No! The Supreme Court is NOT the Final Arbiter of what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional – Freedom Outpost

By Matthew Trewhella

A false belief that almost all Americans hold to in our day is the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional or unconstitutional. The adherents of this belief – and there is a sea of lawyers in this country who have a vested interest in furthering this odious fiction – actually have the hubris to point to the Constitution itself and say that the Constitution declares the judiciary to be the final arbiter.

They proffer Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution – the ‘supremacy clause’ – for their notion of judicial supremacy. But when you read Article 6, paragraph 2, you realize that the Supreme Court isn’t even mentioned, nor are federal courts of any kind mentioned. Article 6, paragraph 2 – known as the supremacy clause actually gives supremacy to the Constitution!

Wholly opposite of this view of ‘judicial supremacy’ was the view held by America’s founders. They viewed the judiciary as being the weakest branch of the government.

In a letter penned in 1823, Thomas Jefferson stated: “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous.”

Alexander Hamilton who was the most favorable to the judiciary – wanting to allay the fears that other of the founders had of the judiciary – stated: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in the capacity to annoy or injure them.”

James Madison – known as the architect of the Constitution – stated: The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” He said, In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”  The legislature does not bow down to the judiciary – rather it predominates.

The judiciary is not the strongest – it does not write laws – it is not the final arbiter. Rather, as the founders stated – they are supposed to be the most helpless, the most harmless, the weakest, and the least dangerous to the Constitution. All that has been turned on its head. Now all other branches bow down to the judiciary – as though they can do no other than obey. America has replaced a monarchy with an oligarchy.

We now have social transformation without representation.

Jefferson warned of this 200 years ago. He wrote in a letter in 1820 to an early judicial supremacist:“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” He went on to write: “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

And that is what the Supreme Court is in our day – despots.

And they are not the final arbiters – as Jefferson states, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

Jefferson stated in another letter in 1821 – a year later: “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

And the judiciary has been doing exactly that for 200 years now. Rewriting the Constitution – giving themselves powers never granted them in the Constitution. Usurping all other government jurisdictions.

Men will forbear and so we should – but there comes a point where forbearance becomes sin. There comes a point where forbearance becomes cowardice. There comes a point when men realize they no longer have the convenience of acting indifferent towards the unjust and immoral actions of their government. And I submit to you that the lawlessness of the judiciary should not be forborne.

I submit to you that the murder of the preborn should not be forborne. The perverting of marriage, the rewriting of the First Amendment, and a host of other evils by the federal judiciary should not be forborne.

Senator Oliver Ellsworth, the primary drafter of Article 3 of the Constitution which delineates the function of the judiciary, promised the people of his state before the Constitution was ratified that the judiciary was “not to intermeddle with your internal policy.”

Now every governor in America bows down and bends over to the judiciary. They accommodate murder – they accommodate perversion of marriage – they’ll accommodate boys in the girl’s shower rooms too.

Alexander Hamilton – the founding father with the biggest love affair with the judiciary while trying to calm concerns of other founders stated that the judiciary “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

In other words, Hamilton expected the executive branch to check the judiciary if they made immoral/unjust or constitutionally-repugnant rulings. But now, the judiciary not only has the compliance of the President (not to mention Congress), but they also have the compliance of every governor in America. None interpose.

Their duty is not to accommodate or bow down – but to interpose.

The judiciary is the tyrant. They are lawless. We are under the despotism of an oligarchy. And this lawless authoritarianism of the federal courts must be broken – it will only be broken by the interposition of the lesser magistrates.

No where does the Constitution bind us to a suicide pact with SCOTUS.

As legal historian Alpheus Thomas Mason wrote not too long ago: “Implicit in the system of government the Framers designed is the basic premise that unchecked power in any hands whatsoever is intolerable.” The Supreme Court must be checked – and it must be checked by the state magistrates. Congress is not going to do it – Congress is a weakling. The state magistrates need to do their God-given duty and check the lawlessness of the judiciary.

How the Dred Scott Decision Proves that the Supreme Court CANNOT be the Last Word in American Law ⋆ The Constitution

Sometimes out of tragedies come amazing victories. Legal scholars consider the Dred Scott decision one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court rulings in history. However, it was the last nail in the coffin that pushed the country into a war that finally abolished slavery.

In 1820, Congress settled much of the contention about slavery, forbidding it in the North with the Missouri Compromise. Though Northern abolitionists still wanted to rid the country of the institution altogether, they as least approved confining to the South.

Then in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act negated the Missouri Compromise. Frustrated, abolitionists formed a political party specifically focused on eradicating slavery.

Dred Scott’s fight for freedom reached the Supreme Court as racial tensions were beginning to boil.  Several slaves already succeeded in winning their freedom.  Yet that occurred at state levels. This would be national.

Dr. John Emerson purchased Scott from the Blow family in the early 1830’s in the slave state of Missouri. An Army surgeon, Emerson received transfers to free territories and states where Scott accompanied him. Scott married Harriet Robinson in 1838, which resulted in her ownership transferring to Emerson.

The couple returned to Missouri with Emerson and his wife, Irene, where Emerson died in 1843.  Scott believed he earned his freedom due to his years in free territory where slavery was outlawed.  Scott attempted to purchase his family’s freedom from Irene Emerson.  When she refused, he decided to sue.

Scott won his freedom in his first lawsuit. Emerson then appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court and prevailed. By this time, however, Emerson had moved to Massachusetts. She transferred ownership to her brother, John Sanford, from New York, thus forcing Scott to turn to Federal Courts. After loosing that decision in 1854, Scott took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Republican Platform during the 1856 election included just 9 principles. Of those, six related to equality and civil rights for blacks as outlined in the Declaration.

However, the Democrat Platform, led by James Buchanan, read:

“All efforts of the abolitionists…are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and…all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.” 

As Buchanan transitioned into the White House in early 1857, the Supreme Court heard the Dred Scott vs. Sanford arguments. Holding true to the Democrat principles, Buchanan sent letters to Northern judiciaries, urging them to vote against Scott. Five of the nine judges were Southerners. With one Northerner already pro-slavery, Buchanan encouraged a decision across sectional lines for the “happiness of the people”.

Buchanan suggested to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney that done properly, this ruling would end the slavery argument permanently. Both men served under Andrew Jackson, “Father of the Democrat Party”, who also appointed Taney to the court. He understood Buchanan’s advice and obliged.

