Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Tyranny’

TYRANNY: Kansas City is Now Requiring Churches to Keep Lists of People Entering Churches


Reported by  

Mayor Quinton Lucas enacted the policy where houses of worship receive the same treatment as “non-essential” businesses when it comes to keeping information of those who attend a service or anyone who enters the building.

“Never in our wildest dreams could we have imagined Nazi-like measures designed to surveil, track and spy upon what was once a free American people,” declared Liberty Council, founder and Chairman Matt Staver. “That is exactly what Kansas City’s misguided government officials are now demanding.”

The new policy declares “In-person religious gatherings (including weddings and funerals) may resume, subject to the 10/10/10 rule (if held inside) or limited to 50 people outside, provided social distancing precautions are followed and event organizers maintain records of all attendees.”

The 10/10/10 rule refers to the 10 people or 10 percent of the allowable number of people detailed in the fire code. However, it only applies to individuals who stay in the building for more than 10 minutes. In reality, the record keeping is what worries people. The new rule mandates that all churches to “record the names, contact information, and approximate entry/exit time of all customers who are on premises for more than 10 minutes.” Churches, synagogues, and mosques along with businesses are covered under these regulations. Medical facilities and grocery stores are the only establishments that are exempt.

Rich Bott, President of Bott Radio Network, argues that this new regulation is a clear violation of First Amendment protections.

“This is outrageous on the part of the KC municipal government officials. They are treating churches the same as businesses for COVID contact tracing purposes,” Bott said to the Metro Voice. “This is a massive overreach violating the sanctity of churches and the privacy of their attendees.  This must not go unchallenged.”

In a recent letter to supporters, Liberty Council’s Staver declared that Kansas City’s actions constitute “attacks” on basic civil liberties.

“These attacks on our churches cannot stand. The backbone of our country relies on our constitutionally guaranteed ability to worship and serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” Staver declared.

According to Liberty Council, churches are also compelled to hand over their “membership lists,” something the city government denies. Morgan Said, director of communications for Mayor Lucas, said that houses of worship must keep a list. That said, the possession and control of the information is still in their hands unless a health emergency comes about.

“We are not asking that churches provide a list immediately to the city,” Said highlighted. “Churches keep the list and only if a member tests positive, and that member attended a church function, would the church provide a list to the city.”

According to Said, the church or other religious institution only have to keep records for just 30 days, “Unless, God forbid, someone tests positive, the church can destroy the list.”

“Churches must abide by the 10/10/10 rule just like businesses and other organizations,” Said noted when talking about the capacity guidelines laid out by the regulation. “Church capacity is determined by the structure’s fire code limits.”

Metro Voice makes the claim that the guideline’s enforcement “will also be a tricky dilemma for authorities.”

The guidelines outlined what violations look like, “Violations of any provision of this Order constitutes an imminent threat, creates an immediate menace to public health, and shall be considered a violation of Section 50-155 of the City’s Code of Ordinances.”

The city asserts that it can fine churches and subject them to other penalties such as jail time for violations.

Liberty Council has multiple lawsuits on deck against governors who have “illegally and unconstitutionally fomented the arrests of pastors and launched attacks on the liberties of congregants.”

“I am running out of adjectives to describe how completely insane the tyrannical abuses launched by state governors and local officials against pastors and churches are becoming,” Staver with Liberty Council stated. “It is as if these leaders never bothered to so much as glance at the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. They seem to be governing from some make-believe, dystopian viewpoint.”

We wish all the best for Liberty Council.

Public health crises are serious, but destroying civil liberties is not only immoral but also sub-optimal when dealing with a matter that really needs more of a targeted approach. America is a dynamic polity that can rely on civic institutions, market actors, and minimal government to handle a pandemic like the Wuhan virus.

My Own Two Cents April 14 2020


April 14, 2020

I usually dislike people that say, “I told you so” because I already know their correct and I made a bad choice to do something else, or accept something else. Try as I might, I hold back doing the same. Please forgive me, but at this point I can’t hold back.

Going all the way back to the beginning of the Obama administration, I have been sounding the alarm that his “executive orders” had NO WEIGHT OF LAW. An executive order is nothing more than the executive writing a memo saying how they want certain established policies executed. NOTHING MORE.

So many of President Obama’s executive orders were carried out as if they were law. That included all the orders he wrote concerning illegal aliens, especially the children. NO LAW TO ENFORCE. NO WEIGHT OF LAW TO ENFORCE. Any new President can simply wipe them all away with a pen stroke.

As these governors and mayors began issuing their “orders”, I told everyone they had no weight of law. They are no different than the “executive orders” of a president. Instructions, desires, NOTHING MORE. I’ve implored all those around me not to take such “orders” as anything more than what any mayor or governor gives to their populace when a storm is about to hit and they “order” people to evacuate. The ones choosing not to are NOT law breakers. Stupid yes. Not law breakers.

Since Sunday, Constitutional experts have been asked about these “orders”, especially as they relate to ordering people they can’t go to Church, and those who have already been arrested or ticketed. 100% I’ve read, or heard so far has agreed. NO WEIGHT OF LAW. No governor’s or mayor’s “orders” can ever supersede the Constitution. NONE.

Just before Resurrection Sunday (Easter), I had a conversation with my pastor outside my home. He was here dropping off Communion elements for Good Friday Services via YOUTUBE. After sharing with him what I just explained above, he said he didn’t want to “chance” it that I was wrong.

I went on to explain that when political types are given a little power, they develop a thirst for more. Some develop a craving for absolute power (absolute power corrupts absolutely). I explained that I was very suspicious of Mayor Garcetti (Los Angeles) and Governor Newsome (California) (both extreme liberals) because I could see them using this COVID-19 virus as excuses to withhold our Constitutional liberties. Why? Because history has proved that whenever you give leftist politicians power, they never want to give it up.

Fear has always been the tactic of tyrants to control their populace. Painting a desperate situation about this virus, they convinced Americans to “self-quarantine”. Now, some majors and governors have converted that into “house arrest” with threats of ticketing and arrest. Our Civil Rights have been trampled upon and it will take courts to release them. This is NOT what our founders had in mind.

Yes, this virus has been awful. Yes, where it wasn’t handled correctly, more people died than otherwise. Did our governments overreact? Yes. How much will be determined after many investigations, especially all the “padded” deaths attributed to COVID-19.

Once again, we find ourselves in a historical moment of having to fight for our rights all over again. I’ve been warning of a “civil war” I can see on the near horizon. I hope this time I can’t say, “I told you so”.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Tyranny or Freedom

The Anti-American pro-communism Antifa terrorist group must look very awfully silly to the Hong Kong protester who’s fighting for freedom from Tyranny.

Portland Antifa and Honk Kong ProtesterPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at Flag And Cross.com here.

An adult children’s Book for all ages APOCALI NOW! brilliantly lampoons the left. ODER >  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Seattle Police Begin NAZI STYLE Gun Confiscation: No Laws Broken, No Warrant, No Charges


Reported by Mac Slavo

A man in Seattle has had his gun confiscated by police after breaking no laws. The police took his gun without a warrant and without pressing any charges.  Tyranny has officially taken hold on American soil. This sets a precedent that government can now forcefully take guns away from an individual without a crime being committed or an arrest being made and without a warrant.

In the name of fear and political exploitation of anti-gun rhetoric, a citizen’s Second Amendment rights have been ripped away from him by the government.

The new “red flag” law, which has taken hold in other states already, allows the courts and law enforcement to take away guns from individuals they deem are dangerous and they’ve just begun the confiscation.

A man living in the Belltown neighborhood of Seattle, Washington became the first individual in the state to have his firearm confiscated without any formal arrest or charges.  The man was not identified by authorities.

Neighbors complained that the man had been “staring” at people through storefront windows while wearing a holstered firearm. He was not brandishing his weapon by any account, and open carrying is legal in the area, so he was abiding by the law.

Other residents also complained that the man’s open carrying made them feel “uncomfortable” and “unsafe.” “He was roaming the hallways with a .25 caliber automatic,” said Tony Montana, a man who lives in the same apartment complex as the gun owner and a person without any reasonable gun knowledge.

Handguns are semi-automatic. 

These lousy complaints from neighbors allowed police to use the newly passed state law to confiscate the man’s firearm because the man apparently stared at others.  Maybe there’s a ban on staring at others in Washington we are unaware of.

Under the extreme risk protection orders — also referred to as “erpos” or “red flag laws” —  police (government officials) are now allowed to violate a person’s Second and Fourth Amendment rights (which are basic fundamental human rights) and take their legally acquired personal property if they are tattled on by offended liberals.

Tyranny has now taken hold on American soil.

Article posted with permission from SHTFPlan

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE WRITTEN IN 2016: When America Becomes South Africa


waving flagBy Ilana Mercer September 28, 2016

‘If African-Americans didn’t get out and vote for Hillary Clinton, they would be dissing him and his legacy.’ So warned President Barack Obama, in a speech at the Black Caucus Foundation in Washington DC, on September 17.

The woman whose election promises portend a war on whites, Walmart and the wealthy has nothing to fear. Obama’s political cant notwithstanding, there isn’t much of a chance blacks will side overwhelmingly with Hillary’s rival.

Like never before, the 2016 election has been characterized by “a muscular mobilization of a race-based community, coercive control of territory and appeals by powerful charismatic leaders.”

What do I mean by “coercive control of territory”? Consider what would transpire if Donald Trump were to campaign “big-league” in Birmingham (Alabama), Charlotte (North Carolina), or South Los Angeles. Riots would erupt. (Incidentally, the thing where private property is invaded and looted is not called a protest.)

As sure as night follows day, the American democracy is destined to resemble that of South Africa, where a ruling majority party is permanently entrenched, and where voting is characterized by what has become Barack Obama’s signature tactic, a “muscular mobilization of the race-based community.”obama- Marxist tyrant

The last, twice-repeated reference is out of Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-illegalalienvoters-300x300Apartheid South-Africa.” In 2011, the book used the tragic example of post-apartheid South Africa to forewarn Americans of the effects of a shift in their country’s founding political dispensation, a shift being achieved stateside through immigration central-planning.

America’s political class has been tinkering with the country’s historical demographic composition for decades. The consequence of the mass importation of poor, Third World immigrants is that America, like South Africa, is headed to dominant-party status, in which a permanent majority intractably hostile to the minority consolidates power, and in which voting along racial lines is the rule.

It used to be that the Democratic Party was this nascent majority’s political organ, offering a platform of preferential policies for a voting bloc whose “interests are viewed through the prism of racial affiliations.” Obama’s Dreams from America are for a countrytryanny in which the historic majority is destined to become a marginalized minority, consigned to the status of spectator in the political bleachers. Ditto Clinton’s dreams. But, as election year 2016 has shown, the Republican Party is vying for a similar mantle.

That South Africa is riven by race is indisputable. Each election is “a racial census as far as whites and blacks are concerned.” In the much-ballyhooed, historic election of 1994, “only two to three percent of whites voted for historically black parties and perhaps five percent of blacks voted for historically white parties. The ANC relied for ninety-four percent of its vote on black support. The historically white parties had been barred from campaigning in the black townships.” Yet elections since 1994 have had the blessing of every liberal alive, and that includes many of the world’s self-styled conservatives. All about the vote

“The rule of the people, demos, and the people’s ethnicity, ethnos” invariably clash, argued Michael Mann, “one of the leading historical sociologists of our time.” In “The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing” (2004), Mann contends that in the earlier, more formative stages of their development, democracies are prone to carrying out murderous ethnic cleansing, which in extreme forms can become genocidal.rep-rep

“The growth of popular sovereignty, the institutionalization of universal citizenship, [and] the creation of mass society” have often seen “ethnic groups laying claim to the same territory resort to the use of force, and, when frustrated, to murderous ethnic cleansing and even genocide.” Examples of this phenomenon in modernity: the ethnic expulsions and massacres in the democratized former Yugoslavia and Rwanda during the 1990s, the genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire under the Young Turks (particularly in 1915-1916), and the mechanized mass murder of the Jews in Nazi Germany. While the infant South-African democracy fits snugly within his thesis, democracy devotees [the writer is not one] have accused Mann of twisting like a Cirque du Soleil contortionist to stretch the definition of democracy in making his case.burke

Where Mann is at pains to prove the murderous nature of young democracies, the arguments against democracy for South Africa, which have been propounded by Duke University scholar Donald L. Horowitz, have considerable force. Finely attuned to “important currents in South African thought,” Horowitz offered up an excruciatingly detailed analysis of South Africa’s constitutional options.

In “A Democratic South Africa?: Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society” (1991), Horowitz concluded that democracy is, in general, unusual in Africa, and, in particular, rare in ethnically and racially divided societies, where majorities and minorities are rigidly predetermined.engineering2

Prone to seeing faces in the clouds, the new South Africa’s Anglo-American cheerleaders were impervious to such sobering pronouncements. It remained for students of democracy such as Horowitz to hope only that “the probability will … recede that one person, one vote, one value, and one state will degenerate into only one legal party and one last election.”

quote-the-one-pervading-evil-of-democracy-is-the-tyranny-of-the-majority-or-rather-of-that-lord-acton-0-15-01“Elections to be meaningful presuppose a certain level of political organization. … The primary problem is … the creation of a legitimate public order. Authority has to exist before it can be limited, and it is authority that is in scarce supply in the modernizing countries,” warned Samuel Huntington in “Political Order In Changing Societies.” Little did Huntington consider that, with enough tinkering by its ruling elites; a modern and mighty country like the U.S. could devolve into an atavistic and dangerous place.

Not nearly as hopeful as Horowitz was that “noted student of nationalism” Elie Kedourie. “If majority and minority are perpetual, then government ceases to have a mediatory or remedial function, and becomes an instrument of perpetual oppression of the minority by the majority,” concluded Kedourie. It was after a visit to South Africa that he wrote the following, in the November 1987 issue of the South Africa International:

The worst effects of the tyranny of the majority are seen when parliamentary government on the unalloyed Westminster model is introduced into countries divided by religion or language or race. Such for example was the case of Iraq … where an extremely heterogeneous society came to be endowed with constitutions which made no provision for diversity, and where the result was tyranny of one groups over the other groups in the society.

A prerequisite for a classical liberal democracy is that majority and minority status be interchangeable and fluid in politics; that a ruling majority party be as likely to become a minority party as the obverse. By contrast, in South Africa, the majority and the minorities are politically permanent, not temporary.

America’s Founding Fathers had attempted to forestall raw democracy by devising a republic. Every democratic theorist worth his salt—Robert Dahl and Elaine Spitz come to mind—has urged that the raw, ripe rule of the mob and its dominant, anointed party be severely curtailed under certain circumstances fast approaching in the United States of America. These are “whenever people of different languages, races, religions, or national origins, with no firm habits of political co-operation and mutual trust, are to unite in a single polity.”

In other words, multicultural America.Truth The New Hate Speech We have been torn apart Freedom is never free

Adapted from “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa (2011). When tolerance becomes a one way street

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ilana Mercer

Ilana MercerILANA MERCER is the author of “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016), and “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011). She has been writing an acclaimed, weekly, paleolibertarian column—begun in Canada—since 1999. Follow her on Twitter and on Facebook. Subscribe to ilana’s new YouTube channel.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagBernie Is My Comrade

Bernie Is My Comrade, says the millions of ignorant millennials who have no concept  of what Socialism/communism is,  given its disastrous history.

Bernie Is My Comrade / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

OBAMA THE TYRANT: Uses Executive Overreach to DECIMATE His Latest Target


waving flagPosted on April 14, 2016

Screen Shot 2016-04-14 at 10.01.14 AMYou won’t believe what his latest offense is. Can’t wait for him to get out of the WH!

By Allen West

Back when he was a senator running for president, Barack Obama stated he would bankrupt the American coal industry. As president, he used the regulatory agency order and extended the definition of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The U.S. Supreme Court did grant a request to temporarily block the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan as a lawsuit moves forward. It was the first time the Supreme Court had ever halted federal regulations during a legal challenge. However, it may have truly come too late.Tyrant Obama

As reported by Fox Business News, “The bankruptcy of Peabody Energy (BTU), the world’s largest private coal producer, puts an exclamation point on the industry’s struggles and their ripple effect.

