Tag Archive for: U.S. Constitution

Citizenship Clause Surreality: The Clause’s OWN Author Said it Doesn’t Include Aliens

/in , , , , , , /by

Early in my commentary career, I found myself debating the meaning of one of my articles in an online chat with a woman who’d read the piece. Why the argument? Well, I was mischievous, I’ll confess, and, having a little fun, didn’t tell her I was the author. Towards our interaction’s conclusion she told me, quite confidently, that I didn’t understand what the writer was trying to say! (I lack self-knowledge, I guess.)

At least, though, inherent in the exchange was the idea that original intent matters. I mention this because people today often behave as if it’s irrelevant. Just consider, for instance, the “birthright citizenship” issue, currently before the Supreme Court.

Do you know that Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, a man who coauthored the Citizenship Clause, clearly explained what we’re all now arguing about? Read on.

For more than 100 years, the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has been (mis)interpreted to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil—even an illegal alien—is automatically a citizen. It’s such an insane standard, and leads to such nation-rending mischief, that we could wonder how the provision’s framers could have legislated such destructiveness.

Well, they didn’t.

In a documented conversation in the U.S. Senate, Howard first explained that he considered the 14th Amendment to simply be declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

In other words, it wasn’t meant to alter, just clarify. And then he clarified, saying that his provision

will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

For even more perspective, however, consider that the 14th Amendment was proposed in 1866, the year after the War Between the States’ conclusion. The timing was no coincidence: The Citizenship Clause was meant to guarantee citizenship to ex-slaves and their descendants.

Moreover, the man who introduced it, coauthor and Ohio senator Benjamin Wade, originally formulated it to read that it would apply to “persons born in the United States or naturalized by the laws thereof.” As the Federalist pointed out Monday, too, “Such language may have lent slightly more credence to the left’s claim that anyone born here is a citizen.”

And to avoid such misunderstandings is apparently why Senator Howard altered the text, adding the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” caveat. It thenceforth read:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This version, not Wade’s, is the one that made it into the Constitution, and Howard’s elaboration upon the exceptions explains why. It clarifies what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, that illegal aliens are not, as the radical immigrationists claim, thus subject.

Given this, how can anyone argue for a different interpretation? The answer lies in dishonesty—and sometimes in a currently popular “legal philosophy” called “textualism.”

Advocated by figures such as Justice Neil Gorsuch, it states that constitutional provisions should be interpreted via a “plain reading of the text.” Sounds good, I know. The problem is that textualists believe this should be done even when it yields a result contrary to original (to the author’s/framers’) intent. Why, commentator Bill O’Reilly himself has expressed this notion. He claims there’s nothing we can do about birthright citizenship for all because that’s what “the Constitution says,” and that changing it would require an amendment (impossible to pass). So I’m going to leave you with some relevant food for thought.

An analogy: One day a couple’s little daughter comes crying to the father, saying “Tommy hit me!” So the dad summons his boy, gives him a tongue lashing and says, “Now, if you hit your sister again, you’re going to be sorrier than you can imagine!”

So everything is OK for a few hours. But then the girl comes bawling again. “Tommy kicked me!” she wails to dad.

So, livid, the father grabs the boy and says, “That’s it! You’re finished now! You know what I told you just this morning!”

“No, no, dad,” interjects Tommy, unfazed. “You said not to hit Sarah. You didn’t say anything about not kicking her!”

Now, what if the father then replied, “Well, ya’ got me there, kiddo! That’s some good lawyering! I should’ve phrased that more clearly!”?

“Here’s your allowance.”

Ridiculous? Insane? Yes, but it’s also something else.

Textualism.

The father’s “ruling”—ignoring his “law’s” true meaning in favor of wording and denying his daughter justice—was absurd. But it’s no more so than thinking a slavery-inspired, 1866 constitutional provision should be used to justify anchor-baby artifice by third millennium Third Worlders.

In other words, even if “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” could somehow be interpreted to cover illegals, it matters that the line’s author himself specified otherwise. It wouldn’t matter, though, to “textualists”; their reading trump’s a framer’s meaning—in their minds.

It’s crazy. For just as how it’s said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, constitutional interpretation is not supposed to be a stupidity pact.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on X (formerly Twitter), Truth Social, MeWe, Gettr, Tumblr, Instagram or Substack or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Is the Constitution “Propaganda”?

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Is the U.S. Constitution worth preserving? Of course it is. Is it worth defending, even at the cost of life and limb? Of course it is. Is it worth distributing to young and old, including in our schools? Of course it is.

Well, actually, not everybody agrees with that last part. Here is a two-year-old story that somehow escaped wide attention. It’s still relevant today because many of our elites likewise have a low view of the Constitution.

The essence of the story is this: In a liberal school board in Texas two Septembers ago, attempts to distribute pocket copies of the U.S. Constitution to public school students were almost thwarted by school officials because it was allegedly “propaganda.” Only because of the intervention of a conservative legal group were the copies allowed to be passed out after all.

To me, this is jaw-dropping. It’s as if some of these leftists were saying, “Hey, you can’t distribute the Constitution to school children, that’s unconstitutional!” It reminds me of the scene in the classic film, “Dr. Strangelove”: “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here. This is the War Room!”

I learned of this story from a national group called Citizens Defending Freedom (CDF), an organization dedicated to helping modern Americans appreciate what we have in the U.S. Constitution. Former U.S. Congressman Lt. Col. Allen West says of this Constitutionally-minded group: “Citizens Defending Freedom has put together the organization and strategy to extend liberty to the next generation. Their strategy is spot on, their tactics are solid, their success is astounding.”

Theoretically, in America, as one nation under God, “we the people” are in charge of our own government. But many American elites today are at war with America as founded.

They are at war with the notion of “self-rule under God,” which is the essence of the American experiment—from the Pilgrims who wrote up an agreement for self-government, “In the name of God. Amen,” in the Mayflower Compact (1620) to the Declaration of Independence (1787) which declares our rights from the Creator and our government is supposed to be by “the consent of the governed” to the U.S. Constitution signed “in the year of our Lord” 1787, which explains how our government is supposed to work.

Here’s a timeline of the 2023 event where pocket editions of the Constitution—with no commentary, no additional quotes—were flagged and almost forbidden. I’m grateful to Robert Goodman, the Florida Faith Director of Citizens Defending Freedom, for providing the core outline of this story.

In early September 2023, the 917 Society, a group based in Tennessee, with the double goals of “the preservation of our Constitution and fostering a love for our country among our youth,” donated 17,000 pocket Constitutions to Williamson County, Texas schools. This is an area just north of Austin. Goodman notes, “Citizens Defending Freedom and Moms for Liberty helped distribute them.”

But they hit a snag on September 10, when trying to hand out Constitutions to 8th Graders at Leander Independent School District (LISD). The website of that educational institution says: “Located in Central Texas, Leander Independent School District serves parts of Austin, Cedar Park, Georgetown, Leander, Jonestown, and surrounding communities.”

I knew Austin was liberal—but that liberal?

On September 14, LISD rejected more than 4,000 copies of the pocket Constitutions, because, allegedly, that would “prevent the District from maintaining a position of neutrality on political or religious issues or would create an appearance of favoritism on political or religious issues.”

