Tag Archives: democrat

Trump, Cruz – Patriots or Partners with World Elite?

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.

washgconconvjuniusbrutusstearnsvamu

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”.

New World Order

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 world order……….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.”

Continue reading

Advertisements

Scalia’s Death Confirms POTUS Constitutional Eligibilty Crucial

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.”

Founders

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!