certainly, EPA is not the only federal agency to engage in secret Sue and Settle deals with crony environmental lobbying organizations. In a January letter to his Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, Senator Vitter wrote:
 
“The collusion between federal bureaucrats and the organizations entering consent agreements under a shroud of secrecy represents the antithesis of a transparent government, and your participation in the FOIA request [filed by 13 other states’ AGs] will help Louisianans understand the process by which these settlements were reached.”
 
Caldwell subsequently agreed to the Senator’s request.
 
Vitter highlighted a recent example where the READ THE REST
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How is this productive????
Sent: 8/21/2013 8:25 AM
 
What can an Article V Constitutional Convention do to STOP THIS?????
 
Good Bye Republican Party  because Obama and the Democrats are going to use this Welfare Benefit to Build their Base and do it by telling them they better keep them in office if they want these benefits to continue because the Republicans want to CUT YOU OFF!!!!!
 
Amnesty and welfare I bet will Explode.
 
This tells us the stock market is not based on true supply side growth!!!
 
The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013
 
 
Executive Summary
 
In 1995, the Cato Institute published a groundbreaking study, The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off, which estimated the value of the full package of welfare benefits available to a typical recipient in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It found that not only did the value of such benefits greatly exceed the poverty level but, because welfare benefits are tax-free, their dollar value was greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would receive from an entry-level job.
 
Since then, many welfare programs have undergone significant change, including the 1996 welfare reform legislation that ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. Accordingly, this paper examines the current welfare system in the same manner as the 1995 paper. Welfare benefits continue to outpace the income that most recipients can expect to earn from an entry-level job, and the balance between welfare and work may actually have grown worse in recent years.
 
The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work. Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.
 
If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening welfare work requirements, removing exemptions, and narrowing the definition of work.
 
Moreover, states should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements.
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Have you heard this Interview with Michael Pento???
Sent: 8/22/2013 12:21 PM
 
 
[Editor: The link is to a radio broadcast featuring Michael Pento. About Michael Pento:
 
President of Pento Portfolio Strategies – Michael is a well-established specialist in the “Austrian School” of economics. A regular on CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox Business, and other national media outlets and his market analysis can be read in most major financial publications. Prior to starting Pento Portfolio Strategies he served as a senior economist and VP of the managed products division of another well known financial firm. Michael has also created ETFs and UITs that were sold throughout Wall Street. Earlier in his career, he worked on the floor of the NYSE.]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I sure Like what This is talking about
Sent: 8/22/2013 6:35 PM
 
The 51st State initiative has a website and appeals to the Declaration of Independence as justification for its efforts, writing: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. The 51st State website claims that their initiative is simple.
 
“We just want to be left alone to live our lives without heavy-handed restrictions from the state capitol,” read a post on the website. “The concerns of rural Coloradans have been ignored for years,” William Garcia, chairman of the Weld County Commissioners, said in a statement. “The last session was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many people. They want change. They want to be heard.”
 
Why Not?
Sent: 8/23/2013 10:54 AM
 
90 or so states in the union might make a Better Republic!
 
This is going to be a Big Deal and make a Lot of Noise!
 
 
Other statehood movements
 
This website is dedicated to the efforts being made in Colorado to form a new state.  Following are link to other statehood movements throughout the country:

Western Maryland

Northern Michigan

Chicago as it own State
Jefferson State (Northern CA / Southern OR) – coming soon
Baja Arizona

 
I sure Like what This is talking about.  
 
 
[Editor: Link already excerpted above]
 
This is going on in Oregon and California http://www.jeffersonstate.com/about.html
 
Jefferson State Project About Page:
 
Development of this site began in the fall of 1998 to bring attention to the plight of the local people and local economies along the mountain border region of northern California and southern Oregon.
 
Despite a ‘growing economy’ and a tech boom which went bust, many in our region were facing opposition to our natural resource based industries and livelihoods by environmentalist extremists, activist judges, non-government organizations and their broadening political agenda in collusion with governmental agencies at the state and federal levels. This threat has become more real and is moving in the wrong direction.
 
Our attempt is to bring land use controls and private property rights back to the local level governed by local people by any and every means necessary under the law.
 
This mission brings mocking from politicians, the socialist elite and all of those who place unscrupulous and misguided ideals ahead of a free people under the United States Constitution.
 
For more info:
 
Brian Petersen
Phone 530-842-2315
Yreka, CA – for now

mail@jeffersonstate.com
 
Thank-you for your interest.
 
