Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Founders’

Democrats Are Dangerously Close to Changing Laws So Our President Is Elected by Popular Vote


BY: ANDREW MORGAN | JULY 28, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/28/democrats-are-dangerously-close-to-changing-laws-so-our-president-is-elected-by-popular-vote/

US Constitution

The left’s push for a popular vote for the presidency directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution.

Author Andrew Morgan profile

ANDREW MORGAN

MORE ARTICLES

The left is at it again, and conservatives need to be on high alert. The left has been pushing for a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States for years. Since 2017, 10 more states have either signed the National Popular Vote bill into law or approved the bill in one state legislative chamber. This should be a grave concern because it directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution. If not stopped, the American system of presidential elections will be changed potentially forever.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted by 15 state legislatures plus Washington, D.C., and passed in 41 legislative chambers in 24 states. For the proposal to become the law of the land, enough states totaling at least 270 electoral votes would be required to enact the law, and states would then commit their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally, regardless of which candidate won at the state level.

The states that have enacted the compact represent 195 electoral votes: Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, California, New York, and the District of Columbia. States with passage in one chamber include Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Successful passage in all of these states represents 283 electoral votes, enough to change the law and make our presidential election decided via popular vote rather than the Electoral College. 

Democrats have long been unhappy with the electoral process, unless, of course, their candidate won. When their candidate loses, debate begins anew about how unfair the Electoral College is. The argument is always the same. Since we conduct our elections by democratic process, it makes sense to elect our nation’s executive according to the will of the majority with a voting plurality.

Five times, presidential candidates have won elections without the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and Donald Trump (2016).

Minority and Less Populated Areas Would Lack Representation

The commonly heard sentiment during election cycles is “every vote matters.” However, what is not fair is that if the president is elected based on a plurality, then the minority would not have a chance of having their candidate elected. Only the concerns and interests of more heavily populated areas, such as the East and West coast cities, would be represented. Interests of the minority and less populated areas would naturally be set aside and of little interest to future presidential candidates. Worse, the executive would be beholden and accountable solely to the majority.

This condition was not the intent of our founders. Their intent was to ensure that the nation’s highest executive, as well as the executive branch, represented the interests of all Americans regardless of political affiliation. A future president would need to appeal to those concerned about not just national but also regional issues.

Further, the Electoral College provided a means to disburse and decentralize power. State electors are elected just days before and are unknown until just prior to an election to prevent undue influence to stay true to the people’s votes in their states. Our founders framed it so as to prevent collusion and cabalist (their word) behavior, preclude violence, and thwart involvement of foreign powers.

Cabalism Comes to Light

Following the 2020 election, our founders’ concerns came to light and fruition. Our national elections have been fraught with cabalist behavior, undue influence, numerous forms of cheating, as well as foreign interference. The tyranny they feared came to pass, driven by collusion among the administrative state, the legislative branch, legacy media, Big Tech, and nongovernmental organizations. An independent executive branch separate from the legislature has become an illusion.

In Federalist Paper 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “the process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of the president will never fall with a lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and a little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first owners of a single state, but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union.” Hamilton would have been appalled today to have witnessed the travesty undermining his sentiment.

So why does all this matter?

An Oppressive Majority

It matters because the idea of a national popular vote is gaining steam and if adopted by enough states, the Electoral College will become irrelevant. Minority voter interests will no longer matter at the national level. Only the whims of the majority will. And the result will be precisely why Socrates opposed a democratic form of government. Once a majority is established, it finds a way to remain permanent, and the majority class will become oppressive to the minority class. There will be no means to overturn the majority, no matter how skewed the majority’s view may be.

The implications for the country are vast and would make the United States just another oppressive tyrannical state. The ultimate reason for the success of the U.S. was that its founders held a belief that we are created and guided by a higher power, and they recognized that men are inherently corruptible. They implemented controls to prevent those with ambitions from achieving outright power over the minority, thus making the U.S. unique among nations.

