Democracy to Socialism Alinsky’s 8 Steps

This is based on Alinsky’s eight steps from Democracy to socialist society.

Obama Quotes him often in his book and Hillary did her thesis on Alinsky.

ALMOST DONE.  JUST ONE ELECTION DECIDES OUR FATE…

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a socialist/communist State.  The first is the most important

5 OF THE 8 ARE DONE – THE LAST 3 ARE ALMOST THERE

  1. Healthcare: “Control Healthcare and you control the People”

DONE!!!

  1. Poverty: Increase the Poverty level as high as possible.”  Poor People are easier to control and will not fight back if the government is providing everything for them to live.

DONE!!!

  1.  Debt:Increase the National Debt to an unsustainable level.”  That way you are able to increase Taxes, and this will produce more Poverty.

DONE!!!

  1.  Gun Control: Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government.  That way you are able to create a Police State – total local control.

ALMOST THERE!!!

  1.  Welfare: Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Livestock, Housing, and Income).

DONE!!!

  1.  Education:  Take control of what People read & listen to, take control of what Children learn in School.

ALMOST THERE!!!

  1.  Religion:Remove faith in God from the Government and Schools.

 

  • ALMOST THERE!!!

 

  1.  Class Warfare: Divide the People into the Wealthy against the Poor.  Racially divide. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to Tax the Wealthy with full support of the voting Poor.

DONE!!!

Forward this – or delete it and just sit there and wring your hands

Posted in Economy | Leave a comment

John Kerry’s Family

. . . . . . . IT COULDN’T GET ANY DEEPER , . , . , No matter what your political leaning, this should give you a reason to stop and think whose side Kerry is on!!!! As soon … Continue reading

More Galleries | 2 Comments

Facts About The Declaration Of Independence

 

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? – Tony O

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners: men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts and died in rags.

Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire with cannon. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall and straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of the declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

  1. LaVoy Finicum, may you now rest in peace as you join a company of REAL Americans. AND may your efforts here now be multiplied a MILLIONFOLD!

 

Posted in Constitution/Law, Freedom & Independence, Independence Day Every Day, Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics | 2 Comments

BLM – Hammond Vendetta and the War on the West

Land Rights Network American Land Rights Association PO Box 400, Battle Ground, WA 98604 (360) 687-3087 Fax: (360) 687-2973 ccushman@pacifier.com Legislative Office: 507 Seward Square SE – Washington, DC 20003 Hammond Vendetta and the War and the West. The War … Continue reading

More Galleries | 1 Comment

Declaration of Independence

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, … Continue reading

More Galleries | 1 Comment

Hillary IS a traitor

Big Chief digger • 2 hours ago WHAT ALL AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S ALLEGED SAP COMPROMISE–MAJ ED COET, USA (RET) [COURTESY: CAPT Les Horn, USN (Ret)] My name is Ed Coet. I am a retired US Army … Continue reading

More Galleries | 1 Comment

MARCO RUBIO, THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, AND THE CFR

By Kelleigh Nelson
February 24, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

The NWO Establishment: If we can’t get Jeb, well take Rubio

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. —Samuel Adams

Caricature by DonkeyHotey flic.kr/p/Ct4G4K

Marco Rubio Affiliations

The Aspen Institute is sort of an American Bilderberger Group. In addition to the globalist Aspen and Brookings Institutes, there are a staggering number of private groups that shape and command American policy, including the CFR, and Trilateral Commission, etc. Nearly every elected official is influenced by them, and this includes Marco Rubio. The Aspen Institute is largely funded by one world government foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation, none of whom have freedom and liberty as their top priorities.

Surely most folks remember that UN Agenda 21 author and promoter, Maurice Strong, was the Director of the Aspen Institute for some years. If you like Smart Growth and the elimination of property rights, you’ll love Agenda 21 and the Aspen Institute.