Like its fellow coal miners, Peabody has been hit by cheap natural gas and costly new regulations. Peabody, whose $2 billion loss in 2015 marked the fourth straight year of red ink for the company, warned last month that bankruptcy might be on the horizon. The move was made official Wednesday, as Peabody filed for Chapter 11 protection for most of its U.S. entities.

Peabody is one of many mining firms that have sought bankruptcy. Patriot Coal, which Peabody spun off in 2007, went bankrupt in May 2015, just 18 months after emerging from its prior bankruptcy. Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal and Walter Energy also entered bankruptcy within the last year. According to Peabody, about 50 coal companies have gone bankrupt amid coal’s decline. Peabody said it was taking this action during an “unprecedented industry downturn,” according to a letter to customers that was posted on Peabody’s website.”freedom

Imperial President ObamaI just have to ask, what American president would make it a goal to destroy an entire American industry? The answer: one whose ideological agenda is more important than American jobs, families, and way of life. Could it have been possible to work with the coal industry to advance better technologies? Instead, how many Americans have been purposefully driven into government dependency in order to care for their families because of their lost jobs?

As well, what will happen to those low income families who relied on cheaper energy prices because of coal? America is the Saudi Arabia of coal and why shouldn’t we encourage that energy sector as part of our national energy portfolio?

Cloward Pevin with explanation Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

From My Email INBOX


waving flag

 

For all my conservative friends out there, the following video is one that will cause your liberal friends heads to explode. So, share it with caution.

Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org

guns

democrat problem Armed Hey Leftist Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

NY Couple Ordered to Complete “Re-education” to Contradict Religious Beliefs About Marriage


waving flagReported by Josie Rudd January 27, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://minutemennews.com/ny-couple-ordered-to-complete-re-education-to-contradict-religious-beliefs-about-marriage

Do you remember the New York couple, who was sued for their refusal to host a same-sex marriage ceremony on their property?  Not only was this their property, it was their home.   They live in the barn they built on their property, and would sometimes host weddings there.  

An appeals court just ruled that their refusal to host the union of a same-sex couple, in their own home, was discriminatory. They were fined $13,000, and to top it off – they were ordered to attend “re-education training classes” to counter their religious beliefs on marriage as a sacred union between a man and woman.pure socialism

What is happening to the United States of America?

CNSNews reports:

“After the agency ruled that the Giffords were guilty of ‘sexual orientation discrimination,’ it fined them $10,000, plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage,” a press release issued following the court decision stated.pure socialism

In order to comply with the order, the couple will have to attend those “re-training” classes or have a “trainer” come to them, according to ADF.Big Gay Hate Machine

“All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards,” ADF legal counsel Caleb Dalton, who argued before the court on behalf of the couple in Gifford v. Erwin, said in a statement. “The government went after both this couple’s freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property.”

Free Speech Definition Different Free Speech Ideologies Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies In God We Trust freedom combo 2

COMMENTARY: A President is not a King and States Must Make Sure of It


waving flagPosted by

Our nation’s first president, George Washington, under the newly formed Constitution in 1789, found himself in an uncomfortable position.  As the nation’s first Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief he knew the delicate ground between strength and tyranny. Fearing any comparison to the monarchal government from which America had just been liberated, Washington took care to avoid any physical or symbolic references to European monarchs.  When the Senate proposed that he be called by the official title His Highness the President of the United States of America and the Protector of Their Liberties,” an abashed Washington opted for the more modest address of “Mr. President.”

How far we have come in America.  Since Washington’s modesty there has been no implication that the president of these United States has ever been handed the unilateral authority of kings, monarchs, or dictators.

How unfortunate the present Senate, and all of Congress for that matter, has refused to stop recent presidents from self-nominations to this title.

President Obama’s use of executive orders, whether it be immigration or the people’s right to bear arms, have been entirely un-Constitutional, which is to say lawless – and by definition, criminal.  With no cognizance of Constitutional authority or the will of the people he was elected to protect, the self-nominated monarch announced on Monday his new executive actions on gun control while a newly released Gallup Poll shows that “guns/gun control” ranked 19th out of 23 top problems facing the country last year.

Even if gun control is a concern, the federal government has no authority to speak to this issue because of the God-given right to self defense, the preservation of life, and the law of the land stating unequivocally “The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed”.Hey Leftist

Many kings and monarchs of antiquity suffered from the dangerous Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and others. This is not a disorder that should be left unchecked in our leaders.

Understand, elected state leaders, your duty is to interpose between your citizens and a central government bent on tyranny.  Simply put, you must stake a claim.  You cannot remain silent, because silence implies consent.AMEN

George Washington believed, “When People shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes.”

The Hebrew prophet Isaiah resolved, “When God’s judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.”AMEN

Democrat or Republican, state officials and citizens alike must learn and resist tyranny in all of its forms.

Freedom is never free In God We Trust freedom combo 2

THE BEST PATRIOTIC VIDEO I HAVE SEEN


waving flagOKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY MADE THIS VIDEO. IT JUST CAME OUT 4 DAYS AGO AND ALREADY HAS HAD OVER 6 MILLION HITS.

we the people

Oklahoma State University is located at Stillwater, Oklahoma. 

This is without a doubt the best video that has come out and apparently 6 Million others think so too because there have been 6 million hits in 4 days. 

Please watch it again and again and send it on to others.  Let’s keep it going.

*This is very well done.* 

Freedom is not the problem it is the solution We have been torn apart In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Missouri’s Lesson: the Campus Wars Are about Power, Not Justice


waving flagBy David French — November 9, 2015

miss

National Grassroots Movement to Restore Liberty and Rein in Tyranny: “Only the People can Save America!”


waving flagPosted by Tim Brown

“Justice and Judgment are the inhabitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.” – Psa 89:14

“When the People fear their government there is tyranny, when government fears the people there is liberty” – Thomas Jefferson

A new grassroots movement is seeking to take back the rightful authority of the people to operate in our government under the authority of God. The Natural Liberty Alliance is a movement that is seeking to re-establish the Common Law (Law based upon the Bible) that we were originally founded upon, not the kind of Statutory Law that we find in our court systems today, which has become nothing more than legalized tyranny.

According to the group’s mission statement, they desire to “restore the people to sovereignty through knowledge, and only then will they be armed with the virtue to take political and judicial power. The people have it in their power to disarm and defeat the enemy of Liberty both foreign and domestic if they only understood the principles of freedom and stand upon them.”AMEN

The NLA also has the proper place to start as well. “But, to successfully apply political and judicial power you must have a sense of justice and mercy which is synonymous with virtue. And to get virtue you need to have a relationship with your creator. If everyone exercised these principles America could shake off the chains of tyranny, reinstate our republic, and bring down the NWO ‘literally overnight.’ This is the only way to save the nation, without power you are powerless!”

“Now is the time to take back the rule from our oppressors!” the NLA declares. “Due to extraordinary circumstances, on November 10, 2014 We the People from all fifty states unified as United States Common Law Grand jury for the purpose of saving America by returning Justice, and thereby the rule of Law, to our courts which will permeate all three branches of government.”

“Through the power vested in We the People by God, a Writ Quo Warranto was filed in all 94 Federal District Courts and served upon every elected state and federal servants and officers of the court, reminding them of their limited power,” the NLA says. “‘In the United States, sovereignty resides in people… that Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared,’ Perry v. US, 294 U.S330; and ‘The very meaning of sovereignty is that the decree of the sovereign makes law,’ not the servant, American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.”

“Because of arrogance, greed and ignorance our Writ was met by ‘silence which can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading….,’ U.S. v. Tweel. ‘Bad faith and fraud are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc.,’ Joiner v. Joiner.”

According to the NLA’s website, they have already made significant steps in implementing their plan to take back the government of the people from tyrants. Here are the steps they have made so far:

  • …on May 13, 2015 We the People re-filed Writ_Quo_Warranto pdf to be followed by a series of Writ Mandamuses, exposing in-depth violations; and commanding said servants to obey and perform specific actions, remember their sworn guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and to protect each of them against invasion, Article IV Section 4; failure to comply with their oaths makes them enemies of the People.
  • On May 20, 2015 We the People, the sureties of the Peace, filed Writ Mandamus_to_Sheriff pdf in order to prepare, inform, educate, and expose those conspiring to overthrow the United States Constitution; empower the county sheriff, the conservator of the peace to take action by performing their Constitutional duties and thereby join the American Peoples’ endeavor to save our nation, simply by obeying, enforcing and following the “law of the land.”
  • On May 23, 2015 We the People, the sureties of the Peace, filed Writ Mandamus_to Judges pdf to expose their tyranny and offer the final olive branch.
  • On May 27, 2015 We the People filed Writ of Mandamus Martial Law pdf concerning our servants, conscious or unconscious participation in the methodical destruction of the ordained government of the United States, using martial law, the final act of an overthrown government to control the People in order to transfer power to tyrants and kill their enemies; and We the People intend to prevent.
  • On May 30, 2015 We the People filed Writ Mandamus Amendment II pdf revealing the true reason concerning governments that move toward gun control. In every case governments end up killing the people who dissent. Disarmed people are neither free nor safe; rather they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings; and We the People intend to prevent.
  • On June 2, 2015 We the People filed Writ Mandamus concerning terrorism pdf exposing the fascist tactics being used by tyrants that have infiltrated our government at all levels in an effort to enslave the sovereign People of America; classifying sovereign citizens, a/k/a We the People, as terrorists or as having mental disorders for challenging authority and demanding their unalienable rights.
  • On June 6, 2015 We the People filed Writ Mandamus concerning subversion revealing Jade Helm, a Trojan-horse to take America, and exposing foreign and domestic tyrants, posing as Americans, who have infiltrated our government at all levels in a concerted effort to overthrow the fifty governments of the united States. These tyrants have seized their seat of power (our Federal City a/k/a Washington DC) and thereby have covertly erected a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, political operations; through courts of fiction, contrary to the authority by which they claim (Article I Section 8 Clauses 17 and 18), prevent the execution of the Law of the Land resulting in the enslaving of the sovereign People of America;

Like many patriots who visit our site, they are not interested in just being angry that they are being oppressed and their liberties stolen from them by a bloated unconstitutional tyrannical beast, but are seeking to chain up the beast with the Law. The NLA encourages everyone to read each of the Writs and says that it will empower the people. NLA believes that we must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”Destroyed for lack of knowledge

I have been one that has constantly called for the people to be involved, not so much in protest, as much as in true repentance towards God and bringing down justice upon the guilty. Now, the question is posed to you friends and patriots, will you at least take a look and see how you might make this movement prosper for liberty or will you merely complain and do nothing?

AMEN

For more information on NLA, click here to visit their website.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Carson: ‘If People Don’t Speak Up For What They Believe,’ Hitler Could Happen In America


waving flagPosted by Photo of Christian Datoc Christian Datoc, Reporter, 10/01/2015

Ben Carson told reporters Wednesday that if “people don’t speak up for what they believe,” then America could start resembling Hitler’s Nazi Germany, CNN reports.

In a speech earlier in the day, Carson rejected the idea that a radical, totalitarian party could ever gain power in the United States.

“If you go back and look at the history of the world, Truth The New Hate Speechtyranny and despotism and how it starts, it has a lot to do with control of thought and control of speech,” he explained.

“If people don’t speak up for what they believe, then other people will change things without them having a voice. Hitler changed things there and nobody protested. Nobody provided any opposition to him.”

War on ChristiansAdditionally, Carson shot down a question insinuating that he was comparing President Obama to Hitler.

“No. I am saying in a situation where people do not express themselves, bad things can happen.”

WE MUST NEVER FORGET   In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagIcy Florida | Political Cartoon | A.F. Branco

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/08/icy-florida-political-cartoon-a-f-branco

Icy Florida A Political Cartoon by A.F.Branco ©2015. Used by permission from A.F. Branco on Net Right Daily
icy-florida

Climate change is about power, not environment.

Global warming alarmists must be shaking their heads in disbelief. Just when they felt they had the stars aligned to push their anti-free enterprise/capitalism agenda on the international stage and claim the power they crave, the climate and scientists have begun to turn against them.

GlobalWarmingScam-300x204 Temple with high priest Warming-formula-600-AEA weather Worship manditory freedom combo 2

Facebook claims Marine Corps emblem violates community standards


Socialism alert
Marine Corps emblem

Late Monday, Facebook unpublished the popular pro-military “Locked and Loaded” page, while telling administrators that a picture of the United States Marine Corps emblem with a ribbon marked “In Remembrance” violated their community standards. Jason Light, an administrator from Atlanta, told this reporter in an exclusive interview the page was covering the funeral and burial of Marine Lance Corporal Skip Wells, who was killed in Chattanooga.

Administrator Robert Combs also received a three-day ban over the posting of the image, shown below.

Marine corps in memoriam logo that was rejectedCombs told me that all he can do for the next three days is chat, but he intends to replace the page. “I am just speechless as to how this violates community standards,” he said. The screenshot provided by Light did not indicate why the image was yanked, other than Facebook’s claim that it violated their standards.Picture2

The Facebook page boasted over 53,000 likes and was set up to help promote a blog by the same name. While not as large as other pages, Light said, it reached over 1 million people.

Light also posted the graphic to Twitter, where it was re-tweeted by talk show host Neal Boortz. “I’m going to post it back to FB,” one person said in response. “Let’s see what happens.”

It’s not the first questionable call by Facebook. Recently, the social media giant told one conservative user that her picture of a lilac tree was considered pornographic. On the other hand, it once said that a page calling for the murder of a Texas Tech cheerleader who hunts big game does not violate its standards.

In 2013, Facebook banned one conservative blogger for 30 days over a link she never posted. Another conservative was punished for simply saying “thank you.”What did you say 04.jpg

Tyranney AlertLight told me he believes the page was targeted by “fake conservative trolls,” people who pretend to be friendly but really aren’t. “Many people,” he said, “wanted to be the one to take us down.” Facebook has not responded to our request for comments.Keys taken

Related Articles

freedom combo 2

The Constitutional “Shall Not’s” of Congress


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

shall notVigilance-2

Universal human rights are determined by government restraint. In what areas of human life should the government not be involved? What areas of life must the government not regulate, not restrain, not limit, not oversee, not implement, not subsidize, not legalize or make illegal? Interestingly, the first five words of the Bill of Rights state what Congress cannot do: “Congress shall make no law… .” Even more telling– the first ten amendments, with perhaps The Sixth as the exception, all define what the government cannot do:

  • First: “Shall make no law … prohibiting … abridging,
  • Second: “Shall not be infringed”
  • Third: “No soldier shall … without the consent …”
  • Fourth: “Shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue …”
  • Fifth: “No person shall be held … nor shall any person be subject …”
  • Seventh: “Shall be preserved … No fact … shall be otherwise reexamined …”
  • Eighth: “Shall not be required … Nor excessive … imposed, nor … punishments inflicted”
  • Ninth: “shall not be construed to deny or disparage”
  • Tenth: “Not delegated … nor prohibited.”

The third, fifth, eighth, and tenth amendments don’t state “rights;” they state what authority the government does not have. In effect, limits on government are universal human rights. The Constitution outlines specific areas of human life that are off-limits to government. This suggests that there are certain aspects of human life which are fundamentally free.tie it down

The Constitution did not outline rights or prohibitions defined by a government that could later redefine them. It outlined rules to be followed by a self-ruling people in addition to separating and balancing political authority among judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.

Despite the limits the Founders enumerated in the Constitution, their limits are still limited in their ability to constrain government overreach. Matters of conscience, especially as they relate to the First Amendment, dictate certain situations when citizens decide to not follow and/or disobey unjust laws. Interestingly, dissent in the form of collective actions of conscience (refusing to pay taxes, boycotting specific products, and armed resistance) among approximately one third of American colonists who fought for independence.Tree of Liberty 03

The Constitution was the result of a point in time that the Founding Fathers and Framers identified of a line they could not cross. They could not comply in good conscience– it would be immoral to comply– with the laws of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Christians joined them, citing New Testament directives, identifying that they also must only “obey God rather than men.”christianity

They recognized they could not selectively disobey certain laws because the government itself could not be obeyed. They needed a new government. Rebellion and resistance were required because the ruling authorities had rebelled against God. The government had not only violated basic principles of justice but also had squandered God-given human rights, rendering itself illegitimate.