We’re talking about the U.S. Constitution, not some evangelistic tract on how to receive the gift of salvation.

On September 15, CDF attorney and the founder of Remnant Law, Jonathan Hullihan, sent a letter to the superintendent, “citing First Amendment and Texas law violations.”

I interviewed Hullihan about this for a radio segment. He said: “Some of the lower-level folks in the school district called it [the Constitution] ‘propaganda,’ and rejected it outright. That’s when we got involved.”

Thankfully, Hullihan’s letter caused the school board to relent and allow distribution of the constitutions after all. He called this resolution of the case “a huge victory for free speech and civic education.”

As of this writing, America is 275 days away from our nation’s 250th birthday. What is that birthday? July 4, 2026, will be the 250th anniversary of when the Declaration of Independence was adopted by voice vote.

Of course, the Constitution is predicated on the Declaration, which says that our rights come from the Creator.

To see some leftist school officials try and block children in even a conservative state from reading the Constitution is mind-numbing. In anticipation of America’s 250th anniversary, we have our work cut out for us.

Hat tip to Rev. Paul Blair, leader of the Liberty Pastors, for the lead on this story.

©2025 All rights reserved.

Dr. Franklin Saves the Day

/in , , , , , , , /by

We are often given the impression that the founding fathers intended a “strict separation of church and state” with no religious references allowed in the government.

But in reality, on June 28, 1787, during an impasse at the Constitutional Convention, one of the least orthodox of the founding fathers—Dr. Ben Franklin—called on the convention to pray to help break the logjam. This speech turned out to be a positive turning point in a convention that almost seemed doomed to failure.

The recent movie featuring Michael Medved, “The American Miracle,” captures the tension quite well—conflicts between big states and little states and an enormous rift over slavery. The movie crescendos with Franklin’s speech.

Said Dr. Franklin (as recorded by James Madison):

“The small progress we have made after 4 or 5 weeks close attendance…is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding….

“In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding?

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending Providence in our favor.

“To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ [Psalm 127:1] I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages….

“I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”

Wow. Here was one of the least religious of the founding fathers, a man whose beliefs were not orthodox, asking the delegates to remember God and seek His help.

Opponents of the thesis that America began as a Christian nation generally ignore this speech. But if they do mention it, they argue that the specific solution Franklin spelled out (that they bring in clergy for daily prayers) was not voted for. Nor was it voted against. Franklin felt his request seemed to fall on deaf ears.

But a variation of his request—that the framers pray together for God’s help to finish the task—did happen.

What impact did Dr. Franklin’s speech have on the Constitutional Convention? New Jersey delegate Jonathan Dayton tells us what it was like on July 2, when they reconvened for the first time since Franklin’s speech: “We assembled again; and…every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated.”

Then on July 4th, the entire Convention attended a special church service, wherein Rev. William Rogers prayed for them: “We fervently recommend to the fatherly notice . . . our federal convention . . . Favor them, from day to day, with thy inspiring presence; be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the good of the great whole; . . . that the United States of America may form one example of a free and virtuous government…May we . . . continue, under the influence of republican virtue, to partake of all the blessings of cultivated and Christian society.”

But didn’t the founding fathers maintain the view that prayer in the public square was “unconstitutional”? Uh, these were the men who gave us the Constitution.

How low we have sunk in our secularism. We don’t need less God today, we need more godly influence, even in our government—as Dr. Franklin well noted.

©2025 All rights reserved.

Constitution Comes Under Fire, Identified As Possible ‘Threat’ To American Politics

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The New York Times non-fiction book critic Jennifer Szalai claimed the Constitution was “frozen in amber” while reviewing a book by University of California law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

Chemerinsky’s book, “No Democracy Lasts Forever,” released Aug. 20, argues that the United States Constitution has become a “threat to American democracy” that is “beyond redemption.” Szalai claimed that “Constitution worship” was possibly damaging the American political system in her review, citing arguments made by Chemerinsky and other liberal legal scholars, who say the document created a situation where a minority held tyrannical power to thwart.

WATCH: Socialists want to eliminate the U.S. Constition and replace it with a ‘national democracy’

“According to this line of argument, the damages of Constitution worship extend to the structure of the political system itself. National politics gets increasingly funneled through the judiciary, with control of the courts — especially the Supreme Court — becoming a way to consolidate power regardless of what the majority of people want,” Szalai wrote. “This disempowerment of majorities, combined with political gridlock and institutional paralysis outside the judiciary, fuels popular disaffection. The document that’s supposed to be a bulwark against authoritarianism can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings on abortion, gun rights, presidential immunity and former President Donald Trump’s eligibility that have angered liberals, who have suggested either imposing term limits on the justices or expanding the court in response.

Szalai noted that some of the reforms Chemerinsky sought could be achieved by passing a constitutional amendment, but then seemed to imply that such a change would be unlikely after dismissing the 1992 ratification of the 27th Amendment, claiming the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age to 18, was the last “major” change to the document she asserted was “frozen in amber.”

Chemerinsky argued in an Aug. 23 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times Americans should look into a new governing document, criticizing the equal representation of states in the “egregiously undemocratic” United States Senate and objecting to the filibuster.

Democrats have sought to abolish the filibuster during the Biden administration, but were thwarted by then-Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Chemerinsky also argued against the Electoral College in his Los Angeles Times op-ed, citing the 2000 and 2016 elections, when Republicans George W. Bush and Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote.

AUTHOR

Harold Hutchison

RELATED ARTICLES:

Law School Dean Tells MSNBC It’s Time To Scrap Constitution

UN May Arm Governments With ‘New Weapon’ To Censor Speech, Watchdog Says

Journalist Warns Bill Maher Young Men ‘Breaking To Trump’ Might ‘Be Fatal For’ Harris’ Campaign

RELATED VIDEO: Kamala will shut down X if she wins

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Biblical Roots of American Law and Why It’s Necessary to Return to Them

/in , , , , , , , /by

America is at a crisis point. While it’s easy to dismiss presidential candidates brashly proclaiming November to be the most important election in the nation’s history as mere votemongering, their words may have a kernel of truth at their center. At present, America is facing something of an identity crisis: the principles and truths upon which the nation was founded have been largely shouldered out of the public square, leaving a sort of vacuum which demands to be filled.

The question before the nation now is whether to restore those principles and truths to their rightful place or attempt to retroactively replace the country’s foundation, which will likely result in chaos and will certainly result in the creation and proliferation of an entity radically different to the United States which has stood for nearly 250 years.

American Founding Father and the nation’s first vice president John Adams famously declared, “Our [C]onstitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This truth seems to have been largely forgotten and even inverted today. To read frequent disappointing judicial opinions and listen to the lectures and arguments of legislators, one might think that the Constitution was rather made to tame or shape an otherwise moral and religious people.

Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin expressed this point of view when he chided a fellow state legislator for supporting the biblical definition of marriage. Raskin quipped, “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

Yet America’s founding principles are rooted in that Bible and in centuries of Christian theology, philosophy, and morality. It is not so much, as Raskin implied, that the Bible and the Constitution are mutually exclusive doctrines, but rather that the Bible itself upholds the Constitution. An attempt to use the Constitution to suppress the Bible is the proverbial attempt to saw off a tree branch that the man with the saw is sitting upon at that very moment.

