06/20/17

Religious & Political Reflections

By: Conservative Brew

Jefferson Memorial — Reflection

One travels more usefully alone when he travels, because he reflects more. — Thomas Jefferson

In the Republic of the United States of America, our government is a reflection of the people; that is, to the degree there is an honest media.

— Reflect on the following quotes from Thomas Jefferson —

The man who reads nothing at all, is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

How much pain they have cost us, the evils which have never happened.

An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes.

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.

Advertisements contain the only truth to be relied on in a newspaper.

To find out more about Conservative Brew’s thoughts about the media, visit our website >> and visit our Twitter feed Conservative Brew

As defined by Diffen.com, a republic is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority. In theory, all citizens have an equal say and so are treated equally by the government, especially insofar as there is a constitutional prohibition on government discrimination.

Power is not alluring to pure minds. — Thomas Jefferson

Today’s deep state controlled media lead liberals to seek to enlarge the government and give it more and more power. They believe that in doing so that they can position themselves to maintain and/or assume control of that power. However, the issue that they keep running into — and it really upsets them — is that the constitution was designed to protect the people from the government. Many liberals today would throw out the constitution if they could. It maintains a continuous thorn in their side as they work towards their globalist and collectivist agenda.

The vast majority of liberals are secular humanists who don’t actually believe that Jesus Christ is sovereign, alive, and pursuing a relationship with them. Additionally, they believe that truth is relative, that there is no such thing as THE truth (as Christians believe there is), but that truth is found by majority opinion. So from that paradigm, they seek a big government (ie. big powerful secular god) that they can control and manipulate (through propaganda) to sway public opinion (a.k.a their archetype of truth) to control the people via their fleeting irrational sentiments, emotion, and whim.

Hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the media jackals who are controlled by the deep state and who in turn control the DNC.

Republican Abraham Lincoln — Freed the Slaves.

The following information is from the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia …

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity”1 and a “hideous blot,”2 he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.3 Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.4 These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition.5 In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans.6 In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories.7But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation.

Here’s the hope!

Well before we get into the hope, let’s make a few things abundantly clear. We are more than a bit irreverent and certainly not politically correct. As George Carlin stated, “Political Correctness is fascism attempting to appear as manners.” It can make for some great entertainment when you try and create peer pressure for us to become what you consider politically correct — good luck with that 🙂

If you’ve made it this far, and you are one of our liberal friends, you are either not easily triggered or reading this post has taken you three days — either way congrats. We can be friends. We’ll not stop giving you a hard time for your folly, but we can be friends.

Here’s where we’re headed. We’re not trying to convert the left. We’re entertaining and facilitating communication for a family of Christian Conservatives. We believe that together we can manifest the Kingdom of Heaven on earth — not through legislating morality, but through raising awareness in Patriots that the government is a reflection of their hearts and minds. We seek liberty at all costs! It was for liberty that Christ set us free.

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government. — Thomas Jefferson

06/3/17

The George Mason Fabrication

By Publius Huldah 1

“…of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants. Federalist No. 1 (5th para), Alexander Hamilton.

Those who have read Article I, §8, clauses 1-16 of our federal Constitution know that it delegates only a tiny handful of powers (over the Country at large) to the federal government.

They also know that, for the last 100 years, the federal government has violated the Constitution by usurping thousands of powers not delegated.

So what do we do about it?

1. The silly answer of the convention lobby

The convention lobby says that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

Now think about that:  When a spouse violates the marriage vows, is the solution is to change the marriage vows? When people ignore speed limits, is the solution to change the speed limits?  When people violate the Ten Commandments, is the solution to change the Ten Commandments?

Of course not!  The solution is obedience: to the Constitution, the marriage vows, the speed limits, and God.

But the convention lobby moves from silliness to insidiousness:  They say we can only get the amendments we need at an Article V convention.

2. Why do they want a convention?

From the beginning, the enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it:  On Aug. 31, 1787, George Mason said “he would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”; and if it wasn’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another general convention. 2

Such demands for another convention were made throughout the ratification process, and continued after our Constitution was ratified by the ninth State on June 21, 1788.  James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, among others, addressed these demands in their writings.

A convention is the vehicle for getting a new Constitution. Today’s enemies of our Constitution are spending vast sums of money to buy an Article V convention.  Their hirelings are propagandizing the People and are pushing State Legislatures all over our Country to apply to Congress to call a convention.

Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amendment:

  • Congress proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification; or
  • Congress calls a convention if two thirds of the States apply for it.

Our existing 27 Amendments were obtained under the first method.  We’ve never used the convention method because until recently, Americans understood the danger.

James Madison wrote in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and if there were another convention, “the most violent partizans”, and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. 3

Alexander Hamilton “dreaded” the consequences of another convention because he knew that enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it:  Federalist No. 85. 4  

The same goes for today.  If there is an Article V convention, our enemies will have the opportunity to get rid of our existing Constitution and impose a new one. 5

Different factions already have new Constitutions in hand or in preparation in anticipation of an Article V convention. 6

The globalist elite [the Bush family, et al] want to move our Country into the North American Union (NAU).  Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico merge, and a Parliament is set up over them.  Until recently, a copy of the Task Force Report on the NAU was posted at the website of the Council on Foreign Relations; now one must purchase a copy.  The globalists need a new Constitution for the United States which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention.  See this brief commentary .