Thomas Jefferson asserted:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long Established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, Accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,  pursuing invariably the same object, evidences a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Jefferson also said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The Shall Nots were imperative to the Founders– they wanted to ensure that if Congress violated them the people had just cause to rebel.

two ways to enslave a nation theBible moral people John-Adams-Quote-Liberty-Lost1 John-Adams-Poster-Principles-of-Freedom JohnAdamsFaithQuote4 freedom democracy freedom combo 2

The world of post-SCOTUS gay marriage and church insurance


waving flagPosted by    Tuesday, July 14, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/the-world-of-post-scotus-gay-marriage-and-church-insurance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29

As told by one of our readers

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Oral Argument Fox News Tax Exemption Liberty
SCOTUS GIANT
Last week, we took a look at an insurance notification received by a church in Oregon. National Review’s David French originally reported the story.

Those fearful Obergefell v. Hodges could spell trouble for religious liberty were validated much sooner than anticipated. Less than 48 hours after the decision was handed down, New York Times columnist Mark Oppenheimer called for the end of tax exemptions for religious institutions. And the piecemeal dismemberment on religious liberties continues.

Now infamous for their intolerance of Christianity, Oregon continues to be ground zero for the cp 11Biblical Principles vs. Ideological Fascism showdown.

National Review’s David French explains an emerging problem for Oregonian pastors seeking liability insurance.

Churches, like virtually every functioning corporation, protect against liability risks and the potentially ruinous costs of litigation through liability insurance. With same-sex marriage now recognized as a constitutional right — and with news of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries awarding a lesbian couple $135,000 in damages for “emotional, mental and physical suffering” after a Christian bakery refused to bake their wedding cake — pastors are reaching out to insurance companies to make sure they’re covered. And at least one insurer has responded with a preemptory denial: no coverage if a church is sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.Picture2

While denying insurance coverage is not itself an encroachment of religious liberty, lack of protection is as much a problem; one that could easily sink any independent church that winds up the defendant of a complaint.Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

French continues:

On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve[s] more than 8,400 churches”), wrote an “all states” agents’ bulletin addressing same-sex marriage. It begins: “We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.” Karns continues:

The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.

In other words: Churches, you’re on your own. (National Review has tried to reach Mr. Karns and Southern Mutual’s corporate office, and they have not yet returned our calls.)

Monday one of our astute readers and blogger at Insureblog (a blog that covers all things insurance), provided a much appreciated technical view of the church insurance/religious liberty discussion.

Henry Stern writes:

SSM & Church Insurance

The other day, we looked at how health insurance (particularly group plans) will be impacted by the recent SCOTUS ruling on Same Sex Marriage (SSM). Now, the legal beagles over at Legal Insurrection have a very interesting post about the future of liability insurance in this new, enlightened age, and it’s not pretty:

“On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve[s] more than 8,400 churches”), wrote … The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage”

The short answer: No.

As usual when it comes to issues involving Property and Casualty (P&C), I turned to good friend and guru Bill M for his insights:

The reason that coverage in such circumstances would (likely) be declined is that it was an intentional act of violating the law. So if (when?) a church (or synagogue, or mosque) is sued for refusing to perform a SSM, the resulting lawsuit would not be covered. That also means the carrier has no “duty to defend” (basically: provide legal counsel).

Of course, any fines imposed by the state would also be excluded.

This is not quite the same as the linked post’s headline:

“Churches refusing to perform same sex marriages may be denied liability insurance”

At this point, no carrier is refusing to actually underwrite and issue a policy to non-complying churches for the simple reason that it’s not currently a part of the underwriting process. That is, there’s no question on the app that reads “Do you refuse to perform gay weddings?” If and/or when a claim arises because of such refusal, the carrier would simply deny coverage.

Now, actually denying to write a policy in the first place is currently pretty speculative. But as Bill pointed out to me, such a scenario is not necessarily farfetched:

Imagine Acme Church Insurance Company with 50,000 policyholders, 10,000 of which get sued for refusing SSM, and all 10,000 of these claims are denied. That’s a lot of ticked off customers, no? So what’s the likelihood that the next application version’s going to include a question about SSM, and if the answer’s not “sure, all the time,” then no soup policy for you.

Is that likely to happen in the next year or two? Probably not, but don’t be surprised when it does happen a few years down the road.

Bill also brought up another very disturbing thought: many (most?) churches have Boards of Directors (or Elders, or Deacons, etc), and thus likely have D&O (Directors and Officers) coverage:

“Errors and omissions coverage for an organization, its leaders, and governing bodies while acting within the scope of their duties.”

The reason for this coverage is that board members could be sued individually, putting their personal assets at risk for something their church or its leaders may have done (or not done).

Bill mused about whether such policies might also decline coverage for SSM-related claims. Talk about a chilling effect on lay folks volunteering for leadership positions in their congregations.

Brave new world, indeed.

Leftist Giant called Tyranny Big Gay Hate Machine Demorates squeeze into mold freedom combo 2

In Oregon, 15-year-olds can get state-subsidized sex change surgery without parental consent


Socialism alert
transition between man woman transgender

Never mind death panels under Obamacare. Instead try to wrap your mind around ainsane different panel of experts, this one with the authority to grant your 15-year-old’s request to undergo sex reassignment surgery — and without your knowledge, much less your consent.

As unfathomable as it sounds, such a panel exists in the state of Oregon and has the Orwellian-sounding name Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC). This 13-member panel is hand-selected by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.

Fox News reports that HERC recently changed its policy to include cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs, and gender-reassignment surgery for people with gender dysphoria. Since the age of medical consent in Oregon is 15, your 15-year-old can decide on his own to become a her. To add insult to horrific injury, covered medical procedures are paid for through the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s Medicaid program. This means that although parents don’t get to participate in their child’s decision to undergo life-altering medical treatment, they do ultimately get stuck with the bill.Keys taken

Paul McHugh, of the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department and himself a pioneer in gender reassignment surgery, says Oregon’s policy amounts to child abuse. He is quoted as saying:

We have a very radical and even mutilating treatment being offered to children without any evidence that the long-term outcome of this would be good.

A 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry further calls into question the wisdom of this procedure, noting as it does that “most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty.”Screen-Shot-2015-06-17-at-10_25_32-AM-300x180

Jenn Burleton, who herself underwent sex-reassignment surgery and founded the Portland non-profit group TransActive, argues that the policy has the potential to save young lives:

Parents may not be supportive. They may not be in an environment where they feel the parent will affirm their identity, this may have been going on for years.

But a study conducted by Britain’s National Health Service found that the percentage of those who commit suicide after being denied the surgery is nearly identical to the percentage of people who kill themselves after receiving the surgery.

It is clear that more research is needed on this topic. In the meantime, one would be hard-pressed to justify letting any child make the decision unilaterally to undergo any surgery.

Big Gay Hate Machine freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagHappy Fourth(?!)

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flag? and Stripes

Video Of The Day: Sharpening Your Traditional Marriage Argument


waving flagPosted by Rottdawg — June 29, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/06/votd-sharpening-your-traditional-marriage-argument

Big Gay Hate Machine

Here are a couple videos that will help strengthen your argument should you be in the traditional marriage camp. The Supremes really let the citizens of America down with their moronic argument supporting same-sex marriage.

marriage

This one here is a bit NSFW, but Christopher Cantwell has a message for all of those that rainbowed up their Facebook profiles in celebration of the SCOTUS decision.

face

Leftist Giant called Tyranny

reduced to tears SCOTUS GIANT Giant Government Compliance Officer freedom combo 2

 

The Left’s Moral Relativism Has Eaten Our Culture Alive — and Conservatives Have No Political Strategy to Stop It


June 26, 2015 Listen to it Button

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/26/the_left_s_moral_relativism_has_eaten_our_culture_alive_and_conservatives_have_no_political_strategy_to_stop_it

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Look, I know everybody is trying to understand this, and everybody’s trying to explain it to each other. Everybody’s looking to everybody else for a deep meaning, an explanation that makes sense. Because none of what’s happening makes sense to people. So what’s going on? Well, hang in there. I’m going to give my shot at this today, folks.

The EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh, get ready. Oh, yeah, that too. Open Line Friday, which could be juicy today. This is where we try to emphasize callers a little more than we do Monday through Thursday. Never know how it’s actually going to play out. But the rule is on Friday whatever you want to talk about, have at it. Telephone number is 1-800-282-2882. And the e-mail address elrushbo@eibnet.com.

Ladies and gentlemen, not to be — I don’t even know what the word is — dismissive, the outcome of this case today has never been in question. The fact that the Supreme Court was going to find gay marriage as they did should not be a surprise. It doesn’t mitigate the result. I mean, just like yesterday we could all predict what was going to happen with Obamacare, but being alive and seeing it happen and living through it, the reality of it, it’s crushing. Same thing here.

The only question on this one was going to be the vote, was it going to be 5-4 or 6-3. It turned out to be 5-4. Now, everybody’s looking for an explanation. Everybody’s reading dissent opinions. Everybody’s consulting. A lot of people calling each other, emailing each other, “Gee, what?” I can’t tell you the number of people who have sent me e-mails with a simple theme, the same theme. “How do you persevere? How can you go on the radio today? What in the world, how do you even know anybody’s going to be listening? Do you realize, all seems lost, what in the world is there to say?”

Well, I’m here, and I’m going to do my best to put this into some sort of perspective. One thing I’m not is in a state of denial. I think there’s a lot going on, and to try to put them in any kind of priority, “Okay, this is the worst and then this is the next worst.” That’s a futile exercise and ultimately meaningless. But I think, folks, you can almost include Obamacare in this. In this decision today, the court legalizing gay marriage, this is in a way Roe v. Wade all over again. The country was involved.

As Scalia pointed out in a dissent, there was a pretty robust debate going on, state by state, over gay marriage. It’s now been shut down. So once again, five justices have forced a way of life on people, and many of them disapprove of it, do not support it, and have not had a chance to vote on it. So I think we’re faced with a future where a culture will continue to be roiled much as it has been since Roe v. Wade.

I’ve heard commentators today on all the cable networks, and they run the gamut. One of the seemingly common themes among some quasi, so-called conservative commentators or analysts is, “Hey, these are just people and they just want what’s been denied them,” and it goes on and on. “They just want dignity and respect. It’s not asking for much, they just want –” and it’s not about that in all cases. The rule for gay marriage is not about joining anything, it’s about redefining.It HasNever Been About Marriage

I mean, if the move for gay marriage was about joining, then a couple that walks into a bakery and wants a cake baked for their wedding and proprietors say, “No, it’s against our religious beliefs to support gay marriage,” then the gay couple would leave and go find some other bakery to bake their cake. But that’s not what happens. They go to court and they try to get that bakery shut down, or that photography studio shut down. So it makes me dubious of this idea that there’s just an effort here to join the majority. There’s clearly an effort underway to up-end and redefine and punish.

Take a look at what happened in Charleston, South Carolina — by the way, all this comes under an umbrella, which I’ll explain. There’s a singular theme for all of this that’s happening. And maybe even pretty much a — though you may not agree with it — singular explanation for it. But after the shooting in Charleston, look at how quickly that became a Republican event. And look at how quickly people moved to banish the Confederate flag.

The Confederate flag had nothing to do with anything involved with the Charleston situation. It had nothing to do with it. It was totally unrelated. An opportunity was made, seen and acted upon by the Democrat Party to move their agenda forward. The Republican Party was totally unprepared for it. The conservative movement was totally unprepared for it, was left to either join it or be humiliated and held up for ridicule.

Now, I think in the case of this gay marriage decision today, the answer to this sadly is not going to be found in politics or policy, because the problems and the truth go way beyond that. I think we’re dealing with a culture that is under assault and is deteriorating rapidly. The truth is that all this transcends the Constitution. I think there is a spiritual war going on where truth is no longer truth. There is no objective truth. Everything is relative now, particularly morally. Words have no meaning. Words can be whatever the most forceful group of people want them to mean. Whatever the most intimidating group of people wants a word to mean is what it will mean.Truth The New Hate Speech

So the door’s open for liberals and oligarchs to do whatever they want to do. And I don’t know that politics or legal solutions alone are the remedy for what is happening. To me, a bigger casualty than the healthcare debacle and the socialism aspects of Obamacare is the assault on the Constitution and an even bigger casualty still was on the truth itself. Words no longer mean anything. They’re just tools for liberals to accomplish whatever ends they want to accomplish.

Now, I’m going to get into some of the words from dissenting justices on the case today, the gay marriage case, because they’re poignant, and they get to a point, make a great point. But I’ll tell you, folks, everybody’s trying to understand the difference in John Roberts, his decision today, his opposition to gay marriage compared to what he wrote yesterday for Obamacare, is incoherent. The two don’t make any sense side by side. I have a theory.

I think I know or have a good idea of why Obamacare survives, amnesty survives and will survive, and I think it’s basically fear. Fear of being the one, anyone in history, who dared oppose or repeal anything accomplished by the first African-American president. I think that has created a paralysis in the Republican Party and in the conservative movement and at the Supreme Court and at Congress and at the Senate. I think it’s pervasive and I think it’s going to be forever. I think that fear is going to survive long after Obama has served his terms of office.

tyranny

In other words, the effort to repeal Obamacare in, say, 2017, 2018, I don’t know who is going to have the guts to actually do it. Somewhere along the line somebody is not going to want their name attached to it because the historical notation that X was a leader in the movement that repealed the act of Obamacare brought to us by the first African-American president. My point is, I think there is more fear than we have ever understood. I think there is a paralysis-type fear brought about and brought on by the election of the first African-American president.

It is made even more intense by the fact that people can see what the media does to you if you dare stand up in opposition to Obama. And Obama has made it clear that after his terms in office are over he’s not going anywhere. He’s going to have a residence in Washington and one of the reasons for that is to protect his legacy. If anybody makes a move to repeal anything, whatever it is, and we’ve still got a year and a half. I told you in January of this year, folks, buckle up, these next two years will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen. They’re starting out that way. We’re now six months in. And it is the case.

But here’s the thing, folks. When you get right down to it, everywhere I look today — yesterday, the day before, last year, the year before that, the last decade, the decade before that. Everywhere there’s conservative anger — everywhere — over everything that’s happened. Today the anger is at the Supreme Court. Yesterday the anger was at the Supreme Court. And that’s all there is, is anger. There’s never anything done beyond expressing the anger. There aren’t any policy reactions.loose both

There aren’t any efforts whatsoever to deal with the assaults and the attacks that are relentless and daily from the left. I mentioned Charleston. I mean, here you have a horrible, sad event in Charleston, South Carolina. And within minutes it became the fault of the Republican Party! It became the fault of the conservative movement. The media, as per usual, began looking for any evidence that Dylann Roof had any tie whatsoever to the Republican Party.

They focused on the Confederate flag. It became yet another daily march of the Democrat leftist agenda, which has — as its number one objective — to eliminate political opposition in this country. I’ve said it for the past two days and I’m going to say it again. The biggest threat that Obama and the Democrats have is us. They fear us more than they do ISIS or the Iranians or whatever, because they view us as able to take away from them their power via elections.

They’re not worried about ISIS taking their power away; they’re not worried about the Iranians doing that. So we must be destroyed. We must be attacked and annihilated and rendered irrelevant. The Dukes of Hazzard, for crying out loud! A television show, because the Confederate flag was on the roof of the car, comes under assault. There never is any strategy to deal with this. We know what’s coming — at least I do! I’ve made a career here out of warning everybody what’s coming, and there never is…

inconvenient truthThere doesn’t ever appear to be any awareness of what’s coming and there certainly isn’t any strategy to deal with it. And that is one of the reasons why I know you’re frustrated and maybe despondent. You have invested in everything you think you can do. You’ve donated. You’ve purchased. You’ve voted. You’ve gotten out the vote. You’ve done everything you can. You have called. You have emailed. You have faxed.

You have let your opinions be known, and you hear everything you want to hear during campaigns — and that’s the last time you hear it. The fact of the matter is a Republican Congress is helping Obama build his power base by not stopping any of it, by not opposing any of it. I continue to see no opposition strategy. Gay marriage, Obamacare. Both of these, particularly Obamacare, the best I can tell the Republican strategy has been, “We’re not going to fight Obama because he’s the first black president.

“We’re just not going to do it. Say what you want, conservative voters, but we’re not going to do it. There’s no future in it. The media will kill us. They will call us racist. We’ll let the Supreme Court deal with it.” For military base closings back in the late ’80s, Congress would go out and hire Blue Ribbon commission members — former Congressmen, retired people — to do this and that, to do the heavy lifting of closing military bases rather than get their fingerprints on it.

Campaign finance reform?

Same thing.silent - Copy

Everybody you talked to in the Republican Party said, “It’s unconstitutional. We can’t support that!” President Bush signed it. They said, “Let the court fix it.” The court didn’t fix it. They found it constitutional. “We’ll let the court deal with Obamacare. The Supreme Court will fix it. We’ll go to the court. We’ll sue. That’s what will happen.” And we keep losing every time we go to the Supreme Court because we do not have a political strategy. Nor is there a political will to even devise a strategy.

Everything is, “Wait until the next election. We’ll get them in the next election! We’ll get them in 2017.” We have a year and a half to go until 2017! Who knows what kind of destruction will take place between now and then? But yet, folks, there’s a conservative apparatus all over Washington, DC. There are conservatives everywhere. There’s an entire TV network made up of ’em. Conservative talk radio is made up of conservatives. There’s no shortage of conservatives. They’re everywhere.

We’ve got conservative think tanks here, think tanks over there. We’ve got conservative analysts; we’ve got conservative advisors. They’re everywhere!

Raising money…

Fundraising…

Writing books…

Promising…

Nothing changes.

BREAK TRANSCRIPTmasters - Copy

RUSH: It’s Open Line Friday. I’m going to go to the phones, and the only way to do this is to be disciplined about it. I say provocative things all the time, and I’ve just gotten started today, folks. Hang in there. Be tough. That was just the open monologue. That was just warming up. I’m going to go to the phones, though. Ovi in Orlando. Great to have you on the program, Ovi. Hi.

CALLER: Actually, it’s O-z-z-i-e, like Ozzie and Harriet. (chuckles)

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: But in any case, I was going to disagree with you a little bit. I don’t think Republicans are so much afraid of challenging what Obama does because he’s the first black president. I think the real issue for Republicans is they don’t know what to do with those 30 million Americans that — if they change Obamacare — would be uninsured.

RUSH: Ozzie, they’re not insured now. Ozzie, they’re not insured now.

CALLER: Mmm?

RUSH: Obamacare is an absolute disaster. Obamacare deserves to have been thrown overboard years ago. Obamacare is destructive. Obamacare is going to destroy people’s ability to end up with disposable income in their lives and get ahead. Obamacare is an absolute disaster like much of everything this administration has brought us. It has not insured any significant millions of uninsured. Now, I understand the theory.Complete Message

The theory is, “The Republicans don’t want to throw Obamacare overboard because that means they’ll have to fix it.” That’s exactly my point! I made the point yesterday that the conservative movement has become not a party of opposition, not a movement of opposition, but a movement of fine tuning. And what does it fine tune? Democrat proposals! Democrat ideas! Instead of rejecting them, instead of throwing them overboard and proposing to the American people — who are smart enough to understand — alternative ideas, we fine tune socialism and call it conservatism.

Sorry, that’s not the answer.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, here we are right on schedule. Right on schedule. Here is a headline from the Washington Examiner: “Poll: 72% Fear lost forever - CopyEconomic Crash, Concern ‘Highest Ever’.” What the story is about, if you read it, the GOP pollsters are telling Republicans, “You’ve got to let go of those social issues, they’re killing you. It’s the economy, stupid people, you’ve got to drop the social issues.”

It is my contention that Republicans aren’t doing a damn thing on social issues. The Democrats are the ones forcing social issues on everybody. Today, the latest example, it’s the Democrats forcing these things and average, ordinary Americans are trying to defend what they believe in. There is no aggressive behavior on the part of Republicans or conservatives. Everybody is in a defensive posture. Everybody is just standing by trying to hold on to what they believe in and what they have left.

Every bit of the aggressiveness, every bit of the offense, every bit of whatever is being undertaken is from the Democrat Party. And yet, here we go, the Republican candidates for president are being told, “Get rid of social issues, let them go. It’s the economy, the economy is the way to win.” And letting go of the social issues is how our culture is being corrupted. It’s another one of these things that’s 180 degrees out of phase. And the social issues, I know what it is, folks, I know, I know. It’s a bunch of moderate Republicans who think they’re losing on abortion.

They’re losing on everything. And they just don’t know it. They’re losing on everything. You think they’re winning on the economy? We live in the most disastrous economy since Jimmy Carter, and the Republicans may be winning elections. Is there any pushback on any of this? There’s a lot of talk. There’s a lot of requests for donations. There’s a lot of fundraising going on. A lot of people promising you that they’re enacting policies or thinking about policies and they’re going to do this and they’re going to do that. The moment of truth comes and they don’t do it, and they kick the can down the road because it’s not the right time.Tree of Liberty 03

It’s never the right time. There isn’t any opposition. Those of you that are feeling lost today, those of you who feel like it’s over, you’re at your wit’s end, we’re winning nothing, we’re losing everything, you’re still the majority. That’s what’s got you so bedraggled. That’s what’s got you so ticked off. You’re still the majority. You know it. Less than two percent of the population is bullying its way through the country and nobody is doing anything to stop it because of fear or what have you. And that’s what’s got you upset.

What good is winning elections? That’s the big truth. The big, final, ultimate act is going and voting and you succeed in winning landslide victories in 2010 and 2014, what have you got to show for it, nothing. That’s why you’re mad. Tired of feeling like losers? Tired of feeling like there’s no recourse. The way the game is being played right now there isn’t. The Supreme Court, throw them in the mix, depending on the issue, and they’ll pretend they are the federal government, lock, stock and barrel. The other two branches don’t even count and don’t even matter.

A story from yesterday: “Christian Farmers Fined $13,000 for Refusing to Host Same-Sex Wedding Fight Back — The owners of a small Dofamily farm in upstate New York fined $13,000 for discriminating against a same-sex couple for refusing to host a wedding on their property are fighting back.”

Too bad they’ll lose, especially with the court’s decision today. All resistance to the militant gay agenda now is just officially just a rear guard action. It’s a lost cause, like the Confederacy. Pretty soon, like the Confederacy, all this is gonna be a hate crime to even remember.

“In an appeal filed today before an appellate division of the New York Supreme Court, a lawyer for Cynthia and Robert Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farm near Albany, N.Y., argued that when finding them guilty, the court did not consider their constitutional freedoms and religious beliefs. ‘[The decision] violates the Giffords’ free exercise of religion, freedom of expressive association, and freedom of expression protected under the United States and New York Constitutions,'” according to their lawyer. Plus it was their property.

There isn’t a freedom of religion in the US anymore. Not for Christians. That’s the point. “The Giffords were found guilty of ‘sexual orientation discrimination’ by an administrative law judge,” and have been told that they must attend sensitivity training classes.

END TRANSCRIPT

Big Gay Hate Machine A LIST FOR FREEDOM let them take arms - Copy freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagDistractions

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagDeep In The Weeds

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/deep-in-the-weeds

PC-Weed-NRD-600
cause of death Free Speech Definition Liberalism a mental disorder 2 burke freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagGovernment Big Guns

The Battle Over Coal. And the War on State Rights.


waving flagPosted by on June 04, 2015

The Environmental Protection Agency’s “War on Coal” is a war that the states literally cannot afford to lose. With coal providing almost 40 percent of U.S. electricity and around a half-million American jobs, we all stand to suffer from proposed federal regulations that would force plants to closedrive our electricity bills up, and hinder the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers in the global market.

But this recent bureaucratic power grab is more appropriately described as a “battle” than a “war.” It is just one fight—albeit an important one—in the larger War on Federalism being waged day after day by a formidable national government in Washington, D.C. The specific power play being made by the EPA in this instance is handily representative of the processes that have steadily expanded federal power over the years. Just like President Barack Obama’s executive fiat on immigration policy, it involves actions that do not quite ignore constitutional boundaries, but simply lawyer around them.burke

Here, the EPA wants to order the states to apply the same crippling carbon dioxide emission standards to existing energy plants—already regulated under a separate section of the Clean Air Actas the federal standards designed for new plants.hell

For decades, the EPA has been administering the federal law according to a common-sense reading of the language, whereby exiting sources of air pollution are regulated under one section and new sources or otherwise unregulated sources are governed by another.

Then came a failed attempt by the Obama administration to shepherd new climate change legislation through Congress. Voilà! Now, citing a dubious ambiguity in the wording of one provision of the decades-old Clean Air Act, the EPA claims that Congress actually authorized it to apply the more stringent standards to existing plants anyway.Worship manditory

The EPA’s attempt to steamroll what most see as a clear, congressionally-constructed boundary on its regulatory authority is made possible by a landmark Supreme Court precedent, a 1984 case called Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense CouncilThat case gave us the “Chevron Test” for evaluating the extent of agency authority by reviewing Congress’ statutory instructions to the agency. Essentially, if Congress’ direction to the agency is clear, that direction simply must be followed. If, however, there is silence or ambiguity in the language, then courts will uphold the agency’s action as long as it is based on a permissible interpretation of the law. In other words, an interpretive “tie” goes to the bureaucrats.EPA Tyranny

Obama eating the ConstitutionThis judicial policy puts power tools in the hands of bureaucracies that, just by virtue of their consisting of human beings, are already predisposed to chip away at the limitations of their authority. It invites every administrative agency to expand its power at every turn by inventing creative statutory interpretations that can pass the low bar of being considered by some federal judge to be “permissible.” As it turns out, federal bureaucrats are creative geniuses when it comes to “interpreting” their statutory authority. Their creativity mirrors that of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in interpreting the Constitution itself.

Invariably, all this interpretive creativity comes at the expense of the states. In fact, this very Battle over Coal is an example of how much the states have already lost, for this battle is a tug-of-war between federal agencies and the federal legislature over an area of policy that rightfully belong to the states.

Strategies for winning this Battle over Coal in the short-term—including the usual expensive lawsuits—must not be Obama tearing up the constitutionmistaken for the needed long-term solution to the epidemic erosion of our constitutional federal system. We cannot allow our national government to continue distracting us with countless and repeated skirmishes over the practical and procedural terms of their abuses of power. Instead, we must engage in the larger war over fundamental constitutional principles that the feds are actually waging.

The states are well-equipped to win this War on Federalism decisively, but victory requires them to use the one effectual constitutional tool at their disposal that, until now, they have entirely neglected.

By invoking Article Five’s state-controlled process to propose constitutional amendments, the states can foreclose the feds’ opportunity to lawyer around limitations on their authority. The states can definitively end not only the EPA’s attempt to hijack legislative prerogatives, but also hundreds of other instances of overreaching by bureaucrats, the president, Congress, and even the Supreme Court.freedom

A constitutional amendment could overrule the Chevron case’s “tie goes to the agency” framework and replace it with a rule that where Congress’ intent is unclear, the agency may not act. But more importantly, a constitutional amendment could limit the power of Congress to interfere with policies that the Constitution reserved to the states. For example, an amendment could overturn the current, overbroad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which was originally intended to merely allow Congress to regulate economic activity that crosses state lines.

Americans must recognize that what is ultimately at stake here is our self-governance. Will the vast majority of our laws be created in the state and local governments that are most responsive to the people, as intended by the Constitution? Or will we instead allow ourselves to be ruled by an elite ruling class in a distant capitol, which hands down high-minded orders and cracks the whip on the backs of the states to carry them out?safe_image

Federalism is a defining characteristic of our exceptional Constitution, and it is under siege. But the War on Federalism is one that the states can win if they use the appropriate constitutional defense.

To learn more about the Article Five Convention of States process, read my five-part series.

Rita Martin Dunaway serves as Staff Counsel for The Convention of States Project and is passionate about restoring constitutional governance in the U.S. Follow her on Facebook (Rita Martin Dunaway) or e-mail her at rita.dunaway@gmail.com.freedom combo 2

Obama Admin Seeks to Repeal Second Amendment Apart from Congress Via Executive Order


Posted by

citizens armed tyranny

The Obama administration is preparing new, unconstitutional gun regulations. The Department of Justice, headed by newly confirmed, property grabbing, racist Loretta Lynch is working on “more than a dozen” new gun regulations that will be sought to be implemented by November completely apart from Congress. Other regulations will be attempted by the end of the Obama administration.

The Hill reports:

The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.

Gun safety advocates have been calling for such reforms since the Sandy Hook school shooting nearly three years ago in Newtown, Conn. They say keeping guns away from dangerous people is of primary importance.


The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing.

Some of the rules come in response to President Obama’s call to reduce gun violence in the wake of Sandy Hook. He issued 23 executive actions shortly after the shooting aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous people, and some of those items remain incomplete. 

That’s not all. Gun Owners of America‘s Michael Hammond warned that the above reference to “criteria” could bar someone from owning a gun “who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband.” “The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist,” he added.

As for the mental health, I have been warning “conservatives” since before the time of Sandy Hook not to fall for that line of thinking George Washington regarding 2nd Amandment with border and logobecause, again, no authority has been given to the feds to restrict arms in any way (Yeah, I know I sound like a broken record, but this is part of the problem of arguing about something that is unconstitutional without bringing in the Constitution to stop the debate.).

At least now the NRA gets it and recognizes such measures are “snares [for] masses of mostly harmless individuals.”

“Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness,” the NRA said.

Let’s get one thing straight. I don’t care how many people are calling on the federal government to regulate guns, they have never been given authority to do so. Furthermore, since Congress is the legislative body, not the Executive Branch, then neither the President nor the Justice Department has any authority to write the law as they see fit. 

National Association for Gun Rights’ Vice President of Political Affairs Luke O’Dell said, “It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest, law-abiding citizens through executive force.”

If you recall, following the Sandy Hook shooting Barack Obama came out in classic taqiyyah-style and claimed to be able to “respect the Second Amendment” while at the same time ignoring and undermining it.

“We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale,” he said.20

No, Obama, you cannot. As soon as you write and enforce executive orders on a subject which you have not been given authority over, Criminals and Dictatorsyou are not respecting the Second Amendment. You are breaking the law, and as such, you should be impeached, then charges should be brought against you for breaking the law and a just punishment rendered.

However, Congress is of no help in this matter. We have too many would-be leaders running around more concerned with their sound bytes and political fundraisers than engaging in impeachment.

This move by the Obama administration has absolutely nothing to do with stopping crime. In fact, their fingerprints are all over the crimes in Baltimore and Ferguson, as well as a plethora of crimes in Washington, from Operation Fast and Furious (Talk about keeping guns out of criminals hands… this administration was placing them in their hands!) to the IRS being used as a political weapon against political dissent, to Benghazi and Extortion 17.Gun Control Supporters cropped

Complicit in all of this will be the unconstitutional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), whose fast track to ban the highly popular M855 “green tips” ammunition was immediately pushed back against by the American people, which later Democrats wanted to revive. With or without Congress, these would be unconstitutional as the Second Amendment is clear that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms are not to be infringed. For those who don’t understand English, that also includes regulations.dont-tread-on-me

Additionally, we have these ten Republican senators for putting a constitution violator in the position of Attorney General: Kelly Ayotte (NH), Orrin Hatch (UT), Lindsey Graham (SC), Susan Collins (ME), Jeff Flake (AZ), Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), Thad Cochran (MS), Ron Johnson (WI) and Mitch McConnell (KY).Second Amendment freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagBackyard Police with Barry Fife


URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/05/backyard-police-with-barry-fife/

WOTUS-600-AEA1
EPA Tyranny burke freedom freedom combo 2

Federal Court Forces University of Notre Dame to Obey Pro-Abortion HHS Mandate


waving flagReported by Steven Ertelt, May 20, 2015, Washington, DC

Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

A federal appeals court has denied a request by the University of Notre Dame to get out of having to comply with the pro-abortion HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare and requires businesses and church groups to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. Notre Dame won a victory at the Supreme Court earlier this year. After a lower court dismissed the lawsuit, in March the Supreme Court ordered the lower court to reconsider its ruling that denied a Catholic university the freedom to follow its faith. But, today, a panel of a federal appeals court ruled that Notre Dame must comply with the mandate.Complete Message

SCOTUS blog has more on the decision the appeals court issued:Tyranney Alert

In a two-to-one ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit cleared the way for a trial of the university’s challenge but denied any immediate religious exemption.