Who devised the idea of community and society if not God — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — who is Society itself? The very first thing in the created world that God named “not good” was solitude, an absence of community and society (Genesis 2:18). Who devised the idea of law, of right and wrong, if not God, who gave to Moses the Ten Commandments and who, through the prophets and finally in the Person of Christ, declared unequivocally what was right and what was wrong? Who devised the idea of government if not God, the King of Kings and Prince of Peace? And who determined that man was fit to rule if not God, who made man in His image and likeness, who gave to him free will, who granted him dominion over all other creatures?

The very tenets which the American Constitution is founded upon were established by God Himself and are in fact rooted in the teachings and truths enumerated in the Bible. Without those teachings and truths, chaos alone would reign. How could society possibly be defined — much less defended and bettered — by its own self? On what authority could a society or a portion of a society claim to enact and enforce law, to govern, or to give or deny others a say in law and government?

Without God and the truths He established in the Bible, there would be no authority. What man may claim to rule or argue that his notion of right and wrong is more right than another man’s if the highest authority he might cite is just his own self? All arguments would become circular then, resolved only by violence, by brute force. The only truth which could be relied upon, as C.S. Lewis so brilliantly explained in “The Abolition of Man,” would be fickle feelings and irrational appetites.

But those very tenets which the American Constitution was founded upon have been crowded out, silenced, and labeled second-rate. The Jamie Raskins of the world insist that a man’s sacred duty is not to uphold a sacred and divinely-ordained moral code, but a legal document written by demonstrably flawed and imperfect men nearly three centuries ago. Turning again to the wisdom of Lewis, we can see, “Where men are forbidden to honor a king they honor millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.” Today, men are forbidden to honor the sacred scriptures, and so they honor instead an ever-expanding legal document which, cut off from the Word of God, is rapidly becoming poisonous.

This is not to disparage the Constitution, of course. The men who wrote it were learned and sincere, and many of them were wise. They were largely brought up on the classics, studying both the good ideas and the bad of the past several thousand years, but careful not to confuse the former for the latter or vice versa. Most prudently of all, they based their notions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the truth and morality which Christianity has lovingly preserved for some 2,000 years. The document they wrote, the Constitution, was a good one, but not a divinely-inspired one.

In fact, without the Bible and the truths it safeguards and passes down from generation to generation, the Constitution could not have been written and the American experiment never tried. It was the Christian understanding of the imago Dei which emboldened the Framers to declare that man might participate in government. It was the Christian notion of human dignity which enabled the Framers to rule that your vote counts the same as mine. And it was the example of Christ crucified which encouraged these men to not merely write down their ideas but to fight and, in many cases, die for them. A man would not go to war for the sake of a poem he has written, nor would he die for an ingenious work of fiction. It is the biblical truths upon which the Constitution is based which inspired the Founding Fathers to fight and die, in the hopes of preserving and safeguarding these truths for future generations of Americans.

But now the saw is nearly through the branch, and America is hanging precariously by a thread. The demonic anti-sacrament of abortion, the worship of the chief of the seven deadly sins in Pride Month, the diabolical practices of transgenderism are all clear and sure signs that a ghastly new religion has arisen from Hell to challenge Christianity and supplant it as the basis of Western civilization. If the American Constitution remains rooted — or is rather re-rooted — in Christianity, America will survive, prosper, and thrive. If not — if the cult of leftism has its way — if sin and degeneracy, butchery and debauchery are worshipped and idolized — if the word of man is placed on a par with or higher than the Word of God — then America, and indeed the whole of Western civilization with it, will be plunged into the abyss.

In its place will be erected a soulless facsimile, devoid of life, devoid of virtue, devoid even of the knowledge of virtue or the acknowledgement of the difference between virtue and vice. It will bear the same name, it will have many of the same buildings, the same domed Capitol, the same White House, the same Statue of Liberty, but it will be a radically different entity. The America of the past 250 years will have died, and something else entirely will have taken its dead skin and put it on like a suit, like a costume.

A return to the nation’s roots, to the Word of God, to an understanding of goodness and not virtue as defined by God — not by man! — is an urgent necessity if the nation is to live.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pro-Abortion Groups Ramp Up Spending ahead of Elections – But So Do Pro-Life Groups

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Preserving Freedom in the Face of Challenges

/in , , , , , /by

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think and act anew.” — Abraham Lincoln

America, the land of liberty, has long been a beacon of hope and opportunity for people worldwide. Its founding principles – liberty, freedom, and justice – have shaped its identity. This foundation, laid by the framers, has come to be known as American Exceptionalism.

However, in the face of evolving challenges, it is imperative that we not only understand the concept but actively work to preserve and strengthen it for future generations.

When asked what kind of government the delegates had created, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A republic if you can keep it.” These words hold even greater significance as we confront a crucial juncture in our country’s history.

The slogan “Make America Great Again” is not merely a catchphrase; it embodies a call to action, a commitment to uphold the values that have made America exceptional. In recent years, however, these values have come under attack. The Obama/Biden administration failed to deliver its promises, leaving many Americans disillusioned and disheartened. To the leftists, failure is not only acceptable but expected.

Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, the Democrats have launched one failed hoax after another in an attempt to derail his presidency. Their efforts, driven by fraudulent claims and partisan agendas, have only sought to erode the genuine efforts of a president with good intentions.

But now is not the time for despair. Our highest priority must be the preservation of our nation’s freedom. We have faced challenges before and emerged more robust, and we must do so again.

The threats we face today are manifold: encroaching Islamism, socialism, Marxism. These ideologies seek to undermine the very foundations of our society, threatening our individual liberty and prosperity. But we cannot afford to succumb to fear or complacency.

To combat these threats, it is crucial to articulate clear policy proposals that uphold American values. This includes:

It is strengthening educational programs that promote an understanding of American history, values, and the principles of democracy.

We are advocating for policies that support the free market and individual freedoms, thereby countering the collectivist ideologies that seek to undermine these principles.
Promoting international cooperation and alliances that support the spread of democracy and the rule of law, thereby countering the global reach of authoritarian ideologies.

Freedom, in all its forms, is our greatest legacy. Throughout history, brave men and women have fought and died to protect it. From the battlefields of Europe to the jungles of the Far East, Americans have made countless sacrifices to safeguard our way of life.

In the not-too-distant past, we confronted and defeated the forces of Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. We stood firm against tyranny and oppression, refusing to waver in adversity. And now, we must once again rise to meet the challenges of our time.

The insidious threat of leftism, socialism, Islamism, and Marxism looms large, but we cannot afford to shrink from the fight. We must meet these challenges head-on, with courage and determination.

Now is the time to stand up and be counted. We cannot give up or give in. We must be willing to do whatever it takes to preserve our nation’s freedom and ensure a bright future for generations to come.

This will require unity, resolve, and a steadfast commitment to our core principles. We must be willing to defend our freedoms against all who seek to undermine them, whether foreign or domestic.