Aspen Institute named Marco Rubio as one of the top young elected officials to its third class of Aspen-Rodel fellows. The Institute’s Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership program brings together bipartisan groups of public officials judged to be the rising stars of American politics. Isn’t that just lovely?

Aspen Institute President, Walter Isaacson, said the Rodel Fellows “represent the best hope for America’s future—upcoming leaders committed to working together for the common good.” The “common good” is code for the globalist socialist agenda of destroying free market growth and leveling all the playing fields.

Scroll down in the article to see the list of names including Marco Rubio, along with the photo of Rubio as Aspen Inst. Rodel fellow. [Link]

Walter Isaacson is the former head and CEO of CNN and the Managing Editor of Time Magazine. Aspen participates in the Ethical Globalization Initiative (EGI), headed by former UN official Mary Robinson, who calls the International Criminal Court, which could prosecute and imprison US citizens, “a great legal enterprise.” Isaacson serves on the EGI board, along with global tax supporter, Jeffrey Sachs, an advisor to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. George Soros is extremely involved in the Aspen Institute. [Link] Sure doesn’t make me feel warm and cozy. And there you have Marco Rubio…

Marco Rubio and the CFR

The Washington Post reported on Marco Rubio’s speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in May of 2015. He was invited to speak on foreign policy with member Charlie Rose, and was introduced by the president of the CFR, Richard Haass. Link

The American Conservative believes Rubio’s speech was pretty lame, but you can decide for yourself. He stated that America’s role in the world is as a security guarantor. Rubio also claimed as president, he would “use the American power to oppose any violations of international waters, airspace, cyberspace, or outer space. This includes the economic disruption caused when one country invades another, as well as the chaos caused by disruptions in chokepoints such as the South China Sea or the Strait of Hormuz.”

Personally, I do not believe we have any business being the world’s policeman, and neither do I believe the president has the right to use any military power without Congress’s approval.

The New American article on Rubio’s CFR speech, stated, “Were the 2016 election to be a contest between Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton, the future of U.S. foreign policy would be clear. It would mean a continuation of the same policies that have dominated our nation since the onset of World War II —interventionism, more war, and more casualties.”

Rubio’s Liberal Voting Record

Is it any wonder Rubio has been named an Aspen-Rodel fellow, or invited to speak at the Council on Foreign Relations? Take a look at his voting record and you’ll see why these organizations love Senator Rubio.

Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight amnesty bill – The likely would not have passed the Senate had Rubio not been such a prolific supporter. [Link], [Link] He’s now waffling on the fact that he is a great supporter of illegal aliens gaining citizenship.

 

Senator Rand Paul wanted to restrict the amount of Muslims entering our country, and his amendment would have suspended visas to 30 Muslim countries with Jihadist populations. Rubio, on the other hand stated that he would “hate” to block funding for Obama’s refugees. (Yes they’re Obama’s, they’re certainly not main stream American’s ideas of good immigrants.) Rubio even stated he felt limiting Muslim migration might be unconstitutional. Excuse me lawyer Rubio, but you obviously haven’t read any of our immigration laws lately. Needless to say, Rubio joined the rest of the Ryan moderate (euphemism for socialist) Republicans in voting down Rand Paul’s amendment.

Rubio has been one of the most ardent champions for increasing Muslim migration. The U.S. has admitted roughly 1.5 million migrants from Muslim countries since 9/11 on a permanent lifetime basis. Yet Rubio has sought to grow that number vastly. In 2015, Rubio introduced an immigration bill which would have allowed for an unlimited increase in Muslim migration. [Link]

One wonders if Rubio’s love of amnesty is payback. His grandfather was ordered deported by a judge after flying in from Cuba without a visa. [Link]

Trade Agreements Remember Ted Cruz voting for Fast Track for the TPP trade agreement? Well guess who cast the deciding 60th vote to give Obama Fast Track?

Yep, it was Marco Rubio!

The entire purpose of fast-track is for Congress to surrender its power to the Executive for six years. Legislative concessions include: control over the content of legislation, the power to fully consider that legislation on the floor, the power to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive a two-thirds vote. Legislation cannot even be amended.