This marked the first time that a federal appeals court had rejected a claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling last June in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores should shield a non-profit religious organization from any role whatsoever in carrying out the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. The issue seems certain to return to the Justices, probably next Term, although Notre Dame could try to get some temporary relief by returning quickly to the Supreme Court.

The university’s case has yet to go to trial in a federal district court, so the appeals court ruling was limited to denying preliminary protection for the university in the meantime.  Still, it was a strong signal that the Roman Catholic institution may have a hard time, at least in lower courts, getting an exemption.burke

Although the government has made clear that non-profit groups need to take only a minimal step to take advantage of a religious exemption, Notre Dame — like some other non-profits — has been arguing that even taking such a step would mean that it had helped to implement the mandate in a way that violates its religious opposition to birth control.

Although the Supreme Court has now issued four temporary orders in non-profit cases, it has made clear that none of those was a decision on whether such institutions will ultimately be spared any role at all under the ACA mandate.  This Term, the Court has sent two of those cases — Notre Dame’s was one of them — back to appeals courts to examine the impact, if any, that the Hobby Lobby ruling would have on the non-profit sector.

Circuit Judge Joel M. Flaum dissented, saying that Notre Dame had already made a case for an exemption, and so enforcement of the mandate should have been blocked.

The university has the legal option of asking for further review by the en banc Seventh Circuit or instead returning to the Supreme Court.   The Justices have only about six more weeks remaining in the current Term, so it would be too late to get a formal appeal decided before the summer recess.CP 01

After the ruling, pro-life Indiana Senator Dan Coats criticized the decision.

“Requiring faith-based institutions to betray the fundamental tenets of their beliefs is unconstitutional and contrary to the cherished American tradition of religious liberty. Whether it is Notre Dame or many other faith-based institutions of higher learning, the thread of faith that runs through these schools is essential to their religious beliefs and successful administration of a faith in learning education. This same thread of faith is vital to food banks, homeless shelters and many important organizations addressing social needs in Indiana and across the country,” he said.

Coats continued: “Under our Constitution, all people of all faiths have the right to exercise their faith within the bounds of our justice system, even if their beliefs seem to some as misguided, flawed or flat out wrong. Faith-based institutions should not have to facilitate insurance coverage for products that are counter to their religious or moral beliefs.”Worship manditory

compliancePreviously, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. dismissed the suit, claiming that Notre Dame is sufficiently protected by a very narrowly-drawn religious exemption in the mandate — that pro-life legal groups say does not apply to every religious entity. Then, a three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision on a 2-1 vote.

In appealing that decision, the University of Notre Dame brought its request to the Supreme Court — saying the lower court decision made it the only nonprofit religious ministry in the nation without protection from the HHS mandate. The Supreme Court’s ruling today vacates the entire lower court decision forcing Notre Dame to comply and the 7th Circuit must now review its decision taking into consideration the entire Hobby Lobby case I want your religious libertyupholding that company’s right to not be forced into compliance.

The Obama administration has relied heavily on that lower court decision in other courts around the country, arguing that it should be able to impose similar burdens on religious ministries like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

After the Supreme Court ruling in the Notre Dame case, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case, commented on the decision.

notredame2

“This is a major blow to the federal government’s contraception mandate. For the past year, the Notre Dame decision has been the centerpiece of the government’s effort to force religious ministries to violate their beliefs or pay fines to the IRS.” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case. “As with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, this is a strong signal that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the government’s narrow view of religious liberty. The government fought hard to prevent this GVR, but the Supreme Court rejected their arguments.”

tyrantsHe said University of Notre Dame’s pursuit of higher education is defined by its religious convictions. Its mission statement reads: “A Catholic university draws its basic inspiration from Jesus Christ as the source of wisdom and from the conviction that in him all things can be brought to their completion.” Its fight to stay true to its beliefs has brought it all the way to the Supreme Court – and back to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to Rienzi, over 750 plaintiffs in the other nonprofit cases have been granted protection from the unconstitutional mandate, which forces religious ministries to either violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.’

“Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.Welcome to the Obama Change Obey OARLogo Picture6

FCC shoots down petitions to delay open internet rules


 URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/10/fcc-cant-stop-wont-stop/ 

Remember when a wolfpack of cable companies and telecoms — including AT&T, CenturyLink, the American Cable Association, USTelecom and more — filed motions to delay the FCC from enacting parts of its open internet order? Well, the Commission was having none of that. Late in the day this past Friday, Wireless Competition Bureau chief Julie Veach and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau chief Roger Sherman handed down an order dismissing those petitions, pointing out that additional protection for the internet as we know it is crucial and that the petitioners’ cases aren’t as strong as they think.Tyranney Alert

Most of those groups had their sights set on one crucial proviso: the FCC’s new rules would classify internet service providers as “common carriers,” which they believed would bring not only the industry but the infrastructure that powers the internet under tighter, heavier government control. Despite the fact that companies that would now fall under that umbrella wouldn’t be subject to the full scope of regulatory oversight per the Telecommunications Act, they’re still fighting back in the name of the internet’s future growth. To hear dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai tell it, the FCC would have the “the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.” The petition filed by USTelecom, the CTIA, AT&T and CenturyLink spelled gloom and doom for the web as we know if the FCC gets its way:

“From day one, the Commission’s assertion of comprehensive control over the Internet will subject broadband Internet access providers – especially, small providers – to enormous unrecoverable costs and reduce their ability and incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure.”burke

To be clear, AT&T and company did not petition against the three “bright light” rules – no blocking legal content, no throttling and no paid prioritization – contained in the FCC’s Open Internet Order. While we guess it’s good everyone involved can agree on at least that much, it doesn’t change the fact that courts still have to rule on the lawsuits challenging the validity of the FCC’s plan. Tom Wheeler might be convinced of his eventual victory, but you can bet no one’s going to leave the ring until one set of ideals has been laid out on the ground.

OARLogo Picture6

This Church Faced Criminal Charges for Posting a Pro-Life Sign on Its Own Property


waving flagReported by Steven Ertelt   May 4, 2015

Harrisonburg, VA

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/04/this-church-faced-criminal-charges-for-posting-a-pro-life-sign-on-its-own-property/

One sign shows an unborn baby cradled in a pair of hands with a quote from Mother Teresa: “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” The other sign quotes Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the Womb I Knew You,” with a picture of the face of a baby.

Zoning officials with the city of Harrisonburg, Virginia threatened criminal charges at a local church over its display of pro-life messages on private property.

On April 20, 2015, the church received a letter from the City’s zoning inspector advising the church that a complaint its timehad been received about the signs and that the church was in violation of a section of the City’s sign ordinance which prohibits banners, pennants and flags. However, the section cited by the City contains several exemptions from the prohibition, allowing national flags, flags of political subdivisions, corporate/business flags, flags of civic and charitable organization, and banners pertaining to holidays or civic events. The City’s letter ordered that the church correct the “violation” within 10 days or it could be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Thankfully, attorneys intervened on behalf of the church and the city backed down.

The city’s reversal came after attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, a pro-liberty organization, intervened on behalf of Valley Church of Christ, which had been ordered to take down signs on its property that quote Mother Teresa and the Bible on the sanctity of human life. In coming to the defense of the Harrisonburg church, Rutherford Institute attorneys pointed out that the City’s actions constituted discrimination based on the content of the church’s signs, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. “Under the First Amendment, the government has no authority to pick and choose what type of speech it approves,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

He continued: “While we are pleased that Harrisonburg city officials were quick to set things right in this matter, this is merely one example out of a hundreds of incidents taking place across the country in which speech and expressive activities that the government perceives as controversial, politically incorrect or unpopular are criminalized, caged, censored or silenced.”Tyranney AlertFree Speech Definition

In its letter to the City on behalf of the church, The Rutherford Institute pointed out that the City Code section relied upon in its letter to the church makes content-based distinctions on those banners and flags that are allowable and those that are not. “This kind of preference for banners that express certain messages and discrimination against banners that express other messages is precisely the kind of content-based regulation of speech the First Amendment prohibits,” the Institute’s letter contended. The letter also cited court decisions which have found similar laws regulating the display of flags and banners unconstitutional.

cropped-different-free-speech-ideologies.jpg OARLogo Picture6

Are Nationalized Police on the Horizon?


Written by    Wednesday, 22 April 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/20719-are-nationalized-police-on-the-horizon

Tyranney Alert

Are Nationalized Police on the Horizon?

 “Dawn of National Police Force,” read the Tuesday Drudge headline. The story in question, in New York’s Daily News, concerns proposed federal guidelines for the New York Police Department — overseen by a central-government-appointed “monitor” — and formulated in the wake of the 2013 ruling that the department’s stop-and-frisk practices are “unconstitutional.” What concerns many, however, is that this intrusion represents movement toward something certainly unconstitutional: federal control of local police.

As the News reported, the guidelines range from the innocuous to the perhaps insidious, from a reminder that “most people are good, law-abiding citizens” to injunctions such as “Don’t be racist” and “Do not engage in racial profiling,” though sex and age profiling are apparently okay (The New American treated this in-depth yesterday). And while one could imagine that “Bolshevik” Bill de Blasio’s NYC needed little help crafting politically correct police standards, “help” they are certainly getting. As the News wrote:

The monitor, Peter Zimroth, asked Manhattan Federal Judge Analisa Torres on Monday to approve the stack of new training materials that will be presented to the class of cadets graduating in June. He included in filings more than 75 PowerPoint slides that delve into the nitty-gritty of police work, detail constitutional stop-and-frisk practices — and give remedial directions.

american-martial-law-600But can federal involvement in local police truly be considered a remedy? Or is it a cure worse than any disease that might exist?

Of course, the guidelines’ defenders might point out that “the material was developed in collaboration with the NYPD and City Hall,” as the News wrote and Zimroth claimed. But critics worry that this federal intrusion is the camel’s nose inside the tent.

Or, perhaps, further inside the tent. As The New American’s Alex Newman wrote last month, the feds had already set in motion an organized plan to insinuate themselves into local police departments: Under the guise of “restoring trust” between communities and police departments that have been militarized by the federal government, the Obama administration’s Justice Department announced this month that it had selected six U.S. cities to serve as pilot sites, to develop and deploy federal guidance for local police….

The plan, which is controversial because it is in line with Obama administration goals to further nationalize and federalize local law enforcement, …will use U.S. taxpayer dollars to deploy “experts” and “researchers” charged with training officers to act in a manner that the DOJ deems just — in essence doing the bidding of the Obama administration.Comming Soon 02

… The first six cities to be targeted as pilot sites will be Birmingham, Alabama; Fort Worth, Texas; Gary, Indiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Stockton, California.… However, other police departments are also in the cross hairs. According to the official announcement, an unspecified number of “police departments and communities that are not pilot sites” will also be targeted for more DOJ “training” and “technical assistance.”

But what’s wrong with training and technical assistance, especially if it’s freely accepted? The issue concerning critics is that destructive changes are more effectively made not via revolutionary change, but evolutionary change. Suddenly seize power and you may spark a revolt; aggregate it incrementally and people may barely notice and can, over time, be eased into a subordinate position — it’s the phenomenon of the proverbial frog slowly cooked in the pan of water.

Note that the desire to centralize police power has already been expressed. In response to the tragic shooting of a black man by a South Carolina police officer, Al Sharpton — who has visited the White House approximately 85 times, which includes one-on-one meetings with Obama — recently called for “national law on policing.” Also note that during the fiasco in Ferguson, Missouri, Attorney General Eric Holder said that his DOJ was “prepared” to dismantle the town’s police department “if that’s what’s necessary”; the idea was that its duties would be assumed by a larger entity such as the state police.burke

So how could law enforcement be nationalized incrementally? Here’s the process critics fear:Tyranney Alert

  1. Offer federal “help” first to large statist cities, as they’re more amenable to big-government “remedies.” But make your programs available to any municipality that will have them.
  2. Knowing that “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” get them addicted to federal funding and then threaten to withhold it if they balk at Washington intrusion. Gradually increase the federal control via incremental regulation creation.
  3. Using incidents such as the Ferguson shooting as a pretext, orchestrate a plan whereby smaller departments are absorbed by larger ones; continue this process until, for the most part, only large law-enforcement entities exist.
  4. Once these large departments are dependent on federal money and are already operating based on federal guidelines, it’s one more small step to nationalize them completely. And given man’s imperfection, there will always be Ferguson-type incidents to use as a pretext for further control.Emperor Obama

freedomYet this really constitutes a loss of control — by the people. After all, if you don’t like your local police’s policies, next election you can vote, as the case may be, for a different sheriff or a mayor who’ll appoint a better police commissioner. But when your police are controlled by Washington politicians, who are chosen by the 100 million or so Americans who vote in national elections, the will of the 15,000 people in your town is essentially rendered meaningless.

One of the illogical and unexamined aspects of the knee-jerk instinct to federalize matters as remedy is it presupposes that a bureaucrat 1,000 miles away will somehow be more just than a bureaucrat one mile away. Why? How does it make sense that an official whose name you may not know and from whom you might not be able to get even an e-mail response will be more attentive to your needs than someone who lives in your community, shops at the same stores, and whom you can approach face to face any business hour? Why assume that an official elected by you and your neighbors will be less sensitive to your needs than an official elected by everyone else?2

Of course, it’s clear why a control-hungry federal politician would want to centralize powers. But when average citizens exhibit such an instinct — an emotional predisposition — a psychological explanation is warranted.

One factor suggesting itself is “Familiarity breeds contempt” or, as Jesus put it, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town.” It’s as with what I learned in my professional tennis days: The fellows I practiced with — even though they were lesser players — would be more of a threat in tournaments than other competitors of the same level. To the strangers it might be, “I’m playing the number-three seed (drum roll)”; to my practice partners it was, “I’m playing Selwyn.” Because they knew the human side to me, I just didn’t seem as imposing. Likewise, people don’t take those in their own town whom they address by their first name as seriously as strangers in Washington whom they address formally in correspondence.obama-communist-sc

Then there’s the “bigger is better” phenomenon. When you’re a child and there’s a problem, you go to someone big (an adult) to sort matters out. Of course, grown-ups are only helpful in this regard because they’re bigger (hopefully) in maturity. This disparity doesn’t in principle exist when all concerned are adults; in this case, going to big government is akin to a child going to a big age-mate for remedy: There’s no reason to suppose he’s bigger in wisdom and a better counselor. But he might be better at sorting things out with his fists and at bullying you.

Of course, many could view this childlike reaction as childish. But remember that we’re talking about instincts here, which are formed during the early years and are frustratingly resistant to change. Thus the saying, “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.”