But we cannot do it alone. We need the support of every patriotic American who believes in the principles that make this country great. Together, we can overcome any challenge and emerge stronger than ever before.

For those who are concerned about the direction of the country, there are practical actions that can be taken to support the preservation of American values:

Vote in elections, and this is a must.

Participate in local community activities and public discourse to influence policy and public opinion.

Educate yourself and others about the principles of American exceptionalism and the importance of defending these values.

Defending America against all enemies is not just a slogan but a solemn duty that falls on everyone. We must be willing to stand up for what is right, defend our freedoms, and ensure that America remains a shining beacon of liberty for the world to see.

Now is the time to rise to the occasion, embrace the challenges before us, and reaffirm our commitment to the principles that have made America the greatest nation on earth. United, we will prevail.

These profound words from John F. Kennedy still resonate deeply: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

©2024. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

POSTS ON X:

The FBI Secretly Pressured Americans To Waive Away Their Gun Rights

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

  • The FBI secretly provided forms to Americans between 2016 and 2019 to “voluntarily” relinquish their rights to own, buy or even use firearms, according to internal documents and communications. 
  • The signed forms, which were unearthed by the firearms rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA), raise serious legal questions, lawyers say.
  • “We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, outside counsel for GOA. 

The FBI secretly pressured Americans into signing forms that relinquish their rights to own, purchase or even use firearms, according to a trove of internal documents and communications obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The forms were presented by the FBI to people at their homes and in other undisclosed locations, according to bureau documents unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act by the firearm rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and shared with the DCNF. At least 15 people between 2016 and 2019 signed the secret forms, which ask signatories to declare themselves as either a “danger” to themselves or others or lacking “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives.

GOA and attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment law told the DCNF the existence of the forms raise serious legal questions.

“We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, GOA’s outside counsel who specializes in firearms law. “Which certainly is not something you expect in the United States.”

The form specifies that signatories will be permanently registered with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) — which the form states would legally bar signatories from being able to “purchase, to possess and to use any firearm.” It is unclear what exact criteria the FBI used to identify signatories, but some forms include bureau notes detailing ongoing investigations.

Many signatories allegedly made violent threats in online chat rooms, in person and on social media platforms, FBI notes show. The 15 signed forms obtained by the DCNF show FBI agents in Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine presented them to Americans — whose names were redacted by the bureau.

Click here to view Screenshot/Signed NICS Indices Self-Submission Form.

While the existence of the FBI form itself was first revealed in 2019 by the firearms blog Ammoland, the outlet did not provide evidence of it being used at the time. GOA obtained the signed forms as part of its lawsuit initiated in January 2020 against the bureau to compel disclosure of records related to the forms.

A spokesperson for the FBI told the DCNF the form was “discontinued” in December 2019, but they did not say why that decision was made.

“The NICS Indices Self-Submission form was created to provide an avenue for individuals to self-report to the NICS Section when individuals felt they were a danger to themselves or others,” the FBI spokesperson said.

‘That Is Terrifying To Me’

In order to get signatures, FBI agents in some cases interviewed people at their homes and elsewhere. While signing the form is supposed to be done “voluntarily,” lawyers told the DCNF there is a sense of undue pressure when Americans have to deal directly with FBI.

“A person is almost invariably at a disadvantage when dealing with armed federal agents,” said Olson.

In 2017, there was one case in which the FBI “was advised of a Facebook conversation” where a man allegedly “threatened to ‘shoot up’ a church,” according to bureau notes. The man denied making the threats in interviews at his home, telling the FBI “he did not want to kill anyone” and has “never possessed a firearm and has no desire to possess a firearm,” notes show.

Nevertheless, the man later filled out the form waiving his gun rights.

In 2018, FBI agents in Maine interviewed a high school student who “decided to look at online advice for hacking” on his school-assigned laptop, bureau notes show. Agents tried to access the student’s Facebook, but were “unable” to do so, according to the notes. However, the high school student eventually agreed to sign the self-submission form.

Another case involved a Massachusetts man who was arrested for vandalism in 2017 after “he broke several apartment windows” and allegedly told police, “I’m gonna kill all you white cops,” according to FBI notes. Three months later, he was interviewed at a redacted location by the FBI and was transported to a hospital after he “became agitated, began sweating profusely and complained of muscle pains.”

Once at the hospital, the man signed the self-submission form in the presence of a doctor and an FBI agent, according to bureau notes.

Reed Martz, a lawyer who runs a Second Amendment blog, told the DCNF “there is implicit pressure any time the FBI is asking you to sign a form.” There is naturally “an adversarial relationship” between everyday people and the FBI, he said.

“The FBI presented this to people,” said Martz. “That is terrifying to me. Think about that. The whole thing is chilling.”

It is unclear whether FBI agents threatened anyone with arrest if they didn’t sign.

Click here for Screenshot/FBI Notes, 2017 Involving Church Incident/FBI

Unanswered Legal Questions

Records do not show when the FBI form was created, who created it and whether or not it was distributed to federal agencies. However, the form was apparently “reviewed by legal counsel,” an FBI employee told a colleague in a November 2016 email obtained by the DCNF. At least 10 people had signed the forms by November 2016, the same FBI employee told their colleague.

Two days later, on that same email thread, one of the FBI employees said they “shared” the forms with “agencies who use these forms like Secret Service and Social Security.” The Secret Service declined the DCNF’s request for comment and the Social Security Administration did not respond.

Federal law requires government agencies to get public comment and approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. Likewise, all official federal forms are supposed to be assigned a “control number,” experts told the DCNF.

However, the forms unearthed by GOA do not have a control number — a fact that underscores the FBI’s glaring lack of transparency — lawyers say.

“This is a form that’s designed for outside the office,” said Martz. “It raises my level of suspicion that it doesn’t have an official form number that you can look up and can download.”

The form also contains space for a “physician or mental health professional” to affirm the signatory “has adequate mental capacity to voluntarily execute this document,” which is a huge red flag, according to John Harris, a lawyer who heads the Tennessee Firearms Association.

“I don’t see how a licensed physician could ever competently sign the declaration that the person has the mental capacity to voluntarily execute the agreement but lacks the ‘mental capacity adequately to contract or manage the details of my life.’” said Harris.

If the signatory does not have the “mental capacity” to own, buy or use firearms, they “could not possibly have the competence” to agree to sign a form waiving away their gun rights, said Martz.

Click here for Screenshot/Signed And Redacted Physician Or Mental Health Professional Verification On FBI form/FBI

There are also questions about the form’s compliance with the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968. The GCA holds that someone may be barred from owning guns if they are “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.”

However, the GCA makes no mention of people being able to declare themselves as mentally unfit to own firearms. Likewise, the forms do not indicate that courts ruled signatories as unfit to own firearms.

“By definition, the people targeted with these forms are those who are not otherwise ‘prohibited persons’ and have not committed any actual crime with which they can be charged,” said Olsen. “Otherwise, there would be no need to use the form.”

Harris noted the GCA does not necessarily render anyone with a “mental condition” a “prohibited person” to own firearms. Both those labels “require adjudication,” he said.