By contrast, without fast-track, Congress retains all of its legislative powers, individual members retain all of their procedural tools, and every single line, jot, and tittle of trade text is publicly available before any congressional action is taken. [Link]

Tell me again how Republicans are the stop gap to Obama’s destruction of America!

 – Marco Rubio is almost the only republican to take the democrat’s side on this bill. The bill would have saved taxpayers about 10 billion a year by blocking families with substantial assets from receiving food stamps.

When Rubio served as speaker in the Florida House, he stopped bills from coming to the floor that would have deported illegal immigrants in state prisons and that would have denied food stamps to illegal immigrants.

He even stopped a bipartisan proposal that would have allowed the deportation of about 5,000 illegal immigrants in Florida prisons, provided they had served half their sentence and agreed to be deported. Similar legislation saved $141 million and $13 million in prison costs in New York and Arizona.

Cap and Trade – As Florida speaker, Marco Rubio aggressively pushed for Florida to adapt to the inevitable federal “cap and trade program.” Cap and trade is an environmental system that hardcore liberals including former Vice President Al Gore support. A federal cap and trade program would be centered around a carbon tax.

Watch Rubio Back Cap and Trade:

Worst Attendance Record – Rubio’s attendance record for votes is one of the worst in Senate history. His seat is regularly empty for floor votes, committee meetings and intelligence briefings. He even missed the vote on Obama’s Omnibus bill which he probably would have voted for anyway, although he stated the outcome was predetermined.

That outrageous $1.1 Trillion Omnibus Bill funds the most horrendous programs, which also locks in huge spending increases!

 funds entirely Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty for “DREAMers”—or illegal immigrants who came to the country as minors and has granted around 700,000 illegal aliens with work permits, as well as the ability to receive tax credits and federal entitlement programs
 funds sanctuary cities (remember Kathryn Steinle)
 funds all refugee programs
 funds illegal alien resettlement
 quadruples H-2B foreign worker visas
 funds the release of criminal aliens
 funds tax credits for illegal aliens, and much more

Political Influence

While the Majority Whip of Florida House, Rubio used his official position to urge state regulators to grant a real estate license to his brother-in-law, a convicted cocaine trafficker who had been released from prison 20 months earlier, according to records obtained by The Washington Post. [Link]

Marco Rubio’s brother-in-law was the ‘front man’ for a multi-million dollar cocaine-smuggling ring headed by a drug kingpin who ran the operation from an exotic animal sanctuary, it has been revealed.

Orlando Cicilia was arrested for his part in the illicit operation in 1987 during Miami’s narcotics heyday when Republican presidential hopeful Rubio was just 16. Cicilia, 58, who is now working as a real estate agent, served just 12 years in prison despite being sentenced to 35 for his part in the scheme.

 

 

Conclusion

American Bridge put out a Marco Rubio Report in 2012. It is 500 pages long, but tells a great deal about Rubio. Take a gander at it…really telling.

It appears as though we have a socialist Democrat running as a conservative on the GOP ticket….again.

Stay tuned, there’s more to come, soon.

[P.S. We need to increase the hits to reach more people. Please use this material, and call into talk radio programs and mention NewsWithViews.com on the air while discussing the content of this article, write letters to newspaper editors, and speak to your friends. Spread the word, and in doing so, we have a chance to save America.]

Posted in Elections, International Politics, National Politics, State Politics | 1 Comment

The People vs. the Police State: The Struggle for Justice in the Supreme Court

By John W. Whitehead
February 16, 2016

We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”—Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has predictably created a political firestorm.

Republicans and Democrats, eager to take advantage of an opening on the Supreme Court, have been quick to advance their ideas about Scalia’s replacement. This is just the beginning of the furor over who gets to appoint the next U.S. Supreme Court justice (President Obama or his successor), when (as soon as Obama chooses or as long as Congress can delay), how (whether by way of a recess appointment or while Congress is in session), and where any judicial nominee will stand on the hot-button political issues of our day (same-sex marriage, Obamacare, immigration, the environment, and abortion).