Buchanan addressed the upcoming ruling at his inauguration, boldly announcing, “To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be.” Of course he would as a justice already informed him of the outcome.

The court issued its ruling two days later on March 6, 1857. Scott lost in a 7-2 decision. The two dissenters were Northern Republicans while the rest were all Democrats from both sides.  Buchanan wanted to avoid a Northern vs Southern ruling.  What he got was a Republican vs Democrat one.

In his 55-page opinion, Taney ruled Scott had no right to sue as he was not a citizen. Referring back to the Missouri ruling, his opinion could have stopped there.  But it didn’t.

First, Taney claimed Congress had no authority to prohibit territories from allowing slavery, rendering the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

Taney then argued the Founders agreed Africans were not citizens and never meant for the Declaration or Constitution to apply to them. However, in 1776, blacks were voting citizens in several states.

Justice Benjamin R. Curtis in his dissent wrote:

At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, All free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.”

Taney’s argument was sloppy at best. An outright propaganda lie at worst.

Taney also invoked the Fifth Amendment, claiming slaves, as property, could not be taken from their owner when entering a free state without due process.  Yet the Founders carefully chose their wording in the Declaration to avoid such a defense. Originally phrased, “Life, Liberty and Property,” Founders purposely re-worded it to “Pursuit of Happiness,” fearing slaveholders would apply the property argument to slaves.  Unfortunately, Taney made the false claim anyway.

Taney not only ruled slaves were non-citizens then, he declared they never could be, regardless whether they were free or slaves. It rejected citizenship rights of blacks forever.

Democrat progressives try to spin Taney’s decision, claiming he wanted to remove slavery from the Federal Government and put it to the states. However, by declaring blacks, free or otherwise, could never be citizens, he actually cemented their fate forever in slavery. By citing the Fifth Amendment, he rendered free states impotent in preventing slavery from entering their boarders.

Southern Democrat slaveholders cheered the ruling, declaring it the law of the land. On the other hand, Northern Republicans rebelled, more determined than ever to defeat slavery and give blacks equal rights.

Over the next several years, Republicans fought back, including Abraham Lincoln. The Scott ruling inspired his “House Divided” speech, warning another decision may come soon declaring it unconstitutional for a state to forbid slavery entering its boarders.

“What Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state.”

Furthermore, he argued if the Supreme Court determined Congress unauthorized to limit slavery, it was only a matter of time until they concluded the same with states.

“We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.”

By 1860, Republicans gained the presidency on their anti-slavery platform. With the secession of seven Southern states by Lincoln’s inauguration, war was inevitable. In sweet irony, Taney performed Lincoln’s swearing-in.

Following the verdict, the Blow family repurchased the Scotts and freed them on May 26, 1857.  Dred Scott died 18 months later, but as a free man.

After the Civil War, Republicans rectified the dreadful Dred Scott decision, making all natural born blacks citizens, by passing the 14th Amendment without one single Democrat vote.

Many scholars still revere Taney as an outstanding judiciary regardless of this ruling. However, his legacy is forever tarnished by the Dred Scott Decision.

One hundred and sixty years ago, Democrats used the courts to push their agenda onto the citizens regardless of their objections.  Eventually, the people rose up and took the country back.   And so goes the election of 2016.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But that’s just my 2 cents.

The Strata-Sphere » Obama Administration Looks To Be In Very Serious Legal Trouble

Source: The Strata-Sphere » Obama Administration Looks To Be In Very Serious Legal Trouble

 

There is a lot of breaking news this weekend as the nation learns that a sitting President (Obama) looks to have used the nation’s national security apparatus – which is empowered to protect this nation from foreign enemies and threats – for crass political gain (read “personal gain”).  If this is even partially true, this would be Watergate on steroids and irreparably tarnish the Obama administration for all history.

These high stakes may also explain the irrational fear and hate by the democrat leadership we have seen in their scorched-Earth actions since the election.  Events may be unraveling on them big time, events that started last summer in a very different world.

Let’s begin by setting down a hard and fast rule to blunt the coming weasel words from team Obama. The President runs his administration. The President’s cabinet has some individual authority, but they confirm with the Commander-in-Chief anything that could erupt back on them either legally or politically. No cabinet member – especially the Attorney General – would run near or across legal or ethical lines without concurrence (i.e., cover from) the top person.

To say Obama did not “order” the “wire tap” against the Trump campaign is as ridiculous as it sounds. Note: Trump used figurative parentheses when he tweeted “wire tap”, so read that as meaning “surveillance” legally.

It is not like the Captain of a ship actually “weigh’s the anchor” themselves! Captains order it be done. Or more accurately, it is one step of a process that has been established by the command chain so that when the Captain orders the ship to prepare to “get under way” this action is taken. However executed, the Captain is legally responsible for the people under him, and any mistakes they make. This would include any issues or damage done “weighing” the anchors.

So when someone tries to split hairs about who ordered the surveillance on Team Trump, remember this:

First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court.

The fact is no one would be dumb enough to run afoul of the laws protecting the American People from our intelligence apparatus without top cover – because these represent very, very serious crimes. So let’s stop pretending AG Lynch did this on her own. If this happened, it was all coordinated.

We also need to start with specifying which laws were broken, and then get to the all critical timeline – because that is where we will discover how thin the ice is under Team Obama.

The best overview of the laws broken is here, and the following excerpts summarize the issues our nation faces. To understand the issues one must understand the very narrow and special role the FISA Court and our Intelligence Apparatus plays in our nation. Because of its special powers, it is very restricted on what it can do.

Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.

Emphasis mine. As we deal with this explosive situation, remember the core issue. It is not run-of-the-mill political skulduggery (is there any other kind?). It is the criminal misuse of a critical national defensive capability. Liken it to using a military weapon against your political opponent, because that is the nearest and best analogy. If Obama ordered the military to intervene with Team Trump during the election, that would not be much different from using the intelligence powers to intervene. This is not on the same level as using the IRS to target political opponents – not by a long shot.

Why is this the case? Because the FISA court operates outside the US Constitution, and therefore any misuse is much more serious:

FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

Again, emphasis mine.  The capability to use our intelligence resources against any entity is restricted to critical national security. These resources are NOT to be applied for other legal matters, such as questionable business interests, hacking computers, etc. This is important because the evidence seems to show Team Obama tried to abuse these resources – and were rebuffed!

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” … The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”

This is the crux of Obama’s legal trouble. In order to legally capture information about members of the Trump Campaign (one of which was a sitting Senator), then retain it and distribute it, the reason would have to border on high crimes and treason – not “discussions” or “hacking” or “business transactions”. Even coordinating national policies and treaties with foreign leaders would not rise to the level of urgency required to invoke these intelligence resources.

To summarize, it is Team Obama’s collection, retention and distribution of  information protected by the US Constitution that constitute the high crimes here, specifically when it pertains to members of Trump’s campaign, emphasized here:

This includes procedures that require they never identify the person, or the conversation, being surveilled, to the public where that information is not evidence of a particular crime.

Since the Fake News media has been reporting these very same details to the public, and citing current and former Obama administration sources, it is not debatable on whether laws were broken. They were.

Bottom line: this should never have happened:

At the outset, the NSA should have never been involved in a domestic US election. Investigating the election, or any hacking of the DNC or the phishing of Podesta’s emails, would not be a FISA matter. It does not fit the definition of war sabotage or a “grave” “hostile” war-like attack on the United States, as constrictively covered by FISA. It is your run-of-the-mill hacking case covered by existing United States laws that require use of the regular departments of the FBI, Department of Justice, and Constitutionally Senate-appointed federal district court judges, and their appointed magistrates, not secretive, deferential FISA courts.

So how did this happen? How did our extensive intelligence apparatus come to be misused against members of the Trump campaign?

Well, the simplest answer seems to be Team Obama misled the courts:

This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.

Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts.

President Trump now owns the records of the United States of America. One thing he and his Attorney General (former Senator Sessions) can get their hands on are these affidavits to the FISA Court. If they are as damning as some believe they must be, then Team Obama is going to be in serious trouble.

Remember, back when this all started no one believed Trump would win and be given the keys to all the evidence lockers. Which is why one has to ask why did Team Obama double down in January and push the laws even further?

Team Obama has a responsibility to the FISA Court to not disclose any information on US Citizens accidentally caught up in a surveillance activity, but this is what they began doing in January 2017.  This may be the second smoking gun – diligently reported by the Fake News media.

That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press.This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both.

Recognizing this information did not fit FISA meant having to delete it and destroy it. According to published reports, Obama’s team did the opposite: order it preserved, ordered the NSA to search it, keep it, and share it; and then Obama’s Attorney General issued an order to allow broader sharing of information and, according to the New York Times, Obama aides acted to label the Trump information at a lower level of classification for massive-level sharing of the information. The problem for Obama is simple — if it could fit a lower level of classification, then it had to be deleted and destroyed, not disseminated and distributed, under crystal clear FISA law.

There is much more in the article, so please take the time to read the whole thing.

This is about as open-and-shut as you can get in my humble opinion. All this has been faithfully reported (i.e., corroborated) by the Fake News media – citing sources. Along with the internal trail of documents the government is required to keep, it would seem Team Obama has a real problem on their hands.

So let’s visit the timeline of events (best one can be found here), and recall that when all this started Hillary was a shoe-in as the next POTUS. Therefore she would be able to keep a lid on all the critical internal government documents Team Trump now has unfettered access to.

  1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

Note that the article above identifies a prior attempt to gain surveillance through the normal criminal courts process, before this event. This is one month prior to the RNC and DNC conventions. At this time Trump as POTUS seems to be pure fantasy.

This prior attempt is confirmed (supposedly independently) by Andrew McCarthy:

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

….

In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates.  …  In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request.

Both the normal courts and the FISA court reject the administrations requests. These requests should be made public ASAP.

Very few people expected Hillary to lose the election at this stage. Bernie was clearly on his way to being vanquished from the Democrat ticket. The effort in June 2016 is clumsy and quickly abandoned. Hillary has her email problems, but she also looks invincible.

I would note one other event on this timeline, when former President Bill Clinton tried to secretly meet with Obama’s AG, Loretta Lynch:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she regrets her controversial meeting over the summer with former President Bill Clinton, saying she should have recognized ahead of time how it would be perceived by the public.

Mrs. Lynch had met with Mr. Clinton privately after the two wound up on the same airport tarmac in Phoenix on June 27, just days before FBI Director James Comey would announce that he would not press charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server.

AG Lynch is the only person authorized to make FISA court requests. Coincidence?

Anyway, nothing happens for months, until …

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

By October 2016 things are looking really serious for Hillary, but not desperate yet. The Democrats are trying to find a way to neutralize the Podesta emails, which expose serious collusion with the Fake New media. They also remind everyone of Hillary’s own email issues.

But more importantly, the Clinton Foundation was being exposed as a pay-for-power enrichment scheme (rivaling anything thrown at Team Trump in the last few weeks). Did all these events panic the White House and the Democrat power structure? Did they attempt a Hail Mary and try and resurrect their plan to use our nation’s Intelligence Apparatus against Trump?

Not an unreasonable assumption to be honest. And somehow Team Obama actually get the authority for surveillance (maybe by withholding key information about Trump?). Anyway, no one is challenging the fact surveillance began.

But after losing the election to the GOP, team Obama does something stupendously stupid: they issue a memo that attempts to overturn very clear laws about dissemination so they can try and “leak” damning innuendo about Trump through their surrogates in the Fake New media:

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

The new rules, which were issued in an unclassified document, entitled Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency (NSA), significantly relaxed longstanding limits on what the NSA may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations.

  • Jan 3rd 2017 – Loretta Lynch signs off on rule changes for phone taps.
  • Jan 12th 2017 –  WaPo reports On Phone Calls Anonymous Intel Sources

Obama’s administration had become so addicted to circumventing laws by executive orders, procedures, rules, etc they apparently went to that well one time too many.

There is no legal cover behind an illegal rule. This is not going to protect these people from legal jeopardy (may reduce their sentences somewhat). And the more players involved (Lynch, her successor Yates, etc) the more this runs into the RICO statutes.

Team Trump looks to have a great case here. Plus they have access to the government “smoking gun” documents spread throughout. I do not understand why Obama’s administration would dig their legal hole deeper in disseminating the classified information the law required them to delete and not leak. But they did.

So what does that indicate about team Obama? Either colossal stupidity, uncontrolled panic, or a combination of both. Maybe by they time they realized Trump would find the FISA court records their only avenues was to try and turn public opinion using their robots in the Fake News media.

All Trump has to do is let out the smoking gun documents one at a time. Let the left deny and parse words, then drop his counterveiling bombshells.

Rinse and repeat.

If this is as bad as some say, Trump will milk this all the way – as he should.

 

 

 

 

Killing the Truth in Academia

General Robert E Lee
rlee@suthenboy.com
 
Preamble: The purpose of this blog is to discuss the principal curricula being taught in academia today as well as its impact on students and consequences to America. 
I was appalled by the disgusting reaction to Trump’s victory throughout academia, particularly by college students and instructors. Their behavior was reprehensible, embarrassing to America, and sadly, expected in today’s once hallowed bastions of higher learning. Something is drastically wrong in academia when instructors and students require coloring books, animals to hug, safe spaces to mourn, crying rooms, psychological help, relief from exams, and time off to assuage their despair, despondency, and anger. Far worse however, is their blatant rejection and defiance of America’s traditional election process because it did not provide the result they sought.
 
In my opinion the root cause of this abhorrent behavior is the culture of academia into which students are being indoctrinated by far left wing instructors propagating Marxism subtly disguised as progressivism. Sound ridiculous, please read on before commenting on my sanity. I also encourage you to read my 8/26/15 blog ‘Academic Shock’ to more fully appreciate the breadth and dangers of what is being instilled in students throughout academia today.
The following statements exemplify modern day fundamental building blocks of education: 
  • There are no facts, only interpretations – Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are products of different historical epochs and socially constructed – Marxism’s Worldview
Academia’s Standard Curricula: The curricula throughout politically correct academia today includes radical left wing self-proclaimed elite professors/instructors teaching students to reject objective truths and replace them with relative truths: i.e., perspectives or points of view to which each person is entitled regardless of how inconsistent with the truth they are. Notwithstanding how outrageous a relative truth may be, e.g., the Holocaust is a myth, at best it is taught to be a more unfortunate perspective on the matter instead of being repudiated as a lie. This self-serving cavalier attitude within the arrogant professorial domain adversely affects students in ways that include the following:
  • Disregards and renders truth meaningless
  • Erodes the legitimacy of serious opinion
  • Deprives students of a much needed solid education founded on traditionally accepted disciplines of study  
Another result of rejecting objective truths is that facts are considered as matters of opinion relative to and dependent upon the interests, prejudices, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin of the speaker rather than the truth or falsity of what the speaker says. The premise being that truth is somehow invented rather than discovered, and ergo, relative to the speaker.
 
Harvard historian Simon Schama perfectly exemplifies this arrogant attitude toward truth in the prologue to his fatuous book “Dead Certainties” (1991). Schama assures his readers “the claims for historical knowledge must always be fatally circumscribed by the character and prejudices of its narrator.” In other words, the historian’s supposed limitations make stating historical truth impossible, which is utter nonsense.
 
The Genesis of Relative Truths: This repugnant affront to traditional education, its truths and inherent values, is rooted in Cultural Marxism. This ideology was conceived, circa 1921, at the Frankfurt School in Frankfurt Germany by a group of radical Marxist intellectuals who rejected traditional Economic Marxism because they realized it was incapable of destroying and dominating the West. Cultural Marxism was based on behavioral psychology to achieve mass compliance with a desired goal(s), and ultimately replaced Economic Marxism. It is modern day Marxism euphemistically referred to as progressivism to hide the true ideology but Marxism nonetheless. The great majority of progressives are ignorant of the ideology they are propagating and just happy following the heard of sheep.
 
Unlike Karl Marx, the founding Cultural Marxists envisioned catalyzing the complete destruction of Western traditions, values, and culture by a lengthy, indefensible, peaceful cultural revolution wherein traditional morals and authority would be rejected. Once achieved Western culture would be supplanted by Cultural Marxist ideology.
 
In 1933 as National Socialism was gaining momentum in Germany the founders fled to America and set up shop at Columbia University in NYC. They began sowing the seeds of their cultural revolution by diffusing Cultural Marxist ideology through key spheres of influence, initially focusing on academia, politics, the MSM and film industry. The founders knew that progress would be slow but remained patient and steadfast while assiduously propagating their ideology.
 
The ’60s Boomer Rebellion: The founders’ fortunes dramatically changed for the better in the middle 1960s with the student “Boomer” rebellion wherein morality and authority were rejected and individual freedom to do as one pleased was exalted. The father and ultimate leader of this rebellion throughout academia was Herbert Marcuse, a founding member of the Frankfurt School and elite, well-respected university professor. Marcuse coined the chant, “make love not war” that became poplar throughout academia.
 
Deconstructing Truth: Marcuse’s methodology for rebellion included deconstructing the language, e.g., he coined the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of American culture. Deconstruction destabilizes and reconstructs clear definitions, the content and text of language, traditions, being, institutions, objective knowledge, reason, truth, legitimate hierarchies, authority, nature, and all that is considered universal. 
 
Marcuse was esteemed by the masses rebelling against the establishment. He catalyzed the confusion and obliteration of traditionally accepted culture through deconstruction which was primarily responsible for a major breakdown in the nation’s social conformity, particularly among impressionable young people.
 
The Intent of Deconstruction: Deconstruction is used by Cultural Marxists as the method of analysis that will show the correctness of their ideology in every situation and provide the answers they seek. This is done by taking any text, removing all meaning from it and re-inserting the meaning sought. For instance, Cultural Marxists uniquely use deconstruction to prove that any text illustrates the oppression of minorities, e.g., blacks, women, homosexuals, etc., by reading that meaning into the text’s words regardless of its actual meaning. The overused ‘race card’ routine should come to mind.
Outrageous examples include Shakespeare writing about suppressing women, and the Bible being about race and gender. Furthermore, morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are considered products of different historical epochs and socially constructed. Ergo, the truth is relative, dynamic, and meaningless in the hands of a deconstructionist academician poisoning young minds to suit her or his agenda.
 
The Impact on Academia: The consequences of intentionally obfuscating and skewing the truth to fit a desired end have been particularly devastating in academia. Dissident ‘Boomers’ of the ’60s and their acolytes have dominated academia’s professorial domain for years. They were spoon fed and indoctrinated into Cultural Marxism as students, and as instructors are likewise actively propagating and spoon feeding that same ideology to their students. Among other things, they have intentionally undermined the integrity and very ideas of many academic disciplines in fields of study with generally agreed upon subject matters.
 
Study Groups: Instead of academic emphasis being placed on traditional disciplines, e.g., history, math, science, and literature, it is placed on race, ethnicity, and gender taught through study groups. There is an endless proliferation of such groups throughout academia which are typically comprised of the so-called “historically disadvantaged” minorities considered as ‘sacred cows’ by today’s politically correct progressives. This situation clearly evinces a breakdown of long accepted academic disciplines and is strongly encouraged by the respective educational administrations, also highly concentrated with progressives. 
 
Superficially the common mantra and favorite code words of study groups are inclusion, tolerance, diversity, sensitivity, social justice, sex education, and other such terminology connoting kindness. Notwithstanding the seemingly innocuous terms however, they are critical components of Cultural Marxism being cleverly disguised as progressivism as mentioned aforesaid. Ironically, to force compliance with their position on a matter, these inclusive, tolerant groups spew vile hatred towards and demonize everyone in disagreement with them, particularly straight White males.
 
Radical Left Wing Professors: Ultra-radical radical left wing instructors with personal anti-American agendas teach the pseudo study groups that include the following: women’s studies; gay studies; transgender studies; Asian studies; Afro-American studies; African studies; Indian studies; and the list goes on ad nauseam. While these groups are hyped as being cross- disciplinary they are anti-disciplinary because their sole purpose is to diffuse Cultural Marxist ideology in lieu of America’s culture, values and traditions. Among other Marxist concepts instructors use relative truth and deconstruction to achieve their desired anti-American goals. Carefully note, there are no male, White, or Western European studies. The only reference to Whites in any of these study groups is in demonizing and blaming them for the perceived ‘ills’ of the world’s ‘historically disadvantaged minorities’.
 
Cultural Studies: Cultural studies is the group most repugnant to traditional education because content is entirely discretionary with the instructor and accordingly, characterized by attitudes and agendas instead of empirical facts. There are two mandatory requisites for cultural studies: (1) political animus: (2) hostility to factual truth. Generally, students are strongly encouraged and often mandated to take this ridiculous course that is underpinned by ‘White Guilt’. 
Below are examples of relative truths students are taught by politically correct radical left wing Marxist ideologues with an aversion to empirical evidence and everything American.  
  • Columbus was an evil, bloodthirsty marauder who committed the American Holocaust, while the Indians were peaceful, environmentally sensitive creatures who lived in blissful harmony with each other and the earth. 
  • Cortez, who conquered Mexico on behalf of Spain, was a mass murderer and the Aztec conquest evinced European Imperialism perpetrating the greatest genocide in all human history.
  • Early pilgrims slaughtered their Indian guests at a Thanksgiving feast
It should be abundantly clear that present day curricula taught by Marxist instructors precipitated the behavior of academia that resulted from Trump’s win. More ominous, however, is the poisonous Marxist ideology into which students are being indoctrinated by instructors that loathe and want to destroy traditional American culture and values.

Is A Civil War Brewing In The USA? – Patriot Tribune

Source: Is A Civil War Brewing In The USA? – Patriot Tribune

If a civil war is brewing in America it’s because it is being bought and paid for by billionaire George Soros. Who should have his citizenship revoked, be exiled, and forbidden to engage in any business, organization, or charitable, non-profit organization. Plus his assets should frozen to fulfill a restitution that repays communities for the destruction his paid lemmings committed. George Soros needs to be kicked out of our country.

Corruption at America’s Highest Levels of Government

Corruption at America’s Highest Levels of Government
 
Hillary-What-Difference-copyThe purpose of this blog is twofold: 1. Point out Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s complicity and willful, subjective involvement in a corrupt effort to ensure Hillary Clinton is elected president; 2. For you to carefully consider whether her character represents the ethical and moral standards reasonably expected of the U.S. Attorney General or any person serving at the highest level of our government.
 
Never in America’s history has the depth of blatant unbridled corruption in the presidency and judicial system been more clearly exemplified than on July 5, 2016, when FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton and the matter was closed. There is not a doubt in my mind that this fraud perpetrated on America’s rule of law, judicial system and her citizenry was architected well in advance by corrupt amoral liars Obama, Lynch, Clintons’ long time hack Comey, and the Clintons. For details see my 9/8/16 blog The Clinton – Comey Nexus.
 
Miscarriage of Justice at the Highest Levels of Government: The reason for such a disgraceful miscarriage of justice should be abundantly clear by now: Obama, Lynch and Comey want the candidate whose character is as corrupt, dark and evil as theirs to be president. That stellar individual is Hillary Clinton, a proven evil, amoral pathological liar and rapacious, ruthless career criminal.
 
It is a dark, unprecedented time in America when the President, Attorney General, and FBI Director use the power of their respective offices acting under color of title to illegally facilitate their goal. Equally appalling is America’s President aggressively supporting vile Clinton, who should be under indictment, while she is the target of multiple legitimate, long overdue criminal investigations all involving felonies. However, in addition to other character traits, Obama is a crude, classless boor and such comportment is expected.
 
U. S. Attorney Lynch: Pursuant to President Bill Clinton’s nomination in 1999, Lynch served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn until joining the law firm of Hogan & Hartson in March 2002. She remained there through April, 2010 then returned to her old position as U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn when Obama appointed her.
 
Hogan & Hartson began preparing and filing the Clintons’ tax returns in 2004, and were among Hillary’s largest financial supporters in the legal industry during her first presidential campaign. I cannot speak to a relationship between the Clintons and Lynch during her stint at the law firm. However, knowing the depth of the vile Clintons’ corruption and use of key people it is not a stretch to assume that developing a solid relationship with ex U.S. Attorney Lynch was in their cross hairs. Soon thereafter it was accomplished.
 
HSBC Money Laundering Case: HSBC was implicated in the largest international money laundering case in U.S. history. Its executives admitted to laundering billions of dollars from arms dealers, drug traffickers, and power players from around the world from 2006 through 2010. As much as $881M laundered through the bank’s U.S. arms was from Mexican drug cartels and their various middle east terrorist allies in violation of multiple banking laws.
 
For the sake of brevity, criminal charges were never filed against the bank or any of its executives. Instead, in December, 2012, Lynch, acting in her capacity as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York and with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s acquiescence, brokered a ‘Deferred Prosecution Agreement’ wherein HSBC Bank USA agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine and admitted to the following felonies: 
  • Willful criminal conduct
  • Gross violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, including failure to establish and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program,
  • Failure to establish due diligence in laundering of over $881 million
The U.S. in turn agreed to drop its criminal investigations and prosecutions of HSBC directors and employees. In other words, HSBC committed multiple serious felonies and walked without incurring any criminal consequences, gratis Obama, Holder and Lynch.
 
At a bare minimum this sweetheart deal did not even rise to the dignity of a slap on the wrist because the fine was less than chump change to HSBC. It still reeks from the rancid stanch of corruption emanating from a quid pro quo wherein Obama, Holder, and Lynch were the other beneficiaries. Congress went through the usual feigning of outrage, held meaningless hearings, etc., then swept the farcical performance off to ‘la-la land’ to join its other charades.
 
Coincidence or Quid Pro Quo: I have never believed in coincidences but rather have always felt that things happen for a reason. For instance, consider the following events:
  • Comey was an executive in senior level management and a director of HSBC during the time it was laundering the aforesaid $881M
  • Obama named Comey FBI Director in 2012
  • During the same time HSBC was and likely remains tightly connected to the Clinton Foundation that received up to $81M in ‘pay to play donations’ from a few of its clients
  • On November 11, 2014 Obama named Lynch, still serving as U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, as Attorney General
  • Lynch and Sleazy Willy Clinton got caught meeting secretly for 30 minutes in her plane parked at a remote corner of the Phoenix airport a few days before Comey announced his egregious decision not to charge Clinton. 
No coincidences here but rather each evinces a quid pro quo underpinned by corruption.
 
A Friend at DOJ: The law and ethics notwithstanding, Lynch is determined to do whatever it takes to facilitate a Clinton presidency, and prevent her from facing criminal prosecution. In connection therewith the following is public information, and one can only speculate what Lynch and Obama are doing privately, but be assured it is most likely not legit.
 

1. On October 28 Comey unexpectedly broke protocol and without Lynch’s knowledge announced that he had reopened the previously closed criminal investigation of Clinton’s email scandal. His reasoning was based on the NYPD and some of his agents discovering some 650,000 emails on a laptop shared by Clinton’s chief aide at State, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Wiener while investigating a sex case involving Wiener. Abedin is a Muslim with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and many of the emails were from the State Department. Knowing this explosive information would be leaked sooner than later Comey acted on his own to avoid further embarrassment and prevent Lynch, a staunch supporter, defender, and friend of Clinton from thwarting his efforts.

 

2. According to the MSM and insider accounts Lynch was angry and vehemently resisted assisting Comey in the new investigation. However, since Comey had made the announcement and to save face she appointed assistant AG Peter Kadzik to head the criminal investigation of the laptop’s content. Incredibly, Lynch knew Kadzik was best friends with Clinton’s campaign manager, corrupt liar unctuous John Podesta. Wikileaks produced an email from Kadzik’s private gmail account giving Podesta a ‘heads up’ about filings the DOJ would be making in the first Clinton email matter. In effect this was ‘DOJ insider information’ to which Podesta was not entitled. Sending it was against policy and likely illegal, but inconsequential to Lynch since Kadzik’s act was intended to benefit Clinton.

 

3. Lynch ordered FBI agents investigating the organized criminal enterprise known as the Clinton ‘Pay to Play’ Foundation to stand down, notwithstanding an ‘avalanche’ of inculpatory evidence supporting a multitude of felonies.

 
Connect the Dots: The dots between Lynch and the vile career criminal Clintons are present, very telling, and easy to connect: they evince a crystal clear pattern of criminal corruption at the highest levels of our government that is repugnant to all decency. It should be abundantly clear that Lynch is illegally using her position as Attorney General to facilitate a Clinton presidency. She is intentionally thwarting the legal process involved in criminal investigations by overtly and covertly shielding for Clinton and this corrupt liar will never indict her. Needless to say, Lynch and people of her sordid character will occupy every key position in a Clinton administration as they do in Obama’s lawless one and it will be business as usual in the toxic DC pit where lying and corruption rule supreme.
 
America’s Next President: This will likely be the most important election in America’s history because Clinton and Trump want to place our country on diametrically opposed paths for the foreseeable future. Clinton claims America is already great and not in need of change except for open borders to all and increasing the number of Muslim aliens to support by 550%. Trump knows that America is badly broken and can only be made great again by controlling immigration, and eliminating the accepted culture of corruption and lying that permeates the Washington DC swamp.
 
A Clinton Presidency: I am certain that a Clinton presidency will replicate the culture of rampant corruption and amoral pathological lying Obama has instilled in his administration only on steroids. This is the type of culture in which the Clintons are proven experts; they will also wreak havoc on America to complete the destruction of her traditional culture and values commenced by Obama. Remember, Clinton is a hard core Marxist mentored by and an acolyte of anti-US Marxist Saul Alinsky, as is Obama. Alinsky wrote the radical activist’s bible, ‘Rules for Radicals’, wherein he educated his followers on how to cause chaos and systemic disruption to destroy America.
 
A Trump Presidency: If you are sick of corrupt lying career politicians subordinating America’s interests to their personal greed and want a better, safer, more productive America for yourself and your family’s future, vote for Trump. It is time to change the failed, corrupt amorality of DC with a highly successful outsider who sincerely loves and will put the best interests of America first and foremost … Donald Trump.
View archived blogs at Suthenboy Archives

Obama and the U.N. Collude to “Beef Up” and Nationalize America’s Police Departments – Minutemen News

 logo

This won’t come as a surprise.  Obama and the United Nations are on another quest to “beef up” and nationalize America’s police departments.  This is just another of the numerous initiatives by the U.N. to attack our Constitution and our rights as citizens.

The New American reports – After recently demanding everything from “robust gun control” and reparations for slavery to constitutional amendments altering the supreme law of the land, the United Nations has now publicly endorsed the Obama administration’s illegal efforts to federalize America’s local police departments. A UN official also offered to provide “technical assistance” to the U.S. government in implementing its radical demands.   

Specifically, a UN official from Kenya touted one of the many schemes used by the White House to impose unconstitutional federal regulations on local law enforcement. Dubbed “consent decrees,” the plot involves extremist bureaucrats at the Obama Justice Department threatening, bullying, and suing city governments into submission to Obama’s demands. The UN “lawyer” called for the administration’s commandeering of cops to be “beefed up” and “increased” to help nationalize as many of America’s police departments as possible.

Citing “international law,” the UN figure also attacked gun rights and the concealed carry of firearms. The latest UN assault on the God-given rights to keep and bear arms, protected by state and U.S. constitutions, came after a deluge of similar attacks coming from the global body, and its widely ridiculed “Human Rights Council” in particular. While the U.S. government is not currently represented, some of the most ruthless communist and Islamist dictatorships on the planet enjoy seats on the outfit

The UN bureaucrat boasted of the Obama administration’s “cooperation” in the supposed investigation. However, the reaction to the UN’s attacks was swift, with criticism of the UN, often ridiculed by critics as the “dictators club,” making headlines across America after being posted on the Drudge Report, the world’s top news and information site.  

Read More:  http://www.thenewamerican.com/

March, 2015 (more than a year ago), Rep. Mike Rogers introduced a bill (H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015) The bill had seven co-sponsors and was assigned to the House Foreign Affairs committee (Chariman: Ed Royce). There were no roll call votes, so it basically died in committee.

Here are the names of the original co-sponsors: John “Jimmy” Duncan (R-TN2), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS1), Maggie Thomas (R-KY4), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA3), Ted Yoho (R-FL3), Jeff Duncan (R-SC3), and Walter Jones (R-NC3)

Start contacting your representatives, and even these who supported the bill, to see if we can get this bill reintroduced, or a similar one pushed through.

We must get out of the U.N.!

Independence Day – Tea Party Nation

We at Tea Party Nation wish you a happy Independence Day.  And we encourage you to take a moment and read the document that gave us a free nation.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. —

Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  • For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
  • For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
  • For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
  • For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
  • For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
  • For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.1377023_632027936839875_306360385_n

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. 

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.Image

Gun Control, Terror Watchlist — The NRA and the Rule of Law

By Dave Dolbee published on June 30, 2016 in News

America witnessed a remarkable and telling legislative showdown last week that revolved around a very simple concept underlying American democracy. That concept is due process. Some were willing to discard it for the sake of politics and the illusion of safety. Others were not. Here is what the NRA had to say about it:

Senate Judiciary Committee

Unable to sway the Congress to enact his gun control agenda, the president is trying to upset the Founding Father’s system of checks and balances by going it alone.

A series of untenable gun control proposals – some which would have placed your Second Amendment rights at the mercy of bureaucratic fiat, black lists, and secret “evidence” – were defeated.

But the degree to which some were willing to abandon foundational principles for short-term and self-serving political gain should serve as a sobering reminder to all that American freedom is not free and that we should never think our government will simply default to it. The Founders understood that, which is why we have a written Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Proponents of gun control tried to portray the showdown as being over those who wanted terrorists to have guns and those who don’t. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), a gun control standard-bearer, disgraced the dignity of his office by claiming “Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.”

Think about how ridiculous that statement is.

And it becomes all the more ridiculous in light of how strenuously President Obama, who embodies the values and agenda of Murphy’s politics, tried to deflect the blame for the Orlando terrorist attack away from radical Islamic jihad, the asserted basis of the attacker himself.

I am a bill cartoon

While the defenders of the Second Amendment have seen significant victories over the past year a couple of recent losses are troubling.

Obama loyalists desperately tried to portray NRA and the Second Amendment as the culprits in the Orlando attacks. During a series of publicity stunts – including Murphy’s “filibuster” on the Senate Floor and a “sit-in” by members of Congress on the House Floor – America heard again and again that gun control is now a matter of national security.

During times of fear and crisis, it’s easy to forget what we’re about as a country. It’s natural for opportunistic and ambitious politicians to grab more power for themselves. It’s natural for entrenched authority to demonize opposition and try to suppress dissent. We saw all of that this past week.

But America has always tried to be better than that, which is why the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is greater than any individual. It is mightier than any institution. And it states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ….” Whatever else Obama, Murphy, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and their surrogates in the media tried to make this past week’s contentious legislative efforts about, that’s what was at stake.

The government cannot arbitrarily deny or withhold rights. When someone’s life, liberty, or property is at stake, the person has a right to notice and the opportunity to respond, and the government bears the burden of making its case before a neutral decision-maker as to why its actions are justified. Without these simple principles, we are not a country of laws.

But that was too much for Feinstein, Murphy, and their anti-gun Senate colleagues. They would settle for nothing less than giving bureaucrats the authority to deny gun purchases at will, without any proving of their case. They would not stand (literally, in the case of their House counterparts) to require the government, if it were later sued over the deprivation, to have to prove anything other than a basis for its own “reasonable suspicion” against the individual. The want to let the government, in other words, retroactively rationalize its decision to abolish a fundamental right – not by actually proving a person is somehow a public safety risk because of nexus to terrorism – but by demonstrating it was not “unreasonable” in “suspecting” so at the time.

05 itshouldnotbecalledguncontrol

That’s not due process.

Make no mistake, the NRA does not want terrorists to have legal – or illegal – access to firearms.  NRA members have fought and died in the war on terror so we take a backseat to no one when it comes to national security.

Freedom endured this week in the U.S. Senate, but it would not have been possible without the dedication of NRA members who were willing to stand up and contact their elected officials in the face of this latest threat.  NRA members flooded Congressional switchboards in just a few short days, and it worked.  Your continued vigilance has always been what makes the NRA the strongest civil rights organization in the world.

At the same time, our victory would not have been possible without the Second Amendment leadership of Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA).  Both senators introduced legislation to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and worked tirelessly against passage of the gun control legislation introduced by Feinstein, Murphy, and others.  We could not have been successful without them.

But let’s be careful to not consider the battle over.  The Senate will remain in session this coming week, so your continued pressure is needed.  Gun control proposals could go well beyond the amendments that were voted on last week, so please contact your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative immediately and let them know you oppose any new gun control measures. You can call your lawmakers at 202-224-3121 or click here to Take Action.

Did the NRA get it right? What will you do to defeat future gun control measures and support the Second Amendment? Share your plans in the comment section.

Science Proves That Humans Are NOT the Cause of Climate Change

By Byron Claghorn

The Man-Made Climate Change and Global Warming hypothesis does not even qualify as a theory since these Global Warming Alarmists (GWA) have not been able to prove their case with actual scientific observations following accepted scientific method.  Instead the GWA rely on their own man-made computer models based on the shaky Premise and Assumptions that Man’s use of Fossil Fuels produces atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) that is now causing unlimited and catastrophic warming that will as a result devastate the Earth and its population later in this 21st Century when the CO2 concentration-level reaches or exceeds 600 ppm (parts-per- million).

 
 This premise that is at the very foundation of the GWA hypothesis and their own computer models is a very tentative link between Fossil Fuels and Climate Change that they have asserted as caused by Greenhouse Gases (only 1% of our atmosphere, 10,000 ppm) due to the Greenhouse Effect that occurs about 10 miles up at the top of our Troposphere.

The left-wing progressives, UN IPCC and the Environmentalists have politicized and completely ignored factual scientific proof and methods to push this GWA hypothesis and its premise for their own special interests under the banner of “Save Our Planet!”.   Most of the GWA are completely unaware of the actual solid scientific facts and can only parrot platitudes that they have been taught convinced that this subject is too complex for them to understand, except for those that push the GWA agenda who are fully aware that all these claims are unscientific and deliberate lies supported by Political Correctness, direct intimidation and broad propaganda spread by a willing or naïve media.

Partial GWA Truths:

Yes, the earth’s climate has Always Changed in its 4.5+ Billion year existence!

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is caused by Greenhouse Gases, but it has and continues to be balanced providing the Earth and its citizens with a pleasant and habitable climate – Otherwise the earth’s global temperatures would be an estimated very cold and inhospitable -18 degrees C (i.e., -0.04 degrees F).

Yes, Al Gore and the other GWA are correct that there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the earth’s global temperature.   However, they have the actual correlation Backwards: They claim that increased concentrations of CO2 caused by Man & Fossil Fuels in the atmosphere causes increased warming temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.

In other words, they contend that Man & Fossil Fuels are creating sufficient quantities of CO2 that upset the natural balance of the Greenhouse Effect which causes it to continue to accumulate atmospheric heat leading to unending and catastrophic warming.

Factual Proven Science and Empirically Validated Observations:

The highly-qualified and honest scientists that have analyzed several of the ice-core samples covering 800,00 years of history in their labs confirm there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperatures-levels which correspond to time periods accurately reconstructed by other highly-qualified and honest scientists.

It turns out that the actual correlation is that: As the Sun’s rays increase the Temperature that warms the oceans evaporating both water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) allowing it to enter the atmosphere Naturally The concentration of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Increased!

This factual scientifically-researched correlation is precisely the OPPOSITE of the Global Warming hypothesis promoted by Al Gore and the rest of the GWA because rigorous scientific methods were applied!  Both Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) are greenhouse gases with naturally-produced Water Vapor being overwhelmingly the most significant contributor to the Greenhouse Effect.

Note: Carbon Dioxide LAGS  Increases in Temperature, so Temperature Increase is the Cause for Increased Atmospheric CO2, Not the Other-Way-Around as Claimed by Al Gore & the GWA!

Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is scientifically considered a TRACE Gas at 400 ppm (i.e., 0.04%) in our atmosphere with most of it (95%) caused Naturally (i.e., 0.038%, 380 ppm) – Leaving only an Extremely Trace amount (i.e., 0.002%, 20 ppm) provided by Man!   The Man-made contribution is insignificant to the proven balanced Greenhouse Effect where the most accurate Satellite and Weather Balloon measurement of Global Temperatures show normal and balanced temperatures all within the tolerance of natural variation.

If the GWA hypothesis regarding CO2 in our planet’s troposphere were correct, high-levels of increased temperatures would appear here – It is not happening folks, the GWA and UN IPCC are again ignoring actual science and scientific methods to report the politically-inspired theme of Global Warming and a coming Climate Catastrophe (unless you give them trillions of taxpayer dollars, of course!).

Net-Net: Since atmospheric CO2 is scientifically proven to NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING – Man and his use of Fossil Fuels are Cleared as a significant Cause for Climate Change; Also, the GWA Climate Models are fully-invested and based upon this failed Premise regarding Carbon Dioxide which are likewise proven false since: A hypothesis and its models that are based on a false premise and assumptions must also be considered to be invalid. However, the GWA continue to ignore the scientific facts and push their preferred political positions to advance their own political agendas.

Our Sun and its billions of past and future Solar Cycles that provide alternating warming Solar Maximums followed by cooling Solar Minimums have and continue to be the Primary Driver of Climate Changes on Earth and throughout our Solar System.

The Modern Grand Solar Maximum (1850 AD to the Present) peaked in 1998 with a 1-degree F drop in Global Temperature – A flat trend that is now predicted to be a transition into the next cooler Modern Solar Minimum — Much like the very similar warm Medieval Grand Solar Maximum did a thousand years before (900 AD – 1300 AD ) which was followed by its next extremely cold Solar Minimum dubbed “The Little Ice Age” (1300 AD – 1850).

Don’t just take my word for this, you should use the link below to view an excellent and scientifically-based Video by the actual professional Climate & Solar Scientists that analyzed many of the Ice-Core Samples and who have received NASA awards of Excellent for their work on Satellite and Global Temperature measurement as well as other related Climate Research:

CLICK ON THIS LINK to have expert and honest Climate Scientists amplify and verify the above points!

Likewise, there is no Climate Crisis at 600+ ppm as claimed by the GWA, since Carbon Dioxide is still a trace gas and has an insignificant impact on Climate.   CO2 is not a pollutant and it is good for Plants, Animals and Humans since the well-known Photosynthesis process absorbs CO2, water and light to produce the Oxygen we breath as well as absorbs the CO2 we exhale.

Likewise the GWA needs to stop demonizing the element Carbon (C) since it is essential to all life on Earth and all living things, including you and I, which are Carbon-Structures.

 

Carbon is the most-flexible element that recombines to form a vast number of useful compounds with almost 10-Million compounds described to date that is still a fraction of possible future compounds such as: soft pencil leads, hard diamonds, lightweight composite aircraft parts, lubricants, Nanotubes, Buckminster Fullerene “Buckeyballs”, even advanced tennis racquets (e.g., Graphene), …, etc.

In Conclusion: The allegiance to the politically-motivated ‘Anthropocentric Climate Change’ myth is preventing a massive improvement in our Economy by political constraints placed on our vast energy resources. We are now being urged by politicians and the GWA to further waste huge amounts of taxpayer money on a “Fool’s Errand” to stop “Man-Made Climate Change”, a non-existent threat and impractical task since we cannot control the Sun’s Energy, the Earth’s Tilt and Orbit which are the actual forces of only ‘Natural Climate Change’.

 

Byron Claghorn

Byron Claghorn is an experienced Business Analyst, Project Manager and Technical Writer. With a keen interest in science, the Global Warming and Man-Made Climate Change claims did not ‘Ring True’, so he has focused much time and effort in its research and reporting in this series of articles: “Man-Made Climate Change? – The Science on the Other Side of the Coin”. As a result of trying to ‘Connect the Dots’ in this highly politicized subject of “Climate Change”, this series will both inform as well as provide an example of how you can verify these facts, plus empower you to continue to question and ‘Connect your own Dots’ on this subject.