“The form seeks to deceive and mislead not only the individual, but perhaps even a medical provider to believe that a mental health issue is adequate to render someone a prohibited person under the statutory language, when the form itself lacks any information or disclosures that make it even remotely an accurate representation of the law,” Harris told the DCNF.

The FBI declined to identify any statutory justification for the forms, and OMB did not respond to a request for comment.

‘You Can’t Waive Constitutional Rights’

Those who signed the FBI forms could have standing to sue should the government ever prosecute them for trying to buy a gun, lawyers say.

“How would such unilateral waiver of a constitutionally protected right give rise to a basis for subsequent denial of that right and or form the basis for a valid criminal conviction?” Harris asked. “Could, in contrast, someone waive the right to vote or run for office and have that enforced?”

More fundamentally, the FBI forms call into question whether or not Americans can sign away their constitutional rights. Ken Cuccinelli, the former attorney general of Virginia, says you can’t.

“You can’t waive constitutional rights,” said Cuccinelli, now a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America. “They’re natural rights.”

AUTHOR

GABE KAMINSKY

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ATF Agents, Officer Show Up ‘Warrantless’ To Demand Info On Man’s Guns, Video Appears To Show

Visa, Mastercard, AmEx to categorize gun store sales separately

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

VIDEO: Survivor of Mao’s Communist China warns against Critical Race Theory

/in , , , /by

There is no more reliable witness than victims of left-wing oppression, persecution and mass murder.

VIDEO: Survivor of Mao’s Communist China warns against Critical Race Theory

By: American Military News, June 12, 2021:

A Chinese woman who survived Communist Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung’s regime slammed Loudoun County’s School Board in Virginia for teaching Critical Race Theory in its schools, asserting the lessons are “very familiar…the only difference is [Communist China] used class instead of race.”

“I’ve been very alarmed by what’s going on in our schools. You are now training our children to be social justice warriors and to loathe our country and our history,” the Chinese woman told the school board. “Growing up in Mao’s China, all of this seems very familiar. The Communist regime used the same critical theory to divide people; the only difference is they used class instead of race.”

“We were also encouraged to report on each other, just like the Student Equity Ambassador program and the Bias Reporting System,” she recalled, adding, “This is, indeed, the American version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The Critical Race Theory has its roots in cultural Marxism. It should have no place in our schools.”

According to WTOP, Loudoun County parents sued the school board on June 3, accusing the school district leaders of violating students’ freedom of speech.

“…basic principles like the First Amendment have not stopped the
Loudoun County School Board from prescribing exactly what shall be orthodox for its students. LCPS is all-in on a curricular framework that expects students to speak, act, and think in line with a particular ideology,” the lawsuit states. “Any dissent from that ideology can be labeled as ‘bias’ and anonymously reported to the speech police, a group of hand picked students who share the LCPS administration’s ideology, charged to pass judgment on those classmates that their peers turn in.”

The lawsuit says the school board has implemented racial distinctions between its students in the name of “dismantling systemic racism,” specifically noting the position of “Student Equity Ambassador,” which is appointed based on race and “discriminates against students on the basis of their viewpoint.”

“The Board has also implemented a viewpoint discriminatory ‘bias reporting system’ that chills students’ speech on matters of important public concern,” the lawsuit continues. “Each of these policies violates the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech and equality before the law.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Left-wing Wash state politician threatened to blow up school bus, called children ‘cowards’ as they fled

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

The Durability of the U.S. Constitution

/in , , , , , /by

“The American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” So said 19th century British Prime Minister Sir William Gladstone.

September 17 marks the 233rd anniversary of the signing of the U. S. Constitution.

But some in our society might wonder—hasn’t this musty old document outlived its usefulness? Isn’t it arcane and irrelevant? Just the product of a bunch of rich white guys, and some of them were slave-owners. But, of course, the Constitution contained within the means by which slavery could one day be abolished. And it was.

Nonetheless, many today think the Constitution is out of date. During the recent protests and violence in the streets, some on the left have said things like, “F*** the Constitution.”

Billionaire George Soros has funded many attempts which, to put it gently, have frayed the edges of the Constitution.

In their 2010 book exposing George Soros, The Shadow Party, authors David Horowitz and Richard Poe tell of one such Soros attempt against the Constitution. The radical billionaire funded a symposium at Yale Law School in 2005, with the express purpose of initiating a fundamental transformation of the Constitution by this present year.

Horowitz and Poe note, “Yale Law School hosted a conference called, ‘The Constitution in 2020,’ promoted as an effort to produce ‘a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.’” They opine, “We might think of it as a Shadow Constitutional Convention.” At the conference, participants referred repeatedly to the “evolutionary character of constitutional law.”

The WEEKLY STANDARD said of the Yale conference: “The left makes no secret of its intentions where the Constitution is concerned. It wants to change it…freeing [the left] from the tiresome necessity of winning elections….The new, improved Constitution will come about through judicial re-interpretation.”

Will the Constitution endure—even through all the various assaults on it, including bouts of judicial activism?

Well, it has endured all these years, including during the U. S. Civil War. I believe the answer is Yes—with the right actions by “we the people.”

I think the reason it has endured all these years has to do with Christianity. The Constitution benefited greatly from the Christian worldview that was held by the majority of the founders—even those who might not have believed in Jesus as their personal Savior and Lord.

Law professor and prolific author John Eidsmoe wrote a seminal book on the 200th anniversary of our key founding document, Christianity and the Constitution.

In a television interview on our nation’s Christian roots, Eidsmoe told me, “When you look to that constitutional convention, those fifty-five delegates, we find that, contrary to what is commonly being taught today, the overwhelming majority were actively affiliated with Christian churches. Twenty-seven of them were members of the Church of England or the Anglican Church, an orthodox church in those days with a Calvinist confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles.  About seven of them were Presbyterian Calvinists, about the same number were Congregationalist Puritans, again Calvinists, two of them were Dutch Reformed, two of them were Lutheran with a very similar theology in most ways. There were two Methodists, two Roman Catholics, one who we just don’t know for sure what his religious beliefs were, and that leaves maybe about three or four that you would call unorthodox in their religious beliefs.  That’s a very small minority: it’s about six percent.”

A key component to the Constitution’s success is that the founders believed the Biblical witness about man—that man is basically sinful. So the founders strived to create a government that would protect us from each other and that would protect us from the government, since the government is run by men. And men are sinful. James Madison says as much in Federalist #52.

Where did Madison learn such wisdom? Madison, a key architect of the Constitution and one of its biggest champions, was schooled at what is today Princeton. He studied under its president, Rev. John Witherspoon, a confirmed Calvinist who came from Scotland.

When Madison said things like, “All men having power ought not to be trusted,” he was echoing what he learned so well from his mentor Witherspoon. Eidsmoe points out that Witherspoon was the founding father who trained so many other founding fathers in a Christian worldview. He taught about 20 key founding fathers at Princeton.

In contrast to failed forms of government which always exalt man’s nature, the U. S. Constitution stands for the rule of law. By assuming the worst about human nature, it has brought about the best in men. As has been said, we are a nation of laws and not of men. Its Christian foundation explains the durability of the Constitution.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

The Natural Law of Self-Defense

/in , , , , , /by

Man’s right of self-defense did not begin with the adoption of the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with guns or with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it has no connection whatsoever to any man-made law or technology. Self-defense by any means is a natural human right that each person enjoys by virtue of his or her humanity. It is the right which guarantees all others.

One of the most provocative statements ever made on how comprehensive our individual right of self-defense is was made by the famed English philosopher John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government. Locke, whose political philosophy greatly influenced our American Founding Fathers, explained how the natural law works and why the individual is justified in defending himself with lethal force when necessary:

“THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

“And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

“This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

“. . . force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge” (Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 3, Sections 17-19).

Elsewhere in his Treatise, Locke explained:

“In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE. . . .

“From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender, by right of self preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 2, Sections 8 and 11).

Finally, Locke observed:

“Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it” (Locke, Treatise, Chapter 7, Section 87).

Let’s recapitulate a few of the things we’ve learned from Mr. Locke. Locke explained that there exists a “fundamental law of nature” which gives the individual a right to “destroy that which threatens” him. When someone cuts the common ties, or laws, that bind a society together and protect its members, he becomes “noxious” and dangerous to the society. In fact, he enters into a “state of war” against those whose rights – whether their life, Liberty, and property – are threatened. Inasmuch as a person behaves like a “savage beast” and endangers those around him, he may be put down like a mad dog. This is not only common sense, but a right we each enjoy in the “state of nature.”

Some may argue, however, that we do not live in a “state of nature.” We can all admit that this is accurate. We live in a well-ordered society with laws, a police force, judges, systems of justice, mechanisms to redress grievances, and so forth. However, to deny our individual right of self-defense merely because we live in a society tramples on the very idea of natural rights and the most basic conception of Freedom.

Samuel Adams explained that we always retain our rights regardless of whether we enter into civil society. A person, if he chooses, may exist society at any time. When he does, he takes all his rights with him. We cannot, according to Mr. Adams, renounce our rights because they are endowments from Almighty God. He explained:

“All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

“When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent. . . .

“The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.

“In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators. . . .

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. . . .

“In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave” (Samuel Adams, “The Rights of the Colonists,” November 20, 1772).

Please note that Adams said people do not “renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights” when they agree to live in society with others. These prerogatives – to enjoy one’s natural rights and to defend them – always remain with the individual. It is “the greatest absurdity” to say we do not have a right to defend and preserve our other essential rights.

We allow police and others to defend us because, on paper, this system operates more efficiently. However, law enforcement personnel have no inherent right to police our neighborhoods. They have no intrinsic power to stop criminals just as courts have no inborn authority to punish criminals. Every power and authority a police officer posses comes directly from you, the individual. And this authority is merely on loan and can be reclaimed at any time – such as when no police are present or when public servants abuse the authority you have loaned them. The same is true with any and all powers claimed by government. They belong, of right, to individuals first and foremost.

Furthermore, there are many times in society when the individual does not have immediate access to society’s collective means of self-defense – whether law enforcement, the courts, or the nation’s armies – yet must immediately address a threat to his life, Liberty, or property. Such instances may include a woman walking down the road who needs to defend herself from sexual assault, a man defending his family from a home invader during the middle of the night, a store owner protecting his property and livelihood from arsonists or vandals, a person being carjacked by a criminal while driving to work, or a church-goer who suddenly find himself faced with a maniac attempting to shoot up his congregation. In these and myriad other scenarios, there is no possible way to reach out to society for help; there is no time to wait for the police to arrive, for the sheriff to investigate the matter, or for a jury to deliberate.

All of these instances share at least one thing in common; namely, that the victim’s rights are being violated. In the case of the woman, someone is trying to violate her body and free will or, in other words, her Liberty. In the case of the store owner, someone is trying to destroy his property. In the case of the church-goer, his and other innocent people’s right to life is threatened. In the case of the man defending his family or the person being carjacked, he doesn’t know the intention of the perpetrator is – kidnapping, murder, robbery, rape, etc., – and must act as if any of these is a distinct possibility.

Consider what John Locke said in the quote above: “He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one . . . must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest.” We don’t know the intention of someone who is attacking, robbing, or otherwise assaulting us. All we know for certain is that a person is trampling our precious rights and clearly has no respect for us, the law, or morality.

A person who would violate any of your cherished rights automatically shows that he holds all your other rights in contempt. Such a person, theoretically, is capable of any thing – including taking your life. Since you do not know his intention, but simply know that he is willing to violate your rights, you must treat him as an existential threat to all of your Liberties. Remember, Locke explained:

“This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can.”

It is lawful, according to the law of nature, to kill one who attempts to violate your right to life, Liberty, or property. This is the most basic and fundamental principle in the book of Liberty. “In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him,” as Samuel Adams said. When a state of war and hostility is commenced against you by an assailant whose intentions are unknown, you become the “judge and sole judge” of your rights and have a just right to defend yourself, your life, your Freedom, your family, your dignity as a human being, and your property. I would even argue that you have a duty to defend your rights since they are gifts from Almighty God.

Self-defense is not a new concept – wherever there is Liberty, there exists the right to defend it and those who enjoy it. Self-defense is an eternal law recognized by enlightened people in all ages.. Anciently, the Roman statesman Cicero explained:

“[T]here exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. When weapons reduce them to silence, the laws no longer expect one to await their pronouncements. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice, too – and meanwhile they must suffer injustice first. Indeed, even the wisdom of the law itself, by a sort of tacit implication, permits self-defense, because it does not actually forbid men to kill; what it does, instead, is to forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill. When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who has used arms in self-defence is not regarded as having carried them with a homicidal aim” (Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, 13).

I repeat: Self-defense is part of the “natural law.” The natural law written in our hearts by the finger of God permits us to defend ourselves against “plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies.” Literally “every method” and means to defend ourselves when endangered is “morally right.” Not only is it morally correct to defend ourselves, our lives, and our property, but the Declaration of Independence and Constitution both support the idea and enshrine it in the regal robes of legality.

Let’s leave behind the realm of the hypothetical and discuss a real example. Two nights ago, in Hunter, Oklahoma, a man shot a woman who entered his property at 3 A.M. and attempted to steal a flag. The flag was the National Socialist flag bearing the swastika. Whether or not you think he should have been flying the flag is not on trial here. What is being discussed, however, is the actual situation – that is, an individual trespassing on someone’s property at 3 A.M., attempting a robbery, and being shot in the process of fleeing with stolen property.

Since the incident, the local “authorities” have confiscated the man’s fourteen firearms and have charged him with “shooting with the intent to kill and assault and battery with a deadly weapon.” They are holding him without bail despite the fact that he was compliant with police and has never caused any trouble. One anonymous individual, in fact, said the man was very nice and would mow neighbors’ lawns and smile and wave. In spite of all this, he is being treated as a murderer.

The woman, by the way, survived the incident and is being treated for her wounds. Amazingly, the district attorney has not yet decided whether to charge her with a crime despite the fact that no one denies she was trying to steal property from the man’s home! I doubt whether the criminals who previously stole the man’s flag’s were charged with theft or trespassing either.

If I was on the jury that will try this case, given the information we know at this point, my conscience would not allow me to convict the man of anything. I’m quite sure John Locke would also vote “not guilty.” It was he, after all, who said, that it is “lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life.” How can we refute his logic?

When you examine stories like this one from Oklahoma, don’t fall into the trap of asking whether the man should have fired his weapon. That’s not the point. That’s irrelevant, in fact. That is between him and his God. What you need to decide, rather, is whether or not the man had a right to defend himself and his property with force.

I contend that each of us has a natural right of self-defense which no earthly force, no government, no majority, no law, can ever erase. I hold it as sacrosanct that the laws of nature give me, the individual, a right to protect my life, my Liberty, and my property – and those of my family and innocent people – with lethal force whenever and wherever necessary. I further affirm that the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the victim of an illicit act, not to the criminal who was fortunately thwarted in his or her attempt to violate the victim’s sacred rights.

You may not care about swastika flags, but you should care very much about property rights. You may not agree with the personal viewpoints of the shooter in this case, but you should care about whether his right to defend his home and possessions is held inviolate. You may have sympathy for the woman who was shot, but you should never let your judgment become so clouded with emotion that you can’t label her a thief and a criminal. You will rarely go astray in your judgment if you always keep in mind the importance of our natural rights and our paramount right of self-defense. Self-defense, even when it means ending the life of an offender, is part of the “perfect freedom” with which man is born.

©Zack Strong 2020. All rights reserved.

What is wrong with Democrats? It’s in their party’s name, stupid!

/in , , , , , , /by

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814.

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.

The Democrats want America to become a democracy. The ideal of a Democracy is not only reflected in their name but it is in their political DNA.

Eliminate the Electoral College – The First Step Toward Suicide

The Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College and choose the President of the United States by popular vote. They also want to give illegals and non-citizens voting rights. They want Americans, and non-citizens, to vote to commit suicide.

An email from the Progressive Caucus titled “It’s time to put an END to the Electoral College” states:

We can’t forget: in 2016, Trump LOST the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. But thanks to the Electoral College, he’s the President.

If we sit back and allow history to repeat itself, Trump could be re-elected next year!

So we’re taking action NOW and raising $15,000 to support Progressives who are working to abolish the Electoral College.

If you believe that the results of elections should reflect the will of the people, chip in now to help end the Electoral College:

[ … ]

Listen, the Electoral College consistently benefits Republicans at the expense of our democracy.

In fact, 2016 was not the first time a Republican won the presidency after losing the popular vote.

So it’s up to Progressives in Congress to put an end to this antiquated system and enact a National Popular Vote, once and for all.

It’s not going to be easy, but with the help of supporters like you, they can make it happen.

If you believe every vote should truly count in our elections, chip in now to help end the Electoral College:

Eliminating the Electoral College has become one of the major talking points of not only the Progressive Caucus but also for some of the Democrat candidates running for president.

America is a Republic

America is not a Democracy. The U.S. Constitution was set up by the Founding Fathers to prevent the United States from ever becoming a Democracy.

Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

Article 4 – The States
Section 4 – Republican Government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Republic

republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW

In the context of the United States of America, both definitions apply.

Conclusion

It’s all about the name. The Republican Party supports the U.S. Constitution and the American republican form of government. Democrats want to change, or even abolish, the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a democracy.

What we are witnessing today is treason led by members of the Democrat Party against a duly elected President. A President who won via the Electoral College.

Treason
treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one’s country or of assisting its enemies in war

President Trump tweeted the following:

As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the….

….People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!

In “The Nature of Government,” Ayn Rand observed, “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”

Is this a coup? Are we approaching an “ultimate inversion” by the deep state?

We report, you will vote your conscience on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Elites Against Western Civilization

What’s Wrong With New York’s $250K Fines for Saying ‘Illegal Alien’

RELATED VIDEOS:

CNN Reports: Whistleblower Is A Registered Democrat

Democrats don’t seem happy about impeachment

© All rights reserved.

Dear Senator McCain please follow or get out of the way!

/in , , , , /by

Dear Senator John McCain (R-AZ),

You had your chance to become the leader of the free world. You failed. As General George S. Patton said, “Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.”

Since you are not President of the United States then you have a duty to follow Donald J. Trump as a Republican, based upon your oath to uphold the Constitution and as an American citizen to allow President Trump to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit.

There is a long standing tradition that members of the Senate do not criticize a sitting President overseas.

Speaking in 1947, Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI), the influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, provided key support to Democratic President Harry S. Truman and admonished his colleagues that “[W]e must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

You are the current chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. You have a duty to speak with President Trump privately on issues important to you but you have no right to suggest the POTUS is a dictator or dictatorial in a foreign land.

President Trump has the power to conduct U.S. foreign policy under Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Please remember President Trump took the oath of office which states, ”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Gateway Pundit reports that in a February 2017 recording in what appears to be a conversation between Senator McCain with Russian comedians Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexei Stoliarov — known as Vovan and Lexus — posing as Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman in a prank phone call, you discussed key national security issues on U.S. policy towards Ukraine and Russia.

Please understand that President Trump won the election. Therefore you are bound by your oath of office and the rules of the Republican Party to follow the lead of President Trump or get out of the way.

Sincerely,

The American People

Christians want to save gays from Hell — Islam wants to send gays to Hell!

/in , , , , /by

I have written about Islam for over a decade. One thing I have learned is that the more Islamic (shariah law) compliant an individual, organization or nation state the more dangerous and deadly they are. I have also written about how the Democratic Party is made up of groups that are fundamentally at odds with one another. However, they have joined together because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The Church Militant’s Michael Voris did a compelling analysis of what happened in Orlando. Voris points out:

The liberal alliance has brought various factions together, with one common goal: to end Catholic morality’s influence on Western civilization.

There are indeed some strange pairings in this liberal alliance: homosexualists, the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and Islam. Whatever differences Islam and liberals have, they have been willing to overlook them to join forces against the common enemy of Christianity, specifically Catholicism.

[ … ]

One point needs to become very clear to all those who wish to paint the Church as an enemy of gays: We want you saved. Islam wants you dead. And let’s be very clear: The Catholic Church wants to save gays from Hell. Islam wants to send gays to Hell. [Emphasis added]

That liberal alliance has been sorely tested after the massacre in Orlando by Omar Mateen, a devout follower of Mohammed.

In my May 14,  2016 column New Democrat Party: The Red–Green–Rainbow Troika I noted:

I have written that President Obama’s greatest political achievement has been to fundamentally transform the Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party (NDP) is an alliance which I call the Red-Green-Rainbow Troika or RGRT. It consists of new groups that Democrats have not historically allied themselves with, until now.

The NDP has made it its mission to protect the “civil rights and civil liberties” of groups that are both incompatible with one another and with mainstream America.

The groups are incompatible for a number of reasons including:

  1. Communists hate Muslims and gays.
  2. Muslims hate Communists and execute gays (sodomites).
  3. Gays hate all religions, but make an exception for Islam (i.e. the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

At some point these divergent groups will turn on one another.

As 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.

Here are some of the absurdities that have become the official ideology of the neo-Democrat Party:

  • The greatest national security threat is climate change (i.e. formerly global warming).
  • White Christian men are a greater threat than the Islamic State, Iran and the Black Lives Matter movement.
  • Spending on social programs is more important than spending on national security.
  • Engagement and dialogue with America’s enemies (i.e. Iran) is preferred to any form of confrontation.
  • Nationalized health care (the Affordable Care Act) is affordable.
  • Deficit spending is good for the economy and will create jobs.
  • Putting more Americans on the public dole is good for creating more government jobs.
  • Anyone who disagrees with the neo-Democrat Party policies is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and a national security threat.
  • People don’t kill people, guns kill people (e.g. need to outlaw guns).
  • Public schools must teach children what to think, not how to think (i.e. Common Core).
  • Aborting the unborn and selling their body parts is noble.
  • Bigger government, more regulations and centralized powers and greater control over the behaviors of citizens is good.
  • Coal, oil and natural gas are evil.
  • Saving the planet is more important than saving the human race.
  • A weak America is good for world peace.
  • The Judeo/Christian God is dead.

On November 8th, 2016 millions will vote for the RGRT candidate for president. If that happens then the policies of the current administration will become the new social order.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Under Obama: 8 Islamic Terror Attacks That Could Have Been Prevented

Orlando Attack Is a Failure of Obama’s ‘Politically Correct’ Policy, Analysts Say

The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

Black Lives Matter’s LGBTQ Agenda

Amending the U.S. Constitution by Fiat – Part II

/in , , , /by

A great many Americans, including a substantial number of my own readers, remain confused about the question of who is and who is not a “natural born” citizen, eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.  They remain doggedly convinced that Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio are all eligible to serve merely because they were born on American soil.  That simply is not the case.  From the comments I have received in response to a recent column titled, “Amending the U.S. Constitution by Fiat,” it appears as if some either read much too quickly, or are a bit lacking in reading comprehension skills.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution tells us, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  It’s pretty straightforward.  Nevertheless, it appears that when many read those words they are immediately struck by a strange form of dyslexia.  What their brains register is a clause beginning, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…” 

The qualifications related to the age of the president and the number of years of U.S. residency are not at issue… they are quite straightforward and leave no room for misinterpretation.  It is the status of the candidates’ citizenship that causes problems for many people… many of whom read the clause as if the legislatures of thirty-eight states had just approved an amendment dropping fourteen words from the middle of the presidential eligibility clause.

Clearly, the use of the word “or” early in the clause tells us that a natural born citizen is someone entirely different from a mere citizen.  That was true on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, and it is still true today; the provision has not been amended.  The term “citizen” encompasses a broad range of citizenship categories, including “native born,” “natural born,” and “naturalized.”  The term “natural born” refers to a specific sub-set of citizens.

When the Founders met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.  So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have produced a Constitution that would allow an individual holding dual US-British citizenship to serve as commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?  It is a preposterous notion on its face.  To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.  Yet, that is precisely what those who use the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably would have us believe.

To illustrate, let’s pretend that we are present at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on a cold winter’s day in January 1789.  It is just seven months after the people of New Hampshire voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution, making it the official law of the land.  The third session of the Continental Congress has just been called to decide who should be selected to lead our new nation as president of the United States.  The Constitution required that the man they selected had to be either a natural born U.S. citizen… or… a citizen of the United States on the day that the Constitution was ratified, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the U.S. for at least fourteen years.

If those who drafted Article II of the Constitution had insisted upon the same qualifications for president and vice president as they had for members of Congress and members of the federal judiciary, including members of the United States Supreme Court, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution would have begun, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…”  In a nation of 4 million people, nearly every male citizen over age thirty-five would have qualified.

But if the Framers had produced a document that began, “No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President…” they would have been presented with an insoluble problem because, in 1789, when the first president of the United States was elected, the only natural born citizens in the entire country… those born after the signing of the Declaration of Independence to U.S. citizen parents… were less than thirteen years old.

Fortunately, the authors of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution had foreseen the problem and, realizing that there could be no thirty-five-year-old natural born citizens during the earliest years of the republic, provided language making it possible for those born prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to parents who were not U.S. citizens, to serve as president or vice president.

It is not as if the country did not enjoy an excess of strong and capable leaders, men of major accomplishments.  General George Washington, who led the continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was available.  He was born in Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before the Declaration of Independence.  Eighty-four-year-old Benjamin Franklin, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention and one of the most prominent men of the time was available.  Franklin was born in Massachusetts in January 1705, and lived most of his life in the U.S.  George Mason, a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention who came to be known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” was available.  Mason was born in Virginia on December 11, 1725, and lived his entire life in the U.S.

However, none of the three were “natural born” citizens because they were born to parents who were subjects of King George III, but who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed.  And since the Framers had foreseen the problem and had provided a “grandfather” clause to cover the situation, all three were made eligible under the Article II, Section 1 language reading, “or a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

In fact, none of our first seven presidents… Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, or Jackson… were natural born citizens.  Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, born to U.S. citizen parent at Kinderhook, New York, on December 5, 1782, six years after the Declaration of Independence, was our first “natural born” president.  Every president since Van Buren, with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British

subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth, has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Those who doggedly insist that all that is necessary to be a “natural born” citizen is to be born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status, have an obligation to explain why the Framers were so careful to distinguish between the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” while setting out the qualifications to serve as president of the United States.

Why did the Framers make that distinction?  Although it is impossible for parents to know beforehand how their children will ultimately develop, we can all agree that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development.  It was that hope of parental and environmental influence on which the Framers pinned their hopes for a Christian nation comprised of Godly citizens who would be capable of maintaining a constitutional republic.

What the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born,” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment or a foreign political ideology that might cause him to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

No president has been more emblematic of the worst fears of the Framers than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania, Ave., Barack Hussein Obama.  His father was a Muslim and a black African socialist; his mother was a left wing socialist flower-child; his stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim, subject to Sharia Law; his grandparents were dedicated socialists, perhaps communist sympathizers; his father figure during his teen years, Frank Marshall Davis, was a nationally known Communist Party writer and propagandist; the people who were instrumental in launching his political career in Chicago were radical Weather Underground terrorists who had participated in the killing of U.S. law enforcement officers; and his religious mentor during his post-college years in Chicago was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an America-hater of the first order.  Nothing good can come from a lifetime of exposure to such people, so is it any wonder that he has dedicated himself to “fundamentally transforming” the government and the culture of the greatest nation on Earth?

Anyone wishing to take up the challenge outlined above might also wish to enlighten us by preparing a comprehensive list showing how Barack Obama’s governing principles mesh with governing principles contained in the U.S. Constitution.  After eight years of Obama rule in the White House, it may help us to decide which poses the greater danger: a) a competent socialist who knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it, or b) an incompetent socialist who hasn’t the foggiest notion of what he’s doing or how it might impact the greatest nation on Earth.  Of the many unknowns surrounding Barack Obama, this may be the most profound.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama May Have Been Elected With Illegal Votes – Judicial Watch

VIDEOS: American Pride 2016

/in , , /by

We need to sow some good seed into our culture if we expect to reap a crop that will restore honor and decency to America.  Here is one way to do it!

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about the America Pride Project click here.