“Clearly the show is not the right fit for you,” …… “I also do not want the show to be so extreme that it alienates the left.”….. Wrote the producer of a new online show allegedly created for Christian, conservative and libertarian female viewers. The producer terminated me in Facebook messenger after her dissatisfaction of my “passion” of the truth and disagreeing with the main host. The producer also included her bullet points for the show which was not shared with me until the termination – two of the points were rather interesting: “To avoid alienating listeners who may be affiliated with an entirely different set of beliefs and political views. * To avoid projecting intolerance and/or disrespect towards those who do not share their belief system including fellow co-hosts.”
No wonder America has a growing Marxist and anti-God movement! Even Obama boasted that America was no longer a Christian nation. Americans have become far too sensitive to opposing views, the truth and God’s word. Unfortunately far too many Christians have concentrated on a few verses and not the whole context of scripture to just keep turning their other cheek sitting back while the so-called “progressives” aggressively take over the country and remove God from the public square.
Ephesians 6:14
“Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place…”
A couple weeks before the show I received yet another facebook message from a fellow entrepreneur who shared they had “unfriended” another business associate, for which we are both friends, due to their passionate political timeline posts. This entrepreneur, whom I highly respect, stated when it comes to business we should not be vocal about our views publicly. Unfortunately this is an opinion shared by many in network marketing. The Bible is clear we are to be equally yoked in all relationships which include business. (John 15:18-19: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”) Therefore I respectfully disagreed with my associate and cited numerous successful, famous businessmen and women who did not shy away from publicly telling their political or religious views. Did my fellow associate became offended or hurt by my stance? No as a matter of fact, he appreciated the dialogue and we continued with a very lovely chat proving that disagreements can be a moment of enlightenment and growth for all participants.
Other individuals must also be frustrated with the whole kumbaya practice within conservative circles as well because recently I have read numerous articles with writers frustrated with the “shrinking violet” mentality of the “right” while the “left” continues their bullying and oft times violent attacks.
Thomas Jefferson once stated: “Question with boldness. Hold to the truth. Speak without fear.” Wise words advised in order to hold onto true liberty. The Founding Fathers verbally argued and even physically brawled due to their own disagreements. They did not concern themselves with “disrespecting or offending” those with opposing viewpoints. If these men had shied away from conflict, a Republic form of government with a Constitution would never had been formed. In fact George Washington warned: “If citizens start to take liberty for granted, if their culture — molded by journalists and writers, preachers and teachers — starts to hold other values in higher esteem, then the spirit that gives life to the Constitution will flicker out.” Obviously the likes of radical Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx took note and devised schemes to transform culture which indeed “molded” today’s media, entertainment, education and religious arenas. Today we are part of a society in which people of faith and conservative values are out-voiced by those with opposing views. In fact one can often hear republican-types apologizing for their words and offering that they are not a “racist” with homosexual and black friends. How many times do we hear those on the left apologizing and stating they have heterosexual and church-attending friends?
Nearly two decades ago a popular Christian book series began – The “Left Behind” novels told an end times story based on the Book of Revelations. In the second book, TRIBULATION FORCE, the Anti-Christ character, Nicolae, shares “…..the opportunity to achieve my lifelong dream, I want peace. I want global disarmament. I want the peoples of the world to live as one….” In the series, Nicolae leads the UN and takes over global communication demanding one viewpoint. Sound familiar?
Indeed the Anti-Christ’s mission is one shared by radicals like Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky, both of whom “honored” Satan in their work. In fact Alinsky declared that Satan was truly the “first radical”. Clearly we see the force of “liberal” views in society today by all means including physical violence. This same group constantly declaring they want “world peace” while showing strong intolerance of Godly and conservative morals.
1 Corinthians 2:14
“The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”
We should not ever expect those with opposing views to agree or listen to us. God instead commands us to be “the salt of the earth” and with boldness and without apology spread both the Good News and moral truth. We should never cower or be afraid to rebuke a brother or sister in Christ who holds a false view. Remember Jesus so “offended” others that he was crucified to death. One should be honored when they “offend” others for speaking the Godly truth. Jesus even comforted believers to be bold with the following words: John 15:18-19: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”
The producer was absolutely correct, her show was not a match for me as I refuse to be silenced or to lose my passion for truth and liberty. Those affiliated with the show may have good intentions, but alas the teachings of Jesus misunderstood. Recently I read a blog on the subject of “offending” and “disrespecting” others which reminded believers to be bold and to “offend” – do not let the title fool you: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/christians-should-never-offend-anyone/
For those who read and study scripture they know there will NEVER be “peace” with the wicked. Yes, there will be a period of a false “peace” in which the Anti-Christ rules and believers will be “underground” while still witnessing to save others from eternal death, but the wicked will continue to plot and force their one world agenda. Thus we should heed the words from Proverbs 28:1 – “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.”
