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.

10/13/16

SEAL Dom Raso: ISIS Working With Cartels to Get Nuke Across Weak Border

Hat Tip: Patrick Kobler

On the same day The DOJ announced it would charge Sheriff Joe Arpaio over immigration patrols, veteran US Navy SEAL and NRATV Commentator Dom Raso released video commentary on how the weak policies of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other enabler politicians have left our southern border unprotected, creating an opportunity for ISIS to work with the Mexican cartels to smuggle a nuclear device into America. “If we refuse to even utter the words ‘radical Islamic terror,’ then, through our own inaction, we are enabling the slaughter of innocent people,” Raso says. “Nowhere is this issue more apparent than at our southern border.” To highlight his point, Raso references an article in Dabiq, ISIS’ magazine, that details a scenario where ISIS uses its billions of dollars to acquire a nuke through corrupt Pakistani officials and pays the cartels to sneak it in through the southern border into America. Speaking about politicians, Raso pulls no punches when talking about how they have comprised the safety of the American people: “all these politicians care about is what their friends in the international community think of them, the same international community that has been utterly devastated by ISIS.”

09/17/16

New Book Exposes “Marxist Madrassas” in Higher Education

New Book Exposes “Marxist Madrassas” in Higher Education and Advocates Online Learning Revolution to Save Students Money and Provide Marketable Skills

Available at: Amazon.com

marxists

For immediate release                   Contact: Cliff Kincaid, [email protected]

A groundbreaking new book on campus radicalism titled Marxist Madrassas examines the educational background of Mrs. Hillary Clinton, in a chapter titled, “From Goldwater Girl to Marxist,” and looks at the far-left influences at Harvard and Columbia that have guided President Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States.

“If you want to change society, change academia,” says co-author Cliff Kincaid, a long-time journalist and media critic.  “Changing academia will save our culture and our nation.”

Kincaid, who was himself banned from a college campus because of his conservative views, examines the dangerous inroads Marxist totalitarianism has made at a number of universities. He also documents the useless but expensive degrees in such areas as “Queer Studies” being foisted on students. Kincaid’s own son, who moved to South Korea to find a job, contributes a chapter on how students can take advantage of the education online learning revolution and get marketable skills.

With the publication of Marxist Madrassas, available through Amazon.com, Kincaid’s educational non-profit, America’s Survival, Inc., wants to help spark a revolution in academia and offer low-cost and affordable learning options for students who are serious about getting good jobs. “Journalism has been changed through the Internet revolution,” Kincaid notes, “but the brick-and-mortar schools have maintained their liberal monopoly in education. This must change.”

A chapter on the creation of a “New Student Movement” looks at how the hard-core left is now attempting to turn students with college debt and despair about the future into a socialist army demanding federal bailouts. Many of them turned out for the “Bernie Sanders Revolution” demanding the taxpayers repay the $1.3 trillion in college debt they owe. “These young people need freedom and hope, not socialism,” Kincaid says.

In addition to exploiting students in debt and despair and censoring conservative views on campus, the book says radical movements are using college campuses to wage campaigns against Israel and Jewish students.

Marxist Madrassas, which is must reading for students and parents, also examines higher tuition rates stemming from superfluous “diversity” programs and overpaid administrators with nothing better to do than reengineer the social views of young people. The case of former Harvard Professor and now far-left Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who falsely claimed Indian heritage to get a teaching job, is among the cases examined in this regard.

Dr. Tina Trent, a scholar who comments frequently on educational issues, writes the final section of the new book on how anti-free speech attitudes on campus are being spread to society at large. She suggests there is a plan to turn the United States into a European-style socialist state where freedom of speech is suppressed because it is considered offensive to left-wing special interest groups.

Kincaid’s educational non-profit, America’s Survival, Inc., has published several books on current issues and maintains a series of websites devoted to such topics as George Soros, leftist influence on the Roman Catholic Church, radical Muslim infiltration of America, and corruption in the journalism business. His main home page is www.usasurvival.org.

Available at: Amazon.com

09/14/16

Congress Must Protect Internet Freedom

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today released a video highlighting the ongoing efforts to stop President Obama from handing oversight of the Internet to more than 160 countries, including Russia, China, and Iran. The video includes Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Reps. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and John Culberson (R-Texas), who have helped lead the fight against this dangerous proposal.

“Today our country faces a threat to the Internet as we know it,” Sen. Cruz says in the video. “The Obama administration intends to give away control of the Internet to an international body akin to the United Nations. Do we want China, and Russia, and Iran having the power to determine that if a website is unacceptable, it’s taken down? I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to ensure that we protect freedom of the Internet for generations to come.”