11/29/17

The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster

By Publius Huldah

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.” Daniel Webster, 4th of July Oration, 1802.

We live in a time of constitutional illiteracy.  A recent survey found that only 26% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government. Yet every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows all about how to amend a document he never bothered to read.  Our lawyers were indoctrinated in law school with the Supreme Court’s perversions of our Constitution, and know nothing of our actual Constitution. We should read and learn the Constitution we have before we tinker with it or jump on the bandwagon of tinkerers.  Otherwise, we destroy the “fair and lovely fabric” we were given.

Summary

Under our Constitution, Congress makes the laws, and the President enforces them. The powers of “making” and “enforcing” are separated so that the President and Congress may act as a “check” on each other.

But 100 years ago, Congress starting passing laws they had no constitutional authority to make, and delegated the details to be written in by agencies within the Executive Branch. This process continued and resulted in the Code of Federal Regulations which contains the huge body of regulations made by agencies within the Executive Branch. And thus we got the unconstitutional administrative law state under which every aspect of our lives is being increasingly regulated and controlled. 1

And now appear those who, under the promise of limiting the regulatory administrative law state, propose an Amendment to our Constitution which would legalize it!

1. Only the Legislative Branch has Constitutional Authority to make Laws

Article I of our Constitution created the Legislative Branch of the federal government.  Section 1 thereunder says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

That means what it says.  Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution]; and laws may be made only by elected Senators and Representatives in Congress.

2. The Executive Branch Enforces the Laws Congress makes

Article II of our Constitution created the Executive Branch. A primary function of that branch is to enforce laws passed by the Legislative Branch. Since the President’s Oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, he is obligated to refuse to enforce any Act of Congress which is unconstitutional.

3. Rulemaking by Agencies in the Executive Branch

But during the early 1900s, Congress began to make laws outside the scope of the handful of powers granted to the federal government, and delegated the details to be written by unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch.

This is now routine practice: Congress passes an overall statutory framework, and bureaucrats in the Executive Agencies write the rules to flesh it out. The Agencies themselves are often unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted in the Constitution. 2

To illustrate:  Congress passed – without reading – the over 2,000-page Obamacare act. Then it went to the Department of Health & Human Services (an unconstitutional federal agency) to have tens of thousands of additional pages of regulations added to fill out the framework.

This unconstitutional practice resulted in the infamous Code of Federal Regulations. The Code is so huge it’s difficult to impossible to keep up with the rules and revisions which pretend to regulate one’s trade, business, or profession.

The administrative law state and agency rules are unconstitutional!  They violate Art. I, § 1, US Constitution, and are outside the scope of powers granted to the federal government.

So, what’s the solution?

4. The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment

Roman Buhler of the “The Madison Coalition” says we should support the “Regulation Freedom” Amendment to the US Constitution:

“Whenever one quarter of the Members of the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate transmit to the President their written declaration of opposition to a proposed federal regulation, it shall require a majority vote of the House and Senate to adopt that regulation.”

Do you see the trap the amendment sets?  It would legalize rulemaking by federal agencies in the Executive Branch and would thus supersede Article I, §1 of our Constitution!  And the entire existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional!

The amendment would thus bring about a fundamental transformation of our Constitution from one where Laws are made by elected Representatives on only a handful of enumerated powers; to the administrative law state where laws are made by unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in the Executive Branch (the same branch that accuses, prosecutes, and judges violations).  The executive agencies would make whatever Rules they please—and they would stand unless Congress, which often doesn’t even read the laws they pass, overrules it.

It protects 2nd Amendment Rights?

In an email dated November 10, 2017, Mr. Buhler said his proposed amendment “protects 2nd Amendment Rights”.

But his amendment does the opposite – it legalizes all the existing federal regulations which restrict firearms and ammunition. Look at Title 27, Chapter II, Subchapter B, Parts 478 and 479 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  As of now, every rule in Parts 478 & 479 is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated in the Constitution; violates Article I, §1; and violates the 2nd Amendment. But with Buhler’s proposed amendment, all those rules would become constitutional!

Furthermore, the amendment would provide constitutional authority for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make whatever future rules they want – and they would all be constitutional unless Congress objects and votes against them.

So the amendment vastly increases the powers of the federal government by legalizing what is now grotesquely unconstitutional.

5. Daniel Webster’s Warning

We are in a state of moral, religious, intellectual, and psychological decline. We don’t know what our Constitution says, and didn’t bother to find out. We elected people who didn’t know and didn’t care – and they made a mess.

To fix the mess, we must learn and enforce the Constitution we have and elect people who know it and obey it.  We can gradually downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers. And as to Buhler’s proposed amendment, heed Daniel Webster’s warning:

“…If an angel should be winged from Heaven, on an errand of mercy to our country, the first accents that would glow on his lips would be, Beware! Be cautious! You have everything to lose; you have nothing to gain. We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people.  Miracles do not cluster.  That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism…”Webster’s Oration.

Endnotes:

1 Administrative law judges in Executive Branch agencies decide whether violations of agency rules have occurred. The agencies thus act as lawmaker, prosecutor, and judge!  Isaiah 33:22 says God is our Judge, Law-giver, and King. Because humans are corrupt, our Framers separated the functions into three separate branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  And since the Oath of Office requires persons within each branch to obey the Constitution – not the other brancheseach branch has a “check” on the other branches.

2 Where’s the constitutional authority for the Dept. of Education?  Energy? Agriculture?   Housing & Urban Development?  Labor?  Environmental Protection?  etc., etc., etc.?

3 Our existing, but long ignored, Constitution limits federal power to the enumerated powers.  But the proposed amendment would supersede that limitation because it permits the exercise of federal power on whatever the Executive Agencies make rules about!

11/5/17

Transgenders in the Military – Who Decides: Congress, the President, or Federal Judges?

By: Publius Huldah

In a case now pending before the US District Court for the District of Columbia,1 the trial judge recently granted a preliminary injunction which purports to temporarily stop the Trump Administration from banning so-called “transgender” persons from serving in the Military.

But we will look at the real issue:  Does the Judicial Branch of the federal government have constitutional authority to require the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government to permit transgender persons to serve in the Military?

Instead of going along with what everybody says – or expounding on one’s personal views on the topic –let us consult and obey the US Constitution:

  • Article I, Section 8, clauses 11 – 13, delegate to Congress the powers to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; raise and support Armies; and to provide and maintain a Navy.
  • Article I, Section 8, clause 14, delegates to Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
  • Article II, Section 2, clause 1, says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…”

In Federalist Paper No 69 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

“…The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. … his authority … would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy…”

So! All the powers over the Military which have been delegated by the Constitution are vested in the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government.

The Judicial Branch has no role to play in the organizing and operation of the Military Forces.

Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clauses 11-14, Congress alone has the delegated authority to decide who may serve in the Military. If Congress issues Rules banning transgender persons from serving, then it is the President’s job, as Commander in Chief, to enforce those rules.

Accordingly, instead of participating in the litigation before the federal district court, the Trump Administration should instruct the federal judge on the long-forgotten concept of “Separation of Powers” and advise the court, “You have no jurisdiction over the Military – we will not participate.

1. Military courts and military lawyers in a nutshell

The Judicial Branch of the federal government was created by Article III, US Constitution.  That Article created the supreme Court, and authorized Congress to ordain and establish, from time to time, such inferior courts as needed.  Pursuant to that authority, Congress has established 94 federal district courts (where most federal trials are conducted), and 13 US Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The US Military has its own court system which is not part of the Judicial Branch of the federal government.  The military courts are “Article I Courts” created by Congress in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).2  They consist of trial courts where courts-martial are conducted; each Branch of Service has its own “Court of Criminal Appeals”; and the “US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces” hears appeals from the Services’ Courts of Criminal Appeals.

And when military commanders need legal advice, they get it from their own Service lawyers (this is one of the duties of lawyers in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Corps).

The Judicial Branch of the federal government has no constitutional authority over the US Military.

2. Federalist Paper No. 80 and the meaning of “arising under”

Some may assert that the Judicial Branch has authority to determine who may serve in the Military because Article III, Section 2, clause 1 says,

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution and the Laws of the United States…”

But they would be wrong.  In Federalist No. 80, Alexander Hamilton explains the jurisdiction of the courts created by Article III: In the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 13th paragraphs, he shows that the purpose of the language quoted just above is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitutionnot re-write it; and to enforce constitutional federal lawsnot re-write them.

Furthermore, in Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton addresses judicial encroachments on legislative authority, and reminds us that such encroachments need never be a problem because of the courts’ “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force”; and because Congress may protect the Country from usurping federal judges by impeaching, trying, convicting, and removing them from office.

3. Political Questions

Accordingly, when a power is vested by the Constitution in the Legislative or Executive Branches [the “political branches”] the federal courts [the “legal branch”] have traditionally refused to interfere.

In Martin v. Mott, 25 US 19 (1827), the Supreme Court considered the Militia Act of 1795 which authorized the President to call forth the militia when he judged it necessary to repel an invasion.3  The Court pointed out that the power had been confided [entrusted] by Congress to the President, and

“We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”

In Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829), which involved a dispute between the United States and Spain over territory, the Court held that once those departments [Executive and Legislative Branches] “which are entrusted with the foreign intercourse of the nation” have asserted rights of dominion over territory, “it is not in its own courts that this construction is to be denied”.  “A question … respecting the boundaries of nations, is … more a political than a legal question; and … the courts of every country must respect the pronounced will of the legislature.”

Likewise, the power to determine who may serve in the Military has been delegated to the Legislative Branch of the federal government i.e., Congress. The Judicial Branch may not substitute its judgment for the Will of the Legislative Branch; and if it attempts to do so, Congress should employ the remedies suggested by Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.

4. The President’s “check” on the federal courts

Finally, let’s look at Federalist No. 78 (6th para) where Hamilton – unlike the pundits of today – tells us the Truth about the powers of federal courts:

“…The judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [boldface mine; caps are Hamilton’s] 4

An informed President who is a manly man will ignore ultra vires orders of the Judicial Branch.

5. Conclusion

Let us put the federal courts in their proper place!  Congress and the President have the recognized power to refuse to go along with unconstitutional or ultra vires acts of the Judicial Branch; and their Oaths of office require them to do so. Congress also has the power to rid us of usurping federal judges via the impeachment process.

Endnotes:

1 The US District Court for the District of Columbia was established by Congress pursuant to Art. III, §1, US Constitution.

2 Congress’ authority to create the Military Courts is derived from Art. I, §8, cl. 14, US Constitution.

3 Article I, §8, clause 15, delegates to Congress the power, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

4 I trust you see why Hamilton is viciously smeared. The relentless attacks on our Framers have a purpose: Take them down – and our Foundation is destroyed.  Hamilton wrote most of The Federalist Papers, which Madison and Jefferson recognized as the best evidence of the genuine meaning of our Constitution.  What effect do these constant attacks on Hamilton have on peoples’ respect for The Federalist Papers?  Beware of false friends who undermine our Foundation; and of jealous men whose claim to fame is that they attack Hamilton.

10/20/17

Freedom’s Safest Place | The Ultimate Insult

NRATV

Dana Loesch

We are witnesses to the most ruthless attack on a president and the people who voted for him, and the free system that allowed it to happen, in American history. From the highest levels of government, to their media, universities and billionaires, their hateful defiance of his legitimacy is an insult to each of us.

But the ultimate insult is that they think we’re so stupid that we’ll let them get away with it. These saboteurs, slashing away with their leaks and sneers, their phony accusations and gagging sanctimony, drive their daggers through the heart of our future, poisoning our belief that honest custody of our institutions will ever again be possible.

So they can then build their utopia from the ashes of what they burned down. No, their fate will be failure and they will perish in the political flames of their own fires.

We are the National Rifle Association of America. And we are Freedom’s Safest Place.

10/6/17

Convention of States Adopts Newspeak to Sell the Con-Con

By Judi Caler

Judi Caler lives in California and is Article V Issues Director for Eagle Forum of CA. She is passionate about holding our public servants accountable to their oath to support the U.S. Constitution.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”  –Joseph Goebbels

Newspeak

In the novel, “1984,” George Orwell’s unsettling prophecy of a totalitarian society, Newspeak was the official language of Oceania. It was devised to limit freedom of thought. New words were invented, undesirable words eliminated, and the remaining words redefined or limited in scope to further the Party’s ideology.  If something can’t be said, it can’t be thought, making a diverging thought unthinkable.

So too, the Convention of States Project (COS) uses Newspeak to manipulate people into believing that the convention provided for by Article V of our Constitution is really a “convention of the states” which is controlled from start to finish by State Legislatures.

“Convention of the States” v. “Constitutional Convention”

On September 24-25, 2011, radical leftist professor Larry Lessig who has ties to George Soros, and salesman Mark Meckler who now heads COS, co-hosted Conference on the Constitutional Convention at Harvard.  That conference kicked off the current push for the Left and the phony Right to work together to promote an Article V Convention.

But the Convention Lobby soon realized that conservatives had been schooled over previous decades by the John Birch Society and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum to recoil from an Article V convention, also known as a “constitutional convention” or “con-con,” because it could run amok and replace our existing Constitution.

And despite their attempt to win conservative support by focusing state Article V convention applications on supposedly “conservative” issues like a “balanced budget amendment” or “fiscal restraints,” convention proponents were met with resistance from those who understood that State Legislatures have no power to limit the scope of a convention to specific topics or amendments.1 The same ploy was tried and failed in the 1970s and 1980s for the same reason.2

What to do?

Shamelessly, Mark Meckler and his legal operatives turned to Newspeak. Attorney Rob Natelson, the Newspeak guru of the convention lobby, announced in a speech on September 16, 2010, that he was “…going to put our concepts on ‘reset’”:

“I hope this is the last time I’ll say [the words] ‘constitutional convention’…I often have made the mistake of calling it that, but it is a serious mistake because it causes people to misunderstand what the convention is all about. The Constitution gives the convention a specific name—a convention for proposing amendments—and I think we should call it that or perhaps an Article V convention, an amendments convention, or a convention of the states.3

Thereafter, they adopted the term, “convention of the states”; defined it as a convention totally controlled by State Legislators; and claimed that a “convention of states” was the same as an “Article V convention,” and different from a “constitutional convention” or a “con-con.”

As Meckler spins the narrative:

 “A constitutional [or plenipotentiary] convention has only been held once in the entire history of the country set in 1787…they can draft a new constitution from scratch…

“[But] This is an ‘Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments’…They do not have supreme authority. They do not have the authority to redraft the entire [Constitution]…So, an ‘Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments’ is a convention that is limited by the instructions from the States as to what they can deal with.” 4

Common Sense

In Oldspeak, i.e. the real world of English grammar and common sense, “constitutional convention” and “Article V convention” are synonymous. Any convention dealing with drafting or amending a constitution is a constitutional convention.” Also, any convention provided for in a constitution is, by definition, a “constitutional convention.”

But in the Orwellian world of COS Newspeak, a “convention of the statescan’t run away, by definition!

That the Newspeak definition for “convention of the statesdoesn’t exist in our founding documents, doesn’t matter to the convention lobby. It serves to deceive legislators into thinking that an “Article V convention,” unlike a “constitutional convention,” can’t run away; and secures legislators’ YES votes on con-con applications.

Recently in Michigan, 32 Representatives responded to a National Association of Gun Rights survey, saying they were opposed to an Article V Convention, most likely because they were concerned they would lose the Second Amendment at a con-con—a very real possibility. After being exposed to COS Newspeak, some of those same legislators decided they could simultaneously support COS legislation asking Congress to call a “convention of the states”!

“It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’” –1984, Part I, Chapter 3

Limit” in Newspeak means “expand,” as shown by amendments proposed by COS supporters. Our Constitution already limits the federal government to the enumerated powers. The amendments proposed by Mark Levin, Michael Farris, and the COS simulated convention would legalize powers the federal government has already usurped and strip States of existing powers and rights.

COS recently promoted itself as “the largest Article V grassroots organization…nationwide.” So, a “grassroots” organization in COS Newspeak is one bankrolled with millions of dollars from mega-billionaires! 5

 “WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” –1984, party slogans.

Another word trick in COS Newspeak would replace “Delegate” with Commissioner.”   A “delegate” is a representative who has power; but a “commissioner” is a person charged to manage some particular subject-matter and is controlled by his superiors.  Accordingly, Meckler told Senators at a February 25, 2015 Nebraska committee hearing that they’ll direct their “commissioners” by text messaging during the convention because legally, commissioners are equivalent to hired insurance agents! 6

What COS Fails to Mention

COS operatives and their coterie of attorneys fail to mention that we have another founding document in addition to the Constitution. That document is the Declaration of Independence which preceded the Constitution.

“It would have been quite impossible to render [the Declaration of Independence] into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be …the single word CRIMETHINK.” –1984, Appendix

The Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2, expresses our founding principles which are above the Constitution: that all men are created equal; that our Rights come from God; that the purpose of government is to secure those Rights; and that, if the government fails to secure our Rights, We the People have the Right “to alter or to abolish” our government and set up a new one.

The convention is the highest form of government, having more power than State Legislatures and Congress put together. So even though the Framers met in convention in 1787 for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation (AOC),” they had the inherent and legal right, as expressed by the Declaration of Independence, to write a new Constitution which created a new government. Moreover, they set a precedent by making the new Constitution easier to ratify than amendments to the AOC.

And with the words, “We the People…,” they reaffirmed in our Constitution the founding principles written eleven years earlier. In fact, in Federalist 40, Madison justified writing the new Constitution, which was to replace the AOC, by citing the Declaration of Independence.7

Conclusion

Newspeak, invented by the convention lobby, is believed and repeated in State Capitols across America by too many Republican legislators who have set logic and truth aside to buy the false narrative. They believe that the solution to an overreaching federal government that has ignored our Constitution is to change our Constitution! And that an Article V convention called by Congress can’t possibly run away because it is just a “convention of the states” in Newspeak!

And shame on the heavily bankrolled, self-professed “conservatives” at COS along with their team of attorneys, “constitutional scholars,” and lobbyists who risk our Constitution by selling a bill of goods to well-meaning and unsuspecting legislators. The same propaganda is used to fool ordinary citizens whom COS claims to “represent.”

A runaway convention can’t be prevented with Newspeak! Americans must educate themselves on this deception and be vigilant.  Understand the real remedies our Framers said we must use to prevent federal overreach.  Once a convention is called, it will be too late to stop a new Constitution with an easier mode of ratification from being imposed.  Our existing Constitution and our Liberty hang in the balance.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.” –Thomas Jefferson to C. Yancey, 1816

End Notes

1 See Judge Van Sickle’s Article, Part IV, https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/van-sickle03192017.pdf

2Constitutional Convention called Redux,” Part 4, Kelleigh Nelson 3-22-2013, para 9:  https://freedomoutpost.com/constitutional-convention-call-redux-rexford-g-tugwell-the-newstates-constitution/

3The State-Application-and-Convention Method Of Amending The Constitution: The Founding Era Vision, Robert G. Natelson, See I (pp 9, 10).  

4 Red Eye Radio, scroll to 7/6/17, Part 2 @ 51:25: http://www.redeyeradioshow.com/on-demand/

5 While we are unable to determine all the sources of the funding for Meckler’s group; the ultimate source of much of the funding for the push for an Article V convention is the Koch Brothers of Texas.

6Nebraska Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, 2-25-2015, Transcript pp. 47, 52:  http://www.legislature.ne.gov/FloorDocs/104/PDF/Transcripts/Government/2015-02-25.pdf

7 http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed40.htm, para 15

10/1/17

Al-Azhar Deep State Strikes At Egypt’s Constitutional Free Speech

By: Dr. Ashraf Ramelah | Voice of the Copts

In June this year, Justices Alito and Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in their separate opinions for Matal v. Tam that there is no “hate speech” exception to the first amendment of the constitution. In other words, “hate speech” is free speech. In that same month, Egypt’s parliament found a new hate speech bill placed before them for review. It is likely Egypt’s legislators will not take their lead from the United States but follow the footsteps of Germany, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, France and Denmark, to turn the bill entitled, “Combating Hatred and Violence” into law. The vote is scheduled to take place in the near future.

However, before any vote takes place, the Egyptian parliamentarians must address the origin (the writers) of the introduced bill. The bill — which has 16 articles in three sections — was not written by any member of the elected body but by an outside entity. Committing an unconstitutional and illegal action, the Al-Azhar Institute wrote and submitted to parliament the proposed “hatred” bill. Egypt’s parliament is currently aiding and abetting the illegality by considering the proposed bill. Next, they will buckle under the same pressure to rubber stamp it. Just watch.

To be clear, Al- Azhar Institute has no representation, honorary or otherwise, in the Egyptian parliament. This was enumerated a long time ago when Nasser allowed the Islamic religious institute to expand its teachings to the university level in science and technology. And before doing so, Nasser established Law No. 103 in 1961. Still current, Law No. 103 restricts Al- Azhar Institute’s role to a religious/cultural one (meaning not political) and defines it as “the renewal of Islamic culture, removing abstractions and impurities from it.”

A hate speech law crafted by Al- Azhar may, in its own view, be very effective in “renewing” Islamic culture for, rest assured, it will favor Islam above the others. The language of the drafted bill is generic and abstract with the intent to exact that favor. Vagueness is subject to interpretation by those in charge. For example, the proposed bill states it is, “Protecting the community from attempts to indoctrinate false concepts that may emerge among its members and affect the facts of their religion in a manner that incites hatred.” “Community” is not defined, and this makes non-Muslim segments jittery. Are the indoctrinated “false concepts” affecting the “facts of their religion” pertaining to truths spoken about Islam and Sharia? — Probably.

At a time when Al- Azhar Islamists are under much criticism, the ambiguity of the bill, if passed, will muzzle thinkers and intellectuals and stifle expression more so than now. With this maneuver, Al- Azhar ar shows that its aim is to govern behavior and gain more power over personal lives.

Nothing short of a move to reverse Egypt’s constitution regarding free speech, Article 4 of Al- Azhar’s “Combating Hatred and Violence” bill incorporates an end to any opposition to the proposed bill once made into law and, in this case gets very specific: “It’s not permitted to invoke freedom of opinion and expression, criticism, freedom of information, publication or creativity against any statement or action involving anything contrary to the provisions of this law.” To the contrary, Article 65 of the current 2014 Constitution states that “Freedom of opinion is guaranteed and everyone has the right to express his or her opinion by speech, writing, photography or other means of expression and publication.” The two are at odds.

A thousand years old, Al- Azhar has an institutional memory of the freedoms’ and rights’ environment for centuries in Egypt prior to Nasser’s decision to nationalize personal property and pour the proceeds into the coffers of Al-Ahzar. Tipping the scales in this way set up society for the battle against freedoms and human rights. In response to the negative popular reaction in May 1879 to the emerging abuses of political and religious powers, Egypt’s 1923 Constitution came about 45 years later. It stated that the Egyptian parliament is the only “legislative authority” and that no religious institution can have that same role — referring to Al- Azhar Institute and the Coptic Orthodox Pope. Although the 1923 Constitution is now expunged, this point, fortunately, carried over to the current 2014 Constitution.

With its aggressive overreach (an unsolicited and illegally proposed “hate” bill) to increase the presence of Islam throughout a diverse population (secularists, liberals, atheists, Christians of various denominations and Muslims), the Al- Azhar deep state unveiled its true intentions. Instead of reviewing its own internal policies regarding religious teachings and preaching, which would alleviate oppression in Egypt and around the world as well as pressure on the devout, it rides the trend rising in Europe to suppress free speech and ingrain 7th century doctrine.

The powerful Al- Azhar deep state is shoring up its position to hold and penetrate fundamentalism in many ways, building momentum over time. After rejecting Al-Sisi’s plea for reform of Islamic doctrine and ignoring the possibility of school textbooks revision, Al- Azhar Institute created the kiosk project to disseminate religious edits (“fatwas”). Shortly after, Al- Azhar vocalized its contempt for Tunisia’s modernization of ancient religious traditions, and most recently remained silent on the Egyptian state’s campaign against female genital mutilation (FGM). Furthermore, Al- Azhar has never condemned ISIS or any act of Muslim terrorism against Christians in or outside of Egypt.

09/17/17

Why States Can’t Prevent a Runaway Convention

By Publius Huldah

The danger of an Article V convention (which made James Madison “tremble”, caused Alexander Hamilton “dread”, and Chief Justice John Jay to say that another convention would impose an “extravagant risque”) is this: the delegates to the convention can run away: instead of proposing amendments to our existing Constitution, they can write a completely new Constitution with a new – and easier – mode of ratification. 1

The convention lobby implicitly acknowledges this danger when they say State Legislatures should   pass “unfaithful delegate” laws to control delegates. 2

Accordingly,  Wyoming passed a delegate law earlier this year which purports to empower the WY Legislature to “immediately recall” any delegate who makes an “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to charge with a felony any delegate who fails to follow the WY Legislature’s instructions on what he may do at the convention.  The Texas delegate law purports to make “invalid” any “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to empower the TX Legislature to recall any delegate who violates his instructions.  But Tennessee takes the cake with its delegate law:  Not only does the TN law purport to “void” votes cast at the convention by TN delegates which are outside the instructions or limits placed on the delegates by the TN Legislature – and then to prosecute such delegates for a felony; the TN law also asserts that if all TN delegates vote or “attempt to vote” outside the scope of the instructions or limits, TN’s previously filed applications for an Article V convention are to be treated as “having no effect at all”.  Other States have passed similar laws.

Such laws are contrary to our Founding Principles and are based on false assumptions.  Accordingly, they are unenforceable and ineffective.

1. Self-evident Rights and the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding.3 It declares that all men are created equal; our rights are bestowed by God; our rights are unalienable; and the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

The Declaration is not “law” – it is higher than law, for it sets forth The Divine Standard which a Constitution – and the laws made pursuant to the Constitution must meet.

It also declares that a People have the self-evident right to throw off their government and set up a new one.  With that Principle firmly in mind, let’s look at our first amendments convention; and then, at State unfaithful delegate laws.

2. The federal convention of 1787

After our Revolution, we operated under our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation.  But there were defects in the Articles, so on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.  The States also drafted instructions which purported to restrict delegates to proposing amendments.

But the delegates ignored their instructions and wrote a new Constitution [the one we now have].  In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), Madison invoked the Declaration of Independence and claimed, as justification for what they did,

“…the transcendent and precious right of the people to ‘abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,’…”

Yet State unfaithful delegate laws claim a power to divest The Representatives of the People – and to criminally prosecute them for exercising – what the Fundamental Act of our Founding declares is a “self-evident” right”!

3. And what if the delegates make their proceedings secret?

The State Legislators who vote for unfaithful delegate laws assume they will be able to know what is going on every minute of every day of the convention.

But Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) shows that on May 29, 1787, the delegates voted to make their proceedings secret.

If delegates to a convention today vote to make the proceedings secret, the States won’t know what is going on – and can’t stop it. And if delegates vote by secret ballot, the States would NEVER know who did what.

You might think that with cell phones & cameras, it’s impossible to have a secret meeting. But the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which “induces” State Legislators to push the COS application for an Article V convention, is experienced in conducting secret meetings with State Legislators.  WATCH this 6.5 minute video of a Georgia TV crew which attempted to get into a meeting held at a Georgia hotel of ALEC and Georgia Legislators.

ALEC, which supports the COS application for an Article V convention, is funded by the Koch Brothers and other mega-corporations.  The Koch Brothers spend vast sums on State politicians (e.g., Texas), to get their support for the COS application.  Do the Kochs want an Article V convention so they can get a new Constitution which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union?  And if there is a convention, will armed guards keep the press out?  If delegates have been bought by the Kochs, will they tweet & text to the world what they are up to behind closed doors?

4. State Legislatures are “creatures” of their State Constitutions, and have no “competent
authority” to control The Representatives of The People at an Article V convention

Americans have forgotten a Principle which is the basis of free government: That political power originates with The People. 4   The People create governments by means of constitutions.  Since a government is the “creature” of its constitution, it can’t be superior to its Creator, The People.

This is why at the federal convention of 1787, where our present federal Constitution was drafted, our Framers understood that only The People were competent to ratify the new Constitution.  George Mason said on July 23, 1787,

“…The [State] Legislatures have no power to ratify it.  They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators…”

Keeping that Principle firmly in mind, let’s look at Article V, US Constitution.

It provides that when two thirds of the State Legislatures (“mere creatures”) apply for it, Congress is to call a convention.  At that point, it is out of the State Legislatures’ hands – the bell has tolled, and State Legislatures can’t un-ring it.  Congress “calls” the convention (sets it up); but when it assembles, the delegates, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, are not answerable to State Legislatures (which are “mere creatures” of the State Constitution) or to Congress (which is a “mere creature” of the federal Constitution).  The delegates actually have the power to eliminate the federal and state governments – and that is precisely what the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America does.

Delegates to a federal convention called by the federal Congress, to perform the federal function of altering or replacing our federal Constitution, are performing a federal function, not a State function.  The delegates don’t represent any government, federal or state. 5 They are supposed to represent The People; but in our corrupt time, they are more likely to represent the Koch Brothers (because they have the cash).

Dust off your copy of the federal Constitution we already have, read it and defend it.  It filled all Europe with “wonder and veneration”.  If you don’t do this, we will lose it.

Endnotes:

1 The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America creates a totalitarian dictatorship.  The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.  It is ratified by a national referendum [national popular vote] (Art. XII, §1).  Other proposed Constitutions are also waiting in the wings for a convention.

2 The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) claims their model delegate bill “will eliminate the possibility of a ‘runaway convention’ the reason most often cited by scholars for their opposition to an Article V Convention.”

3 Dr. Alan Keyes spoke of this on the radio some years ago; and I knew he had just handed me the Key to understanding our Constitution.

4 See Federalist No. 22, last para (Hamilton).

5 The term, “convention of states”, is a misnomer which gives the false impression that States control the convention.  In Rob Natelson’s speech on Sep. 16, 2010 [now removed from free access] he said he will no longer call it a “constitutional convention”, but will henceforth say, “convention of states” (pg.1-2).

This Chart illustrates who has the power to do what at an Article V convention.

09/13/17

3 Guns You Need to Own If North Korea Starts a War

By: Mike Coffey

The world seems to crumble under so many natural disasters, but the darkest threat of our days comes from the East and more exactly North Korea. Are we going to fight them? Are they going to launch their missiles?

Nobody knows what is going to happen, but the current uncertainty makes you want to be prepared. People are gathering food, water and other vital supplies in different types of shelters that can withstand a nuclear blast. But is this really necessary

Is North Korea Going to Start a War?

In the last few months we learned with absolute certainty that North Korea is working on improving their nuclear arsenal. Voices in the western world say that the rogue state is working on extending their missiles’ range. So, even though right now they can’t hit important targets in Europe or the US, they might in the near future.

But what is North Korea looking to achieve? A nuclear war will affect the whole world and may put the survival of our very own race at risk. For now, nobody knows with absolute confidence or they don’t want to share with the public. In any case, our future is uncertain at best.

The main conflict is between the US and North Korea and specialists think this happened due to the changes in leadership in both states. Six years ago Kim Jong-Un assumed power and this year, Donald Trump took office. The two leaders seem to lock horns and this doesn’t sit well for the rest of us.

But is North Korea going to start a war? Specialists say we shouldn’t be worried – a war is not going to happen (at least not now). North Korea seems to use their nuclear arsenal as a bargaining chip to get recognition from the US as a nuclear power. So for now, it’s just a matter of pride for the Korean leader.

However, things can go south faster than you think and the only ones to survive such a confrontation will be the ones who prepared ahead.

3 Guns You Should Own

I am not going to talk about nuclear preparedness as it is a topic quite popular these days and information is readily available. Instead I am going to talk about the life after. What happens if you survive the blast?

We know that in any SHTF scenario, the life after will be complete anarchy. The law of the jungle will be dominant, so you need to be among the ones who can defend themselves. For this, you need weapons and below are the top 3 most specialists recommend.

Mossberg 500 Shotgun

Tommy from goog gun weapons swears by the power and efficiency of a shotgun. Even more, you can use different types of ammo in it to shoot anything from small game to big game. So, it is useful for both hunting and self-defense.

The Mossberg 500 is fast and reliable, but you must be careful with the recoil. If you’re not used to shooting with this type of weapon it can be a bit uncomfortable.

S&W .357 Magnum

Yes, this is a revolver, but before you dismiss it for an automatic pistol, let me tell you about reliability. This tiny fellow doesn’t jam too often and when it does, you only have to squeeze the trigger and it un-jams.

It is small, so it’s easy to carry on you regardless of where you go. A rifle or a shotgun attracts attention, but a revolver is easy to keep in your pocket.

The .357 Magnum is great for both self-defense and shooting small game. It is also corrosion resistant, which is great in times of doom.

Marlin Model 336

Number three on my list is a lever action rifle that most preppers like as a survival rifle. It is fast, accurate and lightweight, which makes it great for when you go hunting. It’s also a great weapon for beginners and the magazine is large enough for a ‘spray and pray’ tactic (although highly not recommended during dark times).

The rifle can be used as a backup for the shotgun or vice versa, but it is important to have it.

A Few Final Words…

North Korea may start a war or not, but we have a duty to ourselves and our families to be prepared! For this, I urge you to start practicing your shooting and make sure to keep up to date with the latest news and data from all over the world.

08/21/17

Who’s Behind Civil War in America?

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

Larry Grathwohl’s daughter Lindsay is a free speech activist who has been attacked by the “anti-fascist” activists. She has to wear a football helmet for self-protection. “They were throwing rocks and bricks.” Her father was an FBI informant in the communist terrorist Weather Underground.

08/18/17

Racist CNN Commentator: Statues of Washington, Jefferson and Robert E. Lee ‘All Need to Come Down’ [VIDEO]

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | I Have The Truth

President Trump predicted this and he wasn’t the only one. I did and so did many other pundits. The communists, radicals and leftists never intended to stop at taking down Confederate statues. Their real target was the Founding Fathers and destroying the heritage and history of this country. It’s what communists do. They want to destroy the Constitution and rewrite our history and propagandic media outlets such as CNN are helping to push their agenda.

CNN political commentator Angela Rye either doesn’t know history at all or is just a racist, bigoted liar. It’s true that the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson for example had slaves who he wanted to free, but could not because he had debts. By law, he was prohibited from freeing them. George Washington’s family also owned slaves, but Washington did not approve of it either. In fact, they set up our Founding Documents the way they did with careful wording so that slavery would eventually be abolished. Look it up, that’s exactly what happened. I was never taught that everything we did as a nation was perfect, but I have read our real history and our nation is a great and good one. These people want to destroy that.

From Truth Revolt:

President Trump predicted that people will start going after statues of our slave-owning Founding Fathers after Confederate monuments are taken down and he couldn’t be more right.

On Thursday, CNN political commentator Angela Rye made an impassioned plea to remove all vestiges of slave owners around the United States, saying:

“I think that we have to get to the heart of the problem here, and the heart of the problem is the way in which many of us were taught American history. American history is not all glorious… George Washington was a slave owner and we need to call slave owners out for what they are, whether we think they were protecting American freedom or not, he wasn’t protecting my freedom.”

Rye added, “My ancestors weren’t deemed human beings to him. And so, to me, I don’t care if it’s a George Washington statue, or a Thomas Jefferson statue, or a Robert E. Lee statue, they all need to come down.”

When she was confronted with the idea that she was “feeding in to Steve Bannon’s and Donald Trump’s talking points,” Rye recoiled, saying she was “calling out white supremacy for what it is.”

No, these statues should not come down. They are reminders of our past and history. I don’t see these people calling for the statues of Robert Byrd to come down, or the Lenin statue in Seattle to be removed. They hate the Founding Fathers because they were white and if you get right down to it, the primary instigators in all this are communists, who want to rip the very fabric of this nation apart. Trump is not a racist or a white supremacist. What about black supremacy and racism? Because there is sure plenty of that here as well.

This woman is disingenuous. The violence she speaks of happened all right… but whites and other races faced it as well. The first legal slave owner in America was black. And there were many white indentured slaves in America. And you might want to speak to the Chinese about slavery as well. All of this has nothing to do with modern day America and we owe nothing to these people. This will probably become the norm now as a pastor in Chicago is calling for the same thing. And someone burned an Abraham Lincoln statue there yesterday. None of these people know the first thing about our history and what’s more, they don’t care. They just want to burn it all down. One last thing… George Washington united and gave birth to this country… the Civil War sought to tear it apart. It is idiotic to compare the two.

I will close with a quote from one of my favorite writers, Daniel Greenfield: “Civilizations are built on virtue. Without virtue, there is no civilization.” Reason and virtue are in short supply in America today and our Republic is in danger of falling. An SDS radical and communist once wrote: “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”

08/17/17

Meckler Admits “Convention of States” Won’t Solve the Problem!

By Judi Caler

There may not be a question more difficult to answer for Mark Meckler, President of Citizens for Self-Governance and spokesman for its Convention of States Project (COS), than this:

Since the federal government ignores the Constitution as now written, why would it obey an amended Constitution?

This is a fair question, considering COS has spent several years and millions of dollars from undisclosed sources1 on paid lobbyists and “senior advisors” who crisscross the country leaning on legislators to pass resolutions asking Congress to call an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ostensibly to limit the federal government.

All the while, at the local level, COS has been carrying out a massive public relations campaign claiming to be a grassroots movement with a “solution as big as the problem.”

But Meckler’s group has a solution that has nothing to do with the problem! Since the problem is a federal government that has overreached its powers by ignoring our Constitution, logic alone tells us that amending our Constitution, the very document being ignored, can’t possibly fix the problem.

On 7/6/17 (Part 2 at 37:00), Mark Meckler was heard on Red Eye Radio answering that question in an interesting and illogical way:

A caller asked: “Once the amendments are proposed and ratified, how are they actually implemented?”

In response, Meckler said, “… [the amendments] just automatically become part of the Constitution…part of the structure of governance in America…and that means that government then has to begin operating according to those amendments in the same way that they do with the rest of the Constitution.”

He continued, “And functionally, ultimately that means government will shrink, they will have the authority to do less. And if they fail to follow those amendments, then obviously, there is litigation that ensues up to the federal courts and ultimately up to the Supreme Court, if necessary.” (Emphasis added.)

But wait!  COS has contended for years that the Constitution needs to be amended precisely because of decisions by activist judges who have undermined the original intent of the Constitution and allowed the federal government to usurp powers not delegated by our Constitution.

In other words, Meckler gives us a circular argument. He’s saying that COS will add more verbiage to the Constitution to counter activist judges; and then, when the federal government ignores the new wording, as they have in the past, there will be lawsuits to force the government to follow the original intent of the framers. And lawsuits generate still more decisions by activist judges!

It should be noted, too, that our Constitution already limits the federal government to its enumerated powers; and any changes such as a Balanced Budget Amendment, will expand the power of the federal government.

State governments already have the power to resist unconstitutional acts of the federal government –  they simply need a backbone!

The last caller, only 10 minutes later, hit upon the circular argument and got a different response from Meckler:

Caller: “…What happens, if say, we call a “convention of states” [and] we get some great reform amendments made to the Constitution to undo a lot of damage that has been done by activist judges and left-wing congressional majorities and presidents. What happens if we have future…laws…that violate the new amendments…and… new activist judges on the Supreme Court that then give rubber stamp approval [to the unconstitutional laws].  …Is there a bullet-proof, really good way to stop the same process from cycling over and over again after we get new amendments [at a convention]?”

Meckler: “You know, I think that’s one of the best questions there is. And I’m going to give you the short and blunt answer which is NO!”

That’s right, Mark Meckler asserts there is no way to stop the federal government from ignoring amendments proposed by a convention that later become ratified!  And the entire process places our current Constitution at risk—for what?!

Meckler elaborated philosophically: “There is no way to prevent the cycle from happening because the cycle is the cycle of human nature. In our history, you can go back to the Roman Empire and look at what happens… So, I think what happens is, you correct course, you put the ship on course, and eventually it will begin to be blown off course.

“History tells us it takes about 100 years for amendments to stop being effective…I think, for example, the first amendment about 100 years ago started to come under assault. So, it had been in place for well over 100 years; so, I expect the slide to happen.”

Let’s get this straight. The convention lobby is pouring massive resources into putting our Constitution at risk in convention because Mark Meckler is trying to steer the ship back on course, somehow predicting that in 100 years our children’s descendants will need to go through the same process, subjecting our Constitution to risk once again (assuming it survives the second federal convention he is trying so hard to invoke?) Why haven’t he, his lobbyists or “senior advisors” brought this up at legislative hearings?

Why not work on enforcing the Constitution we have, instead of rewriting 2,000 annotated pages of Supreme Court decisions, and very probably the entire Constitution? Why not encourage our State Legislators to stand up against and refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal dictates now—that’s what they are supposed to do, according to our Framers.

Article V was meant to correct defects in the Constitution, and this explains why it is not a solution for reining in an overreaching federal government.

If the main COS proponent thinks his “Solution” is a temporary “fix”; and his method of implementing Amendments resulting from an Article V convention is no different than the system that created the problem in the first place, one must wonder…

What is the real reason COS is being bankrolled to advance an Article V convention whose Delegates, as direct Representatives of the People, would have the inherent Right “to alter or to abolish” our “Form of Government”? (Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2.)

Endnote:

1 While we are unable to determine all the sources of the funding for Meckler’s group; the ultimate source of much of the funding for the push for an Article V convention is the mega billionaire Koch Brothers of Texas.