This is yet another spectacle, not unlike the carnival-like antics of the presidential candidates, to create division, dissension and discord and distract the populace from the nation’s steady march towards totalitarianism.

Not to worry. This is a done deal. There are no surprises awaiting us.

We may not know the gender, the orientation, the politics, or the ethnicity of Justice Scalia’s replacement, but those things are relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

The powers-that-be have already rigged the system. They—the corporations, the military industrial complex, the surveillance state, the monied elite, etc.—will not allow anyone to be appointed to the Supreme Court who will dial back the police state. They will not tolerate anyone who will undermine their policies, threaten their profit margins, or overturn their apple cart.

Scalia’s replacement will be safe (i.e., palatable enough to withstand Congress’ partisan wrangling), reliable and most important of all, an extension of the American police state.

With the old order dying off or advancing into old age rapidly, we’ve arrived at a pivotal point in the makeup of the Supreme Court. With every vacant seat on the Court and in key judgeships around the country, we are witnessing a transformation of the courts into pallid, legalistic bureaucracies governed by a new breed of judges who have been careful to refrain from saying, doing or writing anything that might compromise their future ambitions.

Today, the judges most likely to get appointed today are well-heeled, well-educated (all of them attended either Yale or Harvard law schools) blank slates who have traveled a well-worn path from an elite law school to a prestigious judicial clerkship and then a pivotal federal judgeship. Long gone are the days when lawyers without judicial experience such as Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Brandeis could be appointed to the Supreme Court.

As Supreme Court correspondent Dahlia Lithwick points out, “a selection process that discourages political or advocacy experience and reduces the path to the Supreme Court to a funnel” results in “perfect judicial thoroughbreds who have spent their entire adulthoods on the same lofty, narrow trajectory.”

In other words, it really doesn’t matter whether a Republican or Democratic president appoints the next Supreme Court justice, because they will all look alike (in terms of their educational and professional background) and sound alike (they are primarily advocates for the government).

Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.

Unfortunately, as I document in Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we have been saddled with instead are government courts dominated by technicians and statists who march in lockstep with the American police state.

This is true at all levels of the judiciary.

Thus, while what the nation needs is a constitutionalist, what we will get is a technician.

It’s an important distinction.

A legal constitutionalist believes that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law (the Constitution) and strives to hold the government accountable to abiding by the Constitution. A judge of this order will uphold the rights of the citizenry in the face of government abuses.

Justice William O. Douglas, who served on the Supreme Court for 36 years, was such a constitutionalist. He believed that the “Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.” Considered the most “committed civil libertarian ever to sit on the court,” Douglas was frequently controversial and far from perfect (he was part of a 6-3 majority in Korematsu vs. United States that supported the government’s internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II). Even so, his warnings against a domineering, suspicious, totalitarian, police-driven surveillance state resonate still today.

A legal technician, on the other hand, is an arbitrator of the government’s plethora of laws whose priority is maintaining order and preserving government power. As such, these judicial technicians are deferential to authority, whether government or business, and focused on reconciling the massive number of laws handed down by the government.

John Roberts who joined the Supreme Court in 2005 as Chief Justice is a prime example of a legal technician. His view that the “role of the judge is limited…to decide the cases before them” speaks to a mindset that places the judge in the position of a referee. As USA Today observes, “Roberts’ tenure has been marked by an incremental approach to decision-making — issuing narrow rather than bold rulings that have the inevitable effect of bringing the same issues back to the high court again and again.”

Roberts’ approach to matters of law and justice can best be understood by a case dating back to his years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case involved a 12-year-old black girl who was handcuffed, searched and arrested by police—all for eating a single French fry in violation of a ban on food in the D.C. metro station. Despite Roberts’ ability to recognize the harshness of the treatment meted out to Ansche Hedgepeth for such a minor violation—the little girl was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained for three hours, and was “frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal”—Roberts ruled that the girl’s constitutional rights had not been violated in any way.

This is not justice meted out by a constitutionalist.

This is how a technician rules, according to the inflexible letter of the law.

Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan of the DC Court of Appeals, who is rumored to be a favorite pick for Scalia’s spot on the court, is another such technician. When asked to strike down a 60-year-old ban on expressive activities in front of the Supreme Court Plaza, Srinivasan turned a blind eye to the First Amendment. (Ironically, the Supreme Court must now decide whether to declare its own free speech ban unconstitutional.)

By ruling in favor of the ban, Srinivasan also affirmed that police were correct to arrest an African-American protester who was standing silently in front of the Supreme Court wearing a sign protesting the police state on a snowy day when no one was on the plaza except him.

Srinivasan’s rationale? “Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the opposite impression: that of a Court engaged with — and potentially vulnerable to — outside entreaties by the public.”

This view of the Supreme Court as an entity that must be sheltered from select outside influences—for example, the views of the citizenry—is shared by the members of the Court itself to a certain extent. As Lithwick points out:

The Court has become worryingly cloistered, even for a famously cloistered institution… today’s justices filter out anything that might challenge their perspectives. Antonin Scalia won’t read newspapers that conflict with his views and claims to often get very little from amicus briefs. John Roberts has said that he doesn’t believe that most law-review articles—where legal scholars advance new thinking on contemporary problems—are relevant to the justices’ work. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia’s opera-going buddy, increasingly seems to revel in, rather than downplay, her status as a liberal icon. Kennedy spends recesses guest-teaching law school courses in Salzburg.”

Are you getting the picture yet?

The members of the Supreme Court are part of a ruling aristocracy composed of men and women who primarily come from privileged backgrounds and who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

These justices, all of whom are millionaires in their own rights, circulate among an elite, privileged class of individuals, attending exclusive events at private resorts orchestrated by billionaire oil barons, traveling on the private jets of billionaires, and delivering paid speeches in far-flung locales such as Berlin, London and Zurich.

When you’re cocooned within the rarefied, elitist circles in which most of the judiciary operate, it can be difficult to see the humanity behind the facts of a case, let alone identify with the terror and uncertainty that most people feel when heavily armed government agents invade their homes, or subject them to a virtual strip search, or taser them into submission.

If you’ve never had to worry about police erroneously crashing through your door in the dead of night, then it might not be a hardship to rule as the Court did in Kentucky v. King that police should have greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant.

If you have no fear of ever being strip searched yourself, it would be easy to suggest as the Court did in Florence v. Burlington that it’s more important to make life easier for overworked jail officials than protect Americans from debasing strip searches.

And if you have never had to submit to anyone else’s authority—especially a militarized police officer with no knowledge of the Constitution’s prohibitions against excessive force, warrantless searches and illegal seizures, then you would understandably give police the benefit of the doubt as the Court did in Brooks v. City of Seattle, when they let stand a ruling that police officers who had clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution.

Likewise, if you’re not able to understand what it’s like to be one of the “little guys,” afraid to lose your home because some local government wants to commandeer it and sell it to a larger developer for profit, it would be relatively easy to rule, as the Supreme Court did in Kelo v. New London, that the government is within its right to do so.

Now do you understand why the Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years, which have run the gamut from suppressing free speech activities and justifying suspicionless strip searches to warrantless home invasions and conferring constitutional rights on corporations, while denying them to citizens, have been characterized most often by an abject deference to government authority, military and corporate interests?

They no longer work for us. They no longer represent us. They can no longer relate to our suffering.

In the same way that the Legislative Branch, having been co-opted by lobbyists, special interests, and the corporate elite, has ceased to function as a vital check on abuses by the other two branches of government, the Judicial Branch has also become part of the same self-serving bureaucracy.

Sound judgment, compassion and justice have taken a back seat to legalism, statism and elitism.

Preserving the rights of the people has been deprioritized and made to play second fiddle to both governmental and corporate interests.

In the case of the People vs. the Police State, the ruling is 9-0 against us.

So where does that leave us?

The Supreme Court of old is gone, if not for good then at least for now.

It will be a long time before we have another court such as the Warren Court (1953-1969), when Earl Warren served alongside such luminaries as William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter and Thurgood Marshall.

The Warren Court handed down rulings that were instrumental in shoring up critical legal safeguards against government abuse and discrimination. Without the Warren Court, there would be no Miranda warnings, no desegregation of the schools and no civil rights protections for indigents.

Yet more than any single ruling, what Warren and his colleagues did best was embody what the Supreme Court should always be—an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds.

That is no longer the case.

We can no longer depend on the federal courts to protect us against the government. They are the government.

Yet as is the case with most things, the solution is far simpler and at the same time more complicated than space allows, but it starts with local action—local change—and local justice. If you want a revolution, start small, in your own backyard, and the impact will trickle up.

If you don’t like the way justice is being meted out in America, then start demanding justice in your own hometown, before your local judges. Serve on juries, nullify laws that are egregious, picket in front of the courthouse, vote out judges (and prosecutors) who aren’t practicing what the Constitution preaches, encourage your local newspapers to report on cases happening in your town, educate yourself about your rights, and make sure your local judges understand that they work for you and are not to be extensions of the police, prosecutors and politicians.

This is the only way we will ever have any hope of pushing back against the police state.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_people_vs._the_police_state_the_struggle_for_justice_in_the_suprem

Posted in Communitarianisn/Law, Constitution/Law, Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics | Leave a comment

Barack Obama’s Destructive Legacy

Sylvia Thompson
October 26, 2015

To the many gullible souls out there who truly think that Barack Obama is “legacy building” in his all-out assault on America, I implore you to bow out of the conversation because you are not seeing clearly.

The term legacy carries positive connotations of something bequeath that is to the receiver’s benefit. Everything that Barack Obama does is calculated to destroy America, which he despises. This man no more cares about legacy than he fears being properly prosecuted by the white political leaders whose responsibility it is to remove him from office.

I focus on white leaders, because whites are still in the majority and they fill the majority of political offices. If the majority of political operatives were of some other ethnicity, I would lodge my complaint against that group. Ethnicity is an issue only because Obama is half-black and he uses that fact to intimidate guilt-conflicted white people. Otherwise, he would have been impeached and likely in prison for treason by now.

Barack Obama’s sole aim has been, since he first entered politics and continues as he winds down this presidency, the complete destruction of America as it was founded.

It is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans who must listen to elitist pundits on Fox news and elsewhere, and political drones in either party endeavor to make Obama’s behavior fit a pattern of normalcy. Attributing his destructive policies to “legacy building” is either self-delusion on the part of the people who make that claim or cowardliness.

This is my take.

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has nothing to do with legacy but rather to enable a Muslim nation to wage nuclear war with America and Israel – the two nations that he most despises. Does anyone wonder why Russians praise Vladimir Putin despite what the rest of the world might think of him? Putin cares about his country, that’s why.

Obama despises the American military because traditionally it has been a mainstay of America’s strength, and our strength infuriates him.

Imposition of a polluting homosexual, anti-Christian agenda upon the military ranks destroys unit cohesion and literally terrorizes male members with the prospect of sodomy rape. Such rapes have increased since the forcing of open homosexuality in the ranks, against the will of a majority of members I might add. Couple that with an infiltration of women, for whom all standards of strength must be reduced, and Obama attains his goal of emasculating and demoralizing the forces.

He could not care less about a legacy of making the forces more diverse. Besides, President Truman diversified the military as much as it should be when he integrated it. Obama’s objective is its destruction.

Obama reopened relations with Cuba because Cuba is Communist. Legacy is not his concern here either, but rather to scuttle America’s attempts to keep Communist influence out of the Americas. That Cuba has major issues with human rights does not matter. Like his Marxist African father before him, he despises the West and all that it represents.

Obama lawlessly declares open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, because he wants to overrun America with third-world people who bring little more than dependency with them. This tactic not only does not ensure a legacy, but rather it guarantees the eventual conversion of America itself into third-world status, if it is allowed to continue.

Bill Clinton started the travesty of increasing the numbers of third-world immigrants at the expense of culturally more suited immigrants from European and European-influenced nations, but Obama has taken the trend to lawless, destructive extremes. He is fully aware that many of these invaders have no intention of assimilating.

It is only the outcry of a majority of Americans that holds back this hateful invasion scheme, and Donald Trump’s entry onto the political scene to oppose that scheme is a saving grace for our nation.

These are but a few instances of behavior that display the loathsome character of Barack Hussein Obama. And he is allowed to roam freely through the American landscape poisoning and polluting as he goes, sure in the realization that no one will stop him because he is “black.”

The day that we no longer have to hear the prattle about his “legacy building” will not be soon enough for me.

Many, many Americans are thoroughly fed up with Barack Obama and the spineless crop of political leaders who ignore his criminality. It is yet unknown whether Republicans will ever garner the backbone to become a true opposition party and hold him accountable. Promising signs are the House conservatives’ getting rid of establishment types John Boehner and Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker and Speaker hopeful, respectively, and Donald Trump’s entry into the 2016 presidential race with enough money and testicular fortitude to tell the Establishment and the Left where to shove it.

Should these positive trends not continue and the 2016 election cycle yield no movement to counter all the harm that Barack Obama has done to this nation, I think there will be massive disruption. Those folks in the National Rifle Association ads currently running on television seem very serious to me, and that is a good thing.

(please pass this one on to your email contacts)

Sylvia Thompson is a black conservative writer whose aim is to counter the liberal spin on issues pertaining to race and culture.

Ms. Thompson is a copy editor by trade currently residing in Tennessee. She formerly wrote for the Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley California Newsletter and the online conservative blog ChronWatch, also out of California.

She grew up in Southeast Texas during the waning years of Jim Crow-era legalized segregation, and she concludes that race relations in America will never improve, nor will we ever elevate our culture, as long as there are victims to be pandered to and villains to be vilified. America is better served without victims or villains.

© Copyright 2015 by Sylvia Thompsonseav

PLEASE FORWARD !

Posted in Corruption, Elections, Freedom & Independence, Local Politics, National Politics, Obama Lies, State Politics | 2 Comments

TRASHING THE 12TH AMENDMENT – NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE

By Publius Huldah
February
16, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

The compact for a National Popular Vote (NPV) is a destructive scheme. Yet it’s been approved by several States; and is pending in others. Since the text of the compact no longer seems to be set forth on the NPV website, we’ll look at the NPV bill now pending in Tennessee.

In a nutshell, the compact seeks to evade the 12th Amendment to our Constitution (where the States elect the President); and substitutes a national popular vote where inhabitants of major metropolitan areas elect the President.

The Constitution our Framers gave us

The federal government created by our Constitution is a Federation of Sovereign States united under a federal government for those limited purposes itemized in the Constitution; with all other powers reserved by the States or the People.

So that The States – The Members of the Federation – could maintain their independence and sovereignty, our Framers wrote these provisions into our Constitution:

State Legislatures were to choose the U.S. Senators for their State (Art. I, §3, cl. 1); and,
The States, as separate political entities, were to elect the President (Art. II, §1, cls. 2 & 3).

The People were to elect only their Representatives to the House (Art. I, § 2, cl.1).

James Madison explains in Federalist No. 45 (7th para), why this ensured that The States would maintain control over the federal government:

“The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments …” [boldface mine]

The result of State Legislatures choosing the U.S. Senators and controlling the election of the President [via the selection of Electors], was that the States would be able to control the federal government.

The 17th Amendment

But we threw away one of these safeguards when we foolishly ratified the 17th Amendment with the popular election of U.S. Senators. This is how The States – The Members of the Federation – lost their representation in Congress and their control of the Senate.

Art. II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment

We abandoned the other safeguard when we foolishly ignored the procedures in the 12th Amendment where small bodies of specially chosen wise and prudent men (Electors) made the selections of President and Vice President for their State. We allowed Electors to become rubber stamps for the popular vote in their State.

Our Framers didn’t want popular election of the President because they recognized that People are easily manipulated by those who take advantage of their “hopes and fears”, to steer them towards candidates favored by powerful groups (Federalist No. 64 (3rd & 4th paras; Federalist No. 68, etc.)

Furthermore, under the 12th Amendment, the electoral votes of each State are split according to how the Electors vote. If Tennessee obeyed the 12th Amendment, it would work like this when selecting President: 5 Electors vote for Candidate X; 4 vote for Candidate Y; and 2 vote for Candidate Z. Those would be the vote totals for President which would be sent to Congress. The same procedures are to be followed in a separate vote for Vice-President.[1] The “winner takes all” practice followed in most States is unconstitutional!

How The National Popular Vote Scheme Will Work.

Under the scheme incorporated in the NPV bill pending in Tennessee, all of Tennessee’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

The wording of the compact is deliberately obscure. In plain English, this is what it does:

Art. II

Each Member State will conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President.

Art. III

(a) & (b) The State Election official in each Member State will add up the votes cast in all the States and the D.C. to get the total number of votes cast nationally for each presidential ticket. The State official will then designate the presidential ticket with the largest number of votes nationally as the “national popular vote winner”.

(c) & (g) Electors will then be appointed in each Member State who are to cast all their votes for the national popular vote winner.

So! If the popular vote in Tennessee is for James Madison, but the total national popular vote favors Adolf Hitler, then all of Tennessee’s 11 Electoral Votes are awarded to Adolf Hitler.

Indeed, the winner of the national popular vote will end up with all the electoral votes for every State. And do not think that the winner will fail to claim a “Mandate” for whatever he wants to do.

The States Can’t Lawfully Enter Into A Compact Which Violates The U.S. Constitution!

Every aspect of the NPV violates the 12th Amendment. It sets up a method of electing the President and vice-President which is altogether repugnant to our Constitution.

Furthermore, Art. I, §10, last clause, prohibits States from “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State” “without the Consent of Congress”. So, whether the NPV Compact also violates Art. I, §10, last clause, depends on whether Congress consents to it. But Congress may not lawfullyconsent to unconstitutional compacts of the States!

Under The NPV Scheme, Votes From Major Metropolitan Areas Will Decide Presidential Elections.

Most of the Population of these United States is located in a few major metropolitan areas. Under the NPV scheme, these areas would decide the elections for President!

See this 3D map (scroll down) showing how the major metropolitan areas voted in the last presidential election.

The NPV is not about “making every vote count”. The NPV is about guaranteeing that every future presidential election is decided by inhabitants of major metropolitan areas. And it further diminishes State sovereignty.

What Should We Do?

Repeal the 17th Amendment. We must henceforth elect to Congress onlythose who are committed to repealing the 17th Amendment. This is the only way The States can regain control of the Senate.

Return to the 12th Amendment. We must dismantle the present unconstitutional and corrupt system and return to the method of electing the President and Vice President established in our Constitution. State Legislators could restore to their States right now the power to control the President! All States have to do is obey the 12th Amendment! Also, specially chosen Electors are far more likely to choose good Presidents than the ignorant masses which fill our major cities.

Even in its present perverted form, the “Electoral College” serves two important purposes: (1) It balances the influence of the heavily populated urban areas with the more sparsely populated rural areas; and (2) gives the smaller States a voice in the election of President.

As a People, we need to STOP being so eager to amend a Constitution we have never read and don’t understand.

© 2016 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

Posted in Constitution/Law, Elections, Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics | Leave a comment