Left Looks to Crush the Right

The left’s tactics are in high gear, accelerating in an attempt to overwhelm conservatives and Republicans to a tipping point at which the left acquires complete control and the right becomes powerless.

The left’s all-out assault has become abundantly clear since President Joe Biden took office. As soon as Democrats attained the presidency and the narrowest of majorities in the House and Senate, they pressed forward with their agenda, nearly unimpeded had it not been for the likes of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and perhaps divine intervention.  

Whether changing voting laws in its favor, creating crises to circumvent the laws already in place, continually flooding the courts with litigation designed to throw sand in the gears of transparent elections, or changing the electoral process altogether, the left’s efforts to gain and retain control, by any means necessary, will not relent.

In addition to ongoing election integrity efforts across the nation, it is imperative that conservatives push back attempts to advance a national popular vote. It is incumbent upon individual citizens to tell their state representatives that it is not the desire of the people to circumvent the constitutional process for electing our president.

Failure to stop a national popular vote could take generations to reverse.


Andrew Morgan is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Army, a senior executive within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and a retired U.S. Navy captain. He received his MBA from George Washington University and master’s from National Defense University.

GOP Congressional Members Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Enact Term Limits


Authored By C. Douglas Golden | January 5, 2019 at 2:13pm

A new bill from two top Republicans would limit most people to 18 years in Congress via a constitutional amendment — something that’s bound to have career bureaucrats infuriated.

The amendment, according to CNN, is being introduced in the House and Senate by Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, respectively.

“For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people,” Cruz said.

Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C. It is long past time for Congress to hold itself accountable. I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification.”

Cruz had introduced a similar bill in 2017, but failed to gain traction.

The plan would limit House members to three terms of two years each and senators to two terms of six years each. This means that most people would be limited to 18 years in office, and only if they are elected to one office and then the other.

The language makes it technically possible to serve up to slightly less than 22 years if they’re appointed or elected to fill less than a half-term.

This, according to Rooney, is closer to what the nation’s founders envisioned.

“The founders never envisioned a professional political class,” Rooney said during an interview on Fox News Saturday.

“This is a much better way than having these entrenched politicians who are too aligned with special interests over a period of years. I would say 18 years is plenty of time to serve your country in.”

Neither Cruz nor Rooney would really be benefiting from the arrangement, should any politician be seen as having benefited personally from term limits. Rooney, 65, was first elected in 2016 and would be eligible to serve in the House until 2022. Cruz, who just won his second term, would be out of Congress in 2024.

It’s worth noting, however, that Rooney could possibly take over for Sen. Marco Rubio, who would be term-limited out if he won the Republican nomination. (Lest you think Rubio would be upset about it, consider that he’s a co-sponsor of the bill — along with Mike Lee of Utah and David Perdue of Georgia.)

And Cruz, who came to the Senate from a position as Texas’ solicitor general, could also technically run for the House if he so chose.

Incidentally, if you think that the bill can’t win bipartisan support, consider there was another major Democratic voice calling for term limits this election cycle: Beto O’Rourke, Cruz’s opponent.

“People in Texas and across the country recognize that members of Congress often focus on re-election at the expense of addressing the challenges our country faces,” O’Rourke said in a piece posted to Medium.

“We see that the longer you serve in Congress, the less connected, the less responsive, the less accountable you can become to the people you represent. And we recognize that imposing term limits on members of Congress — along with getting PAC money out of our politics and putting an end to gerrymandering — will help breathe new life and new ideas into our democracy.”

If even Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke can come together on something, maybe Congress can, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

What founders want to teach Obama this July 4


waving flagPosted By author-image Chuck Norris On 06/28/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/what-founders-want-to-teach-obama-this-july-4

I commend President Obama for giving the eulogy at the funeral of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was gunned down along with eight other precious souls during a Bible study at their Charleston Church. Obama said some honorable and moving words about the fallen. He also spoke at length about amazing grace – and even sang about it.