A few years ago I listened to our church pastor give a sermon on why the “church” was losing membership in our society. He cited a poll in which participants proclaimed they thought Jesus was cool, but they did not like Christians. They provided many reasons including both hypocrisy and not being “truthful” with their messages. Apparently those polled wanted to hear believers share the Gospel truth instead of sugar-coating their messages. However they were attracted to Jesus for his courage and honest ministry regardless if they agreed or not.
Perhaps the thirst for bold truth is one of the reasons, the very outspoken Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, instead of the more “tolerant, meek” republican candidates. Ann Coulter is a both a best-selling author and popular television guest who is always bold and never concerned about “offending or disrespecting” those who disagree with her views. Both Mark Dice and Paul Joseph Watson are rising alternative news voices due to their very outspoken and brash commentary. In fact “liberals” are constantly verbally attacking these two yet they still “listen” to their messages. Why? Because deep down that group wants to hear the truth as we are ALL made in the image of God, thus everyone craves Godly morality, even if they reject it in their own lives! If we intend to reach those who need to hear the truth, then we must do so by following Jesus’ example. Bear in mind, Jesus never said, “Please listen to me. I have a friend who was a prostitute. I do not want to come across as intolerant.”…..no, instead he boldly demanded, “Give up your life and follow me!”. He even lost his temper in the public square due to the rebellion of those with “opposing” beliefs.
Time for the “right” to stop worrying about “alienating” the “left” or “offending/disrespecting” others with opposing views! This “tolerant” practice is not winning souls or even minds! Wake up and follow the teachings of the Bible: Acts 28:31 – “Proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.”
If we start practicing boldness and true liberty “free” speech, we will then be able to reach those who oppose us. Like those polled years ago shared, they truly want to hear the courageous TRUTH without apology! Although I do not share the same religious beliefs as Ghandi, I do agree with this famous quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” And “winning” is what we want to accomplish in order to change minds, hearts and souls for eternal life!
A recent Breitbart article captured my attention with the headline “Bill Kristol has Strategy to Give White House to Hilary IF Trump Should Win!” Now why would a leading Republican voice want to risk dismantling the GOP by helping the party lose to a criminal democrat who should really be behind bars? The true reason behind this declaration needs a closer inspection.
According to the Breibart report William (Bill) Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe discussing Donald Trump’s campaign. Kristol boasted he had a plan to deprive Trump of the 50% delegates required to secure the Republican nomination and force a brokered convention. He further declared that his scheme included cutting a deal which awards enough delegates to an “acceptable” candidate. He also told Joe Scarborough that “we” have to stop the momentum and ensure Trump loses in both Florida and Ohio in order to keep the race open for another candidate to gain the nomination.
For the past few years the registered Republican numbers were on decline, however since Trump entered the race for POTUS, the numbers are once again increasing. In fact the numbers are up a full 7% with larger than expected voter turnout for the primaries. Logically would it not benefit the party to support such an historic populist front-runner? It appears that the voting majority disagree with Bill about “the Donald” not being an “acceptable” candidate, so why did he state “we” must stop the momentum (of WE the People)? The answers become apparent after a deeper investigation.
First, besides operating The Weekly Standard, who is Bill Kristol? Bill was also the Co-Founder of Project for the New America Century a neoconservative think tank based in Washington DC with the stated goal of “promoting American global leadership” via wars and aggressive foreign policies. Quite the contrast of George Washington’s sage advice in his farewell speech in which he firmly stated “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all”, in addition: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Washington’s speech should be read in entirety by all Americans to confirm that he believed true liberty meant not being aggressive with other countries, but instead not entangle with foreign alliances and focus on the sovereignty of the Republic. Yet the Project’s other co-founder, Robert Kagan, defined himself as “a liberal interventionist”. Others who signed or funded the New America Century included former Vice-President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and media mogul Rupert Murdoch (FOX News). PNAC released a statement back in June 1997 which included the following statement:
“We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order…”
Although some Americans may believe the statement sounds positive, this was not the vision the Founding Fathers laid forth. For instance in 1799 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter advising
“I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty.”