Now that you see what’s at stake, let’s return to the claims of the convention lobby.

3. The Revisionist Account of the federal convention of 1787

The convention lobby claims that, at the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted, our Framers gave us the Article V convention as the “solution” to federal usurpations.  E.g., Michael Farris wrote: 7   

“George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing amendments] be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”  [boldface mine]

But Mason didn’t say that.  Nor did any other delegates say that.  They weren’t silly men; and they understood that amendments have a very different purpose.

4. Our Framers said the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution

James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787, and kept a Journal.  I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is.  Madison’s Journal shows what the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments:

  • Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787, the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision”.
  • George Mason said on June 11, 1787:

The Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective”, as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be. “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence.  It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent…” [boldface mine]

  • Alexander Hamilton said on 10, 1787 amendments remedy defects in the Constitution.

Other primary source writings of the time show:

  • useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th para).
  • “amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.)
  • If “… the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates …”  (Washington’s Farewell Address, page 19) 8

That’s what they really said.

Amendments can’t “rein in” the federal government when it “violates its constitutional limitations” because when it does so, it is ignoring the existing limitations on its powers. We cannot fix federal usurpations of non-delegated powers by amending the Constitution to say the federal government cannot do what the Constitution never gave it the power to do in the first place!

And look at recent history:  The 1st Amendment didn’t stop them from banning Christian speech in the public square. The 2nd Amendment didn’t stop them from regulating the sale of firearms. The 4th Amendment didn’t stop them from spying on us without a warrant. The 5th Amendment didn’t stop them from regulatory takings.  The 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping thousands of other powers not delegated.

Now let’s look at the words of George Mason which the convention lobby has twisted and taken out of context in an attempt to justify their absurd and ruinous claim.

5. The Dispute over the proper role of Congress in the amendment process

Under the Articles of Confederation (ART. 13), amendments had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States.

The dispute at the federal convention of 1787 was whether Congress – under the second Constitution then being drafted – should have any power over the amendment process.

Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of two thirds of the States.  On Sep. 10, 1787, he proposed this wording for Article V:

“The Legislature of the United States, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution …”

But Mason said the States should be able to propose amendments without having to depend on Congress.  On Sep. 15, 1787, Mason said, respecting Madison’s proposed wording:

“As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind, would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”

Now remember!  Mason agreed with the other delegates that the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution. Mason’s concern was that Congress might not agree to amendments which would be needed to correct defects.

Footnote 8 shows that the 11th Amendment was adopted to correct what the States saw as a defect in the powers delegated to the federal courts.  The 11th Amendment removed that delegated power from the federal courts.  But what if Congress hadn’t agreed to propose that amendment?  That type of scenario is what Mason’s words addressed.

Here are examples of other defects Congress might not agree to fix by amendment:

  • The Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional – it was authorized by Art. I, 8, clause 1. But it was oppressive because it benefited infant industries in the North at the expense of the Southern States.  An amendment could provide that tariffs may be imposed only to raise revenue to carry out the delegated powers of the federal government; and may not be imposed to benefit domestic industries, or to benefit one part of the Country at the expense of another part.  But Congress might not agree.
  • Slavery was permitted under our original Constitution. The federal fugitive slave laws (Art. IV, §2, clause 3) were oppressive.  Slavery is a defect to be repaired by amendment.  But Congress might not agree.

Do you see?  Mason’s words, read together, show that his concern was that Congress might not agree to amendments the States wanted to correct defects in the federal Constitution.  

Neither Mason nor anyone else was so silly as to say that when the federal government “violates its constitutional limitations”, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

6. Why was the convention method added to Article V?

That the convention method was added doesn’t mean that all thought it a terrific idea.  It was a compromise; and the delegates knew they couldn’t keep future generations from doing what they themselves had already done twice:  Invoking the Right, acknowledged in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off one government and set up a new one. They invoked that Right during 1776 to throw off the British Monarchy; and during 1787, they invoked it again to throw off the Articles of Confederation – and the government it had created – and set up a new Constitution which created a new government.

In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), Madison specifically invoked this Right as justification for what they did at the federal convention of 1787: They ignored the Resolution of February 21, 1787 of the Continental Congress which called the convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”; they ignored the instructions from their States; 9 and they drafted a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification (only 9 States needed to ratify our Constitution of 1787).

There is nothing which can stop the delegates to an Article V convention from doing the same thing.  And rememberNew Constitutions are already prepared or in the works.

7. What’s our real problem? Let’s man-up and address that

Our problem today is not a defective Constitution.  Our problem is ignorance, loss of virtue, and disobedience.  Our Framers expected us to be virtuous and informed; and the States to resist federal usurpations. 10

Are we no longer worthy of the Constitution our Framers gave us?  If not, the globalists have plans for us, and they need an Article V convention to impose them.

Don’t fall into the trap they have set for us.  Open your eyes.

Endnotes:

1 My friend Don Fotheringham and I discussed this issue; this paper reflects his valuable insights.  His paper, “Article V is Deliberately Vague”, is HERE; and his excellent book, “The President Makers: How Billionaires Control U.S. and Foreign Policy”, is HERE.

2 Mason didn’t chop off his right hand.  He, along with Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry, refused to sign the Constitution:  see Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention for Sep. 17, 1787.  Randolph wanted the States to be able to propose amendments to the proposed Constitution, and then all would be submitted to and finally decided on by another general convention:  Aug. 31, Sep. 10, and Sep. 15, 1787.  Gerry’s objections to the proposed Constitution were such that “the best that could be done…was to provide for a second general Convention”:  Sep. 15, 1787.

Note well: The federal convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and all referred to it as a “general convention” [search HERE for “general convention”, and you will see].  And in Madison’s Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville, he writes,

 “…3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed …” [boldface mine]

An Article V convention is a “general convention”.

3 Madison opposed the convention method: Federalist No. 49 (Feb. 1788); his letter  to Turberville of Nov. 2, 1788; his letter to George Eve of Jan. 2, 1789; and on June 8, 1789, he circumvented the application previously submitted by Virginia on May 5, 1789 for an Article V convention, by introducing into Congress a proposed “bill of rights”.  That is the procedure we have followed ever since: When States want amendments, they instruct their congressional delegation to propose them.

4 In Federalist No. 85 (Aug. 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of antifederalists who wanted another convention so they could get rid of our newly ratified Constitution.  The “excellent little pamphlet” he refers to (9th para) was written during April 1788 by John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States) and shows:

“the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded.”

Jay warned in his Pamphlet that a new convention would run “extravagant risques” [risks]. 

5 Even though Article V speaks of “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, the delegates will have the “self-evident” power, recognized in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off our existing Form of Government and set up a new Constitution which creates a new government.  And since the new Constitution drafted at an Article V convention will also have its own new mode of ratification, it is sure to be approved.

6 The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum [Art 12, § 1].  Here’s the proposed Constitution for “The New Socialist Republic in North America”.

The Constitution 2020 movement is backed by George Soros, Eric Holder, Cass Sunstein, and Marxist law professors.  They want a progressive Constitution in place by the year 2020.

7 Farris’ paper, “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V”, is HERE on the COS website; the copy I preserved is HERE.

8 Our Constitution originally delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State” (Art. III, §2, cl. 1).  But when a Citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, the States were outraged!  See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).  So the 11th Amendment was ratified to take away from the federal courts the power to hear such cases.

9 ART. 13 of the Articles of Confederation required amendments to be agreed to by Congress and all of the StatesHERE are the instructions the States gave delegates to the federal convention of 1787:

  • “alterations to the Federal Constitution which, when agreed to by Congress and the several States, would become effective”: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, S. Carolina, Maryland, & New Hampshire.
  • for the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution”: Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Delaware, and Georgia;
  • for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”: New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
  • “provisions to make the Constitution of the federal Government adequate”: New Jersey

10 Nullification Made Easy and What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

03/7/17

Allo and the 4th Amendment

By: T F Stern | T F Stern’s Rantings

There’s a new program available from Google for Messaging, it’s called Alloand the download is free according to their promotion.

“Google will use that data to improve parts of the app, such as its smart replies feature. That will allow the app to read through conversations and try and work out how people talk – it can then use that data to suggest what they might want to say to their friends.”

Wonderful, now your smart phone can figure out what you might say before you’ve come up with the words on your own…But that’s not nearly as important as Google storing everything you’ve said so they can plan a marketing strategy based on your interests.

Unlike other messaging programs, Google will save everything you say… Forever.

“… By keeping track of all messages, Allo conversations will be accessible by law enforcement with warrants…”

The courts have ignored the intent of our Founders when they wrote down the Bill of Rights to be added to our Constitution.  These black robed jurists somehow think that electronic conversations aren’t covered the same way as other forms of communication.  After all, Thomas Jefferson didn’t have a Smart Phone so those aren’t the same as letters mailed or hand delivered during correspondence.

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Government agencies have been ignoring the 4th Amendment for so long now as to make it obsolete.

Go to any airport and watch as passengers awaiting boarding are randomly pulled out of line for invasive body searches.  There is no probable cause for searches, no warrant from a judge…but it’s for the safety of everyone… so we ‘voluntarily’ abandon the 4th Amendment because it might stop an Islamic Terrorist from taking out the Empire State Building while murdering hundreds of innocent citizens.

Under the same pretense of protecting us from Islamic Terrorists, substitute ‘other dangers’ if that term makes you uncomfortable, the NSA listens in on just about every conversation that hits the air.  Supposedly they only listen in on folks considered terrorists;  but… that opens the door to listening in on just about anyone for just about any reason.

According to Edward Snowden, famous for leaking more information than was thought possible, government agencies listen in, with or without warrants and keep everything they come across, doesn’t matter what it is, it gets filed away.  Someday they might use that information to embarrass or humiliate someone running for high office… Nah, that would never happen.

Then there’s the idea that the 4th Amendment isn’t in play if you are within a hundred miles of the border or point of entry into the country.  That must have been part of the digital recording that Thomas Jefferson had deleted when he and the other Founders were formulating the best ways to protect individual God given inalienable rights.

As a police officer it was part of my job to inform you that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, it’s part of the Miranda Warning given to suspects upon their arrest.

In our day you had better understand that anything you say can and will be used…for what ever Google, its advertisers or the government wants to do with it.  You have no rights in a totalitarian state.

This article has been cross posted to The Self Educated American, a publication whose banner reads, “Standing Fast By the Judeo-Christian Heritage, Limited Government and the U.S. Constitution”.

02/21/17

Rep. Karen Bass Admits to Communist Party Mentor

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

Los Angeles Congresswoman Karen Bass owes her career to a Communist Party USA mentor.

Rep. Karen Bass, second from left

According to the Congressional Record:

HON. KAREN BASS OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Monday, January 30, 2017;

Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the life and memory of my friend and mentor, Oneil COneil Marion Cannon]], who passed away on January 20, days before his 100th birthday….

“Oneil was instrumental in supporting my own work as a community organizer early in my life, and without his help my life would have taken a very different path…

I would like to salute Oneil Cannon for his longstanding commitment to serving and uplifting others, and for a century of fighting to make the world a better place.”

Oneil Cannon

The late Oneil Cannon in question was a fixture of the Los Angeles left.

According to the Peoples World:

As a member of the Communist Party, he became the education director in the Southern California District, and a member of the Party’s Southern California and National Central Committees…

Oneil was committed to electing Black and Latino representatives at all levels of government. He helped to elect Augustus Hawkins, Tom Bradley, Ed Roybal, Diane Watson, Maxine Waters, and Karen Bass.

Cannon campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008, and wept with joy along with millions of others when he was elected. He died peacefully, wearing one of his Obama T-shirts.

With decades of communist activity under her belt, Karen Bass would fail an FBI background check to work as a realtor or a school bus driver.

But that’s okay, there are no security checks to serve on any Congressional Committee: not the Armed Services, not Homeland Security, not even the Intelligence Committee.

If American voters understood how bad the infiltration is they would be horrified. There are many, many more like Karen Bass, trashing your Constitution every day.

To really understand how bad the problem is, check out my movie The Enemies Within.

01/5/17

AmmoMan.com is pushing security-minded Americans to cover up computer cameras with “Lens Liberator”

By: Eric the AmmoMan | AmmoMan

Facebook found Mark Zuckerberg and FBI Director James Comey are two high-profile, relatively tech-savvy individuals who cover their computer cameras up to prevent a potential hack.

With relative ease, foreign and domestic hackers have proven they can gain access to computer camera footage and in some cases have been known to exploit whatever that camera sees for financial gain.

It’s enough of a problem that James Comey blocks his camera with tape and suggests the general public consider it as well.

“You go into any government office and we all have the little camera things that sit on top of the screen,” Comey said during a conference in the fall. “They all have a little lid that closes down on them. “You do that so that people who don’t have authority don’t look at you. I think that’s a good thing.”

In other words, while you can have strong passwords and even firewalls on your network to help defend against hackers, you should still take additional steps to protect yourself against hackers who might to try to access your camera.

To help make it easier (and less of an eye-sore) AmmoMan.com is pushing security-minded Americans to cover up their computer cameras with something they call the “Lens Liberator”.

Cut in two different sizes to best fit your computer or smartphone camera lens, the Lens Liberator promises “complete annihilation of privacy-breaching photons” that might make their way to your computer’s camera lens and put your privacy at risk.

The small, custom made one-half and three-quarter inch stickers are re-stickable. So, users can easily remove the sticker to access their camera as they see fit. While supplies last, 10,000 of the Lens Liberators are available for free to any American who requests one be sent to them.

“While we deal mostly with firearms and ammunition, security is about more than just gunpowder and the shooting guns,” Eric Schepps of AmmoMan.com said. “We see this as a good opportunity to help the shooting community take the proper steps to secure other aspects of their life.”

Liberating Your Lens – A Look at Domestic Spying and Cyber Security in the U.S.A. – An infographic by the team at Lens Liberator

12/16/16

Balanced Budget Amendment: The Solution? Or Deathblow?

By: Publius Huldah

The BBA Made Simple

Say you want your Butler to buy some groceries; so you give him your credit card.  You can:

  1. Give him an ENUMERATED LIST of what you want him to buy: 1 chicken, 5# of apples, two heads of cabbage, a 2# sack of brown rice, and a dozen eggs.  Whatever amount he spends for these enumerated items will be charged to you.
  1. Tell him he may spend on whatever he wants, and ask him to please don’t spend more than 18% of your weekly income. But whatever amount he decides to spend (on pork and other things) will be charged to you.

The first illustrates how our Constitution is written:  The items on which Congress is authorized to spend money are listed – enumerated – in the Constitution.  To see the list, go HERE.

The second illustrates how a balanced budget amendment (BBA) works:  It creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the federal government wants to spend money on.  And there is no enforceable limit on the amount of spending.

Our Constitution Limits Spending to the Enumerated Powers

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want.  If Congress obeyed our Constitution, they would limit spending to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money, excessive federal spending is not the result of a defective Constitution, but of disregarding the existing constitutional limitations on federal spending.

Because everyone has ignored these existing limitations for so long, we now have a national debt of some $20 trillion plus a hundred or so trillion in unfunded liabilities. 1

Various factions are now telling conservatives that the only way to stop out of control federal spending is with a BBA.

Obviously, that is not true.  The constitutional answer is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.  Eliminate federal departments (Education, Energy, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc., etc.), for which there is no constitutional authority.  2

Since our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government, most of what they’ve spent money on since the early 1900s is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

Yet our Constitution is still legally in place; and can be dusted off, read, and enforced by a Repentant People.  They can shrink the federal government to the size established by the Constitution which created it. 3

Using the Federal “Budget” to Snap the Trap on an Unsuspecting People

Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.

Spending is to be limited by the enumerated powers.  Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, the Treasury is to publish periodic Statements and Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditures.  Since the list of objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money is so short, it would be a simple matter to monitor federal spending and receipts.

But since the unconstitutional Budget & Accounting Act of 1921, Presidents and Congress have been putting into the “budget” whatever they want to spend money on.

Do you see that if the federal government is given constitutional authority (via a BBA) to spend money on whatever they want, they are ipso facto granted constitutional authority to exert power over whatever they want?

Oh, Americans!  False friends lead you astray and confuse the path you should take.  Under the pretext of imposing “fiscal responsibility” with a BBA, they would legalize the totalitarian dictatorship which has been developing in this Country for 100 years.

Creating the all-powerful federal government by Amendment

A BBA changes the standard for spending from whether the object is an enumerated power to whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. 4

So a BBA would transform the federal government created by our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to one of general and unlimited powers because it would authorize Congress to appropriate funds for – and hence have power over – whatever they or the President decide to put in the budget!

A BBA Doesn’t Reduce Federal Spending

A BBA wouldn’t reduce federal spending because:

  • All versions permit spending limits to be waived when Congress votes to waive them; and
  • Congress can always “balance the budget” with tax increases. Compact for America’s “balanced budget amendment” delegates massive new taxing authority to Congress:  it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) in addition to keeping the income tax.

Typical Misconceptions

Americans think, “I have to balance my budget; so the federal government should have to balance theirs.”

They overlook the profound distinctions between the economies of their own family unit and that of the national government of a Federation of States.  Our federal Constitution sets up a system where Congress is to appropriate funds only to carry out the enumerated powers; and the bills are to be paid with receipts from excise taxes and import tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by a direct assessment on the States apportioned according to population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).

Americans also think that since States have balanced budget amendments, the federal government should have one.  They overlook the profound distinction between the federal Constitution and State Constitutions:  5

  • The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of enumerated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.
  • But State Constitutions created State governments of general and almost unlimited powers. Accordingly, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything.  So State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.

Conclusion

A BBA would have the opposite effect of what you have been told.  Instead of limiting the federal government, it legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; transforms the federal government into one which has power over whatever they decide to spend money on; and does nothing to reduce federal spending.

Twenty-eight States have already passed applications for a BBA.  Go HERE to check the status of your State.  Warn your friends and State Legislators.  For a model your State can use to rescind its previous applications, go HERE and look under “Take Action” column, or contact me.  Do not let the malignant elite complete their revolution by replacing our Constitution.

Endnotes:

1 State governments are voracious consumers of federal funds.  THIS shows what percentage of your State’s revenue is from federal funds.  Contrary to what RINO State Legislators say, they don’t want federal spending reduced: They want to keep those federal dollars flooding in.

2 George Washington’s Cabinet had 4 members:  Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General.

3 Our federal Constitution is short and easy to understand.  The only way you can avoid being misled is to find out for yourself what it says.  Be a Berean (Acts 17:10-12).

4 Amendments change all language to the contrary in the existing Constitution.  Eg., the 13th Amendment changed Art. I, §2, clause 3 & Art. IV, §2, clause 3 because they were inconsistent with the 13th Amendment.

5 In Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end), James Madison said:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

12/13/16

Does the Constitution Need to be INTERPRETED?

By: Gary Alder

Ever since the US Constitution was ratified the question asked over and over is: who has the prerogative and responsibility to interpret the Constitution? Early on, the Supreme Court assumed the right to exercise this function but nowhere in the words of the Constitution (the document itself) is this practice authorized.

Before jumping to the conclusion that the Constitution requires interpreting and accepting anyone’s interpretation, I would ask what I consider a much more pertinent question and its corollary: Does the Constitution need to be interpreted, and if so why?

I can think of only three possible reasons why our Constitution would need interpreting which I will list and examine in the increasing level of likelihood and incidence of interpretation.

  •   The way a clause is worded doesn’t make sense.
  •   The way a clause is worded is ambiguous or imprecise.
  •   Part of the Constitution doesn’t say what we want it to say.

As I will demonstrate, interpret generally is used as a euphemism for disregard or make the Constitution say what its actual words don’t.

Case 1 – The way a clause is worded doesn’t make sense.

I can’t think of an example of such gross incompetence in the original Constitution, but the Twelfth Amendment states that a presidential Elector can’t vote for a presidential and vice-presidential candidate both from his own state.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

If you assume that the Electors were designed to cast a final vote, (which I don’t), that means that if the Electors are given a list of candidates and one presidential and one vice-presidential candidate are from Delaware, all of the Electors except those from Delaware could vote for both. What sense does that make? Someone needs to interpret some sense into that one.

Case 2 – The way a clause is worded is ambiguous or imprecise.

Probably the most glaring example of this concerns the issue of slavery, the worst blight in our history as a nation. This ambiguity allowed a practice to continue beyond the 20 year period that barred the federal government from interfering, while giving time for the states to get rid of that abhorrent practice. (see Article I Section 9, also Article V)

The migration, or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Even though they couldn’t bring themselves to write the words slave or slavery in the Constitution, by dancing around the issue with euphemisms, a conversion time was allotted. The only part of the system that ended up being addressed was the foreign slave trade which to the credit of congress was abolished in January of 1808. It took a horrible war which devastated the nation and claimed the lives of 620,000 Americans to finally resolve the issue.

Case 3 – Part of the Constitution doesn’t say what we want it to say.

Now we come to the part of the issue that seems both most pervasive and most perversive. This is the problem with most interpretations and interpreters. Rather than studying the Constitution and trying to figure out what it is saying, we usually try to find a way to make it say what we want it to say. By our “cut and paste” methodology—taking a piece here, ignoring a piece there, and interpreting a piece somewhere else, we arrive at a system of government that is a modified democracy rather than the modified federation that the original Constitution defined.

To illustrate this point, we can look at the First Amendment and the way that it has been interpreted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This amendment contains a list of things that congress may not do. Rather than follow the Constitution, our government has declared a wall of separation between church and state and made themselves the arbiter of that separation. Freedom of speech is now interpreted to include disruption of the daily activities of others and even destruction of property, and not only are we free to petition government but the First Amendment supposedly allows rowdy gathering and protesting of any entity or organization that seems to be doing or not doing things the particular mob assembled wants them to do or quit doing. How does that become peaceably assembling? What freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not include are things like prayer in schools and expressions like “Merry Christmas” or “God Bless You”. If Congress can make no law concerning these things, where did all this nonsense come from?

Probably the most common interpretation given to the Constitution by educated people who should know better, is the notion that it defines a two-party (or any party) system of government. Unfortunately the “two-party system” is the system that supplanted “Constitutional Federalism” when America turned its collective back on the original Constitution. It happened so early in our history that Americans almost without exception assume that party politics is constitutional. It led to replacing the recommendations of the best presidential candidates by independent Electors to the confirmation of the least-worst options as determined by a party-controlled popular vote between self-nominated and self-interested demagogues who bribe the people with legislative promises which they have no constitutional authority to fulfill if they do get elected.

Most of the time the popular vote for President coincides with the party manipulated electoral votes, but the election of 2016 was an exception. Now there are many who are trying to manipulate the vote of the Electors in different directions. It will be interesting to see how this works out. There is some hope that this confusion will lead to a study of the actual words of the Constitution and the concepts that those words convey. Time will tell.

Article VI of the Constitution reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;…

which invites this rhetorical question: when the officers take the oath to support this Constitution, are they bound by the words of the Constitution or by some interpretation; and if so which one?

Having analyzed the reasons why the Constitution could need some interpretation, I conclude that what is needed most is careful study of the actual words of the Constitution by both the elected officials and all Americans. This study must include a look at the whole picture not just a few select pieces. If the incumbents do not follow the Constitution, they must be replaced. If after careful study, changes seem appropriate, let them be made by amendment not by interpretation.

As George Washington said in his farewell address:

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Gary Alder 801-597-4182  [email protected]    www.freedomformula.us
P.O. box 306 Cokeville, Wyoming 83114

Gary and Carolyn Alder Authors of:

The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College

12/12/16

Restoring Free Speech: The Trump Effect

By: Lloyd Marcus

Years ago, Rush Limbaugh coined the term, “Low-info Voters.” The term perfectly describes Americans, like 95% of my family, who only get their news from the mainstream media. Consequently, low-info voters do not know that the mainstream media is not fair and balanced. The mainstream media has become strong-arm enforcers of political correctness and operatives of the Democrat Party; 100% focused and committed to furthering the socialist/progressive agenda.

Yes, I remember when I was a kid my black Baltimore City firefighter dad told me, “The Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for the little guy; the working man.”

A few years ago, I was able to convince my 89 year old dad that this “ain’t” his Democrat Party of his youth. Dad’s Democrat Party has been hijacked by old hippies. They reject Christianity while vowing to arrest anyone speaking badly of Islam. http://bit.ly/1mxTG1G They use public schools to teach our kids to despise all things traditional, wholesome, patriotic http://bit.ly/1UnBVz3 and good.

They are the ones who have, for the most part, made it criminal to publicly say you believe marriage should remain as it has been for thousands of years and how God intended; between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). They are the ones banning Nativity scenes and banning saying “Merry Christmas.” http://bit.ly/2gAD2wz

They are the ones banning teachers addressing students as boys and girls, claiming gender distinctions are intolerant, discriminatory and bigoted. http://fxn.ws/2aSCFyy They are the ones pushing the extinction of blacks via a disproportionate high number of black abortions. http://bit.ly/2hf5wjd This it why it continues to frost me when low-info idiots in my black “Christian” family continue to pledge their brain-dead loyalty to Democrats while calling me their Uncle Tom relative.

The Left uses a highly effective tactic. They brand any push-back to them cramming their progressive agenda down our throats “extremism.” This tactic works great with so many low-info voters.

Here is how it works. The Left says they want burly men with beards, dressed like lumberjacks to be permitted to use women restrooms if they inwardly feel like a woman that day. Husbands, fathers and brothers across America politically said, No-way. We are not allowing grown men in restrooms with our little girls, wives and mothers.

Government mandating this insane restroom policy and Leftist businesses like Target embracing it has led to rapes and molestation in women restrooms. http://bit.ly/1UaeQ4f And yet, guess who the mainstream media and Democrats attack, calling them extremist? Answer: All who oppose men in women restrooms. In an attempt to demonize and silence American’s common-sense disagreement, the Left claims anyone opposing men in women restrooms hates homosexuals and want to see them tortured and murdered.

If you oppose the Left removing crosses from memorials, removing the Ten Commandments from public buildings, banning Nativity scenes and banning saying “Merry Christmas”, the Left claims you’re an extremist who hates homosexuals, suppresses women and want to cram your religion down everyone’s throat. Do you see how the Left’s extremism tactic works? They are the aggressors, but call you an extremist when you simply say, “No.”

Clearly, the Left has launched a pedal-to-the-metal campaign to cram their progressive agenda down our throats. For example: A Zales jewelry TV commercial featured a lesbian wedding. Homosexuals are only 2% of the population. http://bit.ly/1w8y4IA So why is featuring a lesbian wedding necessary? Fearful to admit it, most Americans still instinctively know marriage is between one man and one woman. But if they dare say it out loud, the Left will try to destroy them by branding their belief in tradition and biblical teaching extreme; outrageously claiming they hate homosexuals and want to see them tortured and murdered.

The Left’s tactic of branding the slightest opposition “extremism” has silenced many. I believe Trump in the WH has already begun liberating Americans from the Left’s tyranny of political correctness; muzzling free speech. I realize the Left will distort my statement to mean Trump has opened the flood gates to express hate. Nonsense.

The truth is Leftists are the ones who boldly and relentlessly spew hate against Jesus, Christians, Republicans, Conservatives (black and white), white people and police. Heck, Leftists have even given marching orders to their minions, declaring it open season on killing whites and police. Have you heard the slightest rebuke from the mainstream media? http://bit.ly/1Kzm6Uf No.

All I am saying is Trump has Americans timidly coming out from the shadows; feeling a little less afraid of exercising their Constitutional right to express their religious and political views.

And that brothers and sisters is good for all Americans.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman: The Conservative Campaign Committee
http://www.lloydmarcus.com/

11/24/16

Sore Losers — The Framers didn’t want us to play this game

Carolyn Alder www.freedomformula.us  [email protected]

Gary and Carolyn Alder Authors of:  The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College 

electoral

The game ended over two weeks ago and yet the losers are still pouting, protesting, rioting, vandalizing, suspending college classes, threatening to secede, petitioning the Presidential Electors to vote for Hillary on Dec. 19th, and planning to flood down on Washington D.C with protests on Jan. 20th, 2017.

This is not just a game lost; but a war that has been going on over a year to capture the “White House.”  The battleground states became a battleground nation. Mr. Trump won the Electoral College battle, Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote battle; but who will win the war on Jan. 20th?

It won’t be the Constitution or the American Federation the Framers established.

Were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump the most outstanding individuals and statesmen this nation could produce? This ludicrous and shameful behavior is what party politics and mass democracy has done to us.

Doesn’t this election cycle, if nothing else, prove that we need a better way to elect this high office?

The Framers did not want a democracy.  They  rejected the idea of a popular vote to elect the President.  The notes from the Constitutional Convention, describe many options that were discussed at length on several occasions as to how the office of the chief Executive, the President of the Union of States should be chosenTo share a couple example of their objection to a popular election:

“ Mr. GERRY. (Elbridge Gerry, MA) A popular election in this case is radically vicious [violent]. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union & acting in Concert to delude them into any appointment.” [1]

Mr. Gerry also spoke of the “excesses” and “evils” of democracy expressing his opposition this way, “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want [lack] virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots.  In Mass. it had been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute.” [2]

Col George Mason delegate from Virginia, also known as the father of the Bill of Rights, put it this way, “It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would to refer a trial of colours to a blind man.” [3]

Roger Sherman of Connecticut said, “that the president ought to be elected by Congress, since he feared that direct election of presidents by the people would lead to the creation of a monarchy.” [4]

If the Framers did not want a popularly elected president or democracy –what did they want?

They wanted to design a structure of government to control the national level of government, safeguard freedom, protect individual liberty, establish justice and promote prosperity. They did not go from a confederation of states to a consolidated central government.

The Framers intelligently designed the greatest political document ever created–the Constitution of the United States.  It defined a modified American Federation; a “more perfect Union”–not a democracy.  The Constitution added one house (but only one house) to be elected by the people.  The Articles of Confederation had no assembly elected by the people.

They also added an Executive Branch with specific limited responsibilities and a detailed method for filling that office.  Article II of the Constitution carefully outlines every step.  It was a compound process using one group outside of government influence (independent Presidential Electors) to recommend the most outstanding presidential possibilities; and a second group inside government (the House of Representatives) to make the final election by the States, each state having one vote.

The concept of having one body nominate a group of candidates from which another body will make a final selection is consistent with Resolution # 5 of the Virginia Plan and not an uncommon practice. [5]

Both the nomination and the election came under the jurisdiction of the States.  The States would choose the method of appointment of the Electors and the States having an equal voice—one vote each, would elect the President.  (An American Federation again.)

A “short cut” was provided in case a majority of Electors recommended the same individuals; then there was no need to go to the House. For a more detailed examination of the presidential election process see:  A Far Superior Process [6]

Some of the delegates in the Convention thought the Congress would often make the final election. George Mason for example, stated “that nineteen times in twenty the President would be chosen by the Senate, an improper body for the purpose.”  However, on Sept. 4th when the final election was changed from the Senate to the House, it pleased many delegates.   Mr. Madison records: “Col: Mason liked the latter mode best as lessening the aristocratic influence of the Senate.” [7]

However, because political party machinations sought to manipulate and control the Presidential Electors, and always force a majority, we soon lost the independence of the Electors and the Executive Branch.  The first Branch to fall victim to party politics and democracy was the Executive, facilitated by the 12th Amendment. The Senate was the second casualty of party control and democracy with the 17th Amendment.  The State’s lost the voice of their State Government and the American Federation crumbled to the ground.

President George Washington in his farewell address earnestly pleaded and warned the country in the most solemn manner not to resort to political parties; that sooner or later, the despotism and spirit of revenge would result in the ruins of Public Liberty. (Sept. 19, 1796)

We claim that constitutional government was destroyed by party government.  See our book: The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College

The Constitution was intelligently designed to control the government, not to control the people.

However, the Constitution does not have any control over party politics, but party politics has a lot of control over the people and the government.

[1] http://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History101/ConstitutionalConvention.htm

[2]  United States—Formation of the Union Documents Illustrative of the Union of the American States  p.125 https://archive.org/details/documentsillustr00libr

[3] Jul 17, 1787 United States—Formation of the Union pg.127 https://archive.org/details/documentsillustr00libr

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.e160bfe685e2

[5] May 31st, 1787 United States—Formation of the Union p.127 https://archive.org/details/documentsillustr00libr

[6] http://noisyroom.net/blog/2016/03/03/if-your-nominating-process-resembles-a-circus-you-get-clowns-in-the-white-house-the-framers-designed-a-far-superior-process-the-original-electoral-college/

[7] United States—Formation of the Union p. 678 https://archive.org/details/documentsillustr00libr

11/9/16

Congratulations to President-Elect Trump and his supporters

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

Congratulations to President-Elect Donald Trump and his millions of supporters, for your fantastic victory at the polls last night. I thought it would be close and thought Hillary Clinton had the slight edge, so I was delighted to be proven wrong.

trump

It was a momentous night –  carrying on the nationalist momentum we saw with Brexit and the anti-communist push back now underway in Ukraine, Brazil, Venezuela and Colombia.

It was a victory for all patriotic Americans, sick of Washington corruption, globalism, military defeatism and watching Lady Liberty being made the “easy woman” for all the world.

Now comes the hard part: Making sure that President Trump does indeed close the borders, re-patriate illegals, close down the Muslim Brotherhood in America, open up the energy fields, abolish Obamacare, de-regulate the economy, lower taxes, re-build the military, appoint constitutional Supreme Court justices and restore the the US Constitution to its rightful place of honor.

Mr. Trump’s victory is a victory for all freedom loving people, everywhere. Just as Brexit encouraged American freedom fighters, Mr. Trump’s win will spur on patriotic and nationalist movements all over the planet.

I’ve worried in the past about Mr. Trump’s attitude towards Russia. I hope Mr. Trump will stand with the Ukraine against Putin, stand with  NATO and reassure your traditional allies of America’s continued support.

I also hope President Trump will try to to bring the Philippines back out of the clutches of Russia and China.

As my readers well know, I have long been, and remain, a supporter of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. I intend to support him if he ever chooses again to seek the Presidency. The Constitution is my issue. May President Trump be a vigilant guardian of the greatest political document ever written.

No one can deny that Mr. Trump and his supporters have won a great victory for all of us and deserve our deepest gratitude.

Thank you all.