But then he stirred what I call the nebulous and confusing religious pot by stating: “If we can find that grace, anything is possible. If we contacted that grace – can tap that grace, everything can change.”

“If we can find”? “If we contacted … can tap”? “If”?

The president is right that “anything is possible” and “everything can change” with God’s amazing grace. But he ought not to have spoken with such ambiguity, doubt and conditionality as “if” finding grace were wishing upon a star or discovering a needle in a haystack.

America’s founders – as well as most presidents throughout history – were unequivocally certain about the role of faith in our republic. They were without hesitation or doubt when they spoke about the bedrock of religion in society and human hearts. Our founders knew without it, they were sunk as well as our nation.

On the eve of another Independence Day, I think it’s critical that we reconsider exactly how our founders expected religion to breathe life into our nation and play out in society. If we don’t, we run the risk of crippling our country and shredding it at its seams. Indeed, we’ve already traveled too far down the road of religious degradation by omitting God from classrooms to historic monuments. We have also bastardized our founders’ first tenet of religion (First Amendment) and totally abandoned their understanding and call for its primary purpose in our republic. Let me explain.

Our founders’ first tenet of religion is captured in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You know the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In short, religious liberty will reign in our new nation. Congress shall protect individuals from forced sectarianism unlike it was done in England, and choice and freedom are to be protected and secured from the tyranny of government.burke

Well, that isn’t our First Amendment today, or at least how most secular progressives interpret it. They explain and use it solely as a buffer from keeping religious opinion or discussion – in any way, shape or form – out of every governmental or public arena. But that is the polar opposite of the First Amendment’s very purpose, which was to protect and preserve religious practice and liberty in any place, including in the halls of government.

As I wrote in my New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” though Jefferson is generally hailed as the chief of church-state separation, proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from these facts: He endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salaries of the church’s priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.

Some might be completely surprised to discover that just two days after Jefferson wrote his famous letter citing the “wall of separation between Church & State,” he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol. The very seat of our nation’s government was used for sacred purposes. The Library of Congress’ website notes, “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church.”

President John Adams spoke about how central God was to be in our republic, when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And to what religion was Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. … And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united.”

Our Founders believed religion (specifically Christianity) would serve as the basis for morality and decency. They warned us specifically that, to abandon that foundation for our ethics, would leave society in civil unrest—just as we see today in run amuck classrooms and homes across the nation and people treating one another with such malevolence.

George Washington also warned future Americans of this very problem in his presidential farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Well, the present leaders of our nation (including the Supreme Court) have turned a deaf ear to Washington’s warning and taken him up on his challenge to try to maintain “morality … without religion.”tyrants

America is now like it was in the time of the Judges in the Old Testament: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). That’s how it is today – with God being abandoned, so is our moral basis, and everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes. We’ve lost our moral compass, and that includes our president.

As a result, the president is as lost as the most wayward and rebellious youth. Instead of conveying any form of positive Washington conviction about the role of religion, President Obama casts conditional clauses (“If”) and doubt. He might have sounded like a preacher this past week in Charleston, but the truth is he is a charlatan chameleon when it comes to religion and specifically Christianity. Indeed he’s been known to mock it as he did in 2006 when he gave the following secular progressive diatribe against it.

As my friend and editor of WND, Joseph Farah, noted in 2012, Obama’s speech was given before an audience led by socialist Jim Wallis at the Call for Renewal conference. It starts getting interesting around the 26-minute mark, when Obama first made the point publicly that “whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Obama went on, “Even if we had only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama asks rhetorically. “Would it be James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK – and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application. So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”muslim-obama

Regarding Obama’s words, I conclude not with my comments but those of John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of the College of New Jersey (1768-94; now Princeton University), who said, “He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.”You cannot be right for America if you're wrong with God

(Next week, I’ll expand on my thoughts here in my Independence Day weekend column, “In God we still must trust.” In the meantime, I highly encourage your reading of my New York Times bestseller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” where you will find loads more about what our founders actually thought, practiced, and wanted for our country)

Obama blames Founding Fathers


http://conservativebyte.com/2014/05/obama-blames-founding-fathers-structural-design-congress-gridlock/#8EacyXKqAKyQAd2x.99

Posted on May 24, 2014 by Conservative Byte

240514tile6

Can you imagine an Obama constitution? It would include the bill of government requirements. Check it out:

President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the “disadvantage” of having each state represented equally in the Senate.

At a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, Mr. Obama told a small group of wealthy supporters that there are several hurdles to keeping Democrats in control of the Senate and recapturing the House. One of those problems, he said, is the apportionment of two Senate seats to each state regardless of population.

“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said.

Community Organizer TwoThe Founding Fathers decided in the “Great Compromise” in 1787 to apportion House seats based on population and give each state two seats in the Senate regardless of population. The solution was a compromise between large states and small states in a dispute that nearly dissolved the Constitutional Convention.

Continue Reading on www.washingtontimes.com

“The utter arrogance of President Obama is getting harder and harder to take. Just the idea that he has enough intelligence to make such a stupid statement. However, I do understand his “Saul Alinsky” mindedness. Please continue reading below. You will gain an understanding that should put more righteous conservatives into action.” JB

Obama’s Plans for the United States

http://tomohalloran.com/2014/01/30/obamas-plans-united-states/

January 30, 2014

Former-Presidents-Warn-About-the-“Invisible-Government”-Running-the-United-StatesThe “former” United States and Obama all in one title? What is going on here? Have we seen something very few others have seen? Have we found something others have over looked? Have we discovered the real plan of Obama’s ideology based upon his “radical” ideas? Have we asked the question thousands of other so-called reporters have just refused to ask or even consider? What do we mean here? How can we make such a statement about the President? How could we even state, “former” United States? Follow this article and the following article closely, and at the end we will show you Obama’s plans as they have been laid out for him and all Socialists, Marxists and Communists that wish to ruin the United States once and for all.

We can make this claim for several reasons; some based upon an individual, an individual who Obama studied and not just Karl Marx. Let us begin this by showing what Obama’s plan is. We’ll also show what and how this compares to certain individuals that Obama studied, following their ideologies that are designed to undermine both the United States and our Constitution; the law of the land.

See if the following ideas apply to what Obama is now doing. It should become evident after reading the very first rule below.

1.) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people

Barack Obama is doing just what this idea states! But how could this be a fact, how could this be true that Obama was following a plan that was neither his nor that was something new? We will continue with this with just 8 of these ideas and at the end we will show where these ideas really came from and most will be surprised that Obama is just rehashing old ideas!

2.) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

We can see that this rule or idea is being used the most by Obama and his administration simply due to the large amount of people now in poverty in the United States. Has anyone wondered why our nation now has almost as many people in poverty than we have working? It is just a part of a huge plan; one that Obama is working on each and every day to bring about his idea of change; one that destroys the United States and brings forth a new nation that is more of a police state rather than a free state!

3.) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

We can see proof that has never been shown by any so-called reporters! The most incredible part about this one rule that Obama is using is that all the politicians are walking right along with Obama driving up the nation’s debt until it becomes so bad that it actually becomes just what this rule has laid out to the tee. This is shown by the increasing taxes through the health care act that was used through the first rule. You should read this rule again just to understand that the entire idea here is to drive the poverty level up so that government can control the people it wants to control. These are the very same politicians who are saying they are helping!

4.) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

Obama is not out to accomplish anything good with his gun control agenda. His agenda is not the action of stopping murders, it is just what this rule states here and nothing else. Has anyone ever wondered why Obama said he respected the Second Amendment until after the election where he then said we need tighter gun control laws, and just in the last few months Obama had his Secretary of State, John Kerry, sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty which is an action that would allow for each and every gun owner to register their guns, and after a period of time, come by and confiscate them.

“Special note. A disarmed populace is easy to tyrannize. They can’t fight back.” JB

5.) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income) 

Here we find that more people are on Welfare than at any other time in our history. Obama has already accomplished this through the use of the Affordable Care Act and the Fair Housing Act he supported while he was in the organization of ACORN. When Obama worked with ACORN, he also worked with the attorneys that produced the act, which caused the first housing bubble, forcing the banks to “qualify” people for homes even though they could not afford it.

6.) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.

This is being done right under every parent’s nose with the “common core” standards curriculum.

7.) Religion – Remove belief in God from the Government and schools

Our nation is at this very moment going through this process and this idea is being pushed forward by those who seem to be part of the movement to destroy the United States by forcing others not to acknowledge God in public.

This final rule has been brought up just recently by Barack Obama. We are willing to bet that some of those reading this know what we are talking about because these are simple ideas laid out in a more expansive writing that has 12 steps very close to what we have shown here. Take a look at the last rule here and this is the one that will make many wonder why Congress has done almost nothing to stop any of this from happening!

8.) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Now is this not amazing, especially in light of the rhetoric from Barack Obama and the Democrats? Obama just came out with his first speech of the year making nearly the exact same statement about the rich needing to “contribute” more to the poor. President Obama has stated many times that those with the most should pay more to help the poor. This now seems to be what he intends to do during the next year and it falls directly back to what this rule points out! Obama has communicated what is clearly nothing less than class warfare, based upon the splitting of the people, making them think that the government is helping them when it is actually working to destroy them.

These 8 rules do not come from Obama, nor do they come from any of those within his administration. However, they all believe in these rules since they all are part of the same base that these rules were designed for: Socialists.

These 8 rules are defined as they were shown in simple form from the book “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky, a man set upon the takeover of the United States by Socialists.

Source:  Freedom Outpost (CONTINUED BELOW)

Obama: The Disciple of Saul Alinsky

http://tomohalloran.com/2014/01/31/obama-disciple-saul-alinsky/

January 31, 2014

saul-alinsky-obama-lucifer

In the previous article, we looked at 8 rules that Saul Alinsky laid out in his book Rules for Radicals. Barack Obama has been following those rules one by one. However, there are other rules that follow in the book. One rule, mentioned by Glenn Beck, was rule 12 and that one rule seems to be one of the most workable rules that President Obama has used to the max! That rule is as follows:

Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Now understanding rule 12, one can see that Obama has used this rule in ways that no other sitting President ever used against the people of the United States! How many times has Obama come out and picked a target, focused on that target and took action on that target? Surely we all have seen the ways that Obama had links back to the White House with the IRS action against the Tea Party and other conservative groups. Now Obama has set his sights on anyone that questions him. Now many would like to know just who is Saul Alinsky? That is a great question and the answer will be surprising to some who do not understand what is going on.

Saul Alinsky:

  • Identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power
  • Created a blueprint for revolution under the banner of “social change”
  • Two of his most notable modern-day disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the tactics of infiltration — coupled with a measure of confrontation — that have been central to revolutionary political movements in the United States in recent decades. He never joined the Communist Party but instead, as David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left.

“Alinsky was … convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations.”

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.

As Alinsky put it: “A reformation means that the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won’t act for change but won’t strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution.”

“[W]e are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world … This means revolution.”

John Perazzo at Discover the Networks writes in his profile of Alinsky:

But Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin. As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:

“Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp.”

Clinton ObamaAlinsky died in 1972, but his legacy lives on as a staple of leftist method, a veritable blueprint for revolution (which he and his disciples euphemistically refer to as “change”). Two of his most notable modern-day disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

In 1969 Hillary Clinton wrote her 92-pagesenior thesison Alinsky’s theories. A great admirer of Alinsky’s blend of ruthless and stealth activist tactics, Hillary personally interviewed the famed author for her project. She concluded her thesis bystating:

“Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs [the five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President] or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”

Now this shows what Saul Alinsky is about and just how he influenced two of the top people that have hidden facts on Benghazi! But this is but the tip of the proverbial Iceberg as far as how these two people, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, consider what this Socialist/maybe Communist stated!