I say a little Munity looks interesting…… 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You Won’t believe this, it’s Absolutely incredible
Sent: 8/24/2013 11:38 AM
 
 

VIDEO: Dept Of Hate – DHS Manager: In order For Black People To Survive “A Lot Of Whites Need To Be Killed”

++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is not a good Idea!!!!!
Sent: 8/28/2013 10:09 AM
 
Here’s a Quote that shocked me a Bit …. Quite a bit!!!!
 
“There is a long history of attempts by scientists to control the weather, including using techniques such as cloud seeding.
 
This involves spraying small particles and chemicals into the air to induce water vapour to condense into clouds.” ….
 
And we wonder why we are seeing more disease???   HA HA the Elite work in mysterious ways…
 
 
Weather could be controlled using lasers
 
Scientists are attempting to control the weather by using lasers to create clouds, induce rain and even trigger lightning.
 
Experts from around the world are to gather at the World Meteorological Organisation next month to discuss how powerful laser pulses can be used to generate changes in the atmosphere that influence the weather.
 
Their experiments have shown that intense pulses of light can cause ice to form and water to condense, leading to the formation of clouds.
 
The scientists have now begun testing their equipment outside for the first time with extremely short pulses of laser light were fired into the sky.
 
Researchers have also proved that lightning discharges can be triggered and channelled through the air using laser pulses.
 
They hope the technology could allow lightning during thunderstorms to be guided away from sensitive buildings such as power plants or airports.
 
It could also be used to manipulate the weather by creating clouds and triggering rainfall ahead of major public events.
 
Professor Jean-Pierre Wolf and Dr Jerome Kasparian, both biophotonics experts at the University of Geneva, have now organised a conference at the WMO next month in an attempt to find (READ THE RESTWeather could be controlled using lasers; By Richard Gray; The Telegraph; 1:53PM BST 27 Aug 2013)
__________________________
© Tony Newbill
Edited by John R. Houk

Stand and Oppose Obamacare


Uncle Sam - Time to Take USA Back

Intro to ‘Stand and Oppose Obamacare’

Intro by John R. Houk

9/19/13

 

Justin Smith writes an excellent essay on repealing or actually defunding Obamacare. I truly approve of Smith’s activist call for the States to use Article V of the U.S. Constitution to take the issue out of the hands of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress does seem to buckle more often than to withstand Obama’s Executive despotism. SCOTUS’s 5-4 decision making Obamacare Constitutional if the funding is declared a tax rather than using the Commerce Clause to ram the beginnings of Socialistic healthcare down the throats of Americans.

 

Chief Justice Roberts tried to make a compromise by ruling that reference to the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional; however compelling people to pay for Obamacare insurance is valid as a tax:

 

However, according to the majority decision by John Roberts, the Supreme Court’s conservative chief justice, the mandate cannot be justified on commerce-clause grounds. Indeed, Mr. Roberts wholly affirms the argument that the commerce clause cannot regulate economic inactivity. From the syllabus of the decision:

 

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” (John Roberts’s art of war; By W.W.; The Economist; 6/28/12 21:01)

 

So mysteriously SCOTUS transferred Individual Mandated funding from regulating Commerce to Taxation.

 

Commerce Clause: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

To establish a … (Bold Emphasis Mine)

 

So here is the appearance the Dem controlled Executive Branch and SCOTUS colluded to circumvent the U.S. Constitution. By a two to one act of despotism the Constitution became irrelevant. However there is still a remedy in the Constitution to overcome two-branch despotism. That remedy is 2/3 of the fifty several states unite to have a Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments that must a 3/4 several state ratification to overcome the political despotism of the Dem Party controlled Executive Branch and SCOTUS subverting the Constitution.

 

Article V

 

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

 

The Constitution has never been amended by the initiation of “the several states”. An Amendment Constitutional Convention might be the last legal vestige to overcome political intransience of a polarized Executive Branch and Congress. AND a divided SCOTUS could not overrule any Amendment designed by a Constitutional Convention convened by “the several states”.

 

Justin Smith’s essay should inspire you to participate in an activism on the grassroots level to overcome Federal despotism.

 

JRH 9/19/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Stand and Oppose Obamacare

 

By Justin O. Smith

September 19, 2013 11:58 am

Justin Smith FB Notes

 

In 2010, the Democratic controlled House passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 219 to 212, even though there had not been any great advocacy from the public on this issue. To the contrary, most Americans saw only a need in some health care sectors  for slight reforms, and most Americans know now, just as they did then, that this misnamed legislation (“affordable”) will make matters worse for all America, rather than better; the Affordable Care Act is recognized by the majority of Americans as an egalitarian system based on Marxist principles, redistribution of the wealth, and the scarcity that accompanies such a system, as opposed to conservative free-market capitalist principles, tried and true, that have always yielded a great benefit to all; the PPACA is the worse piece of unConstitutional legislation in U.S. history, and Democrats and Republicans alike must recognize the negative impact of implementing the PPACA, and they must immediately defund it this month, as they also set in motion the repeal of the PPACA!

