Posts

The TEA Party is Back with ‘Stop Socialism Choose Freedom’ Rallies on April 15th!

President Trump has our economy booming. Unemployment claims are at an unprecedented 50 year low. There are more jobs available than there are workers to fill them.

And yet, every Democrat presidential candidate is on a mad dash to socialism. If a Democrat is elected president in 2020, we will be thrust back to the depressing days of Obama’s failed economy; record high numbers of Americans on food stamps, unemployment and disability. Democrats are like drug dealers seeking to insidiously addict Americans to government dependency solely to control their lives, behavior and voting loyalty.

From the beginning of the Tea Party movement, I traveled the country on numerous national Tea Party bus tours, speaking and performing my song, “American Tea Party Anthem” at over 500 Tea Party rallies nationwide.

Reflecting back to Obama’s horrible economy, I fondly remember the five dollar lady. After my performance on stage at a rally in Texas, I was approached by a humble woman. She thanked me for what our team of patriots was doing for our country. She explained that Obama’s anti-business policies cost her husband, a trucker, his job. With tears in her eyes, she grabbed my hand with both her hands, giving me a crumpled up five dollar bill for gas for our tour bus. I instinctively knew that five dollars was a huge contribution from her. The five dollar lady drove home the importance of our mission and responsibility to push back against Obama’s plan to transform America into a socialist nation.

On April 15th, Stop Socialism Choose Freedom Rallies are scheduled across America; 300 thus far with more added daily. Yes, the Tea Party is back. Please join us.

Actually, the Tea Party never went away. We matured, working behind the scenes to elect conservatives, becoming less visible. I became Chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee, traveling the country helping to elect conservatives in House and Senate races

With their every attempt to remove Trump from office failing, the evil coalition of Democrats, fake news and the deep state have become totally deranged. They seek to create a race war and violence on Trump supporters while arrogantly breaking laws. No sacrifice is too large or scheme too low if it will remove Trump from of the White House.

Democrats’ extreme lawless resistance requires the Tea Party to become highly visible again. The Tea Party is the righteous legal-resistance to Democrats’ deranged, violent and illegal-resistance.

I am excited to announce that 34% of those who attended Trump’s latest rally in Michigan were registered Democrats. Trump is also winning blacks, Hispanics and millennials

This means despite fake news media’s 24/7 lies, deceptions and distortions about Trump, more Americans are beginning to discern that Trump is good for America. Lets pull formerly duped Americans into our Tea Party fold to rally behind our president.

Please allow me to address Democrats’ and fake news media’s despicable hate-generating lie that says the Tea Party and Trump are racist. I am a proud black American who attended over 500 Tea Party rallies nationwide. I was showered with patriot love and appreciation. Trump has an excellent record of hiring blacks. Blacks are experiencing unprecedented prosperity under Trump; historic low unemployment

Brother and sister Americans who love our country, lets join together to save America by keeping Trump in the White House. Please sign on to participate in the April 15th, Stop Socialism Choose Freedom Rallies

Thirty-two year old Todd Beamer was an American passenger aboard United Airlines Flight 93 which was hijacked as part of the Islamic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Beamer lead a band of courageous fellow passengers in an attempt to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers. During the struggle, control was lost of the aircraft. It crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, saving the hijackers’ intended target which prevented the murder of more Americans. Upon the passengers launching their attack, Beamer said, “Let’s roll.”

Yes, the Tea Party is back! Quoting heroic American Todd Beamer, “Let’s roll.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Tea Party Backs ‘Stop Socialism, Choose Freedom’ Rallies on Tax Day

Civil War: America’s Enemies Hiding in Plain Sight

Russian born American writer and novelist Ayn Rand wrote, “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Janie Johnson posted the above photo of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors on her Twitter page. Janie wrote, “On [the] bottom of the signs is the inscription: revcom.us. To see who printed them, go to: .”

The organization that printed these BLM posters is the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP-USA). The stated strategic approach of the RCP-USA is to:

“Fight the Power, and Transform the People, for Revolution…to take up a revolutionary viewpoint and revolutionary values and morals as they join with others to resist this system’s crimes and build up the basis for the ultimate all-out revolutionary struggle to sweep this system away and bring in a whole new way of organizing society, a whole new way of being…to become emancipators of humanity.” [Emphasis RCP-USA]

The RCP-USA signs brought to mind several banners carried by BLM protestors in Ferguson, Missouri.

FergusonPalestine

Robert Spencer in his November 2014 column Islamic supremacist groups connect their jihad to Ferguson riots wrote:

In the photo above (thanks to Kay), Leftist demonstrators relate the strife in Ferguson to the “Palestinian” jihad. And Pamela Geller has a great deal of information on how Islamic jihadists and supremacists, including the Hamas-linked terror organization CAIR, have tried to co-opt the Ferguson riots as part of their own jihad. Most noteworthy is the active presence in Ferguson of “Palestinian” jihad activist Bassem Masri.

The connection between Ferguson and “Palestine” (and the global jihad in general) is clear: both the Islamic supremacists and the Ferguson rioters think that the American system is corrupt and must be brought down.

isis banner ferguson

Islamic State banner carried by Black Lives Matter protestors in Ferguson, Missouri. Photo: CNN

In a November 2014 column Ferguson: The beginning of an American Intifada I wrote:

This spiral of death and destruction scenario is used across the globe to incite riots, mayhem and violence. It is used to recruit those with real or perceived grievances against those in authority. It is being used by the Islamic State to recruit in Ferguson, Missouri.

Ferguson is the beginning of the American intifada in the black community. This same strategy is being used by terrorist organizations like HAMAS, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and al Qaeda. Grab the headlines and make your point via political violence. The problem is the narrative is routinely false, even based upon lies, but by the time the facts are presented it is too late. The damage has already been done.

Lessons learned from Ferguson:

  1. Appeasement of the protesters leads to more violence.
  2. Coalitions of outside organizations including radical homosexual, Muslim and minority groups makes for a deadly mix.
  3. The targets are the law and law enforcement. The demand is for two legal systems, one for minorities and one for whites.
  4. The creation of no-go zones where police and firefighters cannot or will not go due to the threat of violence.
  5. The manipulation of the media in the name of “equality” and “social justice” to create a scenario where a radical agenda may be furthered that denies both.
  6. The use of violence even when blacks, like President Obama, call upon their fellow blacks to be non-violent.
  7. The creation of a atmosphere where law enforcement officers will hesitate to enforce the law or ignore the law in order not to become a target.
  8. Lawlessness with an anarchist’s political objective – to destroy the status quo.

A race war is upon America because some minorities want it more than they want to be Americans.

I fear that these groups will once again come together in Cleveland to disrupt the Republican National Convention and Donald Trump’s nomination. This Red/Green/Rainbow alliance has already showed itself at Trump rallies. The Red/Green/Rainbow alliance is emboldened and becoming more violent.

These protestors want to bring a civil war to America in order to fundamentally transform the country. 

America is a land of laws and requires order. Protest if one wishes but to become violent demands police action and people, organizations and institutions to be held accountable.

We shall see what happens in Cleveland. Stay tuned.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Conservative Lessons of ‘Captain America – Civil War’

An Economist Explains Why America Is Moving Toward Totalitarianism

RELATED VIDEO: Walter Williams on the Rise of Socialism | The Daily Signal

A Citizen’s Guide to Fixing The Federal Government

The majority of Americans have lost faith in and distrust the federal government. Currently, just 19% of Americans say they can trust the government always or most of the time, among the lowest levels in the past half-century.

What can citizens do to fix the federal government?

fixing federal government guide book coverJohn H. Ramsey has published “A Citizen’s Common Sense Guide For Fixing The Federal Government.” Ramsey presents the problems but more importantly offers common sense solutions to fix what is broken in Washington, D.C. Ramsey lists the most important problems facing the American people as:

  • 70,000 pages of tax code
  • Rampant Deficit Spending
  • 175,000 pages of regulations, many which are not authorized by law
  • Mismanaged Social Security and Medicare Funds
  • Improper Accounting that masks America’s true liabilities

Ramsey offers the following solutions implemented by “We The People”:

  • Tax Only to fund Government with no social engineering
  • Deficit Spending only in national emergencies
  • Tie regulations to law with fair Administrative Courts
  • Repay Social Security and Medicare. Manage as trust funds.
  • Use generally accepted accounting for government

Ramsey proposes a Constitutional Amendment to reign in the federal government.

Most Americans will agree with Ramsey’s analysis and his solutions for fixing the federal government. Some may not agree with his solutions. Creating a new amendment to the Constitution is fraught with dangers. Ramsey’s Constitutional amendment verbiage would be subject to the whims of Congress, those who are the root cause of the problem.

To the naysayers Ramsey responds:

I think there is enough impetus that a Constitutional Convention is probably going to happen. Our task therefore is to influence the outcome. Clearly, Congress may meddle but they cannot stop it.

My goal is to help to adopt an Omnibus Amendment to The U.S. Constitution requiring that our Federal Government:

Tax only to fund Government, with no social engineering. This could be accomplished either with a flat tax based on income or a Fair Tax on consumption. The key is to eliminate 73,000 pages of exceptions, deductions, and attempted social influences that have nothing to do with funding the government.

Deficit spend only in national emergencies; pay down existing debt. You didn’t comment on this but it is crucial that we enact an amendment that stops runaway deficit spending.

Tie regulations tightly to law with fair and impartial Administrative Courts. This provision would tie regulations more closely to the underlying laws which authorize them and would enable the courts to throw out regulations that exceed the specific authorization in law. Furthermore, currently Administrative Courts are the only recourse for citizens wishing to challenge particular regulations, but such Administrative Courts are staffed entirely by government employees who almost always rule in favor of the government. They are not independent and impartial which my Constitutional Amendment would require.

Repay money misappropriated from Social Security and Medicare and manage them independently as trust funds. Repayment of amounts “borrowed” from these funds would reduce the federal deficit by about $2.8 trillion, almost 15% of the total.

Use generally accepted accounting for the federal government. This requirement is simple but not easy, but it is essential because we simply do not know the extent of federal liabilities because they are accounted for improperly and inconsistently, and so much of the exposure is “off the balance sheet”.

There are other efforts being proposed to fix the broken federal government from eliminating the Sixteenth Amendment as proposed under the Fair Tax (H.R.25), to an Article V Convention and a Constitutional convention to impose term limits on the U.S. Congress recently approved by the Florida legislature.

All of these efforts are dramatic bottom up efforts and each has as its goal to fix an increasingly out of control federal government (legislative, administrative and judicial).

The American people have had enough of top down solutions, they hunger for a bottom up approach.

In that light, Mr. Ramsey’s is one of those solutions worthy of a closer look.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pitfalls to Abbott’s Call for Convention of States

Reversing the Muslim Tide

In the days following the horrific slaughter of innocent men, women, and children by radical Islamists in Paris, small groups of Syrian refugees have been  detained in unlikely ports of entry throughout the western hemisphere.  Eleven Syrian refugees, traveling with fake passports, were detained in Paraguay; 5 Syrians, traveling with stolen Greek passports, were arrested in Honduras; 3 Syrian men, traveling with fake Greek passports, were arrested on the Caribbean Island of St. Maarten after traveling through Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti; and 8 Syrians were arrested after making it as far as the INS border checkpoint at Laredo, Texas,

Is it my imagination, or is there a pattern developing here?  Is it pure coincidence that so many Syrians were detained in unlikely western hemisphere locations while trying to enter the U.S. illegally?  Could it be that they were acting under orders from ISIS to make their way into the U.S. for purposes of committing acts of terrorism?  And if these four insurgencies were detected, how many others went undetected?

In the meantime, Barack Obama’s plan to import more than 100,000 Islamic refugees per year has drawn strong opposition across the country.  While Republican presidential candidates argue that the 10,000 Syrian refugees now destined for resettlement should be barred from entering the U.S. until a fail-safe vetting formula can be developed, Democrats argue that U.S. immigration officials should simply trust the refugees to answer truthfully when asked whether or not they represent an existential threat to the American people.

In light of a great many vicious terror attacks, both here and abroad, the American people are understandable frightened and are unwilling to accept additional large numbers of Muslims into our country.  Unfortunately, members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, fail to recognize that the question of whether or not to admit additional Muslims has already been decided in the negative.  What I have suggested in recent columns is that, if the intent of the current law is unclear, the Congress should rewrite sections of the Communist Control Act of 1954, a statute that has not been overturned by the courts and is still in force, to read as follows:

 SEC. 1. PURPOSE.  The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence.  Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.                                                                                  

SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS.  Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose it is to overthrow the government of the United States, or to force the political or religious conversion of its people by force or violence, or threats thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded.

This amendment to the Communist Control Act of 1954 would serve to reinforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 414, which effectually bars any and all Muslims from either entering or residing in the United States.  That law, otherwise known as the McCarran-Walter Act, is still on the books.  And while it has not been enforced by recent administrations, Democrat or Republican, it is sufficient to protect the American people from attacks such as those carried out on September 11, 2001, and subsequent atrocities.

Chapter 2, Section 212, of the McCarran-Walter Act contains numerous provisions which bar  Muslims from legally entering or residing in the United States.  For example, Islam permits Islamic men to marry up to four wives.  And although fewer than 2% of Muslim men have multiple wives, the practice of polygamy is permitted under Islamic law.  Section 212(11) of the McCarran-Walter Act prohibits all aliens who are polygamists, or who practice polygamy, or who  advocate the practice of polygamy, from entering or residing in the United States.

Section 212(19) of the Act bars entry to any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.

Section 212(27) of the Act bars all aliens “who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally, to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.”

Section 212(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens who are anarchists, or who have at any time been  members of or affiliated with, any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.

In addition, the McCarran-Walter Act contains provisions for a reporting system whereby all aliens are required to report their current address to the INS each year.  It also establishes a central index of aliens in the U.S. for use by security and enforcement agencies… much as Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson have suggested.

Section 212 of the Act makes irrelevant any current debate or legislative proposal that would restrict or delay the entry of large numbers of Middle Eastern refugees.  Section 212 concludes by saying, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

In other words, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Muslims are prohibited from obtaining visas to enter or immigrate to the United States, and it gives Obama the authority to do exactly what the American people want him to do… i.e. suspend any further immigration of Muslim refugees to the United States.

Muslim immigration is prohibited under McCarran-Walter because the Koran and Sharia Law require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.  All those who subscribe to the Koran as their guiding principle, by definition, subscribe to Islam and its form of government.  Most liberals and Democrats insist that Muslims cannot be prohibited from entering the U.S. because Islam, as a religion, is a protected class under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.  However, Islam is not merely another religious denomination.  Islam is a complete social, political, economic, legal, judicial, and military system with a religious component.  As such, it is totally incompatible with principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  Islam does not, and cannot, merit 1st Amendment protections.

When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was sent to President Harry Truman for his signature, he vetoed the bill.  However, his veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate.  Speaking in support of a veto override, Senator Pat McCarran (D-NV), a principal author of the Act, said what any Republican of today might say.  He said, “I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization, and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished.  I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors.  However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary, are its deadly enemies.”

He concluded by saying, “Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain.  The solution to the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.  I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.”

How prophetic!  The enemies of America have been highly successful in “riddling our system to pieces,” and never before has the “last flickering light of humanity” been in greater danger of being extinguished than it is today.  What is needed is not a temporary halt to immigration by the “hard-core, indigestible blocs” that now threaten us, but a reversal of the immigration that has taken place since the McCarran-Walter Act became law in 1953.  So long as radical Islamists insist upon achieving world domination through acts of unspeakable violence, and so long as so-called “moderate” Muslims merely look on as bystanders, peace-loving peoples must insist that Muslims settle their age-old differences in total isolation, in their own barren lands.

If and when a new immigration bill comes before Congress for a veto override, Republicans would be well advised to resurrect the wise counsel of their 1953 colleague, Pat McCarran.

Putting American Interests First

140713-Ben-Carson-ftrWhy does it seem that many Americans are more loyal to those who use their religion to abuse women, blow up churches, torture animals, enslave black Africans, and call for jihad on America than to a patriot like Dr. Ben Carson?  I understand he didn’t exactly trip over himself to initially say that a Muslim should be president, but please give me a break.  When a television talk show host asked Dr. Carson that got you question regarding the United States having a Muslim as president question, the good doctor simply stated, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation I absolutely would not agree with that.”  To me he exhibited a high degree of understanding of reality and conviction when he doubled down on his views concerning the matter, when he told Sean Hanity on FOX News “We don’t put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with carrying out the duties of the Constitution.”

Let us not forget that the question asked Dr. Carson was a hypothetical one. He simply answered it as such.  Now based upon the multi century history of those who practice Islam, Mr. Carson was, is and will always be justified in giving the answer he gave.

The pro-jihadist group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations feigned their outrage at what Dr. Carson said.  In fact, they called for political leaders from “across the political spectrum to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Dr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.  Such hypocrisy would have me falling over with bellowing laughter if it were not connected to such an important and volatile subject.  Arson was lambasted by CAIR members for what they called a religious test.

But yet the jihadist, sharia law pushers they support are on a daily basis calling for a takeover of the United States and abolishment of our Constitution.  Also, One News Now columnist Bryan Fischer pointed out recently that article VI reads:  “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”  He revealed that the only restriction is on the federal government.  It bans the federal government and the federal government only from requiring a candidate for public office to pass a religious test.  In other words, only the federal government can violate Article VI.

So, a candidate for public office could not violate Article VI.  It is not a restraint on candidates, but rather it is a restraint on the federal government.  More to the correct point, it should be noted that the ban on a religious test is a ban on the government, not the voters.  While the federal government cannot apply a religious test, voters can use any test they want to.

At the time of the founding of our Republic, every colony had a religious test for holding public office.  Believe it or not eight states still do today.  This is as constitutional as you can get, whether the bigoted anti-Christian progressives of today like it or not.

But back to the issue of presidential candidate Ben Carson’s remarks regarding him not advocating the putting of a Muslim in the White House which makes perfect sense.  Let us not forget that numerous imams, jihadists and ISIS terrorists are always calling for the overthrow of America and death to Israel.  I believe that Islam is an abusive political ideology that is utilized masqueraded as a religion.  Perhaps if presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina would take a closer look at reality rather than pander to the incurably ignorant masses and the progressive dragon media, they would realize that Dr. Carson did what any decent American presidential candidate would do.  All he did was gauge the issue according to constitutional directives, not politically correct dogma.  At least Carson has so far placed U.S. interests above that of incompatible Muslims.

Concerning another matter, I find it very interesting how so many political office holders, media pundit personalities and others seeking political office all agree that it is impossible to deport millions of illegal immigrants who are wreaking havoc throughout our republic.  The truth is, they can but the politicians don’t have the stones to do it.

Believe it or not, president Dwight D. Eisenhower utilizing Operation Wetback deported 13 million illegal immigrant Mexicans over two years during his administration.  Also at the onset of the great depression, President Herbert Hoover deported over two million illegal immigrants.  Both presidents put American interests first and did what had to be done, without the higher technology available today, which could greatly aid in the justifiable need to deport millions of disrespectful illegal immigrants.  Maybe there should be a put America first test for those seeking to assume the presidency.

VIDEO: Minneapolis Muslims prefer Sharia, want blasphemy laws in U.S.

Note the unanimous opposition to the freedom of speech and support for criminalizing criticism of Islam — and even for murdering those who insult Muhammad. All freely and openly expressed on a sunny day in Minneapolis.

Video thanks to Ami Horowitz.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Freedom, Provocation and Targets

Islamic State has 30,000 foreign jihadis from over 100 countries

The Un-American Divider in Chief

The president of the United States of America was once known as the commander in chief.  The old saying about a house divided against itself may certainly be applied to our republic today.  Not since the civil war has our beloved nation been so separated ideologically.  The most noted era of division historically is the time surrounding the big war between the north and the south.  There were sharp disagreements over states’ rights as well as the argument over whether individuals should be allowed to hold others in the bondage of slavery.

As horrific as the states’ rights and slavery issues were considering the toll they took on the country, at least they were situations that mattered and worth the time and effort to resolve them.  Take for example, the ongoing mission of the divider and chief, Barack Obama and his embittered wife, First Lady Michelle Obama.  Just recently, Mrs. Obama gave a commencement address at the historic Tuskegee University in Alabama.  Instead of encouraging the hopeful graduates to go seek opportunities and to be the best they can be, she chose to focus upon the wasteful topic of the limitations of racism.

Here we are in a nation facing a major crossroad in her history and Mrs. Obama complained about the “daily slights” that she and her husband have experienced.  This is from a woman who’s own husband won’t even associate with you on any level if you are not a fellow progressive.  She talked about overcoming that “heavy burden” by channeling their frustration into “organizing and banding together.”  Mrs. Obama also stated that the frustrations that are playing out in “communities like Baltimore and Ferguson.”

She took a grand opportunity to embolden younger Americans who happen to be black (technically brown) in their goals of successful achievement and allowing their God given gifts and talents to make room for them and turned it into a pedestrian pity party for having been “black in America.”

Such worthless and insane topics to be repeated over and over within the ranks of Americans who happen to be black, only serves to insure failure, bitterness and misery for those who should be looking forward to climbing the ladder of success.  The horrendous economic policies of President Obama has done much more to thwart opportunities for all Americans, than the racists Mrs. Obama refers to could dream of.  In fact, as usual under most democrat administrations especially the current one, economic opportunities are much fewer today than during the time of the previous Bush administration.

Alright so let me get this straight according to the Obama’s, racism is today’s biggest impediment preventing blacks from succeeding.  Yet there are fewer opportunities today than when the president assumed office in this so-called racist nation.  So does that make the Obamas racists?  I already know they are rabidly anti United States bigots.

The president has allowed the influx of millions of illegal immigrants who are being offered just about anything they want, including the chance to displace Americans who happen to be black at the dwindling workplace.  Again, does that make President Obama and the First Lady racist?  If Mrs. Obama is so concerned about blacks being held back, she might review her husband’s economic policies and also take a look in the mirror.  Under the Obama administration, America’s highest corporate tax rate on the planet is just one of the many factors of this regime that has the economy basically stagnating at best.  Thus the real reason for fewer opportunities, not racism.

In addition, purposely dividing the republic over racial foolishness and class envy only keeps people focused on real or imagined divisions rather than authentic solutions to the stymied economy.  So now we are putting up with a divided and less prosperous republic turned mob rule democracy.  Mrs. Obama has unfortunately has proven to be nothing more than a middle aged progressive activist using race as a means to divide and weaken our country.  She along with her husband has scoffed at every viable free market economic solution to the current malaise.

Are there racists in America?  Yes there are, many of whom are black.  But there are many more non racists who are optimistic hard working Americans who simply want to see the nation restored not only economically, but in every facet of society as well.  I believe that many of my fellow Americans who happen to be white like myself, do not like the destructive policies of the Obama regime doesn’t make them racists.  But also like myself desire to witness a resurgence of the good values and principles that made the United States of America the envy of the world.

The freedoms, rights, privileges and responsibilities enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution can only be maintained if “We the People” are united as Americans. The progressive hyphenated Americans divided by race, class envy and increasingly immoral behavior only serves the purpose of those seeking to divide and conquer America.  America’s strength is in the good morality of her people.  The founding fathers recognized that in order for America to be and remain free is for her sovereign citizens to be more dependent upon God, their own good sense and opportunities than an intrusive overbearing and oppressive government.

The choice is yours my fellow Americans.  You can either be divided and conquered or United and free to live in liberty as God intended.   God Bless America and May America Bless God.

Florida 2016: E-verify Constitutional Amendment Ballot Petition Started

Floridians for E-Verify Now have begun to collect the 683,149 petitions needed to place mandatory e-verify constitutional amendment on the 2016 ballot.

If passed the amendment would take effect on July 1 of the year following passage by the voters. The amendment requires that all Florida employers who hold business licenses shall verify the employment eligibility of all new employees through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation shall administer this amendment through regulations, random audits, investigations of complaints, and enforcement actions. Authorizes penalties for violations of this amendment. Provides definitions.

Dr. Frank Morris, the former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and former Dean of Graduate Studies at Morgan State University, speaks on why Floridians need to Amend the Florida Constitution to prohibit illegal alien hiring:

Key provisions of the proposed Florida constitutional amendment are:

  • Mandates that all employers use the Federal E-Verify program to verify the employment eligibility of all new hires.
  • Prohibits the hiring of illegal aliens
  • Provides for penalties to employers that violate provisions of the amendment. Violators of this amendment can face suspension of their business license.
  • Mandates that the state enforce this amendment through regulations, random audits, investigation of complaints, and other enforcement actions.
  • Any Florida citizen has standing to seek judicial relief to compel the state to meet its constitutional obligation to enforce compliance with this amendment.

Click here to read the full text of the e-verify constitutional amendment.

Those interested in putting this amendment on the 2016 ballot may download the ballot petition at www.FloridiansForEverifyNow.org.

Freedom of Disassociation: Indiana Edition by STEVEN HORWITZ

“Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday’s repugnances are today calmly accepted — though, one must add, not always for the better. In crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate it.” — Leon Kass

First, let me say how happy I am to have my column back at the Freeman. I look forward to being here every other week alongside Sandy Ikeda and Sarah Skwire.

If you’ve spent any time on the Internet in the last couple of weeks, you’ve found it abuzz with opinions on Indiana and gay rights. The passage of the state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has generated all kinds of commentary from both left and right, and most of it is misguided or overwrought.

I’d like to offer a few of my own thoughts on these matters, which, I think, add up to a call for both tolerance and freedom of association — as well as a rejection of repugnance as the basis for public policy.

Tolerance lies at the core of the libertarian worldview. Living peacefully with each other means accepting our differences and allowing others to engage in behavior that we might dislike but that does not harm third parties. “Anything that’s peaceful” is our lodestar, as Leonard Read often reminded us. Such tolerance does not require that we associate with people we disagree with, only that we leave them in peace. And this idea cuts to the core of the debate in Indiana.

If, like me, you think that gays and lesbians are not doing anything harmful to anyone, and that they should be treated just like other human beings, you might call the behavior of those who refuse to, for example, provide photography services at a same-sex marriage “intolerant.” Perhaps it is, but those who have such views are not engaged in any attempt to prevent gays and lesbians from getting married — or anything else — by refusing to provide them with a service. They are, in fact, tolerating them, but also refusing to associate with them.

Tolerance does not mandate association.

Any idea of tolerance that mandates association will quickly get us into trouble. If, for example, you object to those who refuse to sell their products or services to gays and lesbians because homosexuality runs counter to their deeply held beliefs, would it not be a far worse form of intolerance to make it illegal for them to act on their religious beliefs? After all, your side is willing implicitly (or explicitly) to back its intolerance of religious convictions with coercion — you know, guns, fines, and prisons — while the other side’s intolerance involves only the simple and peaceful refusal to sell.

To repeat: those who refuse to sell are not preventing people from behaving peacefully; those who would make the refusal to sell illegal are.

If, like me, you are bothered by the behavior of those who won’t deal with gays or lesbians, you shouldn’t make matters worse by using state power to engage in true intolerance. Instead, demonstrate how much you really care about tolerance by using persuasion and disassociation to change the behavior you find intolerant.

To see how real tolerance, persuasion, and disassociation in civil society can work, consider this story from Texas. A narrow-minded store clerk objects to a mom letting her little girl wear a boy’s suit. Mom’s friends hear the story and then give the store bad reviews online. (And unlike the small, Christian-owned pizzeria in Indiana, no one threatened the owners or threatened to burn down the store, both of which would be crossing the line that separates real tolerance from coercion.) The store pulls its Facebook page after people leave critical comments. Mom was not actually “denied service,” because she immediately declared she wouldn’t patronize the store due to the clerk’s attitude.

What didn’t happen?

No one sued, used violence, called the police, or said, “there ought to be a law.” People used words, reputation, and the power of exit to persuade others of who was right and who was wrong. This is how it should work. We don’t need a law. The mom had choices and exercised them, and the clerk and store paid a price for indulging their views on gender stereotypes. This is peaceful conflict resolution involving the rights of expression, exit, and disassociation — no need to get the state involved. Tolerance, after all, does not mean we have to like everything everyone else does. It only means we can’t and shouldn’t stop them from doing anything that’s peaceful.

Too often, we try to make laws on the basis of our mere dislike for others’ behavior. As a favorite Internet meme of mine says, “Everything I like should be mandatory and everything I don’t like should be banned.” This sort of reaction to our repugnance at the behavior of others is a real danger to liberal societies.

Whether it involves outlawing peaceful behavior, forced association, or state-sponsored discrimination, using repugnance as the basis for enacting laws is itself repugnant. What we end up with, after all, is poisonous discourse and a social order that is increasingly coarse and uncivil.

Why are people threatening the owners of a small pizza shop in Indiana who, hypothetically, said they would peacefully refuse to cater a same-sex wedding? What underlies such threats is the belief that repugnance (in whatever form it takes) justifies coercion. That belief also helps explain why others are so vehemently opposed to giving same-sex couples legal equality. Whether it’s repugnance at people’s religious beliefs or repugnance at the thought of two people of the same sex being married, such an emotion does not suffice to trump fundamental freedoms.

Sacrificing fundamental constitutional rights and our commitment to equality before the law isn’t worth the warm glow of an ephemeral “victory.” The trade-off is simply too steep — as is the slippery slope it could put us on.

About Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Micro-foundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

A Document more powerful than the U.S. Constitution

doments illustrative of the formation of the USA book coverYes, that’s correct. In my quest to find definitive answers to that nagging feeling I have had for some time that our country is not being managed according to the law of the land, I have found that answer and it has been with us for 89 years. So before you think I’m out of my mind and that there is no document more powerful than The Constitution I suggest you search “69th Congress, 1st Session, House Document 398.” You will find something called “Documents Illustrative Of The Formation Of The Union Of The American States.”

On May 10th, 1926, a resolution was passed to compile the necessary documents for a complete study of the development of the Federal Constitution because the documents have been scattered so widely, many of them inaccessible to the ordinary reader, that it would be a real service to collect all relevant materials and publish them in one volume. That’s why this document is more powerful than the U.S. Constitution on its own, because it includes the Constitution and all relevant documents leading up to it.

I am now fortunate enough to own one of the original printed in 1927 and it is a wonderful piece of history to hold in my hands, but the entire document is available on line. It is 1072 pages not counting the index so it takes a while to read. Instead of depending on the opinion of someone’s opinion of someone’s opinion of what the founders and framers were trying to convey, this lets you go directly to the original documents and see exactly what they intended. The hard copy version even includes a document in James Madison’s own hand writing!

The biggest revelation comes when you realize we have been lied to or misled, either intentionally or unintentionally, that the Articles of Confederation were completely scrapped and replaced by the Constitution.

I have found absolutely no evidence of that in this document. On the contrary, I have found nine references that the Constitution is AN AMENDMENT to the Articles of Confederation and the Union formed under the Articles is a perpetual union and only if there is a conflict between the Articles of Confederation and The Constitution does The Constitution prevail.

This is extremely significant for a number of reasons:

  1. The Union is a Union of the States and only the States. The people are not members of the Union and have never been declared as members of the Union, therefore, The Union has no authority over The People.
  2. The People are defined as “Free Inhabitants” of the States. They are not governed by The Union.
  3. The taxes for funding The Union rest solely on the Legislatures of the States. There is no authority to tax The People as they are not members of The Union.

Here is the bottom line, because the States have the sole responsibility to fund the administration of The Union they also have the authority to deny funding anything that falls outside the scope of what the administration of The Union has been instructed to do. The sixteenth amendment is nothing but smoke and mirrors to make the people believe The Union has the authority to tax them but it’s not rocket science to understand that taxing authority cannot extend beyond members of The Union to Non Members. Even the Supreme Court recognized that in The Harris case in 2014.

The States have let this happen because it takes a burden off of them and the administration of The Union intern gives a portion of the money they unlawfully collect back to the States for their cooperation, like the Gambino family and John Gotti paying off dirty cops but it is happening right in front of us.

So, who is going to fix this? I for one am prepared to fight for this in a court of law with a jury deciding the outcome. Anyone in the Federal Government willing to take up that challenge? In closing, I will say that I am not infallible and 1072 pages is a lot of reading, especially for a guy like me that usually waits for the movie, but if anyone can find anything contrary to what I have stated in those 1072 pages, please let me know exactly where and I will stand corrected.

County Sheriff Stands Up to the IRS

Mentioned below is an article regarding the tension in Carlsbad, New Mexico as a County Sheriff stood between a resident in his county, and the Federal Marshall Service!  Sheriff Scott London had a nationally known and respected Constitutional Lawyer spend a day teaching his department the reality of the US Constitution, especially the protection of private property rights from intrusion by an unchecked federal government and it’s agencies and departments.  KrisAnne Hall is a former State’s Attorney with many years of prosecution experience.  Between returning to school to study Constitutional Law and studying on her own, KrisAnne has become recognized nationally as a subject-matter expert.  Her books and DVDs will attest to that statement.

I have been most fortunate to have met KrisAnne on a couple of occasions, and was proud to host her for a full-morning seminar at the Arizona State Capitol this past January.  Sheriff London of Eddy County, New Mexico has participated in one of KrisAnne’s eye-popping, quick note taking, head spinning, and solid constitutional law and facts training.  The Arizona Legislators, law enforcement officers, and various elected officials from across the State of Arizona took more notes than they have since college, or so they reported.  A month later and I have about a dozen requests from law makers to “bring KrisAnne back to Arizona!”  I am quite certain Sheriff London, and his department, wants a return seminar, also.

Sheriff London decided to act on his authority and rights as the Constitutionally-elected Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Eddy County, New Mexico.  This authority gives the Sheriff absolute authority to stand against federal intervention in his county, and neither can a Board of Supervisors or County Commissioners, a State Legislature, the Governor, or even Federal Departments order the Sheriff.  The people of Eddy County, New Mexico have the authority to cause the sheriff to be turned-out of office, even recalled if the Sheriff is abusing his authority.

The 3,200 Sheriffs across America are accountable to the people! 

The Framers of our Constitution especially created this document with that provision in mind.  As a guard against runaway tyranny and heavy handed federal intrusion, our Forefathers created the Office of the Sheriff to be a watchdog for breaches of sovereignty, and a protector of people’s rights and constitutional gifts.

Sheriff London has been informed that much help is available to him and his department if he so chooses.  The Sheriff is not running for reelection, so statements that he is grandstanding are typical grandstanding in their own verbiage.  A single sheriff in an out-of-the-way county in the Southwest stood on his U.S. Constitutional authority and protected a citizen, and a citizen’s private property.  Hooray for this Sheriff of Eddy County, New Mexico!  Hooray for those sheriffs across this land who do likewise.  I am afraid they will be put to the test far more in coming months.

The Sheriff is far more than a law enforcement professional, he/she are truly our last line of defense against tyranny and runaway federal intrusion.


EXCLUSIVE: Sheriff Stands Up to IRS, Cancels Land Sale

By: Priscilla Jones Feb 7, 2015

The first Republican elected sheriff in Eddy County, New Mexico, became the first sheriff in 25 years to stand up to the IRS. He physically stood at the gate of a troubled citizen’s property while US Marshals threatened his arrest. The landowner filed an appeal with the court and expects his case to receive due process before his land is publicly sold. The sheriff agrees. The judge does not.

Sheriff Scott London says he learned more about the Constitution in the year he spent campaigning for his job than in all of his years of schooling combined.

WASHINGTON, February 7, 2015—New Mexico’s Eddy County Sheriff Scott London notified the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) via letter that the sale of county resident Kent Carter’s property is canceled until Carter receives due process of law and his appeal is heard. The certified letter dated February 4 received an immediate response from the Undersecretary of the Treasury’s office. According to the Treasury’s website, however, the public auction is still slated for February 19.

“Many officers have stood up over the years for the rights of citizens being victimized by the federal government,” said Sheriff Mack, founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, “But Sheriff London is the first one to stand up to the IRS since the early 1990s.” Mack said, “His actions show courage and humility. London is setting a good example for the rest of our sheriffs.”

Approximately ten days before Christmas, U.S. Marshals broke in the door of Carter’s rental property with their guns drawn. The tenant was a young mother with a new baby—home alone while her husband was at work. Sheriff London was called to the property to intervene. He advised the Marshals that Carter’s case was in appeal and he deserved due process. They threatened to arrest London, but he stood his ground and they backed off.

Carter has battled the IRS for decades over taxes on the earnings of his modest construction business. One court document listed his debt at $145,000, a figure Carter says an assessing agent “pulled out of thin air.” Every time he challenged them, his bill would shoot up a few hundred thousand dollars. His legal complaints state that the IRS failed to adhere to its own tax code, did not use proper accounting methods, and that the collection activity was unlawful because no notices of deficiency were given. Carter says his private and confidential information, including his social security number, was filed in public records and given to third parties. The IRS countered that it can publish and disperse the private information of Americans if it is trying to collect their money or property. A judge agreed.

Carter says the IRS is currently claiming he owes $890,000, a figure that “doubled with the stroke of a pen.”

The Taxation & Revenue Department ordered Carter to cease “engaging in business in New Mexico” until his arbitrary tax debt was paid. Carter appealed this injunction on the grounds that it was both unconstitutional and vague, as it deprived him of his right to make a living and also prohibited him from, “carrying on or causing to be carried on any activity with the purpose of direct or indirect benefit.”

“The IRS fabricates evidence against citizens by pulling numbers out of a hat and adding fees,” said Mack, “They wear people down emotionally and financially until they can’t take it anymore. No citizen should ever have to fight the IRS for decades in order to keep his land.”

“The IRS is a lie. The income tax is a lie,” said Carter. “Why should they be able to take anything? They’re worse than the mafia.”

The Carter properties have liens placed against them. A locksmith was instructed to change the locks. The IRS authorized the United States Marshal Service to arrest/evict anyone found on the premises. London, however, physically stood in front of Carter’s gate until the Marshals backed down. A public auction on the front steps of the Eddy County Courthouse is scheduled, but the local county sheriff—trained in the Constitution—resisted.

Carter voluntarily vacated his property and relocated his mobile home to an undisclosed location. “I chose to leave to keep it from escalating to something ugly—like Ruby Ridge, Idaho,” he said. Carter said he advised the Marshals and IRS Agents who publicly claimed he had armed friends on his land, “If there is going to be any violence, it is going to be you who starts it.”

Carter says 100% of his Social Security benefits is seized each month by the IRS, in addition to $2,800 the agency drained from his bank account. Legally, he says, the IRS can take no more than 15% of Social Security benefits.

Mack says banking institutions quiver when faced with the IRS’ gestapo tactics and generally hand over customers’ personal banking information, including access to accounts, without requiring a warrant or even any documentation. He encourages county sheriffs to brief every bank in their jurisdiction to refer inquiries from IRS agents to them.

Sheriff Mack is calling for the IRS to start following the law, including no “random” audits without probable cause, as they violate the Fourth Amendment. He asks them to stop committing crimes and rewarding IRS employees with bonuses for cheating on their personal taxes. “I agree with Senator Ted Cruz and others who say the IRS should be abolished,” said Mack. “It’s time they got off the backs of the American people.”

Carter says he prays daily for wisdom, and that he is surviving to be able to look into his grandchildren’s eyes and tell them he fought for their future and for America.

London is the first Republican to ever be elected sheriff in Eddy County. He distributes Bibles on behalf of Gideon International and met his wife in choir practice.

pricilla jonesAbout Priscilla Jones

Priscilla Jones is a business writer and communications strategist based in the nation’s capitals—Austin and D.C. Shedding light on incidences of abuse by overreaching government entities is her passion. Priscilla pens political humor pieces, a few of which are pure satire. When authentic investigative journalism is required, however, she delivers. Her beats are the criminal “justice” system, the security industry, and gun + private property rights. If you have a lead, please contact her. She is PatriotWriter on Twitter.

Texas Showdown: Shariah vs. America

First of all, who in their right Islamic mind would present a conference that seeks to suppress free speech, right after the Islamic slaughter of free speech cartoonists in France? Who, the supremacist Muslim Brotherhood, that’s who! In a bizarre event that featured terrorist Siraj Wahhaj and useful idiot Islamic apologist, John Esposito – the good patriots of Texas assembled, 2000 strong, to reject Islamic shariah and call all Muslims to separate the Mosque from the state, reject their tribal allegiance and integrate as true Americans who honor the US Constitution.

Today’s show features our own team of Alan Kornman and Damon Rosen who covered the anti-free speech Muslim fiasco and we feature, skyped in LIVE, the brave and courageous Pamela Geller who was one of the leaders of the protest against shariah and for free speech. Finally, we skype in LIVE, Muslim leader-activist Saba Ahmed, who is given an opportunity to “defend Mohammed,” and explain why more Muslims do not follow Muslim Reformer, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.

RELATED ARTICLES:

6 Times the Obama Administration Said Its Job Was to Promote Islam

“A Malicious and Evil Enemy”

Obama to Media: Don’t Report Against Muslim Jihadis

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Atlas Shrugs.

Texas Citizens Cleanse anti-American Bias from Public School Textbooks

On Friday, November 21st something monumental happened in Austin, Texas at the State Board of Education.  The Truth in Texas Textbooks (TTT) Coalition changed the perception that average citizens could have a major impact on the content of textbooks for their children.  TTT is a grass roots organization composed of average concerned citizens formed in October 2013 with a simple mission: to insure the proposed social studies textbooks are as error free as possible.

What did these 100 unpaid volunteers do?   They corrected inaccurate or misleading textbooks for 5 million Texas children and found over 1500 errors in 32 textbooks.

These are just a small sample of the errors found:

  • Publishers attempted to push the softer definition of “jihad” as the “struggle to become a better person”. TTT pointed out the facts:  the Quran, Hadith’s (Islamic scholar approved collections of Muhammad’s life) and Mohammad’s biography defines jihad as “violence against infidels in the name of Allah”.  Attempts to re-define is “spin” and not based upon original Islamic sources.
  • Conditions in Cuba are painted as highly beneficial for young people from a healthcare and education standpoint.  Misleading information and half-truths is how TTT characterized this description of life in Cuba with details of other reports and sources providing facts justifying TTT’s position.
  • “It’s easy to get depressed about Climate Change.”Telling a child what emotions to have on a topic is “agenda building”. Only one side of the issue was told. TTT urged both sides but publishers chose to pull the book as the solution. 
  • Many publishers routinely referred to the U.S. form of government as a “democracy”.  The word “democracy” is not found in the constitution nor in any of the 50 state constitutions.  Our form of government is a constitutional republic.  The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag is to the Republic for which it stands, not to the democracy for which it stands.
  • Publishers claimed in several instances that Muslims were the original inhabitants of the area we know of as Israel. TTT pointed out Jews inhabited this area hundreds of years before Islam existed.
  • Multiple publishers left out the terms “Islamic jihadist”, “Muslim terrorists” even when the attackers used these terms in describing themselves; no mention that the Barbary pirates were Muslims, no mention the 911 hijackers were Islamic jihadists, the absence of the word “Islamic” when describing the terroristsin the 1983 Lebanon Marine Barrack attacks. If the terrorists know who they are, why won’t publishers use those same terms?
  • Gorbachev had more to do with the Berlin Wall falling than Ronald Reagan according to one publisher; Communism deficiencies downplayed while Western democracies marginalized; TTT was able to get re-writes on these and many other distorted areas.

Publishers attempted to claim many TTT entries were not “errors” but request for “additional content”.  A half-truth or omission of fact does requires additional content for the student to know the “full truth”, not a partial truth. Fortunately the publishers at the direction of the SBOE began to make changes.

November 21, the SBOE approved the final selection of textbooks. One publisher’s entire collection of textbooks was removed from the approval process primarily due to their failure to respond to TTT’s inputs.

Our efforts won’t stop until we analyze all of the publisher’s replies and post them on our website at www.truthintexasttextbooks.com. The public can see the final grade we put on each textbook based upon the Texas Essential Knowledge Skills (TEKS) compliance rate and how many of the 1500 errors are corrected.

The books will be rated as “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Poor” or “Worse”. This simple report card rating will be easy to understand and assist parents, teachers and school board members as they analyze the books to determine the best textbooks for their children.

Our final report will be out for local school districts (1200+ school districts) as they begin reviewing the 95 social studies textbooks for purchase beginning in early January 2015.  Visiting TTT’s website in the coming weeks will provide interested citizens information on the best textbooks for their children.  Each of the 32 reviews can be found here.

The secret to our success was average citizens who took the time to get trained, dedicate time to the project, accept criticism of their work and work together as a team following TTT procedures.  I can never thank them enough or pass along all the accolades passed to me for their work.

The process has been so effective eight other states have asked for TTT’s protocols to duplicate in their states. Changing textbooks requires entering the review cycle at the right time with the right team. A public conference call for any interested individuals or groups who want more information is scheduled for late January 2015. More details on precise time and call-in information will be on our website beginning in early January 2015.

Publishers want to sell books but making changes before they go to print is the key versus waiting for them to get on the shelves. Please get involved in your children’s future and education, these textbooks are the pathway to their minds and our future.

You can see the testimony of several of our volunteers and the leadership of TTT by going to these YouTube links:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Fox News.

Obama’s Amnesty Travesty

People really need to read the U.S. Constitution. It says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”

The Constitution makes no reference whatever to executive orders (EO). George Washington started the practice mostly because he had to. Traditionally executive orders have been treated by Congress as having the legal status of legislation, but only insofar as they apply to the management of how the government operates.

The Constitution makes it quite clear that the President has no power to enact laws, but as long as an EO does not unilaterally alter or negate existing legislation or run counter to the Constitution Congress usually accords it legitimacy. Those that do not honor the separation of powers have been struck down by the courts or by legislation that opposed them.

AA - Prez has no power to write lawAs is widely rumored and reported, if President Obama does attempt to issue amnesty to illegal aliens he would be over-riding or altering existing immigration law. He does not have the power to do that.

Such an executive order would be immediately challenged in the courts and if power in the Senate passes to the Republicans in the midterm elections, Congress would oppose it. With an eye on the 2016 elections, incumbent Democrats might not be willing to go along with an Obama amnesty EO.

Recent polls all demonstrate opposition to amnesty. In a September Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll 73% of the public said that Obama should work with Congress on immigration reform. After the invasion of an estimated 150,000 young people and others from Guatemala and San Salvador earlier this year, comprehensive immigration reform went from 54% approval last year to 48%.

When word leaked that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency had requested bids on a minimum of four million blank work permits and green cards a year for the next five years, there was an outcry in political and immigration policy circles. “There aren’t enough federal employees from here to Pluto to do adequate background checks on 34 million,” said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

In September, the Census Bureau released new data on the U.S. population finding that the nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 41.3 million in July 2013, an increase of 1.4 million since July 2010. Since 2000, the immigrant population is up 10.2 million and double the number in 1990, nearly triple the number in 1980, and guadruple that in 1970, which it stood at 9.6 million.

It’s no secret President Obama has wanted to get as many immigrants as possible, especially those from south of the border, into America. He has winked at the laws that determine immigration and citizenship. In 2011 many believed he had “enacted” the Dream Act by EO, but he had not. His administration instead adopted a policy regarding the deportation of illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, granting them the option of applying for two-year work permits. Even conservatives could find some merit in this, allowing them to gain legal status and apply for citizenship.

The amnesty issue would play havoc prior to the November 4 midterm elections, so Obama will wait until after them to announce his intentions. I doubt he thinks an executive order will go unchallenged, but at that point it will not matter to him since he will not be running for reelection in 2016. His indifference to constitutional restraints on his power as President is well known.

On October 22 Iowa Rep. Steve King, a Republican, predicted Obama will “violate the Constitution, break the law and grant executive amnesty.”

“If the President takes this action,” said Rep. King, “ (that) he’s threatened to take we will have abandoned every pretext of the Constitution of the United States and if the American people take that setting down or lying down, then our constitutional republic has been destroyed.”

Rep. King is right, but the Obama EO will be challenged in the courts and in Congress. If that effort is opposed by Democrats in Congress, their midterm losses will barely rival what the 2016 election will hold for them.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

The Fallacy of “Reasonable” Gun Control Laws

The Second Amendment clause, “The right of the people,” indicates that the framers were acknowledging a right rather than granting a right. Therefore, this right “to keep and bear arms” is an inherent and intrinsic right that predates the Constitution. A preexisting right cannot ever be malum prohibitum – wrong because legislatures, courts or political correctness says it’s wrong.

Regardless of recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions supporting this legal fact, our detractors have continued to work to disparage our right. Their next assault might be to the effect that, though the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is an individual right, it is not absolute. They will contend that even a SCOTUS mandate is not absolute and thus is subject to restrictions.

Contrary to what some over zealous pro-gunners want to believe, the antis are correct inasmuch as the RKBA is not an absolute. Stay with me, now. If it was, we would have to allow little children and prison inmates to keep and bear arms. Therefore, some limits must be acceptable. But limits do not mean anything the legislature/courts want it to be. Bearing arms is not an absolute right under all conditions anymore than free speech allows one to yell fire in a crowded building when there is no fire. The constitutional right to bear arms does have limits, but these confines are only limited to two factors: Citizenship and Other’s Rights.

“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Justice Louis Brandeis, 1927.”

CITIZENSHIP: At the time of the Constitution’s inception the framers, “all men in a man’s world,” clearly gave little thought to anyone other than the man as the defender of family, property or country. Whereas, in Eighteenth-Century England, only the landed rich were empowered to defend honor and country. This concept of all men being full citizens and having the right, empowerment and obligation to self-preservation was unique to America.

A citizen, circa 1785, was considered to be any white, American, male over the age of 21 and not a felon. The idea of civilian gun controls was unconscionable. It is was also inconceivable that a Thomas Jefferson or a James Madison would refuse to take a musket away from a drunk, a child or someone conspicuously deranged. Had one been able to ask these learned, most-sacred-document framers of the conflict of such a restrictive action; they most likely would have replied with words to the effect that the drunk or mental incompetent were, at least temporarily, not citizens. A child was, of course, not a man and a felon had forsaken his citizenship.

The controversy of the 2nd Amendment exists because, erroneously, some have insisted that the right to keep and bear arms is a state (as in Ohio, Texas, Florida) right and not an individual right. However, it is clear that the first clause: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, means a free America. The word “state” also means nation/country, such as “the State of Israel” or “the Arab States” or “Secretary of State”. In other words, the nation can best form a well regulated militia (army/navy) if its militia (originally, men between the ages of 18 and 45) are free to keep and bear arms.

With the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments all of-age Americans were recognized as full, ruling-class citizens. Arms possession was, AND STILL IS, the signature of being a citizen – not a subject to some monarchy and most assuredly not mentally inept, a child, a felon, or a substance abuser.

OTHER’S RIGHTS: Violating the rights of others is cause to restrict gun rights. Allowing certain persons, such as children, felons, drunks, etc., to possess firearms most assuredly creates a substantial risk of loss of someone’s life or liberty. However, restricting the RIGHT of a law-abiding, bona fide citizen from carrying a firearm that is concealed from public view where it can not induce panic or be available to a snatch-and-grab thief, does not present a substantial risk of damage to anyone. Likewise, machine guns, assault rifles, or short-barreled shotguns, while in the possession of law-abiding citizens, are of no danger to others.

Constitutional rights are only such when they don’t infringe on the constitutional rights of others. One’s right to swing his fist ends where the other person’s nose begins. Of course, if one keeps his fist concealed in his pocket he is violating no ones rights. On the same token, if a law-abiding citizen goes about his legal business with a firearm concealed in his pocket he is no more infringing the rights of any other person than the theater-goer who keeps the word “fire” concealed in his mouth.

Some citizens might wish to exercise their right to the “pursuit of happiness” by not wanting to be in the presence of guns. On their own property, not accessible to the public, they can do as they please. However, where public property is involved such as court houses, police stations and legislatures guns can be restricted by instituting the use of metal detectors and storage boxes that the carrier can store his/her gun until he/she leaves that secure area.

But, what about the reasonableness factor? Other “rights” such as those found in the Third, Fourth and Eight Amendments are subject to this doctrine of reasonableness – why not the Second? Our enemies might argue, that, under the reasonableness doctrine, it is reasonable to ban certain types of arms or exclude bearing of arms into specified locations without incorporating metal detectors/lock boxes.

Unlike other Articles and Amendments there is no such provision for “reasonableness” in the Second Amendment. Discretion is not part of the right to bear arms. In other portions of our Constitution we see the following discretionary wording:

Article I, Section 4: “Each house may determine the rules….”

Amendment III: “…but in a manner prescribed by law.”

Amendment IV: “…against unreasonable searches…upon probable cause.”

Amendment VIII: “Excessive bail….nor excessive fines…nor unusual punishments”

If the framers of the Constitution had intended for the bearing of arms to be anything other than what it says, they would have included in the Second Amendment subjective words or terms such as “reasonable,” “excessive,” “prescribed-by-law,” “upon-probable cause,” “unusual,” or “may”.

Reading discretionary or reasonableness provisions into the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights, is no different than reading the First Amendment to say: “Congress shall make no UNREASONABLE law respecting an establishment of religion…” If the legislature or the courts are permitted to insert reasonableness into the Second Amendment, what’s to prevent them from saying a national church or attending church only on Tuesdays is not unreasonable. Not in America, not yet anyway!

SUMMARY: The Second Amendment RKBA is a conditional absolute right. Conditional, insomuch as restrictive conveyances can only be based on citizenship and the rule of other’s rights. In other words, if you are not precluded from owning a gun and your exercising of this right does not infringe on anyone else’s right, you can bear any type of arm anywhere you wish.

Until such time as the Constitution is amended, keeping and bearing any type of arms is an intrinsic and absolute right for all citizens. While on the other hand, non-citizens do not have an absolute right to a firearm. However temporary that condition might be. The “American ruling class” (aka voters), if they so desire, can change the definition of citizen or establish some restrictions – but ONLY by amending the Constitution.

Though voters may change the Constitution and are empowered to repeal portions or amendments thereof, they may not abolish intrinsic and fundamental rights such as the right to self-protection and the means to maintain that right.

Copyright 2014 Chuck Klein