Sutliff/Kirby Podcast on Islam in Relation to Constitution


Posted by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Interview: Paul Sutliff and Dr. Stephen Kirby

July 20, 2019

 

Dr. Stephen Kirby

 

Paul Sutliff has an interesting discussion/interview with Dr. Stephen Kirby on his Civilization Jihad Awareness (Global Patriot Radio location) podcast on Blog Talk Radio last Thursday. Here’s the summary from the podcast location:

 

Today we have guest Steven Kirby sharing how and why Islamists have real problems with the Constitution. We will even discuss if an Islamist is telling the truth when they swear to uphold the US Constitution.

 

If you like Kirby’s info, he gives his website that explores Islam in relation to the West at https://islamseries.org/. If you are a Patriot weary of being called an Islamophobe when you tell people Islam is inherently contrary to the U. S. Constitution, this is an excellent podcast to arm yourself against the idiotic epithet of racism when exposing Islam in conversation.

 

The embed for the Sutliff-Kirby podcast is below the title. If the embed doesn’t take on one or both of the blog platforms I utilize, simply click on the title and the embedded link will take you directly to the podcast.

 

Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff and guest Steve Kirby

[UPDATE 7/22/19: Paul Sutliff sent an update of the podcast where posted the interview on Youtube:]

VIDEO: Does Islam and the US Constitution have competing Ideologies

 

Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Jul 21, 2019 

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

JRH 7/20/19

America’s Current Trajectory


Into to Smith’s ‘America’s Current Trajectory

Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

June 1, 2019

 

I join many Conservative observers who view the seeds of a Civil War erupting in the USA between seemingly equally divided sides of divergent ideologies. And yet many Conservatives believe such a collision course is an exaggeration thinking the mechanisms of Constitutional government will prevail in a civil society.

 

The difficulty I see in depending on governmental mechanisms is the continuous erosion of the Constitution and Founding Principles of the Founding Fathers by transformative-minded proponents of a Living Constitution forcing the legal whims of humanity to justify immoral culture, Big Brother Government Supremacy (ala Marxist Super-State) and the forced diminishment of individual Liberty and Christian Morality.

 

The remarkable irony is the Marxist-oriented Left seems joined with intolerant Islam for the united goal of eradicating Christian influence. It’s remarkable for if the united goal is achieved, the Marxist-Left and intolerant Islam would ultimately turn on each other in blood soaked violence for global supremacy.

 

Another irony is the American Left promoting border-free immigration in the name of Marxist-Globalism. The irony is a large number of Latinos flowing into the USA seemingly maintaining the nationalism of their nations’ of origin are largely Roman Catholic in Christian moral ethics and the ones looking for a better life espouse an individualistic work ethic that originally drove American  enterprise. Once a grateful Latino electorate empowers the American Left electorally, the American Left will crush Roman Catholic Christian ethics and any individualism to work toward self-betterment.

 

Justin Smith writes about the circumstances developing in America that will lead to Civil War when it is realized the Constitutional mechanisms of virtuous governance are impotent to preserve American Liberty.

 

JRH 6/1/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

America’s Current Trajectory

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 5/31/2019 7:52 PM

 

Justin Smith standing between conservative American patriots and radical members of Solidarity – a communist affiliate, in front of the Murfreesboro Court House

 

In short, the American people are currently on a trajectory towards complete subjugation under an authoritarian tyrannical government or a Full Blown All Out Hot Civil War, simply because the current agenda of the Democratic Party and its hardcore socialist components leave zero room for compromise; conservatives cannot, and most will not, compromise with evil.

 

When we see two standards of law and “elites” being allowed to avoid prosecution, while others are targeted for criminal prosecutions by institutions that have been weaponized by the Left and Obama, we know the “rule of law” and the republic are dying, if not dead, and it will take years to repair the damage, even should Barr successfully find and prosecute all involved in the soft coup against President Trump, through the abuse of their power and the FISA Court as well as spy operations and other illegal means.

 

When we see riots in the streets over manufactured “wrongs” and the murders of policemen by Black Lives Matter, riots on campuses and the squashing of conservative speech, online censorship by Leftist Big Tech and the advocacy of violence against whites and “white privilege” by the likes of Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panthers, calls for the Reconquest of the Southwest by La Raza [NCLR & LRU], Conservatives and Christians physically attacked for carrying the American Flag i.e. Portland, Oregon ANTIFA — all communist inspired and backed by Communist Party USA [CPUSA] and George Soros‘ “Open Society“, we few or however many Conservatives full well know and understand that a concerted effort is underway, aligned with their Muslim allies of CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, to undermine and fundamentally transform America into an authoritarian socialist state — in their own words — “By Any Means Necessary“.

 

Communist ANTIFA group

 

Black Lives Matter stirring unrest in Oakland, California

 

Yes, — We can still try to effect change from within the system so much as it still exists, but like many of You, I wonder what exactly is holding Americans in their seats before their TVs, when their very freedom and the entire Bill of Rights are at stake this very minute, despite all efforts by President Trump, and in some instances because of President Trump, i.e. HR 76, FISA Reauthorization and the ban on bump stocks. And like You, I know it will take more than simply talking to our so-called leaders.

 

Gathering in one massive rally — protest — in the center of the nation is a start and it must be accompanied by messages formed with the strongest of meaning and intent, to properly convey just how serious We the People are viewing the erosion of the republic, the Constitution and the continued assaults against every good and decent thing our nation was founded upon.

 

I see a period over the next seven years of intense civil strife, and I believe that the Left will riot if Trump is reelected in 2020 just as they did in the years leading up to the election and afterwards in all the liberal bastions. I also believe that if the Democrats somehow win in 2020, the Left will still riot and attack conservatives, because they will feel much more emboldened this time around, than they did under Obama — and it was pretty bad under Obama.

 

Left Wing Willing Use of Civil Strife

 

And, with our divides currently so wide and deep, since there really isn’t any good way for true American Patriots and conservatives and Christians to compromise with the socialists and communists of America, and America’s Millennials — the majority of whom embrace ideas antithetical to our Founding Principles and the Constitution — I see the level of violence increasing over the next seven years to the point of civil war, possibly with civil war breaking out within this time frame.

 

While I see this as something we should avoid, if at all possible, I do not run from the idea, since before I see my children and grandchildren and their children’s children serving as serfs and chained at the altar of a Socialist Super State with asinine policies under “hate speech” laws and sovereignty killing legislation that also destroys individual liberty, I would prefer fighting ’til my last dying gasp to save freedom and liberty in Our Beloved America, even if it means stacking the dead carcasses of the Red, Radical, Democratic Party Commie Rat Bastards ten feet high and ten feet deep all about me in all directions for as far as the eye can see.

 

God Bless You for Fighting the Good Fight. God Bless Your Family Too. And God Bless Our Beloved America. May He Keep Her Free For All Eternity and Damn Her Enemies Both Foreign and Domestic to the Hell They Have Earned and So Richly Deserve.

 

de Oppresso Liber — Deus Vult — In Liberty ~ Justin O Smith

Illegal aliens protesting U.S. immigration policy and waving the Mexican flag in America

 

Muslims protest in support of Gaza and Hamas in 2009 in Murfreesboro, TN

 

Note: The last photo is taken from a Muslim rally in Murfreesboro, in 2009 that was protesting in support of Gaza, Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organization; turns out, that several supporters of Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were sitting on the board of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. ~ Justin

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Islam: The Enemy of the Constitution


It is time for a Constitutional Amendment that both insures Religious Liberty BUT prohibits the exercise of any religion that openly contradicts the U.S. Constitution. One religion that indeed contradicts the Constitution is Islam. The proponents of Islam that place Sharia above the Constitution utilize the ambiguity of the First Amendment to undermine the Constitution.

 

JRH 5/5/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Islam: The Enemy of the Constitution

 

By Amil Imani

May 5, 2019

Israpundit

 

Constitution vs Quran

 

Islam with its rule of Sharia presents an imminent threat to subvert and replace the Constitution that governs our lives.

 

Muslims are the only minorities in the world who will never submit to Western laws and in fact, they are the only minority who actively works around the clock to dismantle it. To Muslims, the highest US authority and document is considered a heresy. In a parallel attack, “Legal Islam “exploits every provision of the law in free societies to promote Islam and silence its critics through expensive legal shenanigans.

 

So, our Constitution and even State and local laws are essentially meaningless to a Muslim, and the Bill of Rights, once its usefulness as a means to perpetuate Islam in America is no longer necessary, will certainly be disparaged and ignored.

 

Islam not only is incompatible with the United States Constitution; it is its greatest enemy. Muslims will always consider Sharia law as the supreme law of Allah and will do anything and everything to replace our laws. Hence, it is imperative that we fight Islamofascism with the same determination that we fought other enemies of freedom such as Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. It is, therefore, imperative that the Constitution be revisited in such manner that it no longer grants a pass to any cult simply calling itself a religion. A Muslim can never ever be a Muslim and an American at the same time.

 

This is an admission that Islam is not just a religion.  It is a cult.  It seeks total control over a person’s mind and body.  And, as such, our Constitution is totally in contradiction with Islam.  They will push politicians for local control and self-determination of their own laws.  In this way, America will become two nations; a weakened traditional one, and a growing, menacing Islamized one.

 

Sharia Incompatible with Constitution

 

In the interest of impartiality, the authors of the Constitution did not define what constitutes a religion. Presently, a plethora of sects, cults, orders, all claim to be a religion and cover the length and the breadth of the land. So, as long as these “religions” minister to the legitimate spiritual needs of their congregation without threatening the rights of others, there is no reason for concern. However, when one or more of these claimants strive to undermine the very Constitution that protects them in order to impose their belief and way of life, serious problems arise.

 

One such ideology is Islam in all its forms. Islam is more than a cult. It is an ideological superstructure encompassing all institutions, social, economic, political, military, civil, legal, educational, and even private affairs. It is of relatively recent arrival on the continent and is rapidly burgeoning in both numbers and influence. Therefore, it is imprudent to ignore the threat it poses to the larger religious and secular communities.

 

Can a religion or a cult become so powerful and so uncivilized that it can hide behind the Constitution to preach an ideology of hatred and advocate a plan to destroy our society and subvert our government? We need to consider whether our Constitution enables and protects “religions” that are being used to put our very society and our freedoms in jeopardy.

 

Islam seeks nothing less than a total global domination.  The word Islam literally means “submission” or “surrender.”  Its scripture must be taken literally, its provisions are intended to dominate every waking moment in the life of a believer.  There is no room for being a half-hearted Muslim and no toleration of watering down its invocations.

 

The true nature and the threat of Islam is evident in the Quran, a document of exclusion, hatred and violence that shapes Muslims’ thinking and behavior.

 

The problem is, too few Americans are aware of this, and organizations such as CAIR while other Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations are taking full advantage of our naïveté. Moreover, Islam stands in stark contrast to the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and what the First Amendment was designed to protect: our God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Understand that Sharia is very complex, and it’s derived from multiple Islamic sources.

 

I say humanity must remain strong and resolute.  People must stop deluding themselves.  Islam will never, ever coexist with the infidels.  We must remove this cancer from this land, move away from an exclusionary, primitive, and tribal mentality to a vision of all humanity being one, with justice and liberty for all.

_____________________

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

Intro to ‘We the People’


A Divided or Unified America

 

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© November 21, 2018

 

This is one of the most thought provoking submissions from Justin Smith on the state of our U.S. Government platformed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

I am uncertain if it was Justin’s intention but this essay provides good reasoning to reform America’s Constitution. There is as much a divide between naysayers and pro-Constitution reformers for a new Constitutional Convention for American Governance.

 

The naysayers are concerned about the intrusion of abusive power (both Conservative and Leftists) in government. Constitutional Reformers believe that parameters can be imposed on Constitutional delegates in the framing of a new Constitution. Frankly, in this day and age there are elements of truth that are probably valid concerns from both the naysayers and reformers.

 

My biggest concern based on America’s last two election cycles, is that Americans are so divided on political ideology (Conservative vs. Leftist) the atmosphere for give and take deliberation in a convention may be impossible.

 

If you look at American history, Americans were not exactly unified in certainty in leaving the British Monarchy for complete independence. Many Americans considered themselves British citizens living in colonial America. While many other Americans were so upset with British governance exploiting colonial life relegating colonialists conquered subjects with no self-determination in practical local governing robbed of British privilege.

 

The former were loyal to the Crown but still displeased with socio-political governing. The latter were so displeased with British governing that the feeling of self-governing would provide a better socio-political life based on representation. Then there were a group of colonials that were ambivalent and just sought existence.

 

Of course the outcome favored the self-government by representation group of colonials; however, there was enough displeasure with British governance among Crown-favored Americans that remained after the Revolutionary War that a consensus could be deliberated upon in the formation of a national government of united former colonies.

 

On a personal level, I have doubts such a consensus via deliberation is possible in America’s current political divide. The political atmosphere today resembles the America of the Civil War than the Americans during the War of Independence.

 

I suspect America’s current divide may devolve into a war that would determine the political future of make-up of the United States. Lacking a Lincoln-like individual, that make-up may or may not be a Fractured States of America.

 

My prayer for America is for a Lincoln-like individual for a unified future. If not, I fear America’s future will fated to foreign domination by a more globalist-minded governance.

 

JRH 11/21/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks to keep my blogging habit flowing:

Please Support NCCR

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

‘We the People’

Or A Nation of Sheep

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/20/2018 9:04 PM

Americans, by and large, have not kept themselves informed, and adhered to the limits the Constitution imposes upon our government, which has resulted in more than half the problems we face today as a country. And, because the voters themselves do not know, or care, what the Constitution says, they elect candidates who have no intention, or desire, to support and defend it — believing in “the end justifies the means”.  It is a vicious cycle that repeats itself every election cycle and won’t stop until the people take the time to learn what the drafters of the Constitution intended when they wrote it.

So, as Lysander Spooner so aptly said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorizes such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” I could almost stop right there, saying that is how I feel about our system of government, and the document that established it…but I won’t.

Even though the Constitution outlined a fundamentally sound system of government, in theory, the problem is that it was the creation of a group of men who held differing views on what government should look like and what powers it should hold.

Ben Franklin explained it best when he said:

 

“For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received …” (Source: Franklin’s Final Address to the Constitutional Convention.

There were many concerns expressed by these patriots who opposed the Constitution, but the underlying theme that can be found in most of their writings is that the Constitution created a consolidation of the States into a Union under a strong centralized government.

In a more perfect union, a more perfect Republic, our sovereign and independent states would reassert the 9th and 10th Amendments more forcefully, since they have been abrogated out of existence by federal laws and judicial activism; the states should unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

One of the primary concerns of the anti-Federalists was: Did the Constitution do away with the status quo and create a consolidation of the States into a single, indivisible Union; or Republic, or did the States still retain all powers which were not expressly given; allowing the government to intrude into and interfere with the lives and liberties of the people.

 

[Blog Editor: It is my humble opinion the concerns of the Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the Constitution is important thought relating to America’s current political divide. Here are posts with some perspective on Anti-Federalist thought:

 

 

 

 

 

On June 5, 1788 in a speech opposing ratification of the Constitution, Patrick Henry expressed those exact sentiments as follows:

“I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.”

It should be obvious, that the people had already established republics by their having created their own State Legislatures, so they actually had no need to create another Republic for the purpose of governing them all. The purpose for which the delegates were sent to Philadelphia was to arrive at suggestions for amendments, in order to make the existing Confederation Government adequate for the needs of the country; not to toss the existing form of government in the trash heap and replace it with one of their creation.

If the powers given to this new form of government were to be exercised primarily upon the States, then why did the drafters of the Constitution demand that it be ratified by the voice of the people; as it was the States whose authority would be further restricted, or usurped, by the creation of this new form of government. However, if this new system of government was, in fact, a consolidation and a diminishing of the sovereignty of the States, then it would make sense that the people must give their consent to it.

Yet, in Federalist 45 James Madison attempted to ensure the people that the States would retain their authority over the lives and liberties of the people by saying:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

 

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Most Americans believe the Bill of Rights protects certain rights against governmental interference. That is only partially true, since the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution which created our federal government; not the constitutions which framed the various State governments. Therefore, technically they only apply to the federal government. However, an argument can also be made that, since the Constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the land, any amendment to it could be implied to apply to the States as well.

Keeping things simple, let’s just say that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. How is it then that the government can dictate what kind of guns private citizens may own; how is it that the Supreme Court — which is PART of the federal government — decides whether a State may display the Ten Commandments, or that children be prohibited from praying in school; how is it that the federal government can violate the 4th Amendment by spying upon the private conversations of every man, woman and child in this country, just to keep us safe from terrorism?

There exists a whole list of things the federal government has done which are not among the powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 as those powers given to Congress; which in case you have forgotten, is the lawmaking body of our government; not the President as so many seem to think.

This has all been done because of the concept of implied powers; something introduced while George Washington was President. That occurred because the Constitution itself did not provide specific enough limitations upon the powers it was granting government; leaving loopholes by which government has expanded its power well beyond those originally intended.

So, if that is true, then the Constitution itself failed the people as it did not provide sufficient means for the people to resist the encroaching powers of government and to ward off tyranny and oppression.

Not one individual can provide me with the Article and Clause that grants any of us the authority to arrest and charge any of our elected officials, for the crime of violating the Constitution, because such a clause simply does not exist. And, it is this oversight that has resulted in the Constitution’s failure, by not providing the means to oppose a government that no longer adheres to any kind of limits upon their power and authority.

I only care whether the party that is in control adheres to the Constitutional limitations imposed upon them and seeks to protect and defend my rights…that and nothing more, and both parties have failed miserably in this duty. If government does not do this, then I revoke my consent to being governed by it.

Why do Americans still support a government that no longer resembles or represents the ideas and beliefs which led our Founders to seek their independence from a tyrant? Why do they so meekly submit to tyranny and oppression today? Is there not a drop of patriotic blood left in their bodies?

One certainly must wonder what has kept Americans from marching on D.C, with rifles in hand and sixteen feet lengths of rope, so criminals like Hillary Clinton, Obama and Susan Rice and many others could be hung from the highest tree, or the balcony of the Capitol Building; especially in light of the current double standard of “law” applied in America.

All I see is a nation of sheep who meekly obey the commands of their masters. What has become of the land of the free and the home of the brave? LaVoy Finicum was brave and he was gunned down in cold blood; with the media and the people calling him an extremist.

I seek to restore America to Her Founding Principles and more of an Originalist approach towards the implementation of the U.S. Constitution, which has been bastardized far and away from anything ever intended by the Founding Fathers. If Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson were alive today they would either have fled the country, or they would be serving time, in Guantanamo Bay as domestic terrorists, because the people of this country no longer care about limited government or individual liberty; all they care about is comfort and security, whether it’s the Democrats or Republicans providing it.

And it makes me sick to death to watch.

~ Justin O Smith

______________________

Intro to ‘We the People’

A Divided or Unified America

 

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© November 21, 2018

______________________

‘We the People’

Or A Nation of Sheep

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/20/2018 9:04 PM

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Most source links by Justin Smith. Some links are by the Editor. Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

E Pluribus Unum Trumps Multicultural Divisiveness


John R. Houk

© June 9, 2018

 

The Multicultural Left encourages Anti-Constitution/Anti-American-Heritage religion Islam to take up roots in America in the name of diversity. In case you didn’t realize it, DIVERSITY = DIVISION!

 

Two national mottos are stamped in American history representative of who we are as a nation of people. The first national motto codified by Congress on the United Seal in 1782 is E Pluribus Unum. The motto is Latin for “from many, one”. The other national motto is In God We Trust encoded by Congress in 1956 (Wikipedia). I am quite committed to both mottos, but I want to focus on “from many, one” in an American cultural perspective.

 

Whether you believe this motto refers to 13 former British Colonies becoming one to form one nation or a nation of European immigrants who became one-people to form one nation; the point is ‘DIVERSITY” has no part in America blending many people into one nation with one culture (which duh, was a Judeo-Christian heritage!). Why? AGAIN, because DIVERSITY = DIVISION!

 

President Abraham Lincoln completely understood as a nation divided, America would break up into weak independent States. He engaged in the Civil War against the Southern States that perceived Lincoln would promote an ever-growing Northern States attitude that the institution of slavery was immoral and should be abolished.

 

Rather an adopt a greater moral stand in catching up with the moral imperative that human beings should never be treated as property, all humans are created by God and God does not created some humans better than others. Rather the Christian perspective Man fell from union with God in Eden and Man has an opportunity of choice to re-institute that union in Jesus Christ.

 

That is ALL mankind (or humankind if you are a politically correct Multiculturalist Leftist) regardless of racial lines. Indeed Lincoln used the Biblical picture in his House Divided speech when he ran for Senator in Illinois indicating division is weakness:

 

A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South. (Quoted from Wikipedia; Lincoln’s House Divided Speech; page was last edited on 6/1/18 at 11:55)

 

Even though the Civil War came to a fighting point due to Southern wanting to preserve their culture based on State Sovereignty, the fight evolved into a fight on which culture (North or South) would be perpetuated: The Northern belief of a culture of a moral imperative on human nature or a Southern belief that a slave economy is essential to preserve the Southern way of life. Preserving the Union of American States initiated a Christian moral imperative for all Americans illuminating humans as property. In reality it has taken over 100 years for the descendants of former slaves to achieve the united Civil Rights of the descendants on non-slaves. There is still a lot cultural healing for African-Americans to experience because American non-slaves were indoctrinated that Black-skinned humans were inferior to White-skinned humans.

 

At this point I could spin-off to a number of subjects relating to how the Diversity thinking of Multiculturalist has increased division in America more than a continued healing of America bringing about an E Pluribus Unum, but I want focus on one divisive oriented issue that has really been imported to America in the name of Multiculturalism.

 

That imported divisive issue is promoting immigration of Muslim refugees that have been ingrained with the Islamic culture of intolerance of all things NOT Islamic. Lincoln began the union of cultural values by preserving the Union of American States. The American Left (cough – Democrats) is setting the stage for another divided America to fester into violence resulting between preserving our American Heritage and those committed to transforming American culture into self-destructive diverse peoples with no national loyalty but loyalty to only segments of like-minded people. You could call this segmenting Tribalism.

 

What is Tribalism?

 

Merriam-Webster:

 

1 tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups

 

2 strong in-group loyalty

 

Cambridge Dictionary:

 

♦ the state of existing as a tribe, or a very strong feeling of loyalty to your tribe

 

♦ a very strong feeling of loyalty to a political or social group, so that you support them whatever they do

 

There is ZERO E Pluribus Unum in Tribalism. A Tribalistic culture in America means this great Republic that our Founding Fathers fought for will not survive.

 

There can be no “from many, one” nation with a theo-political ethos that calls for the destruction or subservience of all things non-Islamic because Islam is superior.

 

No Coexistence Foolish Infidels

 

Search Engines are dominated by Multiculturalist thinking so you may actually have a difficult experience finding Islam/Constitution contradictions. When I began a search the top results were Muslim apologists trying to twist incompatibilities as irrelevant. After working with various phrases I found an honest comparison on WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.”

 

Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill – and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states:

 

“Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah” (Sura 5:38). READ ENTIRETY – Bold Emphasis Blog Editor’s (QURAN VS. CONSTITUTION: WHY THEY’RE INCOMPATIBLE; By William Federer; WND; 9/26/09  12:00 AM)

 

The Constitution guarantees Religious Freedom, but Religious Freedom cannot be used as a tool to overthrow the Constitution.

 

Citing the Constitution – ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (Treason; The Heritage Guide to the Constitution)

 

U.S. Legal Code on Rebellion or Sedition – 18 U.S. Code § 2383:

 

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) — 18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection; Legal Information Institute, Cornell University

 

When most American lawmakers agreed that Communism was a threat to our Constitutional Republic, treason description was broadened through the Smith Act in 1940. The original Smith Act had some Constitutional problems that has modified the Act since its 1940 inception. Here is an excerpt from Conservative News and Views relating to the Smith Act:

 

The Smith Act

 

Here is some information about the Smith Act gleaned from Internet:

 

The Alien Registration Act of 1940, usually called the Smith Act because its anti-sedition section was authored by Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, is prescribed in 54 Statutes at Large 670-671 (1940). The Act has been amended several times and can now be found at 18 U.S. Code § 2385 (2000).

 

2385. Advocating Overthrow of Government.

 

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

 

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

 

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof–

 

 

The Smith Act and Muslim groups

 

The Smith Act clearly applies to Muslim organizations in the United States such as CAIR, the Council on American–Islamic Relations. CAIR is an Islamic supremacist organization that pioneered 20th century Islamic terrorism, and it sanctions violence against the United States. CAIR is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and has regional offices nationwide. Through media relations, lobbying, and education, CAIR promotes Islamic, hence anti-American perspectives to the American public, while promoting social and political activism among Muslims in America. Moreover, CAIR is suspected of being linked to terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and to HAMAS in the Gaza strip. Of course, no action will be taken against CAIR as long as Barack Obama is in the White House.

 

 

Islamic terrorism constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States, as understood by the language of the Smith Act. Hence, patriotic American statesmen and organizations should rise up and sound the warning that America has been penetrated by her deadliest enemy. READ ENTIRETY (SEDITION: CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER; By PAUL EIDELBERG; Conservative News and Views; 6/14/16)

 

For clarity, the Smith Act was amended because a thought of criminal activity is not unconstitutional. The Act was amended that actions planned and/or acted upon fits the Constitutional parameters. Here is an excerpt of some of the history the Act’s amendments:

 

Under a 1956 amendment to the Smith Act, if two or more persons conspire to commit any offense described in the statute, each is subject to a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum term of imprisonment of twenty years, or both, and is ineligible for employment by the United States or its agencies for five years after conviction. The Smith Act, as enacted in 1940, contained a conspiracy provision, but effective September 1, 1948, the Smith Act was repealed and substantially reenacted as part of the 1948 recodification, minus the conspiracy provision. On June 25, 1948, the Federal general conspiracy statute was passed, effective September 1, 1948, which contained the same provisions as the deleted conspiracy section of the original Smith Act except that the showing of overt acts was required and the maximum penalty became five years’ imprisonment instead of ten (18 U.S.C.A. § 2385). The general conspiracy statute became operative, with respect to conspiracies to violate the Smith Act, substantially in the same manner and to the same extent as previously.

 

The conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act and its provisions defining the substantive offenses have been upheld. An intent to cause the overthrow of the government by force and violence is an essential element of the offenses. The advocacy of peaceful change in U.S. social, economic, or political institutions, irrespective of how fundamental or expansive or drastic such proposals might be, is not forbidden.

 

A conspiracy can exist even though the activities of the defendants do not culminate in an attempt to overthrow the government by force and violence. A conspiracy to advocate overthrow of the government by force or violence, as distinguished from the advocacy itself, can be constitutionally restrained even though it consists of mere preparation because the existence of the conspiracy creates the peril.

 

An agreement to advocate forcible overthrow of the government is not an unlawful conspiracy under the Smith Act if the agreement does not call for advocacy of action; the act covers only advocacy of action for the overthrow of the government by force and violence rather than advocacy or teaching of theoretical concepts. READ ENTIRETY (Smith Act; Encyclopedia.comWest’s Encyclopedia of American Law; © 2005 The Gale Group, Inc.)

 

The point to be realized is Religious Freedom does not protect members of a religion if they actively prepare and work to overthrow the government of the United States Republic. Multicultural Diversity encourages a divisiveness that emboldens treason, sedition and/or rebellion.

 

Americans should not fear Multiculturalist political correctness to tell their Representatives and Senators to be wary of any religion – not just Islam – that advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government. Even if it means shutting down donations from nations or foreign NGOs that have a design to undermine or destroy the American Constitutional Rule of Law. Or shutting Mosques (or perhaps White Pride Identity Churches) that ACTIVELY (as defined by treason, sedition and rebellion) place their beliefs above the Rule of Law.

 

These thoughts were inspired by the recent actions of the Austrian government that has done exactly what I have described above about Mosques and subversive monies from foreign entities.

 

VIDEO: Austria to close seven mosques and expel dozens of imams [Hat Tip: Vlad Tepes]

 

Posted by euronews (in English)

Published on Jun 8, 2018

 

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz’s right wing government announces crackdown on “Islamist ideology” and foreign funding of religious groups.… READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2018/06/08/austria-to-close-seven-mosques-and-expel-dozens-of-imams

 

JRH 6/9/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Austria’s right-wing government plans to shut down seven mosques and expel up to 40 foreign-funded imams in crackdown against Islamist ideology

 

By KHALEDA RAHMAN FOR MAILONLINE and REUTERS

PUBLISHED: 04:37 EDT, 8 June 2018 | UPDATED: 11:17 EDT, 8 June 2018

Daily Mail

 

  • Chancellor Sebastian Kurz announced the measures in a news conference
  • Kurz said a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna is going to be closed 
  • The Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques will also be dissolved 
  • Ankara quickly denounced the move, saying the move ‘is a reflection of the anti-Islam, racist and discriminatory populist wave’ in Austria

 

Austria said today it could expel up to 60 Turkish-funded imams and their families and would shut down seven mosques as part of a crackdown on ‘political Islam’ that was described as ‘just the beginning’, triggering fury in Ankara.

 

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the government is shutting a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques.

 

His coalition government, an alliance of conservatives and the far right, came to power soon after Europe’s migration crisis on promises to prevent another influx and clamp down on benefits for new immigrants and refugees.

 

In a previous job as minister in charge of integration, Chancellor Kurz oversaw the passing of a tough ‘law on Islam’ in 2015, which banned foreign funding of religious groups and created a duty for Muslim societies to have ‘a positive fundamental view towards (Austria’s) state and society’.

 

‘Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have no place in our country,’ Kurz told a news conference outlining the government’s decisions, which were based on that law.

 

‘This is just the beginning,’ far-right Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache added.

 

Ankara quickly denounced the move, and Turkey’s presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said on Twitter: ‘Austria’s decision to close down seven mosques and deport imams with a lame excuse is a reflection of the anti-Islam, racist and discriminatory populist wave in this country.’

 

Scroll down for video 

 

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (pictured) said the government is shutting a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community

 

Interior Minister Herbert Kickl of the far-right Freedom Party (FPOe), the junior partner in Austria’s coalition government, said: ‘The circle of people possibly affected by these measures – the pool that we’re talking about – comprises around 60 imams.’

 

Kickl was referring to imams with alleged links to the Turkish-Islamic Cultural Associations (ATIB) organisation, a branch of Turkey’s religious affairs agency Diyanet.

 

The interior minister added that the government suspects them of contravening a ban on foreign funding of religious office holders.

 

The ministry said 40 of them had an active application for extending their residency and that a number of these had already been referred to immigration authorities, where a process for expelling them was underway.

 

Once family members were taken into account, a total 150 people risked losing their right to residence, Kickl told a Vienna press conference.

 

The actions by the government are based on a 2015 law that, among other things, prevents religious communities from getting funding from abroad. Pictured left, Kurz and right, Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache 

 

Seven mosques will also be shut after an investigation by Austria’s religious affairs authority sparked by images which emerged in April of children in a Turkish-backed mosque playing dead and re-enacting the World War I battle of Gallipoli.

 

‘Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have no place in our country,’ said Chancellor Sebastian Kurz of the ruling centre-right People’s Party.

 

The photos of children, published by the Falter weekly, showed the young boys in camouflage uniforms marching, saluting, waving Turkish flags and then playing dead.

 

Their ‘corpses’ were then lined up and draped in the flags.

 

The mosque in question was run by ATIB.

 

‘This is just the beginning,’ far-right Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache (centre) told the news conference. Pictured left, Kurz and right, Interior Minister Herbert Kickl

 

VIDEO: Austrian conservative Sebastian Kurz makes victory speech

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1554935.html

ATIB itself condemned the photos at the time, calling the event ‘highly regrettable’ and saying it was ‘called off before it had even ended’.

 

One of the mosques targeted by Friday’s measure was in the Favoriten district of Vienna.

 

The government said it had been operating illegally and that it was under the influence of the far-right Turkish political movement, the Grey Wolves.

 

Worshippers arriving for Friday prayers were met with a sign on the door reading ‘closed’ in Turkish and German.

 

Kursant, a 26-year-old, told AFP: ‘I’ve been coming to this mosque frequently since I was a child, I’ve had lessons here, I’ve never heard anyone at the mosque, any of the employees, express any Salafist opinions. That’s laughable.’

 

Six other mosques are being closed down, three in Vienna, two in Upper Austria and one in Carinthia.

 

All but one of the mosques affected belong to the ‘Arab Religious Association,’ according to the government.

 

But while Turkey’s presidential spokesman on Friday lambaste the measures as ‘anti-Islam’ and ‘racist’ move, other European far-right leaders welcomed the announcement.

 

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French Front National, said on Twitter: ‘Austria is taking things in hand and showing that ‘when you want to, you can!”

 

Last week Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (pictured) attacked Kurz, saying: ‘This immoral chancellor has a problem with us’

 

Matteo Salvini, head of Italy’s League and interior minister in the new government, also tweeted his approval, saying: ‘Those who exploit their faith to endanger a country’s security should be expelled!’

 

Turkey’s relations with Austria have long been strained, with Kurz calling on the European Union to break off negotiations on Ankara joining the bloc and banning Turkish politicians from campaigning in Austria for upcoming elections.

 

Austria, a country of 8.8 million people, has roughly 600,000 Muslim inhabitants, more than half of whom are Turkish or have families of Turkish origin.

 

Around 360,000 people of Turkish origin live in Austria, including 117,000 Turkish nationals.

 

Last week Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attacked Kurz, saying: ‘This immoral chancellor has a problem with us’.

‘He’s throwing his weight around and making a scene,’ Erdogan went on.

 

Both Kurz, of the centre-right People’s Party (OeVP) and the FPOe made immigration and integration major themes in their election campaigns last year.

 

The topic had been pushed up the political agenda by the migrant crisis of 2015-16, which saw more than 150,000 people seek asylum in the country of 8.7 million.

 

In Friday’s press conference Kurz was keen to emphasise that the action was being taken under legislation to regulate Islamic associations that he himself brought in as a minister in the previous government and which had so far – in his opinion – not been used often enough.

 

The conservative Kurz became chancellor in December in a coalition with the anti-migration Freedom Party.

 

In campaigning for last year’s election, both coalition parties called for tougher immigration controls, quick deportations of asylum-seekers whose requests are denied and a crackdown on radical Islam.

 

The government recently announced plans to ban girls in elementary schools and kindergartens from wearing headscarves, adding to existing restrictions on veils.

___________________

E Pluribus Unum Trumps Multicultural Divisiveness

John R. Houk

© June 9, 2018

__________________

Austria’s right-wing government plans to shut down seven mosques and expel up to 40 foreign-funded imams in crackdown against Islamist ideology

 

Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd

Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group

© Associated Newspapers Ltd

 

Intro to ‘If This Is “Representation” Give Me Rebellion’


Intro by John R. Houk, Editor

By Justin O. Smith

Posted March 26, 2018

After President Trump signed the 2,000-plus page HR 1625 omnibus bill, America’s Conservative base screamed betrayal. For good reason: The bill appeared to give the Marxist Dems everything they desired with the non-Establishment GOP receiving scraps (or perhaps crumbs in Pelosi terminology).

 

This is good reasoning for Conservative outrage!

 

On a personal level though, despite the Leftists spoils going to the Dems (and those the spoils are legion as you will read from Justin Smith), the YUGE Omnibus Bill was also the largest military budget Bill in American history. The military spending purpose was more than merely reversing Obama’s military dismemberment. The money was needed to modernize the American military to regain steps over the leaps taken by Russian and Chinese military modernizations to overcome current American weapons technology. This is ESSENTIAL!

 

Due to the purpose of military spending I’m not quite as hot against President Trump as many – perhaps most – of my fellow Conservatives. In a Congress that has no super majority for the GOP (especially the Senate), the only way to get and keep government moving on a Conservative agenda is to make some painful concessions. The problem with HR 1625 way too many concessions were made that give the appearance of Conservative diminishment.

 

Justin sent this insightful post on the Omnibus package on March 24. I have since come across some info that may temper Justin’s and Conservatives’ anger a bit. The President has hinted via his favorite path to communicate with Americans – a tweet – that he will build The Wall with the Defense Budget allocation. Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker illustrates how this is possible.

 

Unfortunately, the President hasn’t addressed some of the other Omnibus egregious pork such as funding ungodly Planned Parenthood is one of probably many examples.

 

Without further ado, here is Justin’s very valid reasons for displeasure with President Trump’s signature on HR 1625.

 

JRH 3/26/18

Please Support NCCR

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

If This Is “Representation” Give Me Rebellion

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/24/2018 3:01 PM

 

As I listen to President Trump on his action of signing the current Omnibus bill, I am left with no other conclusion than he is really not as strong a leader as many seem to believe him to be. He signed this terrible $1.3 trillion bill for all the wrong reasons and lamented its exclusion of terrible other items, like DACA, but nowhere did he castigate these do-nothing “leaders” for adding a bad gun control act called “NICS“; this Omnibus bill is all smoke and mirrors and the 33 miles of added funding for border fencing is just that – a fence [barely], not a wall.

 

 

This bill continues to fund Planned Parenthood too. — Oh — And Sanctuary Cities Too. Really? What happened to all Trump’s talk about “defunding” sanctuary cities?

 

And how many more times are we going to provide border wall funding only to see a lesser plan offered and implemented for less money and the appropriated money simply disappear? Into someone’s pockets? Especially now that we see this bill provides funding to secure the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Trump should have refused to sign this bill and let the chips fall where they may, but he’s terrible when it comes to policy on funding government and many other items. If Trump had not signed the bill, any government shutdown would not have stopped the military from functioning. Since the military is considered an “essential” function, i.e. halting its operations could result in fatalities or impede national security, it will continue to operate regardless of whether or not the government shuts down; military spending would have been addressed soon enough, once Congress returned with a cleaner bill.

 

Whose side is the GOP really on and when are they going to start keeping their promises? This is not REPRESENTATION. THIS Is A PERPETUAL CON GAME BEING RUN ON THE U.S. TAXPAYER AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

 

Trump says, “I’ll Never Sign Another Bill Like This One” … Wanna bet?

 

It still doesn’t assuage or change the fact that some other very bad permanent pieces of legislation rode in on the tail end of this bill. That’s what happens when the Senate reverts back to pork spending legislation and why Trump is now asking for line-by-line veto authority from Congress, which was “ruled” unconstitutional in 1998, by the Supreme Court during the Clinton presidency.

 

This is also the same sort of bill that allows for funds to be easily shifted and misappropriated in the most corrupt fashion, just like Obama, because there is No Budget and these are only “spending suggestions”. This makes this entire thing end up as one great big $1.3 trillion slush fund (the largest in U.S. history)— more abuse of the U.S. taxpayer.

 

Who’s going to account for it? The GAO? The Big Govt. commie Democrats and statist RINOS?  HA!

 

Whatever the structure of this bill, it is certain and known that bills were attached, like the NICS Act [Blog Editor: See Heritage post subsection “Includes the Fix NICS Act”], a piece of leftist gun control, that Did Become PERMANENT U.S. Law now to be fully employed and implemented against U.S. Citizens. Congress even gave itself a raise and that’s Permanent and doesn’t go away in six months.

 

This was 2,232 pages that NOT ONE SENATOR READ, except for Senator Rand Paul. This is the stuff that SWAMPS ARE MADE OF and the very sort of thing that Trump was elected to END.

 

If this is what we are paying for folks, You’d be better off to break out the axes, knives and pitchforks on the front steps of the Capitol Building in DC and have a good tar and feather party for the criminal pigs and traitors to their oaths to the Constitution and America.

 

Trump called this a matter of national security because of the military spending involved, which is just wrong. The real national security issue at hand is that this takes us one step closer to another massive economic collapse, greater than 1929 or 2008 either one. What are they going to do when this actually happens, because they refuse to control the federal government’s out-of-control spending?

 

Daniel Horowitz of ‘Conservative Review’ writes: “Taken in totality, this bill validates, legitimizes, and codifies the world view of the Democrats, only with slightly less enthusiasm. Which is why the Democrats are crushing Republicans in turnout so far this election season. This bill will essentially end Republican control of Congress.”

 

This bill is conclusive evidence that House and Senate Republicans are whistling by the political graveyard, because they seem to be unaware that the content and means they used to pass this bill will turn off their base.

 

This is the bottom line: If you are a conservative voter and your party just passed a bill that funds a number of liberal priorities while busting the budget, would you bother to knock on doors for them this fall? Nope.

 

This Omnibus bill doesn’t bode well for the future of America. It appears conservative values are dead in our government, as all the GOP pays them lip service and then promptly ignores them in their votes. This is pushing middle America into an untenable position where rebellion, in some form or fashion, in the not too distant future, begins to look like an appealing choice, unless Americans start electing real conservative Constitutional minded Statesmen of honor, who will restore traditional American principles and values, and the American Heritage, under the Original Intent of Our Founders. [Bold text by Blog Editor]

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________________

Intro to ‘If This Is “Representation” Give Me Rebellion’

Intro by John R. Houk, Editor

By Justin O. Smith

Posted March 26, 2018

_____________________

If This Is “Representation” Give Me Rebellion

 

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Is Dislike of POTUS an Impeachable Offense?


Clem DeWitt takes on the Leftists desiring to impeach President Trump for the constitutional violation of not liking POTUS. WAIT! There is NO such clause in the U.S. Constitution!

 

Constitutional Sections Regarding Impeachment

 

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5

 

The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

 

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

 

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

 

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment [sic] shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

 

Article 2, Section 4

 

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

… There Is MORE Pertaining to the Judiciary (Impeachment Clauses; University of ChicagoThe Founders Constitution; © 1987)

 

Impeachment Clause Commentary:

 

 

 

 

DeWitt includes the Leftist mania of smearing Conservatives’ character to brainwash voters to hate.

 

Enjoy the read.

 

JRH 3/16/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Is Dislike of POTUS an Impeachable Offense?

 

Discovered at PATRIOTS UNITED TO SAVE AMERICA (Facebook Secret Group)

By  Clem DeWitt

3/16/18 10:34am

 

Most Democrats and their reliable, compliant, obedient Brown Shirts that make up the bulk of the US press, are engaged in a relentless, bloodless coup against President Donald Trump, Constitutionally elected by We The People.

Before taking his Oath of Office, there were cries to Impeach Trump. Of course the Constitution’s ‘Impeachment clause’ only covers Officers of the Constitution, not those in waiting. On the Floor of the People’s House, Rep. Green, D-TX, has led a circus that offers Impeachment articles against Trump, articles that are not just outside the clause, they are particulars based on a dislike of Trump and nothing less, or more. The Framers, intellectually light years ahead of Trump’s detractors, did not include personal dislikes for removal from Office and this Republic is better for that wisdom. If Democrats should prevail by some bastardization of the clause, the Constitution would forever be subject to on-the-spot amendment, rendering it a catch all for someone’s pique, their angst, their politics.

Before the 2016 Election, daily we were treated to an accuser and another that followed the next day and the day after the next with complaints that Trump had engaged in sexual predation of a most unsavory nature. Led by Gloria Allred, a self-disgracing lawyer who listens for ambulance sirens, great theater was made public with Allred and an accuser complete with tears and tissues. After Trump was elected, the tears and tissues evaporated as quickly as did the accusers. (Lisa Bloom, Allred’s daughter, would highlight the sequel with her client offering a complaint against Judge Roy Moore, Republican Candidate from Alabama for the US Senate. Tears and tissues were followed by evaporation. Allred and Bloom make up the DNC’s Criminal Investigation Division when it comes to Snidely Whiplash Republicans)

Enter Stormy Daniels, latest darling of the Impeach Trump crowd. It should be noted that whatever might have taken place between Trump and Daniels took place before Trump became President. But, as steady as any drum beat, the Daniel’s story on most left leaning news organizations is front and center. In print, it is above the fold, in the visual world, it leads off so-called newscasts. To some minds vacant of understanding-knowing the Impeachment clause, Daniels is the Impeachable offense that can take Trump down.

“Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” whether Daniels had ever been threatened with physical harm, Michael Avenatti (Daniel’s lawyer) succinctly replied, “Yes.” (THE HILL). Of course Avenatti would not entertain follow up questions, instead saying “people will have to tune in to ’60 Minutes’ on March 25,” when CBS is scheduled to air an interview with Daniels.” (Yep, CBS, the network that gave us Rather and Mapes, co-conspirators to bring down President George W. Bush) Will Avenatti reveal the nature of a physical threat made against Daniels and by whom? Or is this a page from the Allred-Bloom playbook of salaciousness fabricated by shadowy, evaporating accusers?

Stay tuned as this Kabuki Theater of The Absurd continues day after day after day and all because most Democrats and most in the US press dislike Trump to the point of seeking to upend the Constitution if necessary to take down Trump.

____________________

Title determined by the Editor from the text.

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Clem DeWitt