 

The PPACA/Obamacare has begun underfunded, and the system is ripe for corruption, bribery and abuses that will cost all Americans a great deal more than they are currently paying for health care. Whether one supports Obamacare or not, our tax-dollars, as prescribed by the PPACA, are now funding advertisements that excitedly explain just how wonderful Obamacare will be; those same collective tax-dollars will fund abortions and violate the conscience, religious beliefs and First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens who stand in opposition to abortion. And eventually, Obamacare’s poorly organized funding and implementation will force us all into a single-payer system, which will become the principle instrument of social control of the Progressive Democrats or any other unethical and immoral future administrations.

 

The flaws in Obamacare will become more apparent, and Americans will find themselves standing in long health care queues and provided medical services of dubious quality, because the more proficient medical professionals are already leaving medicine or planning to serve outside of Obamacare, until this is made illegal. Americans will necessarily need to join private medical groups comprised of citizens, who pool their resources in order to ensure the care of their members, which also leaves their freedom of choices and their privacy rights in place, because Obamacare has already shown itself to be a pipe-dream that will significantly increase the cost of a rationed health care system, kill jobs and the economy and still leave 30 million Americans un-insured!

 

“There are very few issues that are as personal and as tangible as health care, and implementation of the law over the next year is going to reveal a lot of kinks, a lot of red-tape, a lot of taxes, a lot of price increases and a lot of people forced into health care that they didn’t anticipate,” Brad Dayspring (Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee) recently stated.

 

Due to all the aforementioned, Obamacare is going to be an issue of critical importance in both the 2014 and 2016 elections, and it is beyond damned disgusting to watch Progressive “Republicans in name only”, such as Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lamar Alexander and Speaker John Boehner, pretend that they cannot stop Obamacare. Corker, in his slow drawl, laments, “Well, it’s the law now,” as if Congress has never before rescinded a U.S federal law. Boehner, feckless and pretentious, presides over one vote after another to repeal Obamacare, when he has known all along that the House can remove the government mechanisms that implement Obamacare from the appropriations part of the continuing resolution and essentially kill Obamacare. And, while Alexander says he has voted 23 times to repeal Obamacare, he voted extra funds for Obamacare during a shortfall of funds for the state exchanges.

 

These Progressive RINOs are no more anxious for the repeal of Obamacare than the Progressive Democrats, due to the power and wealth they look to gain in association with this Obamacare behemoth; these people are also representative of the status quo Republicans, who simply content themselves to work within the framework of any defeat the Progressive Democrats hand them, as they genuflect, lift their petticoats and await whatever favor Obama grants them!

 

The stage was set for this when the Progressive majority rammed Obamacare into law, and the U.S. Supreme Court did the bidding of the most extreme and radical U.S. President in history and found Obamacare “constitutional” in a fit of judicial activism aimed against our U.S. Constitution and against the will of the people. Americans witnessed firsthand tyranny, as described by James Madison in ‘Federalist Paper #47’:

 

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

 

Just imagine if past leaders had adopted the attitude of today’s Progressives concerning the Dredd Scott v. Sanford case (1857), and they never fought to abolish slavery, or they never passed the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. One must take a strong stand in opposition to any bad law of the magnitude of the Dredd Scott Decision or Obamacare, either one.

 

It is our responsibility and duty to defend the U.S. Constitution and our individual liberty in order that our children will live more free than now and, at the very least, as free as America’s Founders. This demands that we fight to our last dying breath to defund and repeal Obamacare. Those of you, so enamored with “Obama bucks”, Obamacare’s “free health care” give-away programs and “hope and change,” that you willingly give up your freedom to the State in exchange for the promise of “equality for all” in poverty, have wrapped yourselves in the cold embrace of the Statists’ chains. As for the remainder … the True American Patriots… demand that Congress remove Obamacare from the appropriations part of the continuing resolution before September 30, regardless of the imagined or real pitfalls that they envision; it’s better to lose a battle standing on one’s feet as a Free Man than to lose it on one’s knees…a coward!

 

If Congress fails America in this one simple task due to any fear that guides it, everyone should organize, in some form or fashion, and contact all their state legislators in every single state, blue and red alike, to start the process of involving each of their respective states in a States’ Convention for the purpose of proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, that repeal Obamacare and halt several other aspects of government overreach in the manner described in Article V of the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress… on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which… shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States…”. This process trumps the President, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court!

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________________

© Justin O. Smith

Intro and Edited by John R. Houk