Clearly PNAC’s goal was the complete opposite of the Founder’s intentions. So where did PNAC’s ideas originate? Bill Kristol’s very own father, the late Irving Kristol was nicknamed “the Godfather of Neoconservatism”a label he proudly wore.
CHANGING AMERICAN POLITICS
Irving Kristol was born in 1920, Brooklyn, New York to Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. He was schooled with and supported radical socialism in the 1930s. He later would become a contributing writer to “Commentary” which was a liberal Jewish Monthly Review magazine. “Commentary” provided the intellectual roots for neoconservatism. He also was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The neocon movement was formerly established in the 1960s by a group of socialist democrats which included both Irving and Max Shactman who was a prominent member of the Communist Party USA and considered a leading Marxist theorist. However this group of socialist-communist democrats rejected the hippie counterculture movement and decided to vacate the democrat party and infiltrate the republican party instead.
By 1979 the neoconservative movement had gained notoriety and became the basis of the book released that year titled The Neo-Conservatives: The Men who are Changing America’s Politics. Irving was prominently featured in the book. When he was asked “What is Neo-Conservatism?”, he answered “it is not ideology but persuasion” and that neocons were truthfully “a liberal who has been mugged by reality”.
Why did American politics need to change? Neocons may occasionally refer to the Constitution which is the foundation of our politics but their agenda is clearly not Constitutional. Since the Founding Documents are supposed to be our politics which formed a limited government model espousing the ideals of individual freedom and liberty, then what did they “change” in our form of government? Former President George H.W. Bush, a neocon, announced in a state of the union speech, “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and future generations a new worldorder……….an order in which an incredible United Nations can use its peace keeping role to fulfill its promise and vision of the UN’s founders.” He did not affirm to keep the promise and vision of the Republic’s Founding Fathers, but instead the UN’s.
The United Nation’s is a one world government organization promoting “international cooperation”and was established after World War II to replace The League of Nations. During his Nobel Peace Prize speech, United States Diplomat Ralph Bunche sounded “It is worthy of emphasis that the United Nations exists not merely to preserve the peace but also to make change – even radical change..” Years later Americans would be bombarded with the word “change” during Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign stating “Yes we can”.
Thomas Jefferson and company established America to be a country in which the people governed and were represented by individuals who defended the people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without government dictatorship. In fact, Jefferson confirmed by stating:
“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”
By now everyone in America is aware that Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia died over Valentine’s Weekend. Unfortunately this was not a Valentine gift for any Constitution defending American, especially considering the possibility that this will be the third “judge” appointed by Saul Alinksky fan, Barrack Obama. Furthermore, if the GOP does not stop the appointment during an election year and Obama once again strong-arms his way, then the lifetime appointment will fundamentally transform the court into a “liberal” majority not honoring the Founders’ original intent of the Constitution.
In fact 4 years ago while in Cairo, former President Bill Clinton appointed justice, Ruth Ginsburg, declared to a group of Muslim “revolutionaries” during an interview, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.” Indeed “social justice” was used by the liberal court members when they “legislated” instead of protecting the Constitution during the aggressive “marriage” debate. A fact that Scalia knew and warned Americans in his dissent: “The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
Unfortunately the “revision” of the Constitution is not just isolated with the highest court in the land, but also with the highest office of the country, the President of the United States. Back in 2008 before Obama was elected, I watched a video created by a democrat attorney declaring that Obama was not eligible for POTUS. After listening intently, I decided to start researching the possibility that his ineligibility could be true by reading words from the very first supreme judge of the land, John Jay. Judge Jay wrote the following words to George Washington on July 25, 1787:“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” In addition, the authors of the founding documents, relied on the works of Swiss Diplomat Emer de Vattel who wrote the following in “The Law of Nations”, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
In conclusion of extensive review, yes the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate for POTUS is of extreme importance to prevent any type of foreign influence, enemy infiltration, or radical transformation of America. This criteria was extremely important to the Framers of America and in fact there are many famous quotes from speeches, letters, and books to validate this position. Perhaps the most relevant is from Washington’s farewell speech in which he warned against the abuse of political party power and their allowing for enemy infiltration: “It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
Many modern day liberty defenders have loudly tried to educate other voters on being concerned about this very crucial Constitutional matter which shockingly has gone ignored by the mainstream. One would think that every American would be concerned about sovereignty, security, liberty, life, property and country and the ‘executive’ who can, with their power and influence, destroy every aspect. Instead those of us who attempt to awaken and educate are mocked and even labeled “birthers” as if we are the ones on the wrong side. Even self-proclaimed ‘conservative’ radio host Mark Levin has declared us to be “kooks” and “goofballs” yet admits he has “not” even “studied the issue” which according to him “is not a constitutional issue.” (Say what??) No Levin, it is not “interpretive” for just your non-researched “opinion” as the Constitution is quite clear Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 states:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
For those who believe eligibility is a “non-issue”, the Founders held many debates regarding the establishment or not of common law and what it meant to be American. President John Adams perhaps summarizes it best, “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.” Thus since America was established by the text of the Founding Documents, then our loyalty should be to those words and intent versus the words of paid media puppets, power hungry deceptive politicians and special interest lobbyists, corporations and organizations who each display self-interest instead of genuine interest in defending the Constitution. Veritably some of these self-interest individuals and organizations have attempted to abuse the 14th amendment in order to confuse voters, however the amendment did not change the Article 2 requirement for the Oval Office and in reality was just intended for slaves. In fact Minor vs. Happersett confirmed that the 14th Amendment did not grant any right to vote, regardless of sex, age or citizenship, thus no right for political office either. The following is an excerpt from the final decision:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. … “
Ironically Obama declared on Saturday, “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone.” How can an unconstitutionally eligible “President” honor the very document he ignored to gain office? In a country filled with individuals educated with the principles of liberty, he would have never been a candidate for the highest office, since the educated voters would have rose up in unity to prevent his unlawful campaign.
Regrettably now the conservative and libertarian communities are voicing both concern and outrage on social media. Republican members of congress are threatening to block any nomination and reminding democrats of their resolution 334 written back in 1960, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Plus the reminder of Senator Chuck Schumer’s words that President Bush should not be able to confirm Roberts during his final year in the White House in order to represent all Americans and not just conservative cliques.
However none of these reminders, threats, and concerns would be present today had the American people been more troubled by the danger of corruption and possible foreign infiltration of the executive branch of America. If one wants to destroy a nation, it is easiest to accomplish from within. Why the American people show little regard for the Constitutional eligibility of any candidate is not only a rather disturbing question, but also an easy opening for enemy aggression. Besides Obama, there are currently two ineligible republican candidates, Cruz and Rubio, for which conservatives show rabid support despite their lack of Constitutional requirements for POTUS. Literally their supporters will verbally attack you and question your patriotism for bringing up any evidence to support the truth.
America the Republic was buried decades ago, in fact some people claim as far back as Lincoln’s presidency. (Personally believe the final death nail was at the inception of the Federal Reserve.) Nonetheless, America could be restored if voters became truly interested with freedom and liberty launching a serious study of the Founding documents and the Framers’ intent by reading their books, speeches and letters. Once educated on true liberty, voters may be more inclined to not merely trust the words of a candidate or base decisions based on personality and/or image.
Sadly Scalia’s death is clouded with terrifying suspicion due to shared details that he was discovered dead with a pillow on his head. Furthermore, the local democrat judge, Cinderella Guevara, announced that there was no foul play although there was no investigation or autopsy to confirm her declaration. In fact his body was embalmed immediately. Plenty of other news articles and blogs are addressing this controversy. But these details and suspicions may have never occurred in the first place if we had an honest government filled with representatives who honored their oaths and carried out the will of the people, rather than the will of banks, corporations, investors, secret cabals, special interests and foreign influences all with malicious intent to advance their nefarious agendas.
Sadly this country lost a Supreme Court Judge who actually understood the Constitution and honored his oath even when his decisions upset special interest groups. Now as a consequence of voters who do not understand or care about the text of the Articles of the Constitution, the United States now faces the complete radical transformation of the Judicial Branch in an attempt to completely shred and rewrite the law of the land with social “justice” personal preferences.
In conclusion, all parts of the Constitution, not just sections, matter which includes the section detailing the eligibility of a presidential candidate. This executive branch criteria should be of utmost importance to voters. Today would be quite different had Obama never unlawfully taken office or had been lawfully removed from office. May Scalia’s untimely death and the new appointment process be a wake up call for all voters regardless of political party affiliation!
It is alleged that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Sir what have you done?” and allegedly Mr. Franklin replied, “A Republic Ma’am if you can keep it.” Sound the alarm loudly and let it be known that the week of June 21. 2015 – June 27, 2015, the Republic, commonly known as America, was buried 6 feet under. Merely one week shy of the 239th Birthday of “Independence”, the union formed ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ gasped it’s last breath which was already on life support.
Perhaps some readers will laugh at what they believe is alarmist, others will ignore, and some will actually celebrate the foundation of this “new’ United Statism of Amerika. However a large number of individuals who understand the Founder’s intent for this country, will share in mourning the demise of the once great beacon for true freedom and liberty.
Back on July 8th, 1776, the Liberty Bell rang when the Declaration of Independence returned from the printer. Two days prior the Pennsylvania Evening Post became the first newspaper to print the Declaration of Independence and in stark contrast another Pennsylvania paper, the ironically named PennLive/’Patriot’-News printed a declaration of oppression on June 26th, 2015 stating: “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.” Would Benjamin Franklin approve of this silencing of free speech due to personal opinion? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! In fact here is one of his most notable quotes, “Without Freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom;and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”
This past Friday, June 26th the Supreme Court proclaimed same-sex “marriages” to be legal in all 50 states. Many in the country cheered and demonstrated loudly that now there was truly “real” freedom in the nation and anyone voicing another viewpoint were bullied and threatened in order to be “silenced”, thus already displaying “free speech” issues. Regardless of opinion however, the term marriage is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights nor any other amendments, although Bill Clinton signed the “Defense of Marriage Act” into law back in 1996, the Supreme Court originally struck it down in 2013. Since the Constitution does not delegate powers to the federal government in regard to marriage, the powers for this issue were delegated solely to the states according to the Tenth Amendment. Regrettably Justice Kennedy abused the 14th Amendment by stating, “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (were extended with the amendment.)” What part of the original amendments or any statement from any of the authors of the Constitution lead him to believe such nonsense? Perhaps the only quote including the word ‘intimate’ is from George Washington who warned, “Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence.” Perchance a more befitting quote for Kennedy, personally spoken by Washington, is the following, “I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.”
Back in 1792, Declaration Signer James Wilson, one of original six justices appointed by President Washington wrote in his “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals” document, “The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend.” Justice Wilson, nor any other Judge during Colonial Times would have agreed with the current Supreme Court, since homosexuality was a death-penalty-punishable-crime. In fact General George Washington court martialed anyone “attempting to commit sodomy”. Plus Noah Webster’s dictionary defined sodomy as a ‘crime against nature’. Thus to claim the 14th Amendment would extend to same-sex relationships is seriously flawed and deceptive. Furthermore, the 1874 case “Minor vs. Happersett” based on discrimination due to gender/sex (in relation to voting) lost: “The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.”
Albeit the 14th Amendment may be one of the most discussed, debated additions to the Bill of Rights, the ratification in 1868 was expressly for Black Americans whose inalienable rights were being ignored as freed slaves. Every descendant of Chattel slaves should thus be questioning the misuse of the amendment. In addition, every freedom loving individual should be examining closer the unconstitutional decision of SCOTUS established by the case Obergefell v. Hodges. Not only did the outcome shred state’s rights and misinterpret the 14th Amendment, the Justices also unlawfully stretched beyond their role clearly defined in Article III of the Constitution, section 2, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…” Since the Constitution had no federal authority for marriage granting only states this power, the Supreme Court created a new law which caused dissenting Justice Scalia to decry the verdict, “a threat to democracy”. He continued his statement writing, “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.” Naturally those applauding the determination scoffed at Scalia’s cautioning words labeling him everything from cantankerous to predictably homophobe simply for expressing the lawful truth. Though even the quite conflicting dissent from Justice Roberts stated, supporters of gay marriage should celebrate, “but do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
This new same-sex marriage ruling by SCOTUS gave increased power to the Judicial Branch while stripping powers from the Legislative Branch and the States, thus affecting “the people”. Despite the fact same-sex “marriage” supporters and participants strongly voice “the people won”, this thought is not aligned with the original framers of America. In point of fact, Alexander Hamilton who wrote in the Federalist Paper, “[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment..,” also affirmed, “The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation.”
Moreover, Justice Roberts announced concern for First Amendment protection, “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty.” Confirming Robert’s concerns, Justice Thomas penned, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect. Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty…………. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”
Isn’t religious freedom one of the main reasons British colonists escaped King George’s theocracy? Obviously the creators of the founding documents believed religious freedom was the most important foundation to a Free Republic by ordering it to be first! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….” Does this new SCOTUS resolution stab the very heart of the formation of America? Now if one opposes homosexual unions based off religious convictions, does it not now put them at risk of lawsuits and public persecution? Persecution of Christian bakers, photographers, florists, restaurants, clergy and individuals already began prior to the unlawful court decision, so now any protection for religious freedom under the First Amendment has certainly been further eroded. Certainly the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) who sacrificed life, blood, family and fortune are crying from their own graves. For instance John Adams said in a speech to the military in 1798, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Perhaps the same-sex issue was the final nail pounded into America’s coffin, but it was not the only death nail which occurred last week. In addition the Supreme Court also upheld the unconstitutional Obamacare with their 6-3 decision of King v. Burwell. Once again the Constitutional Justice on the Supreme Court, Scalia wisely warned in his dissent, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”
This case was brought forth due to the fact Senate created a separate bill from the House and titled it “The Affordable Care Act”. Furthermore this “act” included a long list of ‘taxes” disguised as “fees” and “penalties”. According to the Articles of the Constitution however, it is the House of Representatives and not Senate which is allowed to initiate tax measures. Even Justice Roberts admitted to this fact in addition he divulged “the Constitution does not allow the government to force people to buy consumer products.” Yet SCOTUS once again ruled against the people while dismissing key components of the Constitution.
On a roll for tyranny, the Justices infringed upon property rights which is a key agenda in collectivism. Veritably Karl Marx wanted to abolish private property as defined in his Communist Manifesto because he believed property was oppression of the poor. In contrast, the role of the Republican form of limited government is to simply protect life, liberty, and property. However last week SCOTUS became traitors of property rights by ruling 5-4 in a case initiated by Inclusive Communities Project which claimed discrimination with the Texas Housing Authority in Dallas, Texas. The Texas department defended their position by stating, “ the Fair Housing Act of 1968 required that plaintiffs show intentional discrimination”. The lynching continued with newly oathed attorney general Loretta gloating, “The Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act with every tool at its disposal.”
Not cheering the decision was Texas Governor Abbot whose office issued the following statement, “If Congress wanted to allow people to bring ‘disparate impact’ claims, it would have said so. Worse, the court’s opinion raises serious constitutional problems because it potentially forces housing authorities to commit intentional racial discrimination to avoid unintentional ‘disparate impacts.'” In addition, property owners lose control and are prohibited from renting their homes to individuals as they see fit to protect their investments. Unfortunately this decision against property owners is in line with Obama’s radical “Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative” which includes federal grant money and HUD rules to end segregation in all neighborhoods across the country.
Not backing down from the deconstruction of America, the Supreme Court also infringed upon state’s rights by blocking Texas abortion-clinic rules. In what seems to be a trend with the nine judges, the ruling was 5-4 with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito agreeing to allow the state to move ahead with regulations requiring abortion facilities to be constructed like surgical centers.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court refused to protect America by not taking voter ID cases from both Arizona and Kansas. Each state requires voter applicants to provide proof of citizenship, however the U.S. EAC denied the states to apply their laws on the federal form. Two years ago the Supremes ruled that state proof-of-citizenship laws couldn’t be applied when people try to register with the federal form. By not hearing the case, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Arizona and Kansas. UC-Irvine Professor Rick Hasen wrote on his election law blog, “This is a very big deal…. had the potential to shift more power away from the federal government in administering elections toward the states.”
Therefore with a few strokes of the pen, the Supreme Court aided in the growth of a centralized government while shredding the Constitution and original foundation of the Republic.
Therapist Nathaniel Branden, the former intimate partner of Ayn Rand while she was writing “Atlas Shrugged”, penned: “The policy of seeking values from human beings by means of force, when practiced by an individual, is called crime. When practiced by a government, it is called statism .” The noun ‘statism’ is defined as a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. In contrast, the Founders of America, formed a republic form of government, a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of the people entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly by them. Factually, in 1787 the Continental Congress drafted the Articles of the Constitution not to manage the people or the states, but to limit and manage the government itself. The intention was to establish a structure affording true freedom with some law preventing anarchy or the creation of an oligarchy, an organization of a small group controlling every aspect of the country. Disastrously, in present day USA we are witnessing total chaos which the JBS’ “Overview of America” documentary perfectly details as a calculated movement of “anarchists breaking down the existing government via looting, rioting, killing and terror.”
Last week the calculation was observed with a mob rule demanding the removal of the Confederate Flag from the public square triggered by a mysterious shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina in which 9 people, including the senior pastor were murdered. Worthy to note, this Episcopal Church which is nearly 200 years old has long been at the center of various ‘anti-slavery’, ‘civil rights’, and ‘black lives matter’ movements. Mainstream media quickly established a narrative that the shooter Dylann Roof was a white supremacist and displayed images of him with guns and Confederate flags. Instead of the controlled media questioning how Roof learned to be a frontsight expert and adroitly reloading his gun 5 times? Or delving into his big pharmaceutical addictions and prior drug arrests? Researching his entire history and answering why an alleged ‘racist’ resided in a majority Black-American neighborhood? They focused on a false flag account which caused a national commotion on the real history and symbolism of the old battle banner. Media outlets and politicians pushed only a one-sided viewpoint while Amazon, Wal-mart, and manufacturers banned Confederacy merchandise. Some radicals are now demanding the removal of the Stars & Stripes with American flag burnings across the land sparked by lies, myths and distortions of America history.
What the “flag” wars proved last week is that collectivism reigns with mob rule and traitors in power. No longer can individualists live, speak, or worship freely without dire consequences or retribution. Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow with the Ayn Rand Institute, once noted, “Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism.” Thomas Jefferson’s following quote confirms the direction of this land, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Clearly last week with the removal of historical flags and unconstitutional court rulings, the mob ruled and rights of the majority were stripped.
In addition to the mobs, media, and the highest court in the USA, ‘elected representatives’ aided in the final destruction of America the Republic with the passage of the Trade Promotion Authority/Trade Authority Agreement commonly nicknamed Obamatrade which POTUS signed into law yesterday. The agreements granted unconstitutional powers to the Executive Branch allowing the president to make deals with just mere Congressional votes without discussions or amendments. In rare form, democrats actually attempted to derail this bill in order to protect Americans, but republicans organized with support to assist moving the bill forward. During the signing, Obama actually thanked republicans for the victory.
People from all walks of life and political views rallied to prevent the passage of this detrimental law. The first vote proved a win for the people, but the GOP insisted on bringing it back for a second vote which proved a loss for the people. Before the vote “Economy in Crisis” cautioned: “Fast Track also allows the White House to work in secrecy with negotiators and lobbyists from large multinational corporations to rewrite policies that affect areas from job security for average Americans, to the health and safety of our food. In the past, utilizing Fast Track has resulted in foreign entities attacking our domestic health policies and environmental standards.” Moreover, Wikileaks provided a sneak peak of the deal by posting text of the ‘secretive’ document revealing that indeed Americans should be concerned. For one, the Fast Track allows for more foreign workers in the following private sector fields of computer programming, construction. engineering, healthcare, management, and the service industry (hotel/restaurants). Sadly, due to the Fast Track’s international business and environmental laws, American businesses and wages will be negatively affected.
For decades globalists have been implementing new trade deals while the media campaigns benefits and job growth to those who will listen, yet the real numbers show a strikingly different reality. According to a report which cites the US Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are poor or low income; 41% earn $20,000 or less annually, and labor statistics continue to decline. Perhaps we cannot predict the future, but as cited by the Economic Policy Institute “Trade and globalization policies have major effects on the wages and incomes of American workers and on the vitality of American industries such as manufacturing.” With the combination of a rising national debt and the above economic/labor statistics, how can American families survive financially? The original liberty defenders of the Republic wisely realized that personal finances were an instrumental portion for overall freedom. In his first Inaugural Address on March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson spoke the following words, “A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
Encompassing all aspects including social issues, religion, politics, media, and economics, the liberty of the majority were adversely affected last week. Co-architect of the New Deal, Harry Hopkins once admitted, “We shall Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference”. Harry was right! Too many in America either ignored the words in the Founding Documents, choosing instead to just “live their lives” placing blind trust in their politicians and alleged ‘news” sources or they allowed themselves to be willingly indoctrinated with falsehoods creating misunderstandings and division. In the meantime, in secretive Bilderberg, Tri-lateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and Congressional meetings, the deconstruction of the Republic was plotted throughout the generations from the implementation of the criminal Federal Reserve to this past Monday’s White House signature of the Fast Track. The complete promised “transformation of America” is complete.
Every year the Liberty Bell rang in honor of President Washington’s birthday, until 1846 when the crack grew to the present size we see today. However throughout the years the bell was ceremoniously tapped until 1976 when the historical symbol of freedom was permanently displayed as a monument. More alert members of “we the people” may have realized the original freedom and independence declared by the Founders were already a memory of the distant past. Since the bicentennial, many liberty defenders have worked tirelessly trying to educate and wake up others before the tyranny grew too big and we developed into a new country completely opposite of the original. Regrettably their voices were overshadowed by the noise of the deceiving collectivists who worked aggressively for radical “change”.
Vladimir Lenin once confessed, “The goal of socialism is communism.” While Mao Zedong dictated, “Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer for which we use to crush the enemy.” Maybe Mao’s comment was brutal, but at least he was honest about the goal. In contrast of honesty, the “most transparent” administration, exempted the executive branch from Freedom of Information Act requests. Why the exemption? Does the Obama office have something to hide? What has not been secret is Obama’s associations with Mao during his tenure including a Christmas ornament in honor of the communist dictator. So were the events of last week ‘a crushing of the enemy’? Maybe, but regardless history will prove it happened during the Obama administration.
Rewind to the 2012 campaign season, the Dinesh D’Souza documentary “2016: Obama’s America” forewarned that POTUS’ reshaping of the country would be finished by the end of his second term leaving behind a system completely devoid of any likeness to what the Founding Father’s established. With 18 more long months to go, if the current course continues, D’Souza’s predictions will be the new reality. Nonetheless, last week indeed ended a Constitutional Republic.
Three days from now “Americans” will be honoring July 4th with picnics, camping, music, games, drink and fireworks, however it shan’t be “independence” the people will be celebrating, because now true freedom and liberty is a memory. But no one should mourn! Enlightened individuals should instead recharge and remember what the first tea partier, Samuel Adams stated, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”
It is time ‘sunshine patriots’ to wipe away the tears, to shut down social media outrage, and instead join active oath keepers and defenders across the land and spark another brush-fire! Heed the advice from Thomas Paine, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” The time to stand up tirelessly is NOW! The Liberty Bell cannot ring again until the believers of REAL liberty stand up with faith and “to alter or…abolish … and …. institute (a)new Government’ established with liberty containing free and independent states for ALL the people!
Be strong, bold, and encouraged by the following words from John Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Adams is correct, history proves that people do not enjoy the constraints of tyranny, since it really only benefits the power elite as confirmed by Ayn Rand, “Ask yourself why totalitarian dictatorships find it necessary to pour money and effort into propaganda for their own helpless, chained, gagged slaves, who have no means of protest or defense. The answer is that even the humblest peasant or the lowest savage would rise in blind rebellion, were he to realize that he is being immolated, not to some incomprehensible noble purpose, but to plain, naked human evil.”
America was not lost overnight, it took generations of plotting evil men (and women) to destroy the Republic, so patriots cannot expect a new Republic to be born overnight as it will take generations of faith, diligence and dedication to the cause of liberty to regain what we the people lost. It is best we begin by getting on our knees and repenting! Then with courage, wisdom and unity move forth with Founding Father-like rebellion and God’s guidance! May “we the people” prevail as permanent tyranny is not an option! Let’s proclaim that by the will of God, the Liberty Bell will ring again! “WOLVERINES!”
Chelene Nightingale 