Whatever the explanation, the threat posed by the instinct to centralize power reflects anything but childlike innocence. In fact, nationalizing American police has long been a communist goal, as Alex Newman explained in his piece. And with sheriffs across the nation refusing to enforce unconstitutional federal (and state) gun laws, this goal is understandable. After all, you can’t get a whole nation to sing your tune if freelance musicians are roaming the countryside.OARLogo Picture6

A Newcomer to Populism? Hillary Clinton Campaign Begs to Differ


waving flagBy AMY CHOZICK, April 21, 2015

 URL of the Original Posting Site: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/politics/hillary-clintons-quest-to-prove-her-populist-edge-is-as-strong-as-elizabeth-warrens.html?referrer=&_r=1

Hillary Rodham Clinton, in Keene, N.H., on Monday, spoke with David Stabler, president of Whitney Brothers, a manufacturer of children’s furniture. Ian Thomas Jansen-Lonnquist for The New York Times

CLAREMONT, N.H. — In her first week as a 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed to channel another high-profile Democrat. “The deck is stacked in their favor,” Mrs. Clinton said of the wealthy and powerful. “My job is to reshuffle the cards.” The line echoed a phrase that helped make Senator Elizabeth Warren the populist icon of her party. “The game is rigged,” Ms. Warren often says. “Rigged to work for those who have money and power.”

Before that there was Mrs. Clinton’s tribute to Ms. Warren in Time magazine. “She never hesitates to hold powerful people’s feet to the fire,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in the issue honoring the top 100 influential people.

For anyone who wondered what kind of economic message Mrs. Clinton would deliver in her campaign, the first few days made it clear: She is embracing the ideas trumpeted by Ms. Warren and the populist movement — that the wealthy have been benefiting disproportionately from the economy, while the middle class and the poor have been left behind. And the policies Mrs. Clinton is advancing, like paid sick leave for employees and an increase in the minimum wage, align with that emphasis.

But now, the former secretary of state must convince voters that she is the right messenger for the cause of inequality, not simply seizing on it out of political expedience. Nothing stings her inner circle more than the suggestion that their candidate is late to these issues. Mrs. Clinton was the original Elizabeth Warren, her advisers say, a populist fighter who for decades has been an advocate for families and children; only now have the party and primary voters caught up. “I don’t know why we have this semicollective amnesia about her past positions,” said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and Mrs. Clinton’s policy director in 2008. “She’s following no one on these issues.”

But affirming Mrs. Clinton’s sincerity as a populist, especially given her reputation for caution and careful consideration of political moves, is proving an uphill battle. The assessment by Bloomberg Politics after Mrs. Clinton’s first campaign stops was that she is “terrified of the left.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, left, and Hillary Rodham Clinton at a hearing for John Kerry’s confirmation as secretary of state in 2013. Christopher Gregory / The New York Times

It is easy to forget that for years, Mrs. Clinton weathered criticism that she was too liberal, the socialist foil to her husband’s centrist agenda. Economists in the Clinton administration referred to the first lady and her aides as “the Bolsheviks.” In Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, she positioned herself as the populist candidate to the left of Barack Obama on several economic issues, angering some of her Wall Street donors and earning broad support among organized labor and working-class voters.

Advisers have lists at the ready outlining Mrs. Clinton’s calls as early as 2007 to eliminate the so-called carried interest loophole, roll back the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, impose tighter regulations on derivatives and place limits on chief executives’ compensation. “Let’s finally do something about the growing inequality that is tearing our country apart,” Mrs. Clinton said during her campaign, appearing at the Take Back America conference, a gathering of liberal groups, in June 2007. “The top 1 percent of our households hold 22 percent of our nation’s wealth. Enough with corporate welfare. Enough with golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.”Liberalism a mental disorder 2

A 16-page dossier, titled “Hillary Clinton: A Lifetime Champion of Income Opportunity” and assembled by a close friend and adviser to Mrs. Clinton, calls Ms. Warren a “footnote.” The document, provided to The New York Times, presents 40 instances in which Mrs. Clinton took the same stance as Ms. Warren on issues — from organized labor to tax increases on the wealthy — in some cases years before the senator’s ascent in the national spotlight.

But that was then and this is now, when everything Mrs. Clinton does will be viewed through the lens of a party under the influence of Ms. Warren and her blistering critique of the financial sector.

Robert B. Reich, a secretary of labor during the Clinton administration who has advised Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, said the comparison with Ms. Warren “personalizes it far too much.” … “This is a broad-based movement to take back our democracy and make the economy work for everybody instead of a small group at the top,” he said.

For seven years, Mrs. Clinton has been out of domestic policy, and in that time the populist movement caught fire. In the years Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state and since she left the State Department in early 2013, she has become more associated with the centrist policies of the Bill Clinton years than with policies of raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing government services that have become widely adopted on the left. “This perception comes because she wasn’t involved in the discussion for so long,” Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist, said of Mrs. Clinton. Because, she added, in the White House “she had this reputation as being the very left-wing, liberal, Elizabeth Warren type.”Party of Deciet and lies

During the same period when Mrs. Clinton was absent from domestic debates, the policies of the Bill Clinton years have been recast. In her 2008 campaign, Mrs. Clinton touted the prosperity of the 1990s. Today, the trade deals, Wall Street deregulation, and deficit reduction Mr. Clinton oversaw are often blamed as contributing to the current divide between a tiny sliver of the wealthiest and the vast majority of Americans.

“I remember when Bill Clinton was running in 1992 and his line was ‘putting people first,’” said Dean Baker, an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “He just didn’t follow through on that,” and instead emphasized deficit reduction and trade deals, he added.

On Friday, Mrs. Clinton subtly distanced herself from the trade policies associated with the 1990s. In response to a trade agreement reached Thursday by Republican and Democratic leaders, her spokesman, Nick Merrill, said Mrs. Clinton believes that any trade deal should protect American workers, raise wages and create jobs in the United States. “The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade’s sake,” Mr. Merrill said in a statement.

Mrs. Clinton will begin to present more specific policy proposals next month. In the meantime, she has expressed support for an increase in the minimum wage, paid family medical leave and closing corporate tax loopholes.

In a meeting with economists this year, Mrs. Clinton intensely studied a chart that showed income inequality in the United States. The graph charted how real wages, adjusted for inflation, had increased exponentially for the wealthiest Americans, making the bar so steep it hardly fit on the chart. Mrs. Clinton pointed at the top category and said the economy required a “toppling” of the wealthiest 1 percent, according to several people who were briefed on Mrs. Clinton’s policy discussions but could not discuss private conversations for attribution.Picture2

Still, Mrs. Clinton will pitch that “toppling” with a very different style than Ms. Warren, a bankruptcy expert whose populist message has been laser-focused on holding Wall Street accountable. Mrs. Clinton will present proposals for changes in the tax code as a way of also investing in education, infrastructure and communities.

Mrs. Clinton “wakes up asking how she can accomplish real things for families, not who she can attack,” said Gene B. Sperling, an economic adviser in the Clinton and Obama administrations. He added, “When she shows that fighting populist edge, it is for a purpose.”Liberalism a mental disorder 2In Review Picture6 OARLogo

“We the People” or “We the Judges”?


 

waving flagBy: Stephen McDowell, Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/we-the-people-or-we-the-judges/

 

Burning Constitution
Giving such power to the judiciary puts all our God-given and constitutionally secured rights in jeopardy.

 Stopping Judicial ActivismTyranney Alert

Abraham Lincoln once asked, “How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a leg?” According to modern courts the answer may well be five. Following a string of Federal district courts, the Supreme Court will likely rule later this year that a man and a man, or a woman and woman, is a family. They can call it so; however, just like declaring a dog has five legs, that declaration does not make it so.

In response to abusive actions of the British government, James Otis, a leader in America’s independence movement, wrote:

To say the Parliament is absolute and arbitrary is a contradiction. The Parliament cannot make 2 and 2, 5: Omnipotency cannot do it. The supreme power in a state … belongs alone to God. Parliaments are in all cases to declare what is for the good of the whole; but it is not the declaration of Parliament that makes it so: There must be in every instance a higher authority, viz. God. Should an Act of Parliament be against any of His natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity, and justice, and consequently void.[1]freedom

The Supreme Court, like the British Parliament, has made numerous declarations regarding matters of life, family, liberty, and property. Many Americans seem to think the declarations of a majority of judges are the final word.  However, they can declare all they want, but such a declaration does not make it true.

Two plus two is always four, regardless of man’s contrary view. A dog’s tail is never a leg. There are negative consequences to violating the immutable laws of God. In building a house or sending a man to the moon, saying 2+2=5 will result in trouble. Likewise, any act of man that is contrary to God’s natural laws will result in harm. However, if a few rulers make such declarations, who will hold them accountable? According to our founding governmental principles and the U.S. Constitution, it is “we the people.”

“We the people” is one fundamental component of American constitutionalism. Unlike most nations in history, America was not ruled by an elite few. All citizens had a voice in how they were governed. We did not live under rulers’ law, where an enlightened few made the laws and imposed them on the ignorant masses. Rather, a moral, self-governed citizenry formulated their own laws under the higher law of God and willingly chose to obey them. In America, “the people made the laws.”[2] This concept of self-government is one reason America was exceptional.[3]

This historically unique aspect of government – Christian self-government – is sadly being replaced by the age-old pagan concept of “rulers’ law.” Over the past few decades, activist judges have assumed the place of unelected law-makers. With little resistance or outcry from either the Congress or the general populace, we have embraced what is likely the most absurd idea in modern American polity, viz., that a handful of men and women sitting on the Supreme Court will decide for 320 million citizens what is lawful, right, and acceptable behavior.[4] These few have decided the value and origin of life, the meaning of private property, the role religion plays in public affairs, the place of religious convictions in business, and they are about to decide what constitutes a family. Most of their decisions regarding these matters have been contrary to the decrees of the Creator, Who, according to the Declaration of Independence – our founding covenant document – is the source of our life, liberty, and rights.Picture3

We are moving from a representative republic to an oligarchy, one becoming more and more oppressive, especially for those who believe in Creator-endowed rights. Most of the Founders could never envision runaway courts. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution… [T]he judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power… [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.”[5]

If the courts ever attempted to usurp legislative or executive authority, the Founders believed the Congress would rein them in, as the United States Constitution clearly gives the legislative branch (which represents and are elected by the people) the primary power in the Federal government. Just compare the length and content of Article 1 of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of Congress, with Article 3, which presents the powers of the Supreme Court: 255 lines of copy deal with the powers of Congress, 114 with the powers of the President, and only 44 with the Courts.

James Madison declared that “the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”[6] Legitimate power is derived from the people and the people only. The Founders understood the tendency of man to abuse power, therefore they separated it among three branches of government and invested most power in the people through their elected representatives. Due to ignorance, apathy, and bad education we are gradually embracing the idea of judicial supremacy, where judges not only interpret, but also make and enforce law. This is in stark contrast to the Founders view of Constitutional supremacy.

Insightfully, Thomas Jefferson did warn of potential abuse of courts, writing:

The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.[7]burke

Jefferson did not charge all judges with “willful and ill-intentional error” when their rulings worked to consolidate all power in the federal judiciary and to undermine the rule of the people under law, but he wrote that “honest error must be arrested where its toleration leads to public ruin.” How was this to be done? One way, he wrote, was through the Constitutional provision of impeachment (though he lamented a supermajority of two-thirds was needed[8]):  “Judges should be withdrawn from their benches whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the Republic, which is the first and supreme law.”[9]

A more practical fix from Jefferson, and one we should institute today, was: “Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years, and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation.”[10]AMEN

Given that most Americans profess democratic ideals, you would think everyone – liberals and conservatives – would agree on curbing the aristocratic concept of judicial rule.  But alas, many folks, thinking their immoral values would more easily gain ascendency through aggressively positioning a few people on the courts rather than winning the battle of ideas in the general public, oppose restricting the judiciary. They posit various scenarios of checking the rule of the majority via enlightened judges, like asking, “What if the majority wants slavery? How would we stop this?” Yet, the more frightening (and likely) scenario is, “What if five judges want slavery?” It is much easier to get five men to embrace wrong ideas than 160 million. Moreover, it would require more than the consent of the majority to change the Constitution.Picture5

America is a Federal Republic, where certain God-given inalienable rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. Thus for slavery, or anything contrary to “the laws of nature and nature’s God”[11] to be established, it would require two-thirds of the states to approve such a measure. A two-thirds majority is significantly more difficult to obtain than the decision of five judges. Some say that the Supreme Court will never exhibit such drastic behavior or enact such rulings. But in fact it has. In the Dred Scott decision of 1857 the Supreme Court denied the personhood of blacks, and in Roe v Wade (1973) it denied the personhood of unborn children.

The courts have made numerous unconstitutional decisions (according to the intent of the Framers), especially in modern times, that have violated the will of the majority of citizens and more importantly the will of God. It has been primarily through the courts, with the rulings of a very small number of people, that a new definition of the family has been imposed upon the American people.

Recently, judges have ruled that business owners must provide services to customers even though such actions violate their strongly held religious beliefs. Florists, bakers, and photographers have been ordered to accommodate same-sex weddings or else face fines or worse. Many have chosen to close their businesses rather than violate the Christian convictions.

Homosexual activists and misguided liberals have claimed “victory,” but the rulings by these judges are both dangerous and unconstitutional. These citizens’ First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech were stripped away by a single judge. Giving such power to the judiciary puts all our God-given and constitutionally secured rights in jeopardy. What is next?

  • Our right to life,
  • or fair trial,
  • or public protest?
  • Will judges rule that you cannot run for office and even vote if you oppose homosexuality or same-sex marriage?

For the liberal thinker, what if a judge ruled only regenerated Christian believers could run for office, own property, and vote? Why would anyone, liberals included, want to trust their inalienable rights to a few judges? The people as a whole are a much better security.

With the current system of an unaccountable activist federal judiciary, many other unjust decisions will surely take place. When such rulings occur what should we do? Abraham Lincoln criticized the Supreme Court Dred Scot decision for its denial of the laws of nature and nature’s God which assert the inalienable liberty of every individual. Lincoln believed that if that court decision was the absolute law of the land, then “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”[12] It is the task of “we the people” to keep any such declarations from being incorporated into the law of the land. Most especially, we must keep a few judges (no matter how educated and “enlightened”) from imposing their morality upon the nation. But how?

Restricting Activists Judges

The Constitution provides numerous ways that Congress – the representative of “we the people” – can check activist judges. These include:

  1. Impeachment – Judges can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors (Art. II. Sec. 4). In the past, judges have been removed for public drunkenness[13] and even bad rulings.[14]
  2. Restrict jurisdiction – Congress can regulate much of the jurisdiction of the federal courts (Art. III, Sec. 2).
  3. Reorganize the courts – Congress can establish and reorganize a system of inferior Federal Courts (Art. III, Sec. 1).
  4. Cut off money – All bills raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives (Art. 1. Sec. 7, 8), hence Congress can use this power to restrict a run-away judiciary.

It would be best for competent judges[15] to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and hence, use of the above means would not be necessary. Yet, even the best of judges need to be held accountable, and the current Constitutional provisions to do so have not worked well. We should heed the advice of Jefferson and change their terms to 4 or 6 years, with re-approval needed for continued service.Picture6

Jefferson said that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal.”[16] In fact, the United States Constitution sprang from “we the people,” not from “we the elite few rulers.” It is time to return to the liberating idea of self-government. And … let’s also stop calling the tail a leg.

(This article was used with permission from the authors and Providencefoundation.com)

[1] James Otis, “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” Sources of Our Liberties, Richard L. Perry, editor, New York: American Bar Foundation, 1952, pp. 264-265

[2] Historian David Gregg, quoted in Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, America’s Providential History, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 1989, p. 115.

[3] Early Americans could form good and godly laws and constrain themselves to obey them because, according to Gregg, “the churches made the people.” The churches imparted the Biblical wisdom necessary to construct good laws, as well as the Biblical character necessary to live under them.

[4] Thomas Jefferson said it this way:”That there should be public functionaries independent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency.” Letter to William T. Barry, July 2, 1822, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor, Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, 15:389.

[5] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1898, No. 78, pp. 518-519.

[6] Ibid., No. 51, p. 345.

[7] Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to Charles Hammond, Aug. 18, 1821,” The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 15:331-332.

[8] Jefferson said requiring two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove a judge must be changed, writing that this percentage is “a vote so impossible, where any defense is made before men of ordinary prejudices and passions, that our judges are effectually independent of the nation.” He wrote that this ought not to be and suggested that for our government to continue that judges “should be submitted to some practical and impartial control; and that this, to be impartial, must be compounded of a mixture of state and federal authorities.” (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 1:120)

[9] Jefferson’s Autobiography (1821), in Writings, 1:120-122.