Anti Christ BARACK-OBAMAUnlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. By the time Alinsky died in 1972, Obama was only 11 years old. But as a young man, he became a master practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1985 a small group of 20-odd churches in Chicago offered Obama a job helping residents of poor, predominantly black, Far South Side neighborhoods. Accepting that opportunity, Obama became Director of the Developing Communities Project, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous

Hillary Clintonwaste cleanup. David Freddoso, author of the 2008 book The Case Against Barack Obama, summarizes Obama’s community-organizing efforts as follows:

“He pursued manifestly worthy goals; protecting people from asbestos in government housing projects is obviously a good thing and a responsibility of the government that built them. But [in every case except one] the proposed solution to every problem on the South Side was a distribution of government funds …”

Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation. (The Developing Communities Project itself was an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method.)

One of Obama’s early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike Kruglik, would later say the following about Obama:

“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”

“Another word for that is “Manipulator”. Sound familiar?” JB

Here we see just how Obama got his ideas and they just do not work with a nation under a “free enterprise” traditions!

For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley‘s National Welfare Rights Organization(NWRO).

We have shown just what plan Obama has been following for years, including some of his “mentors” of this Socialist ideology that he has put forth without fear because he views himself as King of the Former United States. If “WE THE PEOPLE” do not vote people into the Senate to change the balance this year, the United States will be no more, and time will only prove this to be true when they begin making more laws against the Constitution and dissolving our rights one at a time. We’ve laid out their plans; now it is up to us to ensure that freedom prevails and not a kingdom of Obama.

Source:  The Freedom Outpost

Comming Soon 02

VOTE 02

 

 

 

 

 

Government Intrudes Into Virtually Every Aspect of Our Lives


http://blog.heritage.org/2014/01/05/alarming-growth-government/

January 5, 2014 at 9:00 am

NewscomNewscom

No matter how we label ourselves — conservative, liberal, moderate or none of the above — we all must grapple with the ever-expanding size and scope of government.

America has reached a tipping point. The federal government has grown exponentially, not just in spending, but in its reach. Government intrudes into virtually every aspect of our daily lives, from the type of toilet we can buy, to the mix of fuel we put in our cars, to the kind of light bulb we can use.

Government policies have stifled domestic energy production while pouring billions of tax dollars into alternative-energy subsidies, reflecting the elitist, “progressive” faith that bureaucrats can pick winners and losers better than individuals making voluntary decisions in their own interests can. Unelected bureaucrats have been empowered to stipulate what health services we will purchase, and how and from whom we will receive them.

Excessive government intervention not only limits individual freedoms, it stifles entrepreneurial creativity and job creation. It locks the poor into a lifetime of dependency and poverty. And it limits the ability of hard-working Americans to enjoy upward mobility.

The federal government also dominates in spheres of activity traditionally reserved to the states. This leaves little or no room for state-level innovation in areas such as education, transportation, health care, welfare and even law enforcement.

The pace of expansion has been breathtaking. The rapid growth of federal grasp and reach is unsettling, leading Americans to question whether their children will inherit a better future — and even whether it’s still possible to achieve the American Dream.

That’s why it’s more important than ever for us, as we begin a new year, to recommit ourselves to the principles that led to the founding of our great nation.

At the heart of these principles is the belief that people are free by nature and possess inherent rights. The use each of us makes of these rights will naturally differ, and the outcomes of those choices will naturally differ, too. The choice remains ours.

Freedom is thus inextricably bound up with living our lives as we see fit. This is self-government in the truest sense of the term. We the people need not slavishly defer to experts. We can be trusted to govern ourselves.

