Trump vs. Crooked Hillary – Conservative vs. Leftist


2016-elephant-vs-jack-ass

John R. Houk

Aaron Morse

© October 10,2016

 

Discussion at [1 week ago] –  Hat In Ring (Discussion) to the post “2 News Pieces on Crooked FBI”.

 

Aaron Morse spends a significant amount of time attempting to ridicule me without proving any point other than saying I am wrong. When a Left Winger tells me that I am wrong, I must be Right (pun intended – no really, it’s a pun).

 

+++

Aaron Morse

1 week ago

 

They won’t bend to you so they are crooked. Whatever.

 

John Houk

6 days ago

 

+Aaron Morse Actually they went bend to any official inquiries – so whatever.

 

Aaron Morse

5 days ago

 

+John Houk official inquiries?? Do you mean the requests from congress for the FBI to investigate?

 

John Houk

1 second ago

 
+Aaron Morse Actually I mean subpoenas that have the force of law from Congress!

 

Aaron Morse

1 week ago

 

Call them crooked when they don’t bend to your wishes. Who cares.

 

John Houk

6 days ago

 

+Aaron Morse Most Americans that smell something is rotten. Obviously the Dems could care less about the odor, they’ll support anyone that continues Leftist principles regardless of how crooked they are.

 

Aaron Morse

5 days ago

 

+John Houk Most americans that smell something is rotten…..??? what? Finish the statement. By itself that is not a sentence.

Your arrogance in thinking that your biased opinion of what dems will support is telling. You only have a claim if you make shit up.

“…they’ll support anyone that continues Leftist principles…” And and conservatives will support anyone that supports their regressive principles. You basically stated that people will support what they agree with. Thanks for the biggest DUH of the year.

“…regardless of how crooked they are.” Now that is false. Your opinion is not how our justice system works. Please realize that all of your charges fail against her because they are unfounded and not because everyone is crooked and letting her be above the law,

And look at your own candidate a minute. even if half the shit you claim on hillary was true, she would still be the less of the evils.


John Houk

18 minutes ago

 

+Aaron Morse Aaron I admit I am biased, i.e. biased toward Constitutional Originalism (as opposed to make it up as you go along Living Constitution) or Christian principles (that even deist Founding Fathers supported) as opposed to godless make up ethics as you go along Humanistic Secularism.

 

Your arrogance in thinking that your biased opinion of what dems will support is telling. You only have a claim if you make shit up.

“…they’ll support anyone that continues Leftist principles…” And and conservatives will support anyone that supports their regressive principles. You basically stated that people will support what they agree with. Thanks for the biggest DUH of the year.”

 

Dems are the champs of making things up, especially Crooked Hillary and the Leftist-in-Chief Obama. And I thank you for that “DUH”.

 

“…regardless of how crooked they are.” Now that is false. Your opinion is not how our justice system works. Please realize that all of your charges fail against her because they are unfounded and not because everyone is crooked and letting her be above the law,
Come on Aaron, even Crooked Comey said she did something wrong. He felt – As if you can believe it – that the poor grandma broke the law without intent; ergo no prosecution is needed. WHAT A CROCK!

 

And look at your own candidate a minute. even if half the shit you claim on hillary was true, she would still be the less of the evils.

 

Now Aaron, you know that is a lie straight from the pit of hell, right? I thought you were an intelligent Leftist, or are you pulling the old (socialist) Nazi/Communist lie about speaking falsehood enough that people will believe it as truth? For all the miscues Trump has committed, NONE of them cost lives (Benghazi) or covered up the victimization of women that Bill Clinton raped or groped. In spite of Trump’s potty-mouth, Leftists tried to exploit private locker room talk about female genitalia as if it was the same as actual acts unwanted sex. Where is the line of women accusing Trump of unwanted physical sexual advances? There are none.

 

JRH 10/10/16

Please Support NCCR

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

I left Aaron Morse’s comments unedited not to besmirch him. I understand the act of commenting is done in haste and thus spelling and grammar are the least of anyone’s concern. That includes me and thus I run a spellcheck.

 

Prediction….


Croolrd Hillary - Crooked Clintons

This conspiracy exposé of Crooked Hillary have easily have been titled Clinton Political Machine. Go get’em Tony Newbill!

 

JRH 8/1/16

lease Support NCCR

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

Prediction….

 

By Tony Newbill

Sent: 7/23/2016 11:01 AM

 

Dear Team Trump, the Clinton Political Machine has the capability to orchestrate an Economic crisis to create fear in the electorate (I believe they did this in 2007-8). And Obama did this again in 2012 with the Medicare SS voters.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/us/politics/in-poll-obama-opens-medicare-edge-over-romney.html?_r=0

 

Challenged on Medicare, G.O.P. Loses Ground

 

ORLANDO, Fla. — Maria Rubin is one of the coveted independent voters in this swing state — so independent that she will not say whether she is voting for President Obama or Mitt Romney. She does share her age (63) and, more quickly, her opinion on Medicare: “I’m not in favor of changing it, or eliminating it.”

 

 

But in recent weeks Mr. Obama and his campaign have hit back hard, and enlisted former President Bill Clinton as well, to make the case that the Romney-Ryan approach to Medicare would leave older Americans vulnerable to rising health care costs. …

 

 

At the heart of the conflict is the proposal backed by Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan to change the way Medicare works in an effort to drive down health care costs and keep the program solvent as the population ages. Under their plan, retirees would get a fixed annual payment from the government that they could use to buy traditional Medicare coverage or a private health insurance policy. …

 

 

… [T]he Democratic message is resonating with voters like Ms. Rubin, who joined other independent and Democratic voters last week to hear Mr. Clinton make his pitch for Mr. Obama’s re-election in the packed ballroom of a resort hotel here.

 

 

Democrats focused heavily on Medicare at their convention and have kept up the assault since then. Last weekend in Kissimmee, Fla., Mr. Obama spoke of Republican plans for “voucherizing Medicare,” while Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. says Republicans will institute “vouchercare.” …

 

And soon, strategists say, Democrats will buttress their Medicare message by charging that a Romney-Ryan administration could also seek to alter Social Security, the other popular entitlement program.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Challenged on Medicare, G.O.P. Loses Ground; By JACKIE CALMES; NYT; 9/15/12)

 

 

I think Mr. Trump Can make the case that his economic and tax policies can expand the revenue flows from a 4% growth rate to pay the costs of these programs like the system was designed to in the first place. It’s the De-industrialists of the Clinton Political Machine that want to employ the Bolsheviks style trend that is causing the debt to exceed adequate supply to cripple the capital system and create a distrust for the whole economic system and then they think they can convince the American people can that a Totalitarian system is a better option, we have already heard Obama and Hilary try and sell the idea that Capitalism is a failed system, Obama’s opinion:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7RzcTmcFK0

 

VIDEO: President Obama: Free Market Capitalism “Doesn’t Work” 12-7-11

 

 

Posted by PenguinProseMedia

Uploaded on Dec 11, 2011

 

U.S. President declares capitalism “has never worked”. The free market has “never worked”?? Is Barack Obama deliberately burning bridges with average Americans? The free market isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system we have. Shocking ignorance and contempt for the bedrock of economic growth and engine of prosperity, the free enterprise system.

 

Hilarys opinions are VERY TELLING:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp 

 

Hillary or Karl?

A quiz about list of various statements supposedly made by Hillary Clinton.

 

Claim: List reproduces various “Marxist” statements made by Hillary Clinton.

 

[Veracity] MIXTURE

 

Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2007]

 

A little history lesson: If you don’t know the answer make your best guess Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) “(We) … can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid and vote
Anybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it’s time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind!

 

Origins:   This list of purported “Marxist” quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly “true” or “false”: She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements. Below we verify the source and READ ENTIRETY (Hillary or Karl? By

David Mikkelson – From the Archive; Snopes.com)

 

[Blog Editor: In case my readers are unaware, Snopes as a political fact checker is an in the tank Leftist sympathizing website. This June 2016 Daily Caller post has the goods on Snopes as far as politics go. Ergo in the Snopes article on how Marxist Crooked Hillary is, when they say the veracity of her quotes are a “Mixture” of truth, Snopes really means it is the absolute truth.]

 

And this is being done for Climate change reasons and they want this USA Model to use as a Talking Point for the rest of the world to follow.

 

This link discusses with a Economic Terrorist Expert how the Clinton Machine can work to cause crisis:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01/19/economic-terrorism-was-the-2008-collapse-intentional/

 

Economic Terrorism: Was the 2008 Collapse Intentional?

 

The 2008 financial crisis was one of the worst the U.S. has ever seen. It was the culmination of several factors including poor investments, government intervention and crony capitalism. However, the confluence of these events has prompted some analysts to ask, “Was the 2008 collapse intentional?”

 

“The Pentagon released information that they had received a report — right after 2008 — that [the collapse] may be ‘economic terrorism,’” Glenn Beck said on his radio show.

 

“And then [the Pentagon report] was released to the public I think in 2011 (maybe late 2010?), and I wondered, ‘Why was this held? Who released it? Why did they release it at that time?’And we talked about it, I said, ‘I think this is a sign somebody in the pentagon wants somebody to know what is really, possibly happening here.”

 

Was the 2008 economic crash intentional? Is the U.S. the target of “economic terrorism”?

 

Kevin Freeman, the author of the aforementioned Pentagon report and Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market and Why It can Happen Again, joined Glenn Beck to discuss what might have really happened back in 2008.

 

“There are others like George Soros that may be involved in this,” Beck said.

 

Who else may be involved in this supposed “economic terrorism”?

 

“Islamic terrorists,” Freeman said, “Osama Bin Laden has, or did, say forever, ‘Our intention is to attack the U.S. economic system. We know the cracks in the system like the lines in our own hand.’ That’s why they hit the World Trade Center towers. It was an attack on the economy as much as it was an attempt to kill people.”

 

“And it goes back even before that,” Freeman added. “The founder of the Muslim brotherhood created Sharia compliant finance and he termed it ‘financial jihad’ or ‘jihad with money.’”

 

“Boy man, I’m so glad to meet you Kevin, because we started looking into Sharia financing and there are hedge funds, gigantic hedge funds, that are all based in Sharia financing here in the United States and they’ve got some suspicious characters around them. Would you know anything about …

 

 

[Here is the Youtube version of the GBTV video on the website:]

 

VIDEO: Radio Interview w/ Glenn Beck & Kevin Freeman Book “Secret Weapon” Economic Terrorism Stock Market

 

 

Posted by GlennBeckBookList

Uploaded on Jan 18, 2012

 

http://www.GlennBecksBookList.com — Kevin Freeman, author of “Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market” spent some time on the radio with Glenn Beck. They talked about the terror attack on 9-11 as well as the economic attack on the United States and by potentially Osama Bin Laden and or the Muslim Brotherhood and how people like George Soros benefited from the financial crisis. Mathematically it was nearly impossible for all of the card to align perfectly like they did in 2007-2008…

Read more at: http://www.GlennBecksBookList.com

 

 

Because the discussion was so important and the implications of “economic terrorism” so great, Beck invited Freeman back on the show to continue READ ENTIRETY (Economic Terrorism: Was the 2008 Collapse Intentional? By Becket Adams; The Blaze; 1/19/12 6:48am)

 

These next links have identified Multinational Bundlers for the Clinton Machine, and I think they are working to create a Economic downturn by election time to create panic and then they will have a remedy and say Trump is new and not Tested to know if his ideas will work, and this will be the way they sway the majority to pick the Clinton Machine because the idea is they are already proven.

 

These links show the way the Clinton Political machine behind the scenes is working to create economic terrorism that then they can use as examples in Public forums to say the systems are failed systems!!!!!

 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/198664-argentina-us-vulture-funds-oil/

 

Eagles of Empire and economic terrorism: Are vulture funds instruments of US policy?

 

Is it a coincidence that the vulture funds are putting increasing pressure on Argentina as it prepares to develop the world’s second largest shale gas reserves? Are the vultures instruments of foreign policy?

 

Paranoia or insightfulness in Buenos Aires?

 

Hours after the US Embassy in Buenos Aires issued a security warning to US citizens either already inside or traveling to the South American country, Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner accused the US of plotting to overthrow or kill her. Speaking during a television broadcast from the Casa de Gobierno on September 30, she explained that “if something happens to me, don’t look to the Mideast, look north” to Washington, DC. She told the Argentine people not to believe anything that the US government was saying, even going as far as dismissing the ISIL/ISIS threat as a US bogeyman.

 

 

Instead of asking what led Fernandez de Kirchner to make such accusations against the US government, the question should be what has led to the deterioration of relations and diplomatic ties between Buenos Aires and Washington.

 

This deterioration has two dimensions or tracks. On the surface it is tied to Argentina’s sovereign debt, its restructuring, and hedge funds in the US. On another track it is tied to petro-politics and shale gas.

 

Economic and financial terrorism: Deadlier than the ISIL?

 

In front of the sixty-ninth session of the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council and a meeting of the UN Security Council chaired by US President Barack Obama, Argentina argued that terrorism is not only committed by violent groups that plant bombs, but also by financial entities and organizations that destabilize national economies and make whole societies destitute through speculation and financial manipulation. In Cristina Kirchner’s words, “terrorists are not only those who set off bombs, but also those who destabilize economies, causing hunger, misery, and poverty.”

 

Addressing the growing mythology and international fixation concerning the ISIL in Syria and Iraq, Argentina argued that terrorism is rooted, fuelled, and nurtured through injustice and disparity in the global system. Groups like the ISIL and al-Qaeda are merely the symptoms of something much deeper and READ ENTIRETY (Eagles of Empire and economic terrorism: Are vulture funds instruments of US policy? By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya; RT; 10/24/14 10:10)

 

[Blog Editor: “RT” actually is an acronym for Russia Today. I mention this because the English speaking version has gained a reputation as a propaganda arm of Vladimir Putin.]

 

http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/31566

 

Argentina Activates ‘Financial Terrorism’ Law Against Hedge-Fund Economic Warfare

 

Argentina is playing hardball. Accompanied by giant headlines in financial media screeching about “economic crisis,” Donnelley & Sons, a U.S. printing firm that has operated in Argentina for many years, and has no financial problems at all (assets larger than its liabilities, little debt) — filed for and was declared to be in bankruptcy from one day to the next last week, leaving 400 workers on the street.

 

The government responded by activating a never-before-used Anti-Economic and Financial Terorism Law to file charges against Donnelley for filing for a fraudulent bankruptcy with intent to “alter the economic and financial order” and “sow terror among the population.” The government intends to also file before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an investigation of this fraudulent behavior.

 

“I don’t believe in coincidences,” President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner explained THERE IS MORE (Argentina Activates ‘Financial Terrorism’ Law Against Hedge-Fund Economic Warfare; LaRouche PAC; 8/17/14 11:13AM)

 

[Blog Editor: Just an aside about LaRouche PAC; This PAC is a part of the LaRouche Movement of Lyndon LaRouche. This guy is a bit of an enigma because he once was a devotee of the kind of Marxism promoted by Leon Trotsky and Antonio Gramsci. That duo, particularly the latter, promoted a Marxism of gaining the confidence of laborers (prolateriat) via deceptive practices to slowly melt away traditional culture to prepare for a Marxist utopia. More recently LaRouche’s Marxist-Socialism has developed into something closer to Fascism or Nazism. Too many confuse the Fascist-Nazi paradigm with Right Wing extremism. The reality is those political ideologies are a melding of Socialism and Corporate Crony Capitalism under the direction of a State entity. This is LaRouche with a large dose of Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory thrown in to complete the heinous paradigm.]

 

Here Obama talks about the very economic crisis in Argentina the Clinton Machine economic terrorist created:

 

http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/huh-obama-says-not-much-difference-between-capitalism-and-socialism-but-heres-the-part-i-agree-with

 

HUH? Obama says not much difference between capitalism and socialism — but here’s the part I agree with

 

After his tango solo, instead of being back in America or heading to Europe showing leadership to deal with global Islamic jihadism, President Obama was in Argentina lecturing young people on economic theory.

 

 

As reported by CNSNews.com, “Thanks to advances in technology, “You don’t have to settle for the world as it is; you can create the world as you want it to be,” President Barack Obama told young people in Buenos Aires, Argentina on Wednesday. “You have the freedom to build the world in powerful and disruptive ways.”

 

One of the young community organizers at the town hall picked up on that point, saying she honestly believes that the world needs to change. She asked Obama for his advice on creating social change — in her case, by empowering young people living in poverty.

 

In the course of answering the question, the president indicated that the “sharp division” between “capitalist and communist or socialist” is starting to blur, and instead of clinging to any one of those ideologies, people should just do what works to create change:

 

“[S]o often in the past, there’s been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist,” Obama said. “And especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate, right?

 

Oh, you know, you’re a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you’re some crazy communist that’s going to take away everybody’s property.” And, I mean, those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory — you should just decide what works.”

 

 

… And for Obama to try and conflate free market/free enterprise capitalism with socialism, or worse, communism clearly displays a delusional comprehension of economic theory — Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman are certainly choking right now. Someone get them a glass of water.

 

,,, Now, perhaps Obama was referring to “crony” capitalism where government attempts to select the winners and losers in the marketplace … Obama has been a very adept practitioner of government venture capitalism, where American taxpayer dollars support private sector endeavors based on political ideological agendas. … I believe it was during the Clinton administration when the venerable Glass-Steagall Act, which kept a separation between commercial and investment banks, was abolished — clearing the path for the 2008 financial meltdown rooted in the mortgage industry and the securitzing of toxic asset mortgages. …

 

You see, this is what happens when a progressive socialist conflates a “social change” economic program with the free market/private sector. It never ends well.

 

Now, I must ask the obvious question. What in the Sam Hill is Barack Obama doing holding a town hall meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina? If READ ENTIRETY (HUH? Obama says not much difference between capitalism and socialism — but here’s the part I agree with… By Allen West; AllenBWest.com; 3/26/16 8:45am)

 

Mr. Trump these are the very kinds of things that cause Real Estate crisis and then cause people like you to get into reorganization predicaments, and people need to be exposed here for their treasonous acts against humanity all for their ideological purposes!!!!!

 

These links show Clinton Bundlers:

 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/top-clinton-lobbyist-bundlers-tied-foreign-banks-governments/

 

Top Clinton Lobbyist Bundlers Tied to Foreign Banks, Governments

Firms represent Saudi Arabian, Russian, Turkish, Mexican, and Japanese interests

 

A number of Hillary Clinton’s top lobbyist bundlers, who have raised millions for her presidential campaign, either directly represent foreign entities or work at firms that represent foreign entities, according to documents from the Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Unit.

 

Hillary for America, Clinton’s campaign committee, has hauled in more than $7 million in bundled lobbyist contributions since its inception. The committee finished 2015 with $4.1 million in bundled lobbyist contributions. It has since added more than $2.9 million to its coffers from lobbyists, with $1.2 million of that amount pouring in during the second quarter of 2016, from April 1 to June 30.

 

Tony Podesta, owner of the Podesta Group and brother of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s campaign, is a top bundler for Hillary for America. Podesta has bundled $267,835 in contributions to date. Podesta was hired to work on behalf of Saudi interests.

 

Saudi Arabia has built an extensive lobbying and public relations presence in the United States, the Washington Post reported in April. It has also supplied the Clinton Foundation with millions. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while READ THE REST (Top Clinton Lobbyist Bundlers Tied to Foreign Banks, Governments; By Joe Schoffstall; Washington Free Beacon; 7/21/16 12:00 pm)

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-campaign-fundraisers-new-york-121750

 

Clinton summons top campaign bundlers to New York

 

Hillary Clinton’s top bundlers from around the country are set to descend on New York City for a day of conversations with top campaign staffers next Thursday, according to a person familiar with her fundraising plans.

 

The itinerary includes a dinner with campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chairman John Podesta, who will join the “Hillblazers” — Hillary Clinton backers who have raised There’s More (Clinton summons top campaign bundlers to New York; By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI; POLITICO; 08/25/15 11:41 PM EDT Updated 08/26/15 12:11 AM EDT)

Dear Mr. Trump, it’s possible to see the ideology within the upper class circles of society conspiring to create a Ideological shift to Freedom and Prosperity.

 

Here is a Top Hedge Fund Manager and Hilary Clinton supporter saying Capitalism needs to be changed:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_tudor_jones_ii_why_we_need_to_rethink_capitalism

 

Paul Tudor Jones II: Why we need to rethink capitalism

 

Paul Tudor Jones II loves capitalism. It’s a system that has done him very well over the last few decades. Nonetheless, the hedge fund manager and philanthropist is concerned that a laser focus on profits is, as he puts it, “threatening the very underpinnings of society.” In this thoughtful, passionate talk, he outlines his planned counter-offensive, which centers on the concept of “justness.” [Go to the TED Talk link to watch Jones spin an anti-Capitalist message.]

 

Here’s another:
http://www.ted.com/talks/yanis_varoufakis_capitalism_will_eat_democracy_unless_we_speak_up

 

Capitalism will eat democracy — unless we speak up

 

Have you wondered why politicians aren’t what they used to be, why governments seem unable to solve real problems? Economist Yanis Varoufakis, the former Minister of Finance for Greece [As if Greece is a good model to bet against Capitalism in favor of Socialism], says that it’s because you can be in politics today but not be in power — because real power now belongs to those who control the economy. He believes that the mega-rich and corporations are cannibalizing the political sphere, causing financial crisis. In this talk, hear his dream for a world in which capital and labor no longer struggle against each other, “one that is simultaneously libertarian, Marxist and Keynesian.” [Again, another anti-Capitalist message from a Leftist TED Talk by Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis.]

 

Mr. Trump is going to have to bring all this out And show the American People how they are being played like Fools with this economic terrorism effect by the Clinton Machine Political players!!!!!

 

Truth to Power is the only way to prevail!!!! God Bless and Be safe on the Trail!!!!

 

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text or links encased by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Tony Newbill

 

The Sunlit Path of Racial Justice


red, white & blue eagle- Free & Brave

Justin Smith shows that the only color that matters are the Flag’s Red, White and Blue.

 

JRH 7/27/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The Sunlit Path of Racial Justice

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 7/23/2016 1:56 PM

 

America — the Promised Land of Liberty __ must reject the lies, the false narratives, presented to Her by Obama and the black nationalist fascists and nihilists of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and the New Black Panthers, who seek to undermine the rule of law and our republic. They blur the line between good and evil in a vile and reprehensible manner, they sacrifice justice for politics, and they justify the “revenge” murders of police officers, in their ignorant message of a divided America, “Black” America vs “White” America.

 

However, the majority of people in this wonderful country know there exists only one America filled with millions of people, just like John Quincy Adams, who fought the slave-holding majority in Congress until his old body and voice failed him. Americans recall the black soldiers in our wars for freedom, who bled along with their white brothers for the liberty of all people, black and white and yellow and red. And Martin Luther King, Jr. paved the way for all of us to join hands in brotherhood, one people and one nation under God.

 

After two black men were shot by police in the first weeks of July, one in Baton Rouge and one in Minneapolis, Black Lives Matter, largely funded by socialist billionaire George Soros [BCN-3/4/16, American Mirror-7/12/16, YourNewsHour.com-7/13/16], organized “peaceful” protests across the nation, raging against the police. But violence was repeatedly urged by many of the protest leaders and America’s usual self-serving race-baiters, and the bloodshed that soon followed is on Obama’s hands for having failed to call for calm earlier.

Soros spent 33 Million on BLM-Ferguson

Right Click – Open – For Larger View

 

Racial politics are identity politics, the politics of division. They encourage one group, in this case the black community, to believe that the Democrats are the champions for black people against those who are “oppressing” them, and all too often of late, they have been the politics of hate.

 

Obama, the most partisan U.S. president in history, stated: “These are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.”

 

BLM marchers in Dallas chanted “Pigs in a blanket – fry ’em like bacon.”

 

Less than four hours after Louis Farrakhan [The Blaze-7/8/16], leader of the radical Nation of Islam and mentor to the New Black Panthers, released a video (5 p.m. July 7th), Micah Johnson, a black Army Veteran, murdered five Dallas policemen with an SKS 7.62mm rifle. During the ensuing standoff, Johnson told officers he was angry over recent police shootings and wanted to kill white people.

 

Speaking about white people as one entity, Farrakhan told viewers: “Every damn thing he got, he got it by being violent – killing people, raping and robbing and murdering. … and then he has the nerve to come and tell us that violence and hatred won’t get it. Don’t buy that!” [NOI Tweet]

 

Three more policemen were murdered in Baton Rouge on July 17th by Gavin Long, a former Marine and a member of the Nation of Islam, who raged against “crackers” on Youtube. Long also defended the Dallas shooter [New York Daily News], saying, “It’s justice. You know what I’m saying.”

 

No — Murdering innocent police officers, who were doing their jobs and protecting and serving the protesters in Dallas, is not “justice”.

 

This tone of “justice” was set on the day former Attorney General Eric Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia. Add Obama’s sympathy for this black fascist group and the media’s obsession with false narratives surrounding police shootings, and this spate of anti-police violence is no surprise.

 

Finally, after Baton Rouge, with his words oozing in sickening hypocrisy, Obama urged Americans to “temper our words and open our hearts”. This man is a real psychopath.

 

The New Black Panther party meets with the PAC in Soweto.
The New Black Panther party meets with the PAC in Soweto.

In January 2009 in a National Geographic documentary, King Samir Shabbaz, head of the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia, stated [Epic Times-12/5/14]: “You want freedom? You going to have to kill some crackers! You going to have to kill some of their babies!”

 

According to Roland Fryer, Jr., Harvard Ph.d, who conducted a study of 1332 police shootings in ten large cities in California, Texas and Florida, “officers were more likely to fire their weapons without first having been attacked when the suspects were white”. Similar studies in ‘The Reverse Racism Effect’ and by researchers at Washington State University concur. The studies consider stressors and various levels of tense situations when the use of lethal force could have been justified. Officers were found to be 20% less likely to shoot if the suspects were black, in Houston.

 

But Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panthers aren’t interested in facts from anyone, because they are degenerate murderous groups, who target white people with intimidation and physical assaults, which reinforces the racist stereotypes that blacks are aggressive, assaultive and violent. They destroy far more than their credibility with these tactics, as they destroy their communities and entire cities, like Ferguson and Baltimore. And if black lives really mattered to them, they would be shooting the drug pushers and gang-bangers, who kill thousands of black people annually, instead of innocent police officers.

 

In nearly every recent case, a black person was shot by the police when they resisted arrest. If they had simply complied with the policeman’s lawful order, they might have gone to jail, but they wouldn’t have ended up in a casket.

 

Delivering some rousing truth at the Republican National Convention on July 21st, Mark Burns, a black pastor from South Carolina, had the crowd cheering as he declared: All lives matter … That means black lives, white lives, Hispanic lives, Asian lives, Christian lives, Muslim lives – shout with me – all lives matter …  And despite the color you was born with, here in America, the only colors that matter are the colors of red, white and blue!”

 

[Blog Editor: The RNC might call the Pastor Mark Burns speaking a speech, but I call it 8 and ½ minutes of DARN GOOD PREACHING:

 

VIDEO: Pastor Mark Burns EXPLOSIVE Speech at Republican National Convention (7-21-16) RNC Speech

 

 

Posted by Donald Trump Speeches & Events

Published on Jul 21, 2016]

 

Over fifty years ago, with the strong advocacy of old white men such as Senator Everett Dirksen (R), America climbed on “to the sunlit path of racial justice”, but today’s black radicals missed class on the day Martin Luther King Jr.’s advocacy for “nonviolent direct action” and [sitting] “down together at the table of brotherhood” was taught. They cast a dark shadow on this path, and their racist progressive intolerance will only appear as a sad footnote in history.

 

Americans have been horrified by the mayhem and murder unleashed by BLM and the New Black Panthers, and we will not allow criminals running wild and racial division to be any part of America’s destiny. Deadly force cannot be the first instinct of the policeman when dealing with criminal suspects, if and when this occurs, no matter how nervous the situation, and the murders of police officers cannot happen anymore or anywhere, simply because the color blue is now perceived by some as anti-black. The next administration must target the BLM and the New Black Panther Party under anti-terrorism and organized crime laws [RICO Act], just as the KKK chapters of old were targeted, or it can watch as our society collapses and descends into survival of the fittest. When people’s lives are not protected, there is not any Liberty.

 

But if we really want racial harmony __ what if we all simply followed God’s rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

 

“Who has put wisdom in the mind? Who has given understanding to the heart?” __ Job 38: 35-36

 

Dallas Police Chief David Brown left us one bright moment amongst these tragedies, as he honored and expressed his love for the fallen Dallas Police Officers, quoting Stevie Wonder: “I’ll be loving you until the rainbow burns the stars out of the sky … Until we dream of life and life becomes a dream … Until the earth just for the sun denies itself … Until the day that you are me and I am you … Now ain’t that loving you.”

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text and links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

Photos added by Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Disestablishmentarianism, Constitution, SCOTUS & UN


Flag, Constitution & Bible

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

 

I’m not a huge believer in the American’s Left interpretation of the Disestablishmentarian Clause of the First Amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or … (Amendment I: FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION; National Constitution Center)

 

The Left and Secular Humanists interpret this clause as meaning religion (Founding Fathers meant Christian Church) and State must be absolutely separated from each other. No government in the Church and no Church in the government. But you can read the clause. Tell me where it is written that a separation must exist. YOU CANNOT because there is no such wording!

 

All the clause says is that the Congressional Branch of the Federal government shall make NO LAW establishing a state religion or as the Founders understood, no state Church established by the Federal government.

 

In fact, did you know that several of the original 13 States retained their Established Christian Church for some time after the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land for the United States of America? The Federal government was constitutionally forbidden from enacting any law pertaining to religion on State level because of the Disestablishmentarian Clause in the 1st Amendment and the 10th Amendment which states:

 

 “The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 ([SCOTUS Decision of 2/14] 1931). – “About the Tenth Amendment”; Tenth Amendment Center)

 

It is a bit interesting that the Tenth Amendment Center in the quote above, that a 1931 SCOTUS decision is used as an affirmation of the purpose of the 10th Amendment. Why is it interesting? Because SCOTUS is the very reason that the Left has successfully utilized the term Living Constitution to make laws not authorized by the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Of the Thirteen Original States after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, several had Established Churches even after the Civil War. Here is post-ratification State Established Churches with the year Establishment ended:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • South Carolina – 1868 (Actually a SCOTUS decision ended all State support of Christian institutions in 1925 to be retroactive to 1868: “14th Amendment to US Constitution was ratified by South Carolina in July 1868. The US Supreme Court ruled that this amendment ended state support of religion in all US states in ruling of Gitlow v. New York, 1925” [The link within the quote is by the Blog Editor])

 

 

 

… (Religion in the Original 13 Colonies: ProCon.org; Last updated on 1/6/2009 7:26:00 AM PST)

 

I believe most of these states disestablished soon after the Constitution was ratified but was involved in some kind Church oriented support via organizations until the end date list above. In all cases it was the state legislature that ended Church Establishment and not SCOTUS. Primarily in the early 20th century SCOTUS began extra-constitutionally whittling away at the religious freedoms of the Christian Church influencing government on the local, state and federal level.

 

Here is an excerpted short scope on how SCOTUS evolved to acquire more power than intended by the Framers of the Constitution:

 

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

 

With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall established the Supreme Court’s role in the new government. Hereafter, the Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution.

 

 

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

The Constitution does not consider slaves to be U.S. citizens. Rather, they are constitutionally protected property of their masters.”

 

Chief Justice Roger Taney authored this opinion— one of the most important and scorned in the nation’s history. Dred Scott, a slave, had moved with his master to Illinois, a free state. He moved again to a slave state, Missouri, and filed suit to gain freedom, under that state’s law of “Once free, always free.” Taney held that Scott had never been free at all, and cited Constitutional grounds for placing the slavery decision in the hands of the states. In trying to put an end to the slavery controversy, Taney instead sped the nation toward civil war. The decision was later overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

 

Roe v. Wade, 1973

The Constitutionally implied right to privacy protects a woman’s choice in matters of abortion.

 

Norma McCorvey sought an abortion in Texas, but was denied under state law. The Court struck down that law, on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricted the woman’s right to choose. The opinion set forth guidelines for state abortion regulations; states could restrict a woman’s right to choose only in the later stages of the pregnancy. Later modified but not overruled, the decision stands as one of the Court’s most controversial.

 

(Twenty-Five Landmark Cases in Supreme Court History; ConstitutionFacts.com)

 

Specific to throwing out Original Intent Disestablishmentarian Clause:

 

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

 

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

 

 

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

 

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) – Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

 

 

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

 

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

 

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether “pure” moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

 

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of “creation science” in all instances in which Uncons[titutional] evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

 

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

 

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

 

(U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (arranged by date); Secular Web – Internet Infidels)

 

I find it ironic that an atheistic group like the Secular Web provided the information I needed to demonstrate the manipulation by SCOTUS of the 1st Amendment Disestablishmentarian Clause away from the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent.

 

You have to realize that the Leftist transformation agenda implemented strongly by Obama would continue if Crooked Hillary is elected by either adoring Dem voters and/or duped anti-Trump voters. A Crooked Hillary Administration would certainly nominate more SCOTUS Justices that would adhere to the Living Constitution principles over Original Intent principles. It is the Living Constitution principles is what has allowed SCOTUS to successfully erode the U.S. Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended it as a tool of limited government by We The People as opposed to the ruling elites of the Establishment from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

 

The elitist Establishment is very supportive of the globalist agenda of the United Nations. It is my humble opinion the Left of America and the globalist Left of the UN is using Islam as a tool to completely disenfranchise Christianity as the moral influence of the Western World. This is the reason the Multiculturalists of Europe, the American Left and the UN is hot to encourage Muslim migration to Western nations. The Leftist gamble to use Islam as a tool is dangerous to the point of idiocy.

 

The purists of Islam – often called Radical Islam by blind PC Westerners – have their own agenda. These adherents of the literal wording of the Quran, Hadith and Sira desire to establish a global Caliphate under the submission principles of Sharia Law. There is no room for Western Liberty or the U.S. Bill of Rights in Islam. Western principles of Liberty and the rule of Law are absolutely contrary to Islamic principles of submission. By the way, the Arab to English of Islam is peace is a lie. The phrase is better rendered Islam is submission is the more accurate translation.

 

So when I read that the UN is giving special privileges to Islamic worshippers over Christian worshipper (as well as excluding other non-Muslim religions), it chaps my hide a bit.

 

In case you don’t follow the duplicitous hypocrisy of the United Nations, that world body has elevated “radical” Muslims to high positions. Notoriously Saudi citizens are on the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in leadership positions.

 

And more recently I discovered from Eagle Rising that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Evidently UN globalism is dictating to sovereign nations how they teach Christianity to children in private and public schools. In this report on the UNCRC is saying children experiencing compulsory Christian rituals is violating their freedom of conscience:

 

… the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

 

 

“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,”

 

Here’s the full article.

 

JRH 7/4/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The United Nations Said Teaching Christianity to Kids is Wrong for This Reason

United-Nations- logo 

By Tim Brown

July 1, 2016

Eagle Rising

 

Here is just another in a long line of examples of why the United States needs to not only defund the United Nations, but remove ourselves from it and the organization from our soil. In a recent paper put out by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

 

The Telegraph reports:

 

Britain must stop forcing children to attend Christian school assemblies because it undermines their human rights, a United Nations committee has said in a controversial new report.

 

The authors called on ministers to repeal a law demanding a daily act of Christian worship at schools because it may contradict a child’s “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

 

The report was produced by an 18-person group of “independent experts” of “high moral character” including representatives from Bahrain, Russia and Egypt.

 

Critics dubbed the demand “ludicrous” and said the government should responded by “respectfully” putting the report “in the bin”.

 

It was just one of 150 recommendations about where Britain could be contravening the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child.

 

“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,” reads a portion of the report.

 

Surely, Oliver Cromwell is rolling over in his grave as he was one who defended Protestant Britain from King Charles’ tyranny and treason.

 

“The Committee recommends that the State party repeal legal provisions for compulsory attendance at collective worship in publicly funded schools and ensure that children can independently exercise the right to withdraw from religious worship at school,” the report added.

 

Britons called the report “ludicrous” and “mad.”

 

“The collective act of worship is not an indoctrination exercise,” Parliament Minister David Burrowes told The Telegraph. “It is recognizing and respecting the Christian heritage of the country and giving people an opportunity to reflect before the beginning of the day. The UN should spend more time doing its main job of preventing war and genocide rather than poking its nose in other countries’ classrooms. We can respectfully put those kind of reports in the bin where they belong.”

 

However, some in the UK were all too happy with the report, namely anti-theists.

 

The British Humanist Association Director Pavan Dhaliwal said, “The UK state fails its young people in far too many ways today. Almost uniquely among economically developed countries, it segregates them in schools along religious lines. We are pleased to see the UN agree with us that UK law needs to change.”

 

So, parents have been sending their kids to school knowing full well that this has been going on, but don’t have a problem with it because they hold to Christianity, right? On what authority does the UN act to even recommend interfering or giving advice or counsel to anyone regarding children, Christianity, education or parenting? They just simply are attempting to usurp authority.

 

Parents have a duty before God, apart from any law being enforced on them, to train up their children and teach them the Law of God. They should be doing this at home, in my opinion. I have constantly encouraged parents to take advantage of free homeschool curriculum and remove their children from public indoctrination centers. While I agree that if there is going to be schooling like in Britain that having the Bible taught and expounded upon is a good thing, I do not agree that it somehow violates a child’s human rights. In fact, leaving a child without a worldview based on the teachings of the Bible leaves them open for all sorts of faulty thinking, much like those of the British Humanist Association. They forget that true liberty only exists under the Lawgiver, and that only tyranny exists apart from Him.

 

Reposted With Permission From Freedom Outpost.

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

______________________

Disestablishmentarianism, Constitution, SCOTUS & UN

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

____________________

The United Nations Said Teaching Christianity to Kids is Wrong for This Reason

 

About Tim Brown

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, husband to his wife, father of 10, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the brand new Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle.

 

Copyright © 2016. EagleRising.com is a member of Liberty Alliance. All rights reserved. 

 

About Eagle Rising

 

Eagle Rising seeks to share breaking news about culture, media, politics, etc., from a Christian perspective.

 

Eagle Rising is a division of Bravera Holdings, LLC. Founded in 2013 by Gary DeMar and Brandon Vallorani.

 

READ THE REST

 

American Left can be seen in Nazi History


Hitler- BHO & Hillary

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

 

I have noticed over the years that Lefties (aka Liberals, Progressives, Left Wingers, Moonbats, etc.) have smeared Conservatives as Nazis or Hitler-equivalents. The irony is Hitler’s Nazism was a Left Wing Movement that employed the nationalist-corporatism of Fascism which is ultimately State control of the industrial complex.

 

Karl Marx’s Communism envisioned Industrial workers rising up in revolt over the means of production and who controls those means. Which ultimately played out of State ownership of everything from property to the industrial complex under the illusion that the people (aka workers or the proletariat) controlled society’s living conditions and the mode of production. In essence the State assumed the role of the people by proxy.

 

Nazism was not so much interested in the illusion of who controls production as much as every citizen serves the needs of the State paying homage to the elites of State that made the lives of true citizens prosperous. Consider how the word Nazi Party gained its appellation:

 

Acronym Finder

 

What does NSDAP stand for?

 

NSDAP stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NAZI Party)

 

 

ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY

 

Nazi 

 

1930, noun and adjective, from German Nazi, abbreviation of German pronunciation of Nationalsozialist (based on earlier German sozi, popular abbreviation of “socialist”), from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei “National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” led by Hitler from 1920.

The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c. 1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname NaziNaczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean “a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person.” Ignatz was a popular name in Catholic Austria, and according to one source in World War I Nazi was a generic name in the German Empire for the soldiers of Austria-Hungary.

An older use of Nazi for national-sozial is attested in German from 1903, but EWdS does not think it contributed to the word as applied to Hitler and his followers. The NSDAP for a time attempted to adopt the Nazi designation as what the Germans call a “despite-word,” but they gave this up, and the NSDAP is said to have generally avoided the term. Before 1930, party members had been called in English National Socialists, which dates from 1923. The use of Nazi GermanyNazi regime, etc., was popularized by German exiles abroad. From them, it spread into other languages, and eventually was brought back to Germany, after the war. In the USSR, the terms national socialist and Nazi were said to have been forbidden after 1932, presumably to avoid any taint to the good word socialist. Soviet literature refers to fascists.

 

The Wikipedia entry for “Nazi Party” goes into greater detail if you are interested. At Wikipedia the focus is more on nationalism combined with racism more than Socialism.

 

Either way, Nazism and Communism were political vehicles to control the masses under the direction of an elitist oligarchy.

 

Matt Barber has written an essay that I located on Constitution.com highlighting that Adolf Hitler was an anti-Christian pretending to be a Christian with Left Oriented Socialism in the backdrop.

 

Who does that sound like today in 21st century America? Since Barber doesn’t mention any modern day similarities, allow me to name a couple:

 

  • Barack Obama

 

  • Hillary Clinton

 

JRH 5/27/16

Please Support NCCR

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

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 US Flag with Nazi flag paperclip

By Matt Barber [webpage lists him as Guest Columnist but at the end the essay attributed Barber]

May 26, 2016

Constitution.com

 

[T]he only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

– Adolf Hitler

 

Yes, there have been evil men who have done evil things in the name of false Christianity. To a limited degree, Adolf Hitler was one such man. Still, and as even he frequently admitted outside the public eye, he was no Christian.

 

As a counterweight to stigma associated with the tens of millions slaughtered in the 20th century alone under the atheist regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al., the secular left is quick to thunder, “But what about Hitler? He was a Christian!”

 

Bad news, kids. Herr Führer was your guy, too.

 

“I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie,” Hitler confessed (audio transcribed in “Hitler’s Table Talk” [1941-44]). “It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field [to be labeled a Christian].”

 

Did Adolf Hitler ever call himself a Christian? Certainly. He did so, and as he would later admit, for the singular purpose of disseminating political propaganda.

 

“To whom should propaganda be addressed?” he wrote. “It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. … The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real.”

 

The Nazi Germans of the 1930s and ’40s are not alone in swallowing Hitler’s Christianese-peppered puffery. Today’s secular- “progressive” establishment likewise bandies about a handful of carefully crafted Hitlerian quotes released for public consumption. His “pro-Christian” proclamations in “Mein Kampf” and elsewhere, for instance, were universally a perversion of biblical Christianity leveraged for the sole purpose of justifying the extermination of the Jewish people.

 

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter,” he wrote. “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge [the Jews] to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. … For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

 

That was the extent of Hitler’s plastic “Christianity.” The Bible, always taken out of context, served as a twisted weapon to justify the mass slaughter of over 11 million Jews, Christians, disabled people and other “undesirables.”

 

In reality Hitler insisted, “In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.”

 

 

What Brutal Hitler and Softer Modern Day Progressives Share in Common

 

Sounds an awful lot like today’s American church-state separatists. Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, for example, held, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

 

Indeed, the ACLU’s promotional materials similarly advocate anti-Christian intolerance and mirror Hitler’s directive that, “Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” “The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion,” imagines the “American” so-called “civil liberties” union.

 

That’s viewpoint discrimination and it’s unconstitutional.

 

This is secular socialism in a nutshell. It’s a religion, and its devotees, be they Nazi Germans or American Leftists, are Communist Manifesto-thumping fundamentalists.

 

“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity,” Hitler opined. “As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. … The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. … Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless.”

 

Indeed, Hitler’s robust anti-Christian hatred lives on beyond the death of the Third Reich. Modern-day progressives like Hillary Clinton, though, tend to take a kinder, gentler, more surreptitiously totalitarian approach: “Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,” the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee recently said in the context of some phantom “right” to exterminate undesirable infants. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

 

Yikes. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

 

While Hitler was more direct, he nonetheless shared Hillary’s secular socialist vision: “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.”

 

Sound familiar? Progressive “truth,” of course, invariably means Christian torment.

 

Hitler, borrowing from socialist icon Karl Marx, said that all Germans must “free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunized against the disease.” Marx, a hero to the secular socialist left, famously called religion, “the opium of the people.”

 

Hitler a Christian? No chance.

 

Anti-Semitism, Islam and a Dash of Darwin

 

Moreover, like the preponderance of today’s similarly anti-Semitic secular progressives, Hitler, too, was an apologist for Islam. As America’s own Dear Leader has done, Hitler partnered with Iran, present-day “Palestine” and other Islamist regimes in the shared goal of eliminating the Jews:

 

“The world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!” he fumed. “Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so!”

 

Hitler also parroted the godless ideology of modern atheists. Like so many of today’s secular progressives, he was an avowed materialist, neo-Darwinian evolutionist and hardhearted God-denier: “When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”

 

“Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity,” he said. “And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.”

 

Two thousand years and still waiting.

 

And so Hitler endeavored to assist “natural selection” and, as he wrote in “Mein Kampf,” “establish an evolutionary higher stage of being.” He placed his hope in Germany’s youth because they were “absolutely indifferent in the matters of religion.”

 

A beloved Hitler Youth marching song captured the Führer’s heart on matters of Christ and Christianity:

 

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

 

Today’s progressive “social justice” warriors are angling for a dystopian, Swastika-free repeat. Their hope, too, lies in the youth (witness the socialism-fueled anarchist insurgence occurring on college campuses nationwide).

 

Like then, progressive secular socialists endeavor to rule the world.

 

And “Christianity alone,” to update Hitler’s own words, will “prevent them from doing so.”

 

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is author of “Hating Jesus: The American Left’s War on Christianity,” a columnist, a cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

________________________

American Left can be seen in Nazi History

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

________________________

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 

Copyright © 2016 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

We Choose to Fight


Transgender Deviant & Lady's Room toon

God’s thoughts on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender lifestyle from the long winded Amplified Version of the Bible:

 

Unbelief and Its Consequences

18 For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them.

 

21 For even though [a]they knew God [as the Creator], they did not[b]honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

 

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their own hearts to [sexual] impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin], 25 because [by choice] they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading and vile passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural [a function contrary to nature], 27 and in the same way also the men turned away from the natural function of the woman and were consumed with their desire toward one another, men with men committing shameful acts and in return receiving in their own bodies the inevitable and appropriate penalty for their wrongdoing.

 

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or consider Him worth knowing [as their Creator], God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are improper and repulsive, 29 until they were filled (permeated, saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and mean-spiritedness. They are gossips [spreading rumors], 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors [of new forms] of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful [without pity]. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree and His judgment, that those who do such things deserve death, yet they not only do them, but they even [enthusiastically] approve and tolerate others who practice them. (Romans 1: 18-19, 21-22, 24-32 AMP)

 

It’s in God’s Word! That works for me and anyone continuously striving to live the Christ-life.

 

Justin Smith tackles the Leftist (he prefers “Progressive” or “Liberal”) slow cultural destruction of America through the Mainstream Media, Major Corporations and Leftie politicians railing against fine States of the Union like North Carolina who have made the state law of the land to not allow men in a woman’s bathroom or women in a woman’s bathroom – YUCK! – transgenderism.

 

JRH 4/29/16

Please Support NCCR

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

We Choose to Fight

Sir Lady Java

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/28/2016 12:00 PM

 

Couched in the concept of “rights” for deviants, queers, perverts and transgendered individuals, President Obama and the anti-American far left Progressives are using “bias laws” (bathroom laws), like the one passed in North Carolina and proposed in Tennessee and Georgia, in their immoral agenda to subvert the traditional American family, Christianity and the U.S. Constitution. If Obama and the courts and a few million supporters of the LGBT deviant minority are allowed continued success in granting non-existent “constitutional rights” through their own unreasoned moral distortions and prejudiced arguments, our unalienable God-given rights will soon be denied, and the State Leviathan will emerge as the final arbiter of U.S. law, granting and eradicating one’s rights upon a whim.

 

This battle has been ongoing, since at least 1967, when Los Angeles police arrested a transgender performer, Sir Lady Java, at the Red Foxx Club. The ACLU defended this deviant [ACLU version & “Bad Samaritan” by Jerome Corsi pg. 141] in the name of “the freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people,” suggesting that the majority community should reject viewing any type of bizarre gender-based sexual activity as deviant.

 

America has been bombarded by a systematic public relations campaign to change U.S. attitudes towards queer (LGBT) lifestyles, and if one were to believe the New York Times and President Obama’s views on recent events, one would think that most Americans were either homosexuals or transgendered. The Progressive radical leftist agenda cannot succeed, unless Progressives can force the public, through the media and government coercion, to accept deviant, perverted and aberrant behavior as the cultural norm, which goes against every aspect of our American Heritage.

 

On April 4th, Gov. Nathan Deal of Georgia proved himself to be a feckless coward, when he vetoed House Bill 757 due to pressure from Disney, Apple, Time Warner and other corporations and possible loss of millions of dollars of future business. His action helped the Progressive cause to destroy the moral fabric of our society and harmed the real fight for liberty in America.

 

In North Carolina, this battle grew after the Democratic City Council, in Charlotte, passed a nondiscrimination ordinance in February that allowed transgendered people to use men’s or women’s bathrooms. They took this path, despite Gov. Pat McCrory’s warning that if they changed “basic restroom and locker room norms,” he would support a state law overriding them.

 

In Orwellian fashion, “gay rights” groups, representing approximately 5% of America [Time.com 2/26/14], and “mainstream media” outlets, like the New York Times, did their best throughout April to paint the moral majority, who supported heterosexual norms for religious reasons as “bigots”. The NYT quoted one LGBT supporter saying, “The religious right has always been there … in the national political discussion, where hateful bigotry is allowed to stand … “.

 

We are “bigots” for objecting to grown men urinating next to our small daughters, our sisters and our wives. But Progressives don’t care that many gentle women will be uncomfortable with a man who thinks he is a woman exposing themselves to urinate in front of them.

 

Just as any American patriot would do, many of North Carolina’s leaders have refused to buckle under financial threats from Pres. Obama, the N.B.A. and corporations like PayPal. Lt. Gov. Dan Forest said, “If our action in keeping men out of women’s bathrooms and showers protected the life of just one child or one woman from being molested or assaulted, it was worth it.”

 

Forest added on April 11th: “Either we in North Carolina capitulate or we stand and fight back. We have chosen to fight back.”

 

North Carolina State Representative Phil Shepard, a Republican and a Baptist minister, delivered the following biting response to critics of the bill: “Our values are not shaped by the N.B.A. or Bruce Springsteen or some opinion poll. We’re standing strong.”

 

One can only hope and pray that a similar law, recently tabled by Tennessee State Representative Susan Lynn, will be revisited and passed during Tennessee’s next legislative session. And hopefully similar legislation will also pass in a majority of states, and the people will stand strong in the face of this baseness and moral turpitude.

 

If Americans accept the Progressive argument, steeped in the philosophies of Freud and Marx, that all sexual practices are equivalent behavior resulting from impulses ingrained at birth, then nothing, regardless how extreme or bizarre, can be ruled to be learned or an aberration of human nature. If God is merely an idea created by human beings, then no God exists to set limits on acceptable human practices. If moral behavior is determined through an individual’s presumed “rights”, then what moral bounds exist?

 

What’s next — the pedophilia/NAMBLA agenda [SlantRight & Breitbart]?

 

How did America arrive at this destination, where gay men are seen as some sort of heroes for forcing conservatives and Christians to serve them?

 

For we have spent enough of our past lifetime … when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries … they think it odd that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you.” 1 Peter 4:3-4

 

In 1799, Jedidiah Morse preached: “The foundations which support the interest of Christianity, are also necessary to support a free and equal government like our own … Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.

 

The fight for freedom and individual liberty is constant — never ending — and the Moral Majority and most Americans will fight fiercely against the Far Left’s Marxist-styled attacks on God, family, our Judeo-Christian beliefs as professed in the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. We will not be forced to bow and kiss the ring of the illiberal Progressive’s politically correct theology, we will not be forced to think in any manner opposed to our own conscience and free will, and we will not be forced to believe someone is a woman, if they are a biological man — no matter how much lipstick Obama smears on Bruce Jenner.

 

LGBT “rights” end where Christian rights begin, with the First Freedom and Religious Liberty.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith

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.