[10] Letter to William T. Barry, July 2, 1822, Writings, 15:389.

[11]This phrase in the Declaration of Independence had a well established meaning. The laws of nature are the general revelation of God in creation and the conscience of man, and the laws of nature’s God are the specific revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures (see Stephen McDowell, American a Christian Nation, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 2004, p. 7-12).

[12] Beliles and McDowell, p. 261.

[13] Judge Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached as a “habitual and maniac drunkard.” (See Thomas Jefferson’s Autobiography, in Writings, 1:121.)

[14] See David Barton, Impeachment, Restraining an Overactive Judiciary, Aledo, TX: WallBuilders, 1996.

[15] To prepare competent judges we must change the philosophy and content of what is taught in colleges and law schools.

[16] Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to William Charles Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 15:277.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

Picture6 OARLogo

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagEnergy Parade

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/energy-parade/

Energy-Parade-600-AEA
Imperial President Obamakingobamafingerconstitution-300x204
Picture6

Exclusive–Sen. Ted Cruz: 2nd Amendment ‘a Fundamental Check on Government Tyranny’


 by AWR Hawkins, 9 Apr 2015

Cruz answered a question about the importance of the Second Amendment:

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story described the Second Amendment as the palladium of our liberties. It is foundation to free men and free women being able to defend their homes, their families, their lives and liberty, and it also serves as a fundamental check on government tyranny.

As a follow-up to the first question, Breitbart News then asked why guns are important for free people?

Cruz responded:

America was founded on a revolutionary concept. Namely, that our rights don’t come from government, they come from God Almighty. The natural rights of man include life, liberty, and property. Each of those rights is dependent upon being able to preserve the safety and security of your own family. In fact, the very first Congress not only acted to protect our Second Amendment rights but mandated the militia act; that adult free men must own a musket.

Lastly, we asked Senator Cruz what he says to people or groups of people who respond to tragedy by pushing one more gun law or one more gun control?

Criminals and DictatorsGun Control Supporters cropped

Cruz responded:

I am a constitutionalist, I believe we need to protect our constitutional liberties and honor the Bill of Rights. One of the most dismaying trends of the last six years under the Obama administration has been the relentless assault–from the federal government–on our constitutional liberties.

Indeed, following the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook, President Obama could have sought bipartisan cooperation to target violent criminals and come down on them like a ton of bricks. Instead, unfortunately, he used that tragedy as an excuse to try to go after the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I was glad to help lead the effort to stop President Obama’s unconstitutional assault on the Second Amendment. As a result, millions of Americans spoke up to defend our constitutional liberties, and every single Obama proposal that would have undermined the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was voted down on the Senate floor.

In politics, lots of candidates talk a good game but voters are looking for a proven record. For two decades I have been proud to fight to defend the Second Amendment. Today is a time for truth, and we need leaders willing to stand and lead the fight to defend our constitutional liberties.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.Picture6

Obama: Ban Parents from Having Children Counseled Not to be ‘LGBTQ+’


By CNSNews.com Staff, April 8, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/obama-ban-parents-having-children-counseled-not-be-lgbtqTyranney Alert

Valerie Jarrett and President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama with adviser Valerie Jarrett. (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama, through a statement posted Wednesday night on the White House website by adviser Valerie Jarrett, backed legislation that would ban parents from having their children counseled not to be what Jarrett called “LGBTQ+”. “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this Administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors,” Jarrett said in the White House statement.Picture5“Conversion therapy generally refers to any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” said the statement. “Often, this practice is used on minors, who lack the legal authority to make their own medical and mental health decisions. We share your concern about its potentially devastating effects on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer youth.”

Jarrett conceded in her statement that an act of Congress would be needed to pass a national law that prohibited parents from having their children be counselled to be heterosexual rather than what she called “LGBTQ+.”definitions

“While a national ban would require congressional action, we are hopeful that the clarity of the evidence combined with the actions taken by these states will lead to broader action that this Administration would support,” Jarrett said. She suggested that parents disserve their children when they do not accept them as “LGTQ+.”

“Family relationships are pivotal to the physical and emotional well-being of any child, including LGBTQ+ youth,” she said. “Every child needs love, support, and acceptance to grow, dream, and thrive. LGBTQ+ youth with supportive families and friends show greater well-being, better general health, and significantly decreased risk for suicide, depression, and substance abuse.’

“Countless families and guardians across the country proudly support their LGBTQ+ children,” Jarrett said. “Too many LGBTQ+ youth, however, lack this support system, which can have devastating consequences. Negative family reactions to LGBTQ+ youth can be perceived as rejection by children, often contributing to serious health issues and inhibiting a child’s development and well-being. And when it comes to LGBTQ+ youth, some actions by family and caregivers can be harmful, despite even the best intentions.Picture6

“This Administration,” she said, “believes that young people should be valued for who they are, no matter what they look like, where they’re from, the gender with which they identify, or who they love.”

Jarrett’s statement was preceded by a quotation from President Barack Obama describing a “young man” who is “wrestling with a secret.”

“Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.”squeeze into mold

Jarrett’s statement was posted in response to a petition posted on the White House website in January that called for a “law to ban all LGBTQ+ conversion therapy.” The petition had approximately 120,000 signers.

 

Here’s The Nazi Cake Jewish Bakeries Will Be Forced To Sell. THANKS GAY MAFIA! [VIDEO]


Posted by Eric Owens, Education Editor

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/06/heres-the-nazi-cake-jewish-bakeries-will-be-forced-to-sell-thanks-gay-mafia-video/

YouTube screenshot/TaylorHamKid

Thank God for YouTube. It gives us so much. Dancing cats. Epic journalism. Tillman the skateboarding bulldog. Disturbingly bad music videos. And now, inadvertently, the video-sharing website has provided a glimpse into our national future once critics of laws supporting religious freedom succeed in preventing small business owners from refusing certain work as a matter of conscience.

The issue currently consuming America is whether wedding vendors — and, bizarrely, small-town pizzerias — must be forced to provide goods and services for gay weddings when doing so is a religious burden. Many outraged supporters of gay marriage, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, whose company does business with Saudi Arabia, have flogged an Indiana law which would protect religious adherents.

These critics may want to limit protection to gay marriage, but legal principles work in strange, creeping ways. Forcing work on small business owners despite their objections is highly unlikely to stop at gay weddings. Other groups will want their special, carved-out protections, too.

As George Washington University Law School professor John Banzhaf has insightfully observed, there could come a day when;

  • A Muslim wedding caterer will refuse to serve alcohol at the wedding of two hard-drinking atheists.

  • Or perhaps a Jewish wedding planner won’t want to assist a Palestinian couple in preparing for their big day.

  • Or maybe a Jewish baker will decline to bake a red cake with a big black-and-white swastika on top for a German Nazi sympathizer — or even for a Jewish student who apparently likes the symbol.

difference

That day may be very far off. Or perhaps it will come very soon.

In any case, YouTube has foreseen it. The prophetic YouTube clip below comes from “California Reich,” an Academy Award-nominated 1975 documentary about pathetic neo-Nazi groups in three California locales: San Francisco, Los Angeles and the inland town of Tracy.

Here, with step-by-step instructions from a Nazi mom next door, is an example of the cake the Jewish baker might have to make once religious freedom is sufficiently diluted:

v01

Picture6

 

 

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Rare Sightings

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/rare-sightings/

Rare sighting 600 LA

Islam is NOT culture of deceit and lies Wake up America Picture6

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


USA In Decline

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/03/usa-in-decline/

Knocking-600-LI

muslim-obama Obama Muslim collection Dupe and Chains cropped-freedom-is-not-dictator-friendly.png obama- Marxist tyrant Picture6

 

Image

Which One Do We Have Today?


'"Share" if you agree!'

Al Gore: We Need to “Punish Climate Change Deniers”


Posted on March 17, 2015 by Philip Hodges

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://lastresistance.com/10618/al-gore-we-need-to-punish-climate-change-deniers/#qgJot8xMlC1ykc1V.99

Temple with high priest

Al Gore’s not the only global warmist calling for “deniers” to be punished in some way.

There is this professor at the University of Graz in Austria who believes global warming deniers should be executed. And he doesn’t even support the death penalty for mass murderers. But he makes an exception for deniers, because they’re causing “the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people.” He said that more than likely, there would be billions of people’s lives at stake, but that hundreds of millions is a “conservative estimate.”more evidence

So, Al Gore’s not that fanatic, but he’s getting there. He wants to “punish” those who would dare question the theory of manmade global warming. So tolerant these people are of other viewpoints. Of course, he doesn’t really care about people or their opinions. He’s trying to get everyone to invest in the green industry and divest from the fossil fuel industry. EcoWatch reported:

For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the [South by Southwest] festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,’” said the Chicago Tribune.

Gore said forward-thinking investors are moving away from companies that invest in fossil fuels and towards companies investing in renewable energy. “We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore told the Chicago Tribune, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”

“Forward-thinking investors,” huh? So this is what this whole global warming thing is about. Everyone knows it’s not science. It’s about money and “market trends.”

Gore

Of course, it’s always nice to have the “science” on your side, so in order to do that, they hire scientists to “adjust” the temperature data so that it makes the conclusion what these “forward-thinking investors” want. And these forward-thinking investors will only benefit the most if everyone’s doing what they’re doing. So, they can call for anyone who’s not on their side to be “punished” for “causing the future deaths of hundreds of millions of people.” And for being “anti-science.” Scare them into becoming global warming evangelists. “Convert or die.” Sound familiar?more evidence

EcoWatch continued:

 

He called on the tech-minded SXSW [South by Southwest] crowd, which is dominated by Millenials, to harness technology to launch a grassroots movement to tackle climate change and call out climate deniers. “We have this denial industry cranked up constantly,” Gore said. “In addition to 99 percent of the scientists and all the professional scientific organizations, now Mother Nature is weighing in.”Solid-Foundation-600-wLogo

[…]

Gore wanted these young, tech-savvy attendees to start a grassroots movement using social media like they did when “net neutrality was threatened or when the Stop Online Piracy Act threatened to blacklist websites that offered so-called illegal content,” said Macworld. That means signing petitions to fight climate change, utilizing social media to call out climate deniers in Congress and streaming the Live Earth Road to Paris concert on June 18, an event designed to draw attention to the climate talks in Paris this December.

Al Gore’s marketing strategy seems to mirror a political campaign. That’s because it is a political campaign.

John Kerry said manmade global warming is an elementary fact like gravity. You don’t see scientists and their political financiers trying to drum up support for the theory of gravity by getting all the young techies out there to spread the word on social media about gravity, and live-stream some concert that all the kids love going to that raises awareness of gravity.

Global warming isn’t science. At its heart is the love of money.

burke

 Picture6

More From the, “YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP” File


Lawmaker calls for a rebellion against EPA pollution emissions for backyard barbecues

A Missouri state legislator wants the Environmental Protection Agency to back off of people’s backyard barbecues. On Monday, State Senator Eric Schmitt (R) from St. Louis kicked off a #porksteakrebellion after he discovered the EPA is funding a study on propane grill emissions that suggest pit masters use a special tray to catch grease drippings and a “catalytic” filtration system to reduce air pollution, reports Fox News KTVI. “The idea that the EPA wants to find their way into our back yards, where we’re congregating with our neighbors, having a good time, on the 4th of July, barbecuing pork steak or hamburgers, is ridiculous and it’s emblematic of agency that’s sort of out of control,” Schmitt said.

The EPA is funding a $15,000 University of California-Riverside study to look at the particulate emissions you breathe when grilling over an open flame.  Along with the drip tray, the emission removal system includes the use of a “secondary air filtration system is composed of a single pipe duct system which contains a specialized metal filter, a metal fan blade, a drive shaft, and an accompanying power system with either a motorized or manual method,” according to study. 

Those opposed to the study met Monday night at St. Louis’ LeGrand’s Market & Catering sandwiches shop after Schmitt launched the rebellion via Twitter.  “Personally, I think being able to barbecue in your back yard extends your life,” customer Pat Schommer told Fox. “It’s part of pleasure – backyard barbecuing and I love it.”

The EPA said that it doesn’t regulate people’s backyard barbecues and that the grant is part of the EPA’s “National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2014)”, which is a student-designed competition for sustainability.

Schmitt called on people to grill in their backyards this week as a sort of “peaceful protest”.

SEE THE FOX NEWS CHANNEL REPORT BELOW:

EPA

Welcome to the Obama Tyrant Obama Picture6

 

Hilarious Video: Anti-Gun Group Epically Fails At Mocking Second Amendment


Posted By Kit Daniels | Infowars.com On March 13, 2015

Article reblogged from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.infowars.com/hilarious-video-anti-gun-group-epically-fails-at-mocking-second-amendment/

An anti-gun group released a video yesterday mocking the Second Amendment, but the video is so bad, it’s hilarious to watch.

fail

The video, produced by the Brady Campaign, features two “criminals” who promote “crimadvisor.com,” a web site that tells them “which states have loose gun laws.”

“I have some violent friends; we all wear leather jackets and scream at women, and we want to find out which states we can buy and sell guns easy,” one of the “criminals” says, to which the other responds with “Crimadvisor.com, that’s the site to find out where it’s easiest for felons and fugitives to buy, carry and even traffic guns.”more evidence

Of course, in real life violent criminals couldn’t care less about laws; otherwise they wouldn’t be robbing and killing.cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

Seriously, do you think the drug cartels that overran Mexico and left it a failed state gave a crap that the country has some of the strongest gun control laws in the western hemisphere? No, because they were too busy gunning down tourists in Cancún who were left defenseless by gun control. “More than 70,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2007,” Reuters reported back in 2013, and the number has only skyrocketed since then. Mexico’s only hope is from the armed militias who have defied the country’s gun laws to defend their communities from the cartels.Gun Control Supporters cropped

And what about the Chicago gangs who control the city’s drug trade, do you actually think they ever said to themselves, “Geez, maybe we shouldn’t have murdered 73 people in one weekend because we broke a bunch of gun control laws in the process?” Of course not. The murders in Chicago only slowed down after Illinois enacted a concealed carry law.

“The facts are every time guns have been allowed, concealed carry has been allowed, the crime rate has gone down,” Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said just months before Illinois passed its concealed carry bill in 2013.Are You Considered a terrorist

Just like the drug laws that have granted cartels control over the narcotics trade, gun laws have granted criminals control over the population by neutering the right to self-defense. Picture2

And the Brady Campaign video is a microcosm of the gun control movement: false logic presented as fact that’s ripe for ridicule. But while the video is funny to laugh at, gun control is not funny at all; it has contributed to the most disgusting wave of violence the world has ever seen.

Picture6

The Article Five solution – demystifying a dusty tool


Posted by on March 09, 2015

This is part one of a five-part series by Rita Dunaway. Click here to read the original article on TheBlaze.com.

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.conventionofstates.com/article_five_demystifying_a_dusty_tool/?recruiter_id=11724

Perhaps the most unifying conservative trait is the conviction that our Founding Fathers designed an ingenious federal system that we ought to conserve. But as federalism lies dying and our society spirals toward socialism, there is dissension among conservatives about using the procedure the Founders left to the states to conserve it.

Because Article Five’s amendment-proposing convention process has never been used, some have branded it a mystical and dangerous power—a thing shrouded in mystery, riddled with unanswerable questions, and therefore best left alone. Some have literally labeled it a “Pandora’s Box,” the opening of which would unleash all manner of evil upon our beleaguered nation.

Article Five opponents accuse proponents of being reckless with the Constitution. They say we have no idea how a convention would work, who would choose the delegates, how votes would be apportioned, or whether the topic of amendments could be limited.

My task today is to remove the shroud of mysticism by revealing what we do know about an Article Five convention from its text, context, historical precedent, and simple logic.

For starters, we know that the Founders’ whole purpose for including the convention mechanism was to provide a way for the states to bypass Congress in achieving needed constitutional amendments.