That is why government must remain limited. The people have given it only limited powers, as described in the Constitution. When government takes more than we have given it, it renders our choices meaningless. At worst, unlimited government is tyrannical; at best, it imposes a dull uniformity that crushes true diversity and saps the independent spirit of the people.

The Founders understood this. That’s why they avoided creating a government that could be dominated by a single faction. Whether that faction was a minority or a majority, it would seek to promote its own narrow interests at the expense of the people’s liberties. The Constitution’s checks and balances are intended to restrain the ambition of the powerful — to ensure that government genuinely promotes “the general Welfare.”

As the federal government has grown over the past century, the business of government has increasingly become taking from Paul to benefit Peter, and then borrowing from Peter to pay off Paul. What the supporters of big government call the general welfare is merely the artful distribution of favors to particular factions.

The federal government is not supposed to be the most important institution in America. In securing the general welfare, it is supposed to do only those things that are provided for in the Constitution.

It must, for example, provide for the common defense and regulate our relations with foreign nations. It must respect our right to enjoy the fruits of our labor by taxing lightly, and defend the freedom of the marketplace by ensuring the rule of law.

And it must remember that the family and religion are where we learn virtue — and that without virtue, government cannot be both limited and free.

Let’s see if we can move America back in the right direction together during 2014.

Originally appeared in The Washington Times

“Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”


 Note to Liberals: America’s Founders Were Christians

Written on Friday, April 12, 2013 by

Screen shot 2013-04-12 at 11.06.33 AM

After spending 36 years in higher education as a professor and administrator, I grew accustomed to hearing liberals tell one of their favorite lies: America’s founders were not Christians. I don’t know what it is about Christians that liberals find so frightening that they feel compelled to adopt a position blatantly at odds with the historical record. However, my experience in higher education leads me to believe that anti-Christian liberals think they can get away with such rhetorical perfidy because they are typically speaking to people who simply do not know their American history or, worse yet, have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in the public schools they don’t even care to know it. I taught hundreds of college students over the years—public school graduates—whose attitudes toward the religious beliefs of America’s founders can be summarized in this way: Don’t bore me with the facts—my mind is made up.

Having retired from higher education more than a year ago, it had been a while since I had heard some fact-challenged liberal claim that America’s founders were not Christians or that, at best, they were deists. But that changed recently while I was getting a haircut. My barber is a transplanted Californian so he probably cannot be blamed for his liberal worldview, nor can he be cured of it. I bristled a little when he made the comment to another customer that America’s founders were not Christians. However, since at the time he was using a straight razor on the back of my neck I thought it best to not excite him by challenging his comment. Instead, when he was done with my haircut I asked if he had ever studied the religious views and backgrounds of our founders. He admitted that he was just repeating what he had learned in school (Yes he went to public school in California). I recommended that he look into the question himself. This article summarizes what my barber will find if he follows through and actually does some legitimate, objective research.

About the religious views of the fifty-five men who developed America’s Constitution, my barber will find the following information: 26 were Episcopalians, 11 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Quakers, 2 were Roman Catholics, and one was Benjamin Franklin (whose religious views are still hard to pin down). Because Franklin’s views are difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty, he is the founder liberals like to use as their example of our “non-Christian” founders. Of course, by focusing the attention of listeners on Benjamin Franklin liberals are able to avoid having to discuss the religious views of the other 54 founders.

Anti-Christian liberals like to quote Benjamin Franklin’s views expressed at various times in his life to validate their claim that America’s founders were not Christians. However, they are forced to choose their Franklin quotes carefully or risk invalidating their biased claim. For example, anti-Christian liberals studiously avoid this Franklin quote: “God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.” Franklin made this thoroughly Christian statement during one of the hotter moments of verbal discord during the Constitutional Convention. It is quite a statement for a man who is the poster boy for liberals who want to claim that America’s founders were not Christians.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: