Dr. Ben Carson Answers the Clamoring of Millions of Americans to Run for President

/in , , , , /by

MERRIFIELD, Va./PRNewswire/ — Citing the critical need to heal a nation more bitterly divided politically than it has been at any time in the past 150 years, Dr. Ben Carson on May 4th in Detroit announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

“As a world-renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Carson knows a thing or two about healing,” said John Philip Sousa IV, co-founder and chairman of The 2016 Committee, the political action committee originally formed to draft Carson into the presidential race. “I know I speak for millions of Americans in thanking Dr. Carson for entering this race and pledging to support his candidacy.”

“Dr. Carson’s candidacy represents the best and really the only opportunity we have to heal America and to bring Americans back together again under the banner of our Constitution,” Sousa added.

The Committee has been at the forefront of the movement urging Dr. Carson to run for president. Starting in August of 2013, it conducted  a petition campaign that ultimately collected more than 500,000 signatures from Americans urging Dr. Carson to enter the race. The Committee operates full time offices in Iowa and New Hampshire, and chairmen are in place in nearly every state coordinating more than 30,000 volunteers nationwide. The Committee has raised more than $16 million from more than 150,000 individual donors since 2013.

“For two years, Dr. Carson has said that if people clamored for him to run for president, he would have to answer their call,” said Vernon Robinson, The 2016 Committee’s campaign director. “Well, they indeed clamored, and he has answered them. But our work is far from over.  We will continue growing the massive grassroots network in pace to support Dr. Carson’s candidacy, and look ahead toward key Republican presidential straw polls and the September debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.”

“Dr. Carson’s candidacy will build on the massive grass-roots network that sprang up to encourage him to get into the race in the first place,” Robinson said. “He’s in it to win it, and we’re with him all the way.”

Dr. Carson is consistently among likely Republican voters’ top picks for the nomination. In one recent CNN survey, Dr. Carson placed second behind Mitt Romney but ahead of other likely contenders including formerFlorida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Dr. Carson finished an impressive second place in the 2014 Bloomberg/Des Moines Register presidential poll of likely caucus-goers, and scored an overwhelming victory in the Polk County Republican Dinner in Des Moines in August. He also won the Linn County, Iowa, midterm caucus straw poll in January 2014.

The now-retired Dr. Carson chose Detroit for his announcement because that’s where he grew up and because he wanted to use the bankrupt city as a metaphor for President Obama’s failed economic policies. He says his campaign will speak out against Mr. Obama’s radical left-wing agenda, because he loves his country and wants to save it.

About The 2016 Committee

The 2016 Committee, formed expressly to draft Dr. Carson into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, was founded in August 2013. Going forward, it will work to raise awareness of Dr. Carson’s qualifications, and will engage grass-roots conservative activists on behalf of his candidacy to provide the margin of victory for Ben Carson. For more information, visit www.2016committee.org or connect on Twitter@DraftRunBenRun or Facebook.com/RunBenRun.org.

Hillary Clinton for President? NO WAY!!

/in , , , /by

A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton announced her desire to be the next President of the United States of America. This is both wrong and frightening at the same time. Mrs. Clinton does not quality nor does she deserve to be President of this great nation. Her qualifications have nothing to do with her being a female. In fact, I welcome a qualified female to be president when that qualified female decides to run for the nation’s highest and most powerful public office.

This statement will not stop those on the left from calling me a sexist. They will, indeed, call me a sexist and a host of other names. They will try to lambaste me, deride me, make fun of me, and name call all in an effort to either get me to shut up or to discredit what I have said about her.

The fact is, I do not lie. I am only interested in the truth. The Constitutional Truth. The historical truth. The truth is, Mrs. Clinton is not trustworthy to hold this high office. Mrs. Clinton is not qualified to hold this high office. Mrs. Clinton has proven she does not deserve to hold this high office.

Sure, I can run down the litany of reasons why she is not qualified. But I really do not need to do that as those reasons have been given, discussed, debated, and even argued over and over and over, ad nauseam. Instead, I will formally ask those who support her for this office, why do you support her? What has she done specifically, that would qualify her for this high office? What are her accomplishments that would suggest she would be a good representative of the people of the United States of America?

The problem with this question is that those who support her cannot answer them. They cannot delineate her accomplishments, her successes. On the other hand, we have a plethora of those on the left and the right that denigrate her, revile her, reveal her shortcomings, and excoriate her lack of class and proper demeanor. She is a woman proven to be ill tempered, vulgar, crude, a drunkard and a host of other adjectives.

This is not new with Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton. Indeed, those who have worked with her and for her when her Husband was President have been coming out of the woodwork to denigrate her. They talk about her legendary temper. Her lack of compassion. How she belittles and demeans those that work for her. In other words, they tell us she is not a nice person.

Of course the President of the United States is not out to win a world popularity contest. People do not have to like the President or the American People. But we do need a President the world respects and our enemies fear. Mrs Clinton does not command world leader respect nor do our enemies fear her. Her tour of duty as Secretary of State shows that she is not respected and not even thought of as being on the same level as the other world leaders. This will not change if she is elected President. Let’s face it, Barack Obama is our current President and most of the world does not respect him and our enemies do not fear him.

The very fact that she was a failure as Secretary of State should prove to even her ardent supporters that she is not qualified to be President. But let’s put that aside for a minute. All of her current and seemingly new and endless scandals should be the nail in the coffin of her candidacy. It seems there is a new scandal almost on a weekly basis. And, she still has not put previous scandals to rest. Can you imagine a President with such baggage? Who would she owe? Who would she have to pay off? Who would she have to keep quiet? Scandals have a way of haunting you when you least expect them to. So again, I ask all of those who support Mrs. Clinton to be the next President of the United States of America, why, and be specific, do you believe she is qualified?

I, on the other hand, have more than a host of reasons why this woman should not be the next President of the United States. And yes I can give factual and historical reasons why. Besides, this is not a test of reason why not, this is a test of reason of why so. The silence of the left on this question is, rather, deafening.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Real Elephant in Hillary’s Scandal-Plagued Room

On the Road to Dictatorship

/in , , , /by

In a speech before the City Club of Cleveland on March 18, 2015, Barack Obama put into words what, until now, he has only allowed himself to dream about.  In his remarks, he launched into a diatribe on how he would choose to run U.S. elections… if only he could dictate his own terms.

According to the Associated Press, when he was asked about the “corrosive” influence of money in U.S. elections, he digressed into the related topic of voting rights, suggesting that “the U.S. should be making it easier… not harder… for people to vote.”

For those who may doubt the wisdom of mandatory voting, he suggested, “Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote.  If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.”  As Obama sees it, universal voting would counteract the evil influence of money in politics more than anything else.  This from a man who raised $750 million against John McCain in 2008 (much of it from illegal foreign sources), and $1.12 billion in his reelection bid against Mitt Romney in 2012.  So, if money in politics is “corrosive,” as Obama suggests, then he is the most thoroughly “corroded” politician in U.S. history.

He went on to note that, disproportionately, those who fail to vote on Election Day are younger, lower-income, and more likely to be immigrants or minorities.  Translated, what Obama yearns for is a nation in which the most ignorant and uninformed people (his base) are required to vote.

On Election Day 2008, in an attempt to learn how much Obama voters knew about politics and current affairs, Zogby International interviewed more than 500 Obama voters outside polling places across the country, asking the same fourteen questions in each location.  One of those interviews with self-proclaimed Obama voters was caught on film and circulated on the Internet.  They were asked:

  1. Which party currently controls Congress?
  2. Do you know who Barney Frank is?
  3. Do you know who Nancy Pelosi is?
  4. Do you know who Harry Reid is?
  5. What do you think of Bill Ayers?
  6. Which candidate was given $150,000 worth of clothes by a political party?
  7. Which candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter?
  8. Which candidate said they could see Russia from their home?
  9. Which candidate said they’d campaigned in all 57 states?
  10. Which candidate won their first political campaign by having all the other candidates of their own party kicked off the ballot on technicalities?
  11. Which candidate had to quit a previous campaign because of a plagiarized a speech?
  12. Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to skyrocket?
  13. Which candidate said that the government should redistribute wealth?
  14. Where do you get most of your news?

Those  interviewed were two white females, aged 20-25; three black females, aged 20-25; one black female, aged 40-45; two white males, aged 35-40; one white male, aged 55-60; and three black males, aged 40-45.

When asked which party controlled Congress in 2008, and what they thought of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Bill Ayers, one black woman thought Pelosi was a “fair” woman, but none knew that Democrats controlled Congress or had any idea who Frank, Pelosi, Reid, or Ayers were.  However, when questioned about which candidate received a $150,000 clothing allowance from a political party, which candidate had a pregnant teenage daughter, and which candidate was charged (falsely) with having said that she could see Russia from her home, nearly all were able to name Sarah Palin.

When asked which candidate claimed to have campaigned “in all 57 states,” which candidate won their first political campaign by having all of their opponents kicked off the ballot, which candidate claimed that their policies would bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to  skyrocket, and which candidate said that government should redistribute wealth, most of those interviewed attributed those statements to either Sarah Palin or John McCain… none named Barack Obama.  And when asked which candidate had to withdraw from a previous campaign because he had plagiarized a speech, none knew that it was Joe Biden.

Not surprisingly, when asked where they got all of their information, the respondents mentioned ABC, CBS, CBC, CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, the New York Times, Bill Moyers, Jon Stewart, and the Colbert Report.  So is it any wonder then that they knew nothing about current affairs but took yellow journalism from network news and yellow propaganda from Democrats and television comedy skits as fact?

If the Zogby poll tells us nothing else, it tells us that a lot of people are voting who shouldn’t be because they are not representative of the sort of informed voters necessary to the maintenance of a constitutional republic.  By relying on yellow journalism and yellow propaganda as their primary sources of political information, they cast themselves, in fact, as enemies of the republic.

In the best of all worlds, voter registration should be open only to those who could provide evidence of property ownership, and their immediate family members, while on Election Day prospective voters should be required to score at least 60% on a simple fourth or fifth grade level civics exam, with multiple choice questions drawn at random from a pool of questions.

Unfortunately, it is precisely the type of voter interviewed by Zogby that Obama and other Democrats are interested in herding into the voting booths.  They make up a large enough segment of the Democratic base to sway most elections.  Without them, Democrats could never win control of any legislative body, nor could they elect a president or a vice president.  Such voters are the life blood of the Democrat Party.

As matters now stand, the Democrat Party is totally dependent on the availability of a large pool of ignorant and uninformed voters, such as those produced by the public education system and our colleges and universities.  It represents a “devil’s bargain” between the teachers’ unions and the Democrat Party in which the teachers’ unions churn out millions of ignorant, uneducated, and uninformed voters in exchange for the right to dictate education policy and funding to Democrats in Congress and in the state legislatures.

In a series of widely circulated remarks, former Clinton operative James Carville is quoted as saying:

“Ideology isn’t all that important.  What’s important is psychology.  The Democratic constituency is like a herd of cows.  All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running.  That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats.  With Democrats, all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole’ cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.  Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

“What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the opposite of their own personal convictions.  Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want…

“Truth is relative.  Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth.  That’s why I’m a Democrat… I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

Although Carville’s remarks are unsubstantiated and may, in fact, be bogus, the truth of those sentiments are undeniable and represent what Republicans have always known about Democrats.  Put those sentiments together with an ethically-challenged politician, motivated by a foreign ideology, and what do you have?  We have the United States of America under Barack Obama.

In the March 22, 2015 edition of the New York Post, Michael Goodwin says of Barack Obama: “First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt, and nationalizes the Internet.

“He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican ‘enemies.’  He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries, and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.  Now he’s coming for Israel…  Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest.  He is transforming the whole world before our eyes…”

In a recent townhall meeting I suggested to our second term congressman that he ask those in attendance if they knew who Valerie Jarrett was and what role she plays in the Obama White House.  Only four of us in the room, all Republican activists, knew the answer to the question.

Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett have put us well down the road to a fascist dictatorship.  What remains to be seen is whether or not rank-and-file Republicans will be concerned enough and wise enough to turn their backs on establishment Republican candidates in 2016, nominating, instead, conservative leaders with the backbone to lead us back from the abyss.

Hope and Change, Yikes!

/in , , , /by

When president Obama was running for office, he promised hope and change.  Since I was well aware of his philosophical bent, a number of questions came to mind.  The first was, hope for what?  After all, this is the United States of America.  The greatest nation in history.  Not many years ago, she was the number one nation in the world for economic opportunities. America symbolizes hope, for those who desired to utilize sweat equity and their brains to work and achieve their dreams.  America was the beacon of hope to the world and a place where one could change their lot in life.

So I could not help but wonder what kind of hope and change was Obama referring to?  Was he hoping to change America into a giant progressive inspired downtrodden version of Detroit, Michigan or Camden, New Jersey?  Was the president giving hope to the muslims who for many years have Been striving to take over America?  Was he hoping to facilitate a rapid overall decline in our international stature as a nation? (Something he has achieved by the way)  Was Mr. Obama in his own unique way offering hope and change to enemy nations who once feared and respected the United States, but now view her as a paper tiger?

President Obama did say to the world that the United States was not a Christian nation.  So I wonder if he was giving hope to atheists and muslims who are seeking to wipe Christianity off the map throughout our republic?  When it comes to hope and change Obama style, one has to wonder what hope is there for the medical industry in America unless government healthcare is overturned?

When one observes the various conditions present throughout America and the world, they cannot overlook how president Obama has acted on his promise of hope and change.  Now I did not mean hope and positive change for America, mind you.  But when since the Revolutionary war have so many enemies of our republic have so much hope?  Iran had hoped to have nuclear missiles for many years.  But now, thanks or no thanks to the Obama changes in United States foreign policy Iran will very soon have nuclear missiles that can reach U. S. cities with ease.

Because of the president’s hope and change, there were recent midnight police raids on conservative Wisconsin homeowners who support the policies of Governor Scott Walker.  After the police ransacked their abodes a liberal judge threatened to hold them in contempt of court if the dared to tell the media about the incidents.  Wisconsin prosecutor, John Chisholm ordered the raids according to Fox News.  I am in no way saying that the Obama administration ordered or supported the raids.  But the atmosphere the regime has orchestrated over the past six years has emboldened progressives who only believe in liberty for those that agree with them.

Since the hope and change Obama era began, it is the thugs and other dregs of society who in much greater numbers are encouraged to either kill or steal from fellow Americans.  Locations like New York City and Chicago are becoming more difficult to live in, due to mayors who reflect the progressive philosophy of Mr. hope and change.

In recent months, more Christians have been beheaded, burned, raped, and enslaved than during the persecution the early church under the Roman Empire.  I believe that the overall increase or change in such activities is a direct result of the attitude against the Christianity displayed by the Obama regime.  Thus giving the dedicated muslim bigots hope that they can get away with tremendous brutality of historic proportions against non-muslims, especially Christians, Blacks and Jews.  The hope and change Obama has espoused only gives hope to the enemies of America, freedom, Christianity, women, children, Israel, our military, the American economy, healthcare, etc.

If the United States is to be rescued from the firm grip of destruction within the Obama interpretation of hope and change then his hope and change will have to be reversed.  Meaning: Rather than providing hope to our enemies like illegal immigrants, dedicated muslims, American street thugs and more, we must regain hope for ourselves and our nation through Christ Jesus.  The same one who gave hope to our founding fathers, including George Washington and his brave soldiers at Valley Forge.

Then “We the People” will make the right change to reestablish America as what Ronald Reagan called, the last best hope for mankind.

Senator Rand Paul on Hillary Clinton’s Baggage: Benghazi, Emails and Cash

/in , , , , , /by

Senator Rand Paul, Republican primary candidate appeared on America’s News Room on the Fox News channel to clarify what he meant by his comment that Hillary Clinton will need two airplanes during her campaign “one for her entourage and one for her baggage.”

Senator Paul defines “her baggage” metaphor.

Mary’s Garden and Henry Ross for Congress

/in , , , , /by

For the past few months Mary and I have been working from home rather than on the road campaigning for conservative candidates. I built a container for Mary’s veggie garden. How can someone be a gardener who freaks out over the sight of a worm?

My last blood test was not good. So, I have gone rogue in my battle to defeat diabetes; totally raw food. I only eat raw salmon and tuna and hearty salads. No diary. I only drink water with lemon and black coffee. No eating after 8pm. My daily sugar level has been dramatically better. I have been on this regiment for a month and a half. After 60 days, I will go for another blood test. I covet your prayers. I figure if I can get a handle on my health, I can introduce a healthy, but more normal diet and even cheat occasionally.

There was a knock at our front door. A courier handed me a package from CCC (Conservative Campaign Committee) with a memory stick inside. “Hello Mr Marcus. Your mission should you choose to accept it is Henry Ross for Congress, Mississippi. As always, should you or any member of our CCC team be caught working to send a true Tea Party conservative to Washington, the GOP will disavow any knowledge of our actions. This memory stick will self-destruct in 30 seconds.”

henry ross congress mississippi

Henry Ross, Republican candidate for the U.S. Congress, Mississippi District 1

Okay, perhaps, it did not happen quite that way, but we at CCC proudly announce our endorsement of Henry Ross for U.S. Congress, Mississippi, District 1.

Why should you care? Folks, the only way we stop Obama and his fellow Leftist’s anti-America and anti-God agenda is to replace Democrats, betrayers and spineless Republicans with rock-solid courageous conservatives; one race at a time.

Quoting CCC Executive Director, Joe Wierzbicki, “He (Henry Ross) is definitely “our guy” in terms of ideology and approach. He’s a Ted Cruz-Louis Gohmert-Ted Yoho-Mark Levin type of Republican.”

Ross’ bio is excellent – Former Circuit Judge, Assistant District Attorney, served in the U.S. Navy, was a member of the Navy JAG Corps, was an appointee to GW Bush’s Justice Department and graduated from Ole Miss.

Far too many GOP candidates are obsessed with trying to prove to the mainstream media that conservatives are not that bad, willing to compromise and play nice with Obama and the Democrats.

What sealed the deal for me to support Henry Ross was his boldness in stating who he is, what he believes and his intentions when elected, “…bring us back to God centered limited Constitutional government, where we have rights, but we have responsibilities – responsibility to our nation and to our families. But government has responsibilities to us to follow the Constitution and not bankrupt the country.”

Patriots, please join us in helping Henry Ross win the GOP primary and the runoff. Time is short. The GOP primary is May 12th. The special election runoff is June 2nd.

Henry, thanks brother for stepping up. Let’s get behind him folks. Go Henry Ross for Congress!

Hillary’s Big Book Of Lies Coloring Book Creators Look To Spread Truth

/in , , , /by

Hillary's Big Book of Lies CoverNEW YORK, /PRNewswire/ — Even in this digital age, children love coloring books, but a group of patriots from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania hope that adults will enjoy them as well. They are looking to a new coloring book to spread the word on what they consider the top 15 reasons that Hillary should not be elected President in 2016.

A non-partisan group of patriots are looking to publish a coloring book called HILLARY’S BIG BOOK OF LIES to help people understand what they consider the top 15 reasons that Hillary should not be elected President. The group has turned to Kickstarter to raise funds.

One of the authors, John Charles of New York, says “Research tells us that one of the best ways to educate people is to make learning fun, and that is why we banded together to create Hillary’s Big Book Of Lies: A coloring and activity book to help expose truth. Contrary to what people may assume, we, the creators of the book, are not all Republicans, but we have put aside our differences to create this book to help explain, in the simplest way possible, why Hillary must not become President in 2016. We’re not anti-woman, we’re not anti-Democrat. We’re pro-American and simply put, Hillary is bad for America.”

Another of the authors, Michael Drake of New Jersey, adds, “We’ve turned to Kickstarter to crowdfund this book for several reasons; Conservatives are seen as being out of touch with technology, we’d like to show that ‘Conservative’ does not mean just an angry old man out of touch with anything that happened after WW2. There are many young conservatives and even older conservatives who fully embrace technology. It’s not just a ‘liberal thing.’ A group making a Hillary action figure raised over $26,000.00, shouldn’t a group of patriots looking to expose her lies and deceptions be able to raise at least $11,000.00? I worked in hardware for over 45 years and now the neighborhood hardware store is almost a thing of the past. America is like a hardware store and I don’t want to see it fade away. A lifelong Democrat, I voted for President Clinton, but now I have to say ‘Enough!’ and expose the lies and dangers of electing Hillary before this country has to hang up an Out Of Business sign like so many small town hardware stores.”

In addition to being able to buy a book for themselves, the HillarysBigBookOfLies.com crowd funding program offers patrons an option to send a copy of the book to the White House, to the Senate, and to Congress. It is assumed the politicians will supply their own crayons. The crowdfunding campaign can be accessed at HillarysBigBookOfLies.com or at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/980081361/hillarys-big-book-of-lies-coloring-book and the authors urge supporters to make their purchases ASAP because of the time limit for funding.

Republican Party Elites Abandon Traditional Marriage

/in , , , , , /by

Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media reports:

Only six of 54 Republican members of the Senate signed a pro-traditional marriage legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that was submitted on Friday. USA Today noted, “By contrast, 44 Democratic senators and 167 Democratic House members filed a brief last month urging the court to approve same-sex marriage. The brief included the full House and Senate [Democratic] leadership teams.”

Read more.

A brief to the court filed by Liberty Counsel notes that, in the past, the Supreme Court has upheld marriage as “a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman.” It cites the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma, in which marriage was declared to be “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,” and Maynard v. Hill, in which marriage was declared “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Liberty Counsel said the court is being asked to affirm a false notion of marriage based upon fraudulent data about homosexual activity in society. It said, “For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts. Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”

The homosexual movement has long maintained that Kinsey validated changes in sexual behavior that were already taking place in society. In fact, however, the evidence uncovered by Dr. Judith Reisman shows that Kinsey deliberately exaggerated those changes in a fraudulent manner by using data from pedophiles and prisoners.

Commenting on the impact of the acceptance of the fraudulent Kinsey data, Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine noted, “Gradually over the years, acceptance of the Kinsey morality has grown to the point where premarital and extramarital sex raise no eyebrows, where, in some communities, out-of-wedlock births are in the majority, homosexuality is glorified and aggressively promoted in our schools and the last taboo—adults having sex with young children—is now under attack in some of our institutions of higher learning.”

The Republican Conservative Steering Committee released the following statement:

Leaders of the 2012 Republican National Convention Committee on the Platform and the Republican Conservative Steering Committee filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Court to consider the societal benefits of traditional marriage as it considers whether to uphold Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky laws protecting such marriage.

The Brief argues that the states have an important interest in protecting and promoting traditional marriage and family as the foundation of a free society.

“The Republican Party has sought to protect and promote traditional marriage and family as the foundation of a free society, since the success of traditional families minimizes the need for government programs and intervention and because traditional families form a bulwark against the growth of government and its excesses. As a result, many states have protected and promoted traditional marriage in pursuit of this important government interest, often with bipartisan support, and their laws that do so are thereby constitutional,” explains attorney James Bopp, Jr., an amicus and lead counsel for all amici.

The friends-of-the-Court are members of the leadership of the 2012 Republican National Convention Committee on the Platform: Co-Chairman of the Committee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Co-Chairmen of the Subcommittees with jurisdiction over marriage and family James Bopp, Jr. (Subcommittee on We the People: A Restoration of Constitutional Government) and Carolyn McLarty (Subcommittee on Renewing American Values to Build Healthy Families, Great Schools and Safe Neighborhoods).

In addition, the Republican Conservative Steering Committee, an independent organization comprising the majority of the current members of the Republican National Committee, is also an amicus. The Steering Committee voted to approve submission of the Brief.

The Brief explains that, since its inception, the Republican Party has been the champion of equality, individual freedom and limited government and, as a result, of the family.

“The Republican Party has always stood for equality, individual freedom, and limited government, and traditional marriage and family helps ensure that,” says attorney and amicus Bopp.

“The Party’s motivation for its pro-family policies has never been about ill will towards any American and, historically, has had nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex marriage. It is quite the opposite: every American deserves the opportunity at the very best chance of success in this country, without government dependency or intrusion, and traditional marriage helps accomplish that.” Mr. Bopp continues, “State governments have a compelling reason to protect traditional marriage and family as the foundation of a free society.”

Amicus Carolyn McLarty stated. “I am honored to be an amicus or “friend-of-the court” on this Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court.  This Brief has presented a fresh argument for keeping, promoting, and protecting traditional marriage as a necessity for a free society.”

Today the Republican Conservative Steering Committee launched a petition on their website so the grassroots supporters of traditional marriage can sign in support of the Amicus Brief.

The case is Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al.

Carolyn McLarty, DVM is a retired veterinarian from Woodward, Oklahoma. She is currently the Republican National Committeewoman for Oklahoma and the Chairman of the Republican Conservative Steering Committee.

To see the Petition for Republican Voters to sign in support of the Brief see www.RepublicanCSC.com.  A copy of the Amicus Brief is available at this website.

If Republicans abandon traditional marriage then who will stand against the certain evils that will follow?

BANNED FILM: Hillary Clinton Exposed [full version]

/in , , , /by

hillary the movie posterTyler Bass from Forbidden Knowledge TV writes, “In the middle of the 2008 U.S. presidential primaries, the District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the nonprofit political advocacy group Citizens United from releasing a documentary targeting Hillary Clinton. The district court ruled that the conservative 501(c)(3)’s release, backed by unknown corporations, had run afoul of campaign finance law. Only after the entire election concluded would the Supreme Court vindicate Citizens United and thereby open the floodgates to a political reality where, many fear, corporate entities and unions carry undue influence.”

Today Democrats use the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United to rally their followers against any who support conservative groups. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in an April 15th, 2015, email to party members states, “Hillary Clinton calls for anti-Citizens United Constitutional Amendment. Hillary Clinton just laid out her top priorities at her first campaign event — and called for an END of dark money in politics.”

The question is whose money?

Bob Heller notes:

Its hard not to laugh, but this is no laughing matter. Hillary Clinton says there is to much money in politics as it is reported she will raise over $2.2 billion in her campaign to become president. This is about 50% more than Obama raised who also said there is to much money in politics.

Ms. Clinton is also disturbed that some CO’s earn to much. But she has no compunction raising tens of millions of dollars from them. She says the disparity in income between the rich and middle class is terrible. She should know considering the enormous wealth she and Bill Clinton amassed using their exalted political offices.

It might seem strange to a lot of people that she doesn’t consider herself overpaid when she give a 45 minute speech and is paid between $200 and $350 thousand dollars plus thousands of dollars more in perks.

Read more.

Perhaps it is time to expose Hillary for what she really is the largest campaign fundraiser in post-modern American politics.

Watch the full version of the “Dark-Money” Anti-Hillary Film a Federal Court Silenced produced by Citizens United in 2008 – Hillary: The Movie

Prominent Jewish Republicans Host Fundraiser For U.S. Senator Ron Johnson

/in , , , /by

NEW YORK, April 14, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Manhattan real-estate developer and hotelier Ian Reisner recently hosted a private fundraiser for Senator Ron Johnson (R – Wisconsin), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee. Holocaust survivor Sam Domb and former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlmanwere among the leading Jewish Republicans and other conservatives who supported this effort.

Senator Johnson, who has begun campaigning for re-election in 2016, acknowledged the business leaders in the audience. He wondered, “Would any of you ask President Obama to negotiate on your behalf?” After the laughter subsided, Johnson listed his numerous concerns with Obama’s pending nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran’s dictatorship. Johnson also specified several amendments that he plans to introduce to assure that the U.S. Senate reviews and votes on this deal.

Those gathered at Reisner’s Central Park South penthouse included a bipartisan group of Jewish business leaders — both committed Republicans and several traditionally aligned with Democrats.

“As CEO of Major Automotive Companies, Inc.,” said Bruce Bendell, a longtime Democrat-leaning donor, “I respect Senator Johnson’s history as a business leader and now as someone who is dedicated to undoing the economic damage of the Obama years and restoring dynamic growth to our society.”

The participation of Bendell; American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) founding trustee Jonathan S. Canno; and entrepreneur Tzvi Odzer, among others, reflects growing Jewish support for Republicans. This parallels the widening rift between Jews and Democrats in light of Obama’s abundant disrespect for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the White House’s worrisome overtures to the ayatollahs.

“I saw up close the death and devastation of radical Islam at Ground Zero on the evening of September 11, 2001,” Ian Reisner recalled. “I don’t want to see New Yorkers once again incinerated by Islamic extremists from the Middle East.”

As the reception concluded, Kalman Sporn, Vice Chairman of the 2014 Republican Leadership Conference, presented Senator Johnson with a rare coin excavated at Masada, site of the Israelites’ brave stand against their Roman oppressors in the year 73 A.D. Sporn brought Reisner on his first trip to Israel in 2000, where they visited a military base and met Benjamin Netanyahu. Ian Reisner strongly has supported Jewish causes ever since, including Manhattan’s Museum of Jewish Heritage and the National Jewish Outreach Program.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R – Wisconsin) attends campaign fundraiser hosted by Manhattan real estate developer Ian Reisner (right). Source PRNewswire.

Emerson College Poll: California May Be In Play For 2016 Presidential Race

/in , , , /by

BOSTON, April 14, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new poll conducted in California by the Emerson College Polling Society (ECPS) suggests that the perennially blue state, which has not been won by a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, may be in play for the 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton holds a commanding 46-point lead over Senator Elizabeth Warren, her nearest potential rival for the Democratic nomination. However, in head-to-head matchups with the top two GOP contenders, Jeb Bushand Scott Walker, Clinton’s 53% to 47% edge is within the poll’s margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

California Republicans are split on who their candidate will be. Among those who plan to vote in the GOP primary, Bush and Walker are tied at 17%, physician Ben Carson trails by two points at 15%, and TexasSenator Ted Cruz is at 11%. Nearly 1 in 5 are undecided.

Harris is Leading the U.S. Senate Race

The poll also looked at the U.S. Senate seat being vacated in 2016 by the retirement of Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer. California Attorney General Kamala Harris is leading a hypothetical field with 23% of the vote, followed by former eBay executive and 2010 gubernatorial loser Meg Whitman at 13%. Rocky Chavez, the only Republican to officially enter the race so far, came in third at 9%.

Water is the Top Issue

Water scarcity is the biggest issue facing California according to 31% of those polled, followed by immigration (21%) and jobs and the economy (13%). Seven in ten Californians (71%) support the mandatory water-use restrictions imposed by Governor Jerry Brown, including 48% who are strongly supportive. Only 18% oppose the cuts. Asked where they would make major reductions at home, 44% said they would reduce watering lawns and plantings, 15% cited showers and baths, and 9% would stop filling their swimming pools. 14% would make no reductions.

Worry is highest (41%) in the agriculturally important Central Valley region. A much larger percentage of Democrats (83%) favor water restrictions than Republicans (60%) and non-aligned voters (55%).

EDITORS NOTE: The ECPS survey was conducted statewide in California in English and Spanish from April 2-8, using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The survey sample consisted of 881 registered voters. The poll has a margin of error of +/-3.2% with a 95% confidence level. The full survey methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com

Rubio enters GOP Presidential Primary as ‘tomorrow’s candidate’ — says Hillary is so ‘yesterday’

/in , , , , , /by

After making his 2016 presidential campaign official Monday morning, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) made a speech to supporters in Miami on April 13th, 2015, at 5:30 p.m. EST.

“The Republican Party, for the first time in a long time, has a chance in this election to be the party of the future,” Rubio told donors in a preview of his speech. “Just yesterday, we heard from a leader from yesterday who wants to take us back to yesterday, but I feel that this country has always been about tomorrow.”

“Yesterday is over,” stated Rubio.

Learn more about the Marco Rubio campaign at MarcoRubio.com.

Blacks Are Begging the Republican Party

/in , , , , /by

In the immortal words of former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, “to every man there comes a time when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a great and mighty work; unique to him and fitted to his talents; what a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be his finest hour.”

The Republican Party is currently being tapped on the shoulder and being asked to do “a great and mighty work, unique to them and fitted to their talents.”

They are being tapped on the shoulder by the Black community who are begging the Republican Party to give them a reason to vote Republican in next year’s presidential election.

The Black community gave Obama 94% of its vote in 2008, not just because he was Black; but because he said he was “change we could believe in.”

Obama said he would get the U.S. out of all these “unnecessary” wars; indirectly giving Blacks the impression that he would then redirect the money spent on war to dealing with the high Black unemployment rate, the lack of access to capital for Black entrepreneurs, shoring up the failing schools within the Black community, both secondary and college.

Six and a half years after Obama was “tapped on the shoulder;” he has indeed been found “unqualified and unprepared for the moment that could have been his (and America’s) finest hour.”

By any and all objective measurements, the Obama presidency has been an abject failure for Blacks: double digit unemployment, declining home ownership, shrinking net worth, decreasing college enrollment, especially at Black colleges, and non-existent government contracting opportunities for Black businesses just to name a few.

Republicans still have time to show the Black community that the party is prepared for this moment that could be its finest hour, but time is running out.

They need to start with something very simple: tell the Black community in no uncertain terms, that they are wanted and welcomed in the Republican Party.

Then the Congressional leadership must convene a series of private meetings with “the right” Blacks in education, business, the clergy. This is not to be confused with them meeting with Blacks that they are “comfortable” with.

Republicans have a history of favoring Blacks who will tell them what they want to hear, versus Blacks who will tell them what they need to hear.

Obama has done more to destroy Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) than any other person in this country’s history with the policies coming out of his Department of Education. What are Congressional Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to repair this damage?

Government contracting opportunities for Black entrepreneurs has all but dried up under Obama. Banks refuse to loan money to many small business owners. What are Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to change this?

The Black church is furious with Obama over his aggressive push for homosexual entitlements and his refusal to protect their commitment to faith if they receive government funds for after school activities for their church member’s kids. What are Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to protect a church’s right to freely practice their faith without government interference?

Obama has intentionally done everything in his power to drive a wedge between Blacks and his administration. There is no poll that can accurately measure the disappointment and frustration Blacks have with Obama.

They are literally begging the Republican Party to give them substantive reasons to vote for them. But they first must be made to feel welcomed in the party.

The party must build relationships with the more than 200 Black newspapers in the country and spend advertising dollars with them. The party must stop being afraid to challenge the NAACP and the National Urban League when they are advocating liberal policies that will continue to adversely affect the Black community.

They must establish a surrogate program of “credible Black Republicans” that can represent the party on various radio and TV shows. The party has shown an extreme amount of incompetence and a total lack of understanding when it comes to branding the party within the Black community.

During presidential elections, Republicans average about nine percent of the Black vote. That’s with doing nothing. Just imagine what can happen with a little effort. Realistically it is very doable to get between 15-20% of the Black vote next year; but only if the party starts now with constructive engagement with the Black community, Black media, and Black organizations.

What a tragedy if this moment also finds the Republican Party “unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be its finest hour.”

Marco Rubio: A New American Century [VIDEO]

/in , , , , , /by

Foreign policy is taking center stage in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. Marco Rubio is announcing his run for the Republican presidential nomination. His theme is “A New American Century”.

Ken McIntyre in his column Marco Rubio Runs for President on America’s Place in the World writes:

To the extent primary voters question the wisdom of putting forward another first-term U.S. senator for president, Rubio fans counter not only with his rise to the speakership of the Florida legislature but his engagement with key foreign policy questions in the Senate.

Last May, delivering the Republican address that counters President Obama’s weekly message on radio and online, Rubio boiled down his post-9/11 thinking on the subject:

Today, foreign policy is an important part of our domestic policy. And our economic well-being is deeply dependent on our national security. The problem is that President Obama doesn’t seem to understand this. Instead of shaping world events, he has often simply reacted to them. And instead of a foreign policy based on strategy, his foreign policy is based on politics.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State demands $30 million for Christian hostages

Visit to a Mariupol Hospital Shows Ukraine War’s Toll

The Problem With International Outreach to Iran

Why Presidential Announcements Matter

15 Facts About Hillary Clinton

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of The Daily Signal.

Why Natural Born Citizen is Non-Negotiable

/in , , , , /by

Not so long ago, Americans placed little faith and trust in ambulance chasers (a.k.a. lawyers) or politicians, and wisely so according to our Founders who had no faith or trust in any person seeking power and dominion over others. Now, too many Americans place all of their faith in people seeking power and dominion over others, and even worse, a class of people who have already proven most dangerous to the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law… the lawyer law-makers…

Ever since Barack Obama stole the show at the Kerry Convention in 2004 and rocketed from total obscurity to the most powerful political office in our land four years later, the subject of Article II requirements for the Oval Office has been a subject of great debate, all over three simple words, natural born Citizen (NBC), aka “True Citizen.”

Where did it come from, what does it mean, why did our Founders limit access to only two political offices in our nation to no one other than a natural born Citizen, and what do we do now that we know Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States? These questions have been the source of much political debate, confusion and anxiety, now threatening the GOP as a result of numerous potential 2016 GOP candidates also failing to meet the requirement.

Some of the most blatantly insane arguments have been floated…

“Well, the constitution does not provide a definition for the term”… which is of course true, since the U.S. Constitution provides no definition for any word found in the document.

“Our naturalization laws define natural born Citizen” (when in fact our naturalization laws only pertain to naturalized citizens, immigrants seeking basic citizen rights from congress).

“The courts will have to tell us what the term means”… despite knowing that it is the courts that created terms of art like “undocumented citizen” (a.k.a. illegal alien) and “Constitutional Rights for non-citizens and even enemy combatants” (while denying American citizen any constitutional protection of natural rights at all) and “social justice” (the opposite of real justice under Constitutional Law).

Others rely upon “legal scholars” also known as lawyers of the political class in line for political appointments and eager to please those in positions to help them ascend to those lofty positions in the judiciary, ignoring the reality that these scholars have powerful political motivations for the opinions they write, and that no opinion has the power to amend the U.S. Constitution except by amendment process.

The simple truth is that Article II of the U.S. Constitution has only been amended once in U.S. history, by Amendment XII extending the requirements for President to the Vice President as well. It has not been otherwise amended, despite at least eight failed attempts by Congress to eliminate the natural born requirement for high office. Further, no amendment has ever mentioned, changed or in any way altered the original meaning of natural born Citizen as intended by our Founders and ratified by all fifty states.

So, the term natural born Citizen means the same today as it did in 1787 when the Founders placed that requirement in Article II… unless you buy into the notion that naturalization statutes or amendments, or scholarly legal arguments carry with them the legal force to amend the constitution – in which case, the term has no meaning at all, and neither does anything else in our Founding documents.

Before Barack Obama arrived on the scene, the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no verifiable past, not too many Americans ever thought about the term. Most Americans assumed that no one would ever be bold enough to attempt such a massive fraud by falsely claiming natural born eligibility, and they assumed that if anyone ever did make such an attempt, our strict election laws, free press and national security agency oversight would surely catch it, expose it and stop it from happening. These assumptions have proven to be wrong… in fact, such attempts are now becoming common place. Barack was the first, but now there are others…

Most Americans have entered the discussion from a purely political purpose, attempting to either qualify their political messiah of choice, or disqualify another. But the natural born Citizen concept is actually far more important to our society than merely who can and cannot hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.

I was recently asked a question I have been asked literally thousands of times since I started writing on the subject, how do I know for sure what the Founders meant by natural born Citizen?

How do we know what any word or phrase means? Most people reach to their book shelf and grab a dictionary when they want to know the true definition of a word of phrase. Most people have never come upon a word or phrase that they needed a lawyer, or a court, or anything more than a dictionary to properly interpret… I find this to be the case here as well.

People don’t have any trouble understanding the word “born” (the moment of birth) or the word “citizen” (a legal member of a society). The word people seem to struggle with is “natural.”

At this moment, a collective effort is underway to claim that the following three words are synonymous… natural – native – naturalized…. Which would make anyone eligible for the Oval Office, including the courts new citizen class the “undocumented citizen.”

People trying to disqualify John McCain in 2008 decided that natural and native are synonymous terms and people now trying to qualify Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are claiming that natural, native and naturalized are all synonymous terms of art. Before they can eliminate the NBC requirement from Article II, they must first make the term ambiguous, potentially having more than one meaning… of course…

Any dictionary will disagree with these claims…

Naturalized – “to admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.”

Native – “being the place or environment in which a person was born.”

Natural – “existing in or formed by nature.”

Clearly, these three words have three very different definitions and meanings, only one of which is related to the Constitutional requirement for the Oval Office… “Natural.”

As a simple dictionary review confirms, these three words are in no way synonymous. It is not possible for the following three terms to be synonymous, natural born, native born and naturalized. Yet, many will continue to make the false claim that they are… because they believe these claims to suit their political agenda of the moment.

Many know exactly what natural born Citizen means, and still, for political expediency, they refuse to stand on this truth. Just this morning another “political commentator” wrote me this…

“NATIVE BORN CITIZENS ARE DIFFERENT… .. I see the reference to the father’s citizenship alone as determinING the birthright of the child… BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT AINT GONNA FLY today NO MORE THAN DENYING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU WILL ALIENATE HALF THE COUNTRY WITH SUCH NONSENSE” – Scott Rohter (exactly as sent to me, yelling caps and all)

As you can see, Mr. Rohter first confirms that he is aware of the truth, before shifting to all CAPS to scream his refusal to stick to the truth, referring to that truth as “nonsense” because that truth will offend some who do not like this truth. It is this practice which has made the NBC term appear “ambiguous,” opening the door for the lawyer law-making political class to enter the discussion with new invented definitions of the term.

As Mr. Rohter confirmed in our exchange, we agree on 99% of the issues… unfortunately, the 1% we disagree on is the most important – of critical importance, especially at this moment in history, when every American must deal only in truth. Mr. Rohter is not alone in his position. Numerous others have made the same false claims for exactly the same reasons.

The Harvard Lawyers are intentionally lying to the people when claiming NBC is synonymous with naturalized citizen at birth. But people like Rohter are also intentionally lying to the people for their set of political reasons. Both are responsible for allowing unconstitutional candidates to seek and hold the most powerful office in our land, that of Commander-in-Chief.

The term natural born Citizen is based on historical concepts as old as all recorded time. If you want to know where and why the Founders borrowed the term for Article II, I cover that in this piece… and if you want to know the true historical definition of the term, I cover that in this piece.

Natural born Citizen is a term based in biblical teachings based upon the concepts of a patriarchal society wherein in the Father is the head of the family unit. The intentional destruction of the family unit has greatly complicated the discussion with scholarly changes in the definition of words like marriage, family and shifting gender roles forced by liberal restructuring of American society, also for political purposes.

14th Naturalization Amendment terms like “citizen at birth” and “birthright citizenship” have been intentionally been tossed into the mix to further complicate the understanding of three basic English words defined in every English dictionary. The purpose of all these efforts is to eliminate the NBC requirement for office by simply redefining the term. But that is not the only purpose…

Setting politics aside for a moment, natural born Citizenship is the inalienable natural right of every child to inherit the country of their natural birth father upon birth, not only due to no application of man-made statute or legal opinions, but inalienable by these means.

When people begin to play with definitions, it is an overt effort to alter our Founding principles and values and Constitutional protections of all inalienable Natural Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a much larger issue than who can or cannot occupy the Oval Office, although this is indeed an issue paramount to the sovereignty and security of these United States.

Contrary to the intentional mis-education of American society, we do not enjoy “constitutional rights.” We have long enjoyed “constitutionally protected Natural Rights.”

Beginning in 2008, when folks were trying to disqualify John McCain, born the son of American parentage stationed abroad in Panama on the service of our country with the U.S. Navy, some plucked a single sentence from the proper source of the Founders NBC term, The Law of Nations by Vattel, as if they believe that it was unnecessary for Vattel to take great care to write an entire chapter on the subject, when a single sentence says it all.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

As already demonstrated above, natives and naturals are in fact two different things, which confirms that the structure of this single sentence is not the definition of any one thing, but rather a general statement about more than one thing… Reference to “parents” does not mean both parents within the family unit, but rather all citizen family units which bear “citizen” children.

Why did these individuals not pluck any of the following single sentences from Vattel, appearing in the same paragraph Section 212 of Chapter XIX of the Law of Nations?

“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.”

Or this one – “as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

Or this one – “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

Or even this one – “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.”

When trying to sum up natural born Citizen using a single sentence from Vattel, any of the four sentences above would be accurate. So, why didn’t the people who cherry-picked the unrelated general sentence pluck any of these other single sentences from the same paragraph?

There are two reasons… first, the truth did not suit the political agenda, which was to disqualify John McCain on the basis that although he was born to a citizen father (and mother), he was born in Panama, not on U.S. soil – and second, because the progressive shifting definitions of marriage and family, along with gender roles lead many to believe that the original definition and Founders intent of the term are antiquated and outdated. It leads many to falsely think it is some offense to women’s rights…

The Citizenship Act of 1934 pertaining only to “naturalized citizenship” is the cornerstone of today’s effort to destroy the NBC term and thereby eliminate the requirement from Article II. FDR’s Naturalization Act was the result of an international treaty from a Pan American conference of December 26, 1933, essentially agreeing that there should be no distinction between the sexes as it related to nationality under legislative processes. Of course, this pertained only to “naturalized citizenship” under congressional naturalization legislation.

Still, it has since been improperly used to claim that citizenship and even natural born Citizenship can pass from either Father or Mother, as a matter of alleged gender equality. Yet, this claim pertains only to naturalized citizenship, which is mutually exclusive of natural born Citizenship.

As all governmental power in the United States is limited in nature and derived from the people, nothing beyond what which was ratified by the people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is under the consent of the people. The people have not consented to any alterations of Article II requirements for high office, so no alterations have been legally made.

Why natural born Citizen is non-negotiable

Much more than a political ambition or agenda is at stake here… The Natural Right of every child to inherit the condition of their birth family, specifically that of the Father (patriarch), the head of the family, is a constitutionally protected Natural Right.

Americans must understand that everything our Founders created was based upon inalienable Natural Rights, not man-made laws via legislative process or judicial review. When anyone begins to mess around with natural born, they are in fact messing around the Natural Law and all Natural Rights, the cornerstone of our Founders creation and any form of freedom and liberty.

If a child born to an American Father is stripped of their Natural Right to inherit the country of their Father, what other Natural Rights can be stripped from the child or the parent by mere man-made statute, court interpretation or Harvard Law Review? The answer is all of them…

In my personal opinion, the three most important words in all of the U.S. Constitution are natural born Citizen… because all Natural Rights flow through this patriarchal social concept and the sovereignty and security of our Constitutional Republic are protected from foreign invasion at the highest level by these three simple words, natural born Citizen.

Once any citizen of any type, by any means, including “undocumented citizens” can occupy the Oval Office, then any foreign entity can occupy that office, controlling the future of this nation and form of freedom and liberty itself as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force on earth.

Mere momentary political interest is not enough reason to let everything die…

I pray that Americans will cease to be so blind and foolish…. quickly!

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Repression on the Question of What is a “natural born Citizen?”