An early draft of Article Five vested Congress with the sole power to propose constitutional amendments. Under that version, two-thirds of the states could petition Congress to propose amendments, but it was still Congress that did the proposing. On Sept. 15, 1787, George Mason strenuously objected to this, pointing out that such a system provided no recourse for the states if the national government should become tyrannical, as he predicted it would do.

The result was the unanimous adoption of Article Five in its current form, providing two ways for constitutional amendments to be proposed: Congress can propose them, or the states can propose amendments at a convention called by Congress upon application from two-thirds, or 34, of the states. Regardless of which body proposes the amendments, proposals must be ratified by three-fourths, or 38, of the states in order to become effective.

We also know from history that voting at an Article Five convention would be done on a one-state, one-vote basis. This is the universal precedent set by the 32 interstate conventions that occurred prior to the Constitution’s drafting. It explains why it was unnecessary for Article Five to specify the number of delegates to be sent by each state; the states can send as many delegates as they like, but each state only gets one vote.

We know that state legislatures choose and instruct their delegates to the convention, who act as agents of the state legislatures. Again, this is a matter of universal historical precedent for interstate conventions.

On Nov. 14, 1788, the Virginia General Assembly filed the very first application for an Article Five Convention to propose a bill of rights, aptly branding the convention “a convention of the States” to be composed of “deputies from the several States.”

Because Congress ultimately used its own Article Five power to propose a Bill of Rights, that meeting was rendered unnecessary. But the application demonstrates the contemporaneous understanding that the convention process was state-led. The Supreme Court has likewise referred to the process as a “convention of states.”

Finally, we know that the topic specified in the convention applications does matter. Over 400 applications for an Article Five convention have been filed since the drafting of the Constitution. The reason we have never had one is because there have never been 34 applications seeking a convention for the same purpose. The state applications contain the agenda for an Article Five convention, and until 34 states agree upon a convention agenda, there will be no convention.

Because the authority for an Article Five convention is derived from the 34 state applications that trigger it, the topic for amendments specified in those applications is a binding limitation on the scope of the convention.

The “unanswerable” questions about Article Five do have answers. The unshrouded Article Five convention isn’t a Pandora’s Box at all, because there is no such thing as magic in a box for us to fear—there is only history, law, and reason to guide faithful Americans in tending their government. And precisely because there is no such thing as magic, we’re going to need an effective tool to do the hard work of restoring our Republic.

It’s time to dust off the tool the Founders gave us in Article Five and get started. Click here to learn more about the Convention of States Project.

Rita Martin Dunaway serves as Staff Counsel for The Convention of States Project and is passionate about restoring constitutional governance in the U.S. Follow her on Facebook (Rita Martin Dunaway) and e-mail her at rita.dunaway@gmail.com.Picture6

Internet Police: Move Over FCC, FTC To Regulate Web Ads; Advertising giants collude with FTC to take down “confusing” ads


 

by Anthony Gucciardi | Infowars.com | March 9, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.infowars.com/internet-police-move-over-fcc-ftc-to-regulate-web-ads/

Internet Police: Move Over FCC, FTC To Regulate Web Ads. Image Credits: John Taylor / Flickr

Tyranney Alert

The FCC may now have control over the foundation of the net thanks to their legislative takeover under the flag of ‘Net Neutrality’, but the FTC may soon be swooping in for the final kill — regulating the entire world of internet web ads by which the entire online commerce system heavily relies on. And, better yet, these regulations are being written up by the largest advertising corporations in the industry. In the event that these regulations are passed, we will be seeing the ‘Obamacare’ of the net. Regulations written to ‘protect you’ by none other than the corporations that will benefit the most. All with the help of the FTC bureaucrats.

In a move that has been expected for quite some time, the FCC is already working with ‘major advertising reps’ and other industry heads in order to create new ‘consumer protection’ laws aimed at punishing websites and ad agencies for running ads that could be ‘confusing’ to customers. Sounds pretty fair, huh? Government colluding with the largest corporations in advertising to punish all other advertisers for their potentially ‘confusing’ ad banners.

But what does ‘confusing’ really mean? To boil it down, the ads under fire are called ‘native ads’ by the industry. These are ads that could be mixed with news (such as sponsored content, which sites often rely heavily on to keep running), or ads that ‘could be confused with content’. Basically, it could apply to any ad that is well developed and uses even the most basic marketing standards. Unless you’re the advertising agency writing the rules, of course. And as we read from the FTC website, these leaders are already coming together to determine what ‘advertising’ means in the eyes of the government: Tyranney Alert

“The Federal Trade Commission hosted a one-day workshop to examine the blending of advertisements with news, entertainment, and other editorial content in digital media, referred to as “native advertising” or “sponsored content.” The workshop brought together publishing and advertising industry representatives, consumer advocates, academics, and self-regulatory groups to explore the ways in which sponsored content is presented to consumers online and in mobile apps; consumers’ recognition and understanding of it; the contexts in which it should be identifiable as advertising; and effective ways of differentiating it from editorial content.”

Once again, you simply cannot be trusted to make your own decisions. The web could be ‘confusing’ to you. That’s why the FTC is stepping in to help you. “It used to be pretty clear,” said Lesley Fair, a senior attorney with the agency’s bureau of consumer protection. “The entertainment portion of a show ended and the commercials began. The two column article ran on one side of the newspaper and the ad on the other. Or the Web page had the content in the middle with a banner ad running across the top. Things are more complicated now.”

Websites have been transitioning away from the ‘single web banner somewhere on the page’ advertising model for years. Quite frankly, most consumers will never click web ads that are ‘cut and dry’ these days — a reality that most websites have accepted. From alternative news to the amazing apps and entertainment websites you enjoy, all of these websites run on creative ad space. But let’s be clear. If the FTC swoops in on regulating web ads across the web, the casualties will be much greater than the collapse of your favorite time killing website. Commerce at its most basic level online relies on marketing and advertising that could be thrown under the label of ‘confusing’ as long as the overpaid FTC ‘agent’ determines it to be. What this ‘Obamacare of the net’ will truly amount to is a selective weapon of the establishment’s FTC. more evidence

Yet another control over our once-free internet.

 Picture6

Obama: ‘Important’ Second Amendment Responsible for High Homicide Rates


by AWR Hawkins, 9 Mar 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/09/obama-important-second-amendment-responsible-for-high-homicide-rates/

 AP Photo/Mike Groll

Speaking at Benedict College in South Carolina on March 6, President Obama said the “Second Amendment … is important,” that it is “part of our culture” and “part of who were are.” Then he quickly added, “But what we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized countries–by like a mile.”Gun Control Supporters cropped

So, the Second Amendment is important but…

Moreover, Obama hinted that the individual right to bear arms–the very right protected by the Second Amendment–is the result of a Supreme Court interpretation. On June 22, Breitbart News reported that The Washington Post espoused this same liberal talking point, claiming that the Supreme Court created an individual right to keep and bear arms via the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision.who want unarmed citizens

In other words, prior to 2008, there was no individual right to keep and bear arms. It wasn’t what our Founding Fathers intended and it wasn’t what generation upon generation of Americans from 1791 to 2008 believed and lived by. It’s all based on a decision by a group of justices.

In his speech, aired on C-SPAN, Obama said:

We have a long tradition of gun rights and gun ownership in this country. The Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean the people have the right to bear arms. There are a lot of law-abiding, responsible gun owners who use it for protection or sport. They handle their weapons properly. There are traditions of families passing down [hunting] from father to son, or daughter … and that is important; that’s part of who we are. But what we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized nations–by like a mile.

And most of that is attributable to the easy, ready, availability of firearms, particularly handguns.cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

However, the gun control lobby’s relentless claim that America’s homicide rate is so much higher than other industrialized countries breaks down under scrutiny.

For example, in August 2013, Breitbart News reported on a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy which showed that the murder rate in heavily gun-controlled Russia was approximately 20.52 per 100,000 people in 2002. A high point for America was 6.6 per 100,000 people in 1993, and that rate fell to 3.2 per 100,000 by 2011, after the number of privately owned guns in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009.murderrate

So, 20.52 per 100,000 people are murdered in Russia versus America’s 6.6 per 100,000–later to be 3.2 per 100,000–yet, according to President Obama, America’s murder rate is, “like a mile” higher than that of other industrialized countries.

Picture6

2014 Political Cartoons, Drawings and Presentations You Might Have Missed


Master MArtinLuther King Jr. oct172014 02 Teaching children to follow Jesus greatest fraud Cold watching gun-control-cartoon-club-knife Let me be clear mission accomplished WMD-in-Iraq gay-marriage-debate-continues Differences Human bomb Islamofascism-300x199 Winston Churchill We Pledge Allegience to Obama Walking Eagle ObamaDictator-300x204 PS_0807W_RECESSION_t ObamaWreckingBall2 strategy Terrorist lives matter The Great Divider yes-we-cannibus Obamacare 02 Obamacare Suppositories Signed Up wheels coming off Dangers I have a steady Job I Never Met Sharpton Jackson 02 The Personal Wealth of Al Sharpton the-only-people-keeping-racism-alive-vik-battaile-politics-1354496075 8 abortion hilary-rosen-vs-ann-romney I sell Women obama isis pays less 2nd term kill isis money worth spending the education of children

WND – http://www.wnd.com – Obama ‘using federal law to target Christians’


MId Term drawing

Posted By author-imageBob Unruh On 11/03/2014

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

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/obama-using-federal-law-to-target-christians/Tyranney Alert

obama_angry
Imperial President Obama; “Tyrant-in-Chief”

Obamacare has been challenged in court since it was launched, with charges that it is unconstitutional, violates religious rights, invades privacy and unlawfully orders consumers to purchase a product.

Now, a new lawsuit by four Christian institutions argues the Obama administration is using the law to attack religious groups that oppose the White House’s promotion of abortion.

The plaintiffs allege “the purpose” of Obamacare’s mandate that employers pay for abortion-causing contraception and abortion “is to discriminate against religious organizations.”

The complaint cites then-Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius comparing Obamacare opponents to “people who opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s” and asserting that upholding the law requires the same action as was shown ‘in the fight against lynching and the fight for desegregation.’”

Attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom are representing the Association of Christian Schools International, Samaritan Ministries International, Taylor University and Indiana Wesleyan University in the case against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez and others.

The Supreme Court already has ruled the abortion mandate cannot force business owners to violate their faith.Eagle Eggs

So the White House has offered an “accommodation” in which the abortion-causing drugs and abortion services can be provided to the employees without any paperwork that connects the transactions to the employer.

The Christian organizations contend, however, the Obama rules still impose a burden, or duty, on them.

“They believe that God has condemned the intentional destruction of innocent human life. They hold, as a matter of religious conviction, that it would be sinful and immoral for them intentionally to participate in, pay for, facilitate, enable, or otherwise support access to abortion, which destroys human life,” the complaint explains.

“They hold that one of the prohibitions of the Ten Commandments (‘thou shalt not murder’) precludes them from facilitating, assisting in, serving as the conduct for, or enabling the use of drugs and devices that can and do destroy very young human beings in the womb. The health benefits they provide to their employees reflect these convictions.”

The case alleges the Obama administration is violating the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Free Speech Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Further, evidence suggests religious believers who object to abortion-causing drugs are deliberately being targeted, the case claims.

“The Final Mandate forces the plaintiffs to facilitate government-dictated education and counseling concerning abortion that directly conflicts with their religious beliefs and teaching,” the lawsuit states. “Facilitating this government-dictated speech directly undermines the express speech and messages concerning the sanctity of life that the plaintiffs seek to convey.”comment 01

Further, the government’s demand “advances no compelling governmental interest” and such drugs already are commonly available through “numerous alternative mechanisms.”

The government easily could provide the “benefits,” the lawsuit said, or “the government could simply exempt all conscientiously objecting organizations, Third of our generationjust as it has already exempted the small subset of nonprofit religious employers that are referred to in Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code.”

After all, the government already provides a multitude of other “exemptions,” it said.

The government, through its actions, already admits that the mandate is not part of any “compelling interest.”

So why is the demand being pursued?

“The Final Mandate was promulgated by government officials, and supported by non-governmental organizations, who strongly National death rate percentagesoppose religious teachings and beliefs regarding marriage, family, and life,” the case states.

“Defendant [former HHS Secretary Kathleen] Sebelius, for example, has long been a staunch support of abortion rights and a vocal critic of religious teachings and beliefs regarding abortion and contraception,” the complaint continues. “On Oct. 4, 2011, six days after the comment period for the original Interim Final Rule ended, Defendant Sebelius gave a speech at a fundraiser for NARAL Pro-Choice America. She told the assembled crowd that ‘we are in a war.’

“She further criticized individuals and entities whose beliefs differed from those held by her and the others at the fundraiser, stating: ‘Wouldn’t you think that people who want to reduce the number of abortions would champion the cause of widely available, widely affordable contraceptive services? Not so much,’” the complaint states.

“On July 16, 2013, Secretary Sebelius further compared opponents of the Affordable Care Act generally to ‘people who opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s,’ stating that upholding the Act requires the same action as was shown ‘in the fight against lynching and the fight for desegregation.’”Really with logo

That attitude leads to the conclusion that the administration is intending to discriminate against religious organizations, the complaint says.

“It cannot be plausibly maintained that the fate of the entire enterprise rests in any measurable way on forcing these four plaintiffs to facilitate access to four drugs and devices – which represent one-fifth of the one of the 143 required items,” the case says.

“In any event, the government has already conceded that it has no interest in imposing the mandate upon religious employers like the plaintiffs,” it says.Freedom is not dictator friendly

So Washington’s “accommodation,” which “does not sufficiently diminish their ethical objection to complicity with sin,” still “conscripts the plaintiffs into the government’s scheme, hijacking their health plans and using them as conduits for the delivery of life-destroying drugs and devices to members of their religious communities.”

The government still demands that the Christian groups identify to the government their insurance policy administrators, play a “central role in facilitating free access to abortifacient services” and make them victim to “a shell game that attempts to disguise the religious organization’s role as the central cog in the government’s scheme for expanding access to contraceptive and abortifacient services.”

The case was filed in federal court in Colorado.prolifewomen20

“The government should not force religious organizations to be involved in providing abortion pills to their employees,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor. “The best way to respect everyone’s freedom would have been to extend the existing religious exemption to religious non-profits in addition to churches. The administration has failed in its duty to uphold the freedoms guaranteed to every American under the Constitution and federal law. These religious organizations had hoped to avoid this action, but the cause of religious conscience and liberty compelled them to take this step.”

Added ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot: “All Americans should oppose unjust laws that force people – under threat of punishment – to give up their fundamental freedoms in order to provide insurance. That’s no different for these Christian organizations, which simply want to abide by the very faith they espouse. The government is forbidden from punishing people of faith for making decisions consistent with that faith.”

There have been multitudes of lawsuits filed over Obamacare, and WND reported only a few days ago that another case over the same contraception mandate issue resulted in a loss for Obama.

It was a federal judge in Florida who ruled that the government’s latest revisions to the mandate still “don’t do enough to protect people of faith.”comment 02

The ruling came from Judge James Moody Jr. in a suit by Ave Maria University, which charged the Obamacare requirement violates the faith on which it operates.

The judge said: “Defendants do not dispute that Ave Maria is a nonprofit Catholic university purposed with ‘educat[ing] students in the principles and truths of the Catholic faith.’ … One such element of the Catholic faith that Ave Maria holds and professes concerns the sanctity of life. Ave Maria ‘believes that each human being bears the image and likeness of God, and therefore any abortion – including through post-conception contraception – ends a human life and is a grave sin. Ave Maria also believes that sterilization and the use of contraception are morally wrong.’”

He said the “rule” that was intended to provide an “accommodation” to faith members was not a satisfactory solution.

“After dozens of court rulings, the government still doesn’t seem to get that it can’t force faith institutions to violate their beliefs,” said a spokesman for that legal team, assembled by the Becket Fund. “Fortunately, the courts continue to see through the government’s attempts to disguise the mandate’s religious coercion.”

Article collective closing

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: