Arlene from Israel

Shame, and grief and fury. Just a part of what I am feeling right now in response to the decision of the Cabinet late today to release 104 Palestinian Arab prisoners as a “gesture” to the PA so that they will come to the table.

Yet, my friends, I am hardly alone in this response. Yesterday, I cited the poll indicating that a huge majority (85%) of Israelis was opposed to what their prime minister has just done. There are many feeling shame, and grief and fury.

And I thought it important to send this out tonight and tell everyone that Binyamin Netanyahu and the Cabinet that caved under his pressure do not represent all of us. Not by a long shot. Nor is it our intention to remain silent.


Not that the opinions, or the feelings of those who are opposed mattered in the end to Netanyahu, who prattled on about the pain in his own heart and how difficult it was for him to do this.

Don’t believe him. If it bothered him that much he shouldn’t have done it.

I frankly resent it when he invokes the name of his brother Yoni — who died a hero at Entebbe — to show that he understands the pain of those who lost a family member to terrorists. It is not the same thing.


The reason he gave for taking this action was “in order to establish Israel’s position in the complex international reality around us.” Shall I translate this for you? It means to suck up to the world in the futile hope that they’ll like us. To make sure Kerry isn’t left hanging out to dry, because Abbas won’t cooperate. To come forward and take up that problematic slack for Kerry so “negotiations” might carry on.

Yes, I know the US pressure has been enormous. And the onus is put on us because Abbas won’t move. But in my opinion, Netanyahu has the spine of a wet noodle. Therein lies our dilemma. Our tragedy.

I do not believe that he believes for a moment in the prospects of “peace.” Even now, he is not Shimon Peres or Tzipi Livni, with his head floating in some netherworld. His actions are not ideological, but purely tactical and pragmatic. As he sees tactics and pragmatism, at any rate.

And I saw it coming, although I didn’t quite expect this. I noted on several occasion how he keeps going on “ad nauseum” about his devotion to the “peace negotiations.” This was not a man working from inner conviction, quietly and with determination. This was a man putting on a show.


Steve Plaut, Haifa professor, has written a piece about this issue on his blog — http://stevenplaut.blogspot.co.il/— that is so stunning I want to reproduce a part of it here (emphasis added):

“Ofrah Moses was pregnant when she was murdered along with her son and her fetus. The murderer was Mohammed A’del Daud, who threw a petrol bomb at their car in 1987. He is about to be set free by Benjamin Netanyahu in order to prove to the world the Jews are Untermenschen [subhuman] whose lives are worthless and whose murder does not count. The Israeli Left is cheering Netanyahu on! The road to peace depends on Jews acquiescing in being defined and treated as sub-humans, whose lives have no worth.

“Rachel Weiss was burned to death together with her three small children in 1988 when the bus she was riding in was attacked by petrol bombs. The murderer was Mahmoud Abu-Charbeesh. He is about to be set free by Benjamin Netanyahu in order to prove to the world the Jews are Untermenschen whose lives are worthless and whose murder does not count.

“In 1985 Meir ben Yair and Michal Cohen were sitting in their car in a forest near Beit Shemesh when they were murdered by Mustafa Ganimat, together with his two terrorist friends. He is about to be set free by Benjamin Netanyahu in order to prove to the world the Jews are Untermenschen whose lives are worthless and whose murder does not count.

“Leah Almakeis and Yosef Eliyahu were murdered while hiking in a forest on Mt. Gilboa. Their murderer was Othman bni Chasin. He is about to be set free by Benjamin Netanyahu in order to prove to the world the Jews are Untermenschen whose lives are worthless and whose murder does not count.

Isa Abd Rabo murdered Ravital Sri and Ron Levi near the Chrimison monastery, stabbing them to death. He is about to be set free by Benjamin Netanyahu in order to prove to the world the Jews are Untermenschen whose lives are worthless and whose murder does not count.

“One of Israel’s leading historians, Professor Menachem Stern, was murdered in 1989, stabbed to death by Mahmoud Isa Muammar in the Valley of the Cross in Jerusalem. The terrorist also murdered three other people. He is about to be set free by Benjamin Netanyahu in order to prove to the world the Jews are Untermenschen whose lives are worthless and whose murder does not count.

“The above are just a few of the murderers of men, women and children that Benjamin Netanyahu is about to set free in order to prove to the world the Jews are Untermenschen whose lives are worthless and whose murder does not count.

“Netanyahu is setting these murderers free as ‘payment’ for the PLO to go through the motions of participating in make-pretend ‘negotiations,’ and as a sop for John Kerry. Netanyahu is ‘paying’ for the Kodak moment in the currency of mass murderers, all so the PLO will sit down with some Israeli representatives and demand that Israel be annihilated by means of the ‘Palestinian Right of Return,’ this after Israel ‘returns’ to its pre-1967 Auschwitz borders and offers the PLO swaths of pre-1967 Israeli lands. Netanyahu will be setting free 104 murderers as the purchase price for this show…

“Israel was created for the simple purpose of proclaiming to the world that the Jews are NOT Untermenschen whose lives are worthless and whose murder does not count…When Netanyahu abandons this, he undermines the purpose and legitimacy of the country. Someone who refuses to accept this axiom as the fundamental basis for the existence of the state is unworthy of holding office in Israel.”


It was broadly understood that once Netanyahu released his letter to the public yesterday — explaining why he “had” to release the prisoners and how this would be good for Israel — he had set the ground for approval of his decision by the Cabinet.

But it turned out not to be so simple when he came before the Cabinet today. So contentious was the discussion that he tabled it for later in the day. And for a short while there was hope that it might not go through.

One of the issues had to do with the fact that some 20 Israeli Arab prisoners were slated for release as part of this deal. It’s all an outrage. But it’s one matter for the PA to insist that “their” prisoners be released (although even this is unacceptable). And it’s quite another for them to interfere in how we mete out justice to our own citizens. Who is Abbas to demand that Israel release an Israeli Arab who killed Israeli Jews? Ponder this a bit, and you may understand that the implications are deep and troublesome.

For some in the Cabinet, this was a red line. And so the prime minister agreed that release of those prisoners would be separated out for a vote another time.

The numbers have yet to add up for me, with regard to this issue. Originally we were supposed to release 83, and then were told it would be 104 because Abbas insisted (insisted??) on including the Israeli Arab prisoners. But somehow, with those Israeli Arabs factored out, we’re still being told that 104 will be released. In stages.

Netanyahu has appointed a committee — consisting of himself, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, and Science and Technology Minister Yaakov Peri, a former Shin Bet head — who would make the decisions as to who would be released, when, and where they’d be sent to.


Enormous pressure was put on the ministers in turn, so that the prime minister could get his way. And so our second tragedy is that more did not hold out. Most disturbing is that Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, whom I just praised yesterday, voted for the prisoner release.

The final vote of the Cabinet was 13 in favor: Netanyahu, Ya’alon, Gideon Sa’ar, and Yuval Steinitz (Likud); Yitzhak Aharonovitch and Sofa Landver (Yisrael Beitenu); Yair Lapid, Yael German, Yaakov Peri, and Shai Piron (Yesh Atid); Tzipi Livni, and Amir Peretz (Hatnua).

Opposed were: Yisrael Katz and Gilad Erdan (Likud), Naftali Bennett, Uri Ariel and Uri Orbach (Habayit Hayehudi) and Uzi Landau and Yair Shamir (Yisrael Beitenu) voted against the measure.

The Limor Livnat and Silvan Shalom (Likud) abstained.

Aside from those who fought within the Cabinet are those serving in the Knesset or as deputy ministers and fighting from outside the Cabinet — most notably Danny Dannon, Deputy Defense Minister, but others, such as Ze’ev Elkin, Deputy Foreign Minister. I will have more to say about them over time.

Bennett may yet walk from the coalition with his party, and it remains to be seen how nationalists within the right wing of Likud decide to conduct themselves. How this dynamic plays out will be critical.

Those fighting the good fight will require moral and political support. Others, prepared to cave, will have to be held accountable.


What Netanyahu has done, of course, is to render himself, before the nation, as someone who cannot be trusted on any of this. After all, he insisted that he would accept no pre-conditions and that we were going into the negotiations without having agreed to anything. And so, what remains troublesome is the question of what else he agreed to.

PA sources — both Al-Ayyam and Al-Hayat according to Israel National News — are saying that the official invitation to come from the US will “include a statement that the talks will be based on the ‘1967 lines’ with possible territorial swaps.”


PA sources are not gospel, and we’ll know soon enough how much truth there is here.


The referendum law was also approved in the Cabinet today and will go to the Knesset. I would like to table that discussion for my next post.

Here, just briefly, I wanted to explain why Abbas considers it so important to secure the release of convicted terrorists from Israeli prisons.

This man is politically weak, and the issue of prisoner release is a hot one. Every family who has someone in an Israeli prison wants him out. These terrorists are heroes, and many in the broader community call for their release as well. It becomes a matter of pride for them. (And you might want to ponder what sort of people are these, who base their honor on this and not constructive achievements.) What Abbas can “achieve” in this regard secures him a popularity and increased support that simply would not be the case for other more speculative issues.

I wonder how many Palestinian Arabs would bat an eye at an announcement about the terms for negotiations that Abbas secured from Israel. Many don’t think there should be negotiations at all, most expect them to come to nothing. Of what import are the terms of the talks for them? Ah, but to get people out of prison! That is something concrete, an achievement.

Consider this: if there is a building freeze secured (and I do believe that Netanyahu has committed to a slow down in building), and then negotiations fall apart, Israel can start building again. If there is an Israeli agreement to base negotiations on the ’67 line, and the negotiations fail, then Israel will not be behind that line after all. But if some prisoners are released (and the first ones might be released in a matter of weeks), and then negotiations fail, hey! they’re out anyway.


Spying on America – Thor to O’Reilly: My Contacts Tell Me Government is Recording All Phone Calls

Ask Marion

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion – h/t to MJ

This past week the house voted 217 to 205 to allow the Feds, the NSA, to continue spying on every/on all calls of every American, without restriction. Although several of the Congressmen spoke about the Constitution and our Founding Fathers during the pre-vote debate, many twisted the Founders’ words for their benefit. The Founders’ thoughts on this issue really boil down to the words of Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased here) “He who chooses security over freedom… safety over liberty, rarely gets (nor deserves) either!” And once Americans allowed the power elite to convince us after 9/11 that the Patriot Act and all that went with with was necessary, the NSA turned their ‘Big Ears’ and eyes inward ‘with’ our permission. America’s Founding Fathers would certainly be appalled at the America of today!

Best-selling author Brad Thor, newest book Hidden Order (Kindle), appeared on the The Factor and told Bill O’Reilly that according to his sources, which historically appear to be pretty accurate, the government is recording all our phone calls and storing them. See interview below:

Video: Spying on America

Wow c’mon Bill… Can you really be that naive and uninformed about the NSA’s Utah data center?!? Or is it the price of being top dog at Fox? (Although, I have to give Bill credit for taking on the issue or race relations in America this past week with some tough talk!)

Saving America: O’Reilly was MIA on the entire NSA spying on Americans story but I refuse to accept with all the people who work for him doing research he was never made aware of the Bluffdale UT facility. If you have been under a rock or something the NSA can collect not only the data of a call or email but also the contents of! So they know you send emails tweets etc and know what was in them. The know when you made phone calls, to whom and know what was said. This is all data that is collected and stored like Thor said in the larger facility because the Ft. Mead Maryland site wasn’t big enough.

And remember… anyone can be blackmailed! Just ask General Petraeus and Chief Justice John Roberts!

See episode one of ‘For the Record: Surveillance State’ below, which originally aired while folks were getting ready for an extended holiday to celebrate the Fourth of July. It addresses how far we have come from freedom fighters to now a police state!:

Video: For the Record: Surveillance State – TheBlazeTV Episode 1

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler

After this week’s vote, Beck and team voiced their opinions on the fact that conservative Michele Bachmann (and several others) surprisingly voted in favor of continued surveillance and Michele’s comments thereafter:

Video: Glenn Beck Excoriates Bachmann: ‘Shame On You,’ ‘Really, Really, Really Almost Dead To Me’

7/25/13 – On the House floor early Wednesday evening, Michele Bachmann, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan all stood up for the Obama administration and voted with Nancy Pelosi. You may ask how such a thing is possible, but the ongoing debate over NSA surveillance has created some strange political bedfellows and even exposed cracks in some alliances. Case in point, Glenn Beck today was beyond disappointed in Bachmann, and only half-joked that she’s “not dead to me, but she is in very ill health.”

The issue Wednesday night was over a proposal from libertarian Republican Justin Amash that would have restricted the NSA’s ability to collect metadata on people to only those under criminal investigation. It was only narrowly defeated, 217-205, with conservative Republicans joining liberal Democrats to vote for the amendment. Bachmann emerged as one of the more defensive Republicans of the NSA surveillance program, fighting back against “false narratives” about what information the NSA is collecting. Needless to say, Beck wasn’t happy.

He said that while he feels Bachmann’s comments were sincere and based on her experience in classified intelligence hearings, she’s promoting a false narrative by talking about false narratives. He asked, “What are they storing in the Utah NSA data storage facility? What are they storing in there? Meat?”

While listening to Bachmann go on about terrorists benefitting from the information released by Edward Snowden, Beck took to his chalkboard to write, “Michele B- is not dead to me but she is in very ILL HEALTH.”

He and his co-hosts also found it ridiculous that Bachmann would claim the phone book has more personal information than the NSA database. Upon hearing this one, Beck updated the chalkboard message to read “very very very ill health,” and said that Bachmann is “really, really, really almost dead to me.”

He told Bachmann, “Please don’t treat me like a moron.” He went off on the secrecy of the NSA surveillance program and the FISA court making “Supreme Court-style decisions” in a “star chamber.” He ended with a serious message for Bachmann.

“There’s no freedom there and it’s not a false narrative, Michele Bachmann, and shame on you for saying that. Shame on you. You know better than that. And I like you and I have respect for you, but shame on you.”

They are building a police state all around us and we are allowing it to happen! As my good pal from the NoisyRoom wrote recently, we are living in a battlefield: Games Without Frontiers – the American Battlefield. Mike Huckabee interviewed attorney John Whitehead the author of the new book: A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (Kindle) this past weekend which addresses this very issue, as our Congress, in a bipartisan vote, voted to allow the surveillance of all Americans to continue.

Video: Huckabee interviews author of Government of Wolves – about the rise of paramilitary cops – 80,000+ home invasions last year…

Video: Beck Goes Off On NSA, IRS Tactics: ‘There Wouldn’t Be A Jew Alive Today If Hitler Had This Technology’

Video: Oliver Stone on NSA Spying

As Hollywood Director/Producer Oliver Stone points out, it is in our DNA, our history, to stand-up and fight against tyranny… so why aren’t we? Have we let ourselves and our children become so dumbed-down and manipulated that we won’t… can’t stand-up, or even worse are we so programmed that we don’t even care?

The Congress took their vote, but this is an ongoing battle and you need to contact and keep contacting your Congressperson, your Senator, Speaker Boehner and everyone else on this list below, the 217 people that voted Aye to preserve the NSA’s surveillance of all Americans as well as those who didn’t vote, until they hear you/us! Remind them that the 2014 elections are right around the corner:

The Congressional Voting list – compiled by name, party, vote status, state

You be the judge, but if this concerns you, even a little… you need to get and stay involved!! You can bet that The Founders are turning in their graves!

Read more…


Rolling In The Deep… With Communists

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

I honestly don’t know how anyone who has been paying even the slightest attention to Obama and his history can be surprised at President Barack Obama‘s claim that Vietnam’s communist leader Ho Chi Minh was an admirer of U.S. Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson. Obama’s statement should be one for the history books and it is a direct insult to our Vietnam Vets. Disgraceful.

After all, Obama just claimed that he knows more about the Constitution than those stupid, oafish Republicans. So, now he’s all knowing, as well as all seeing — hope Olympus has saved him a seat:

In an interview after his speech Wednesday in Galesburg, Illinois, President Obama was asked if he consulted White House lawyers before unilaterally delaying the employer mandate in Obamacare. Since Congress, in the Affordable Care Act, specified that the mandate is go to into effect at the start of next year, reporters from the New York Times asked if the president investigated whether he had the legal authority to put it off without going through Congress.

Obama didn’t exactly answer the question. But judging from what he said, his answer was: No, I didn’t consult White House lawyers because I know a lot more about the Constitution than the Republicans who are complaining about it. And besides, they don’t think I’m legitimately the president, anyway.

“People questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally — to delay the employer mandate,” asked the Times’ Jackie Calmes. “Did you consult with your lawyer?” […]

At that point, Obama explained that if Congress doesn’t like what he’s done, then lawmakers can try to do something about it. “I’m not concerned about their opinions,” the president said. “Very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.” And some Republicans “think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency.” [emphasis mine]

At a July 25th meeting with Vietnam’s current communist Premier, Truong Tan Sang, Obama said:

At the conclusion of the meeting, President Sang shared with me a copy of a letter sent by Ho Chi Minh to Harry Truman. And we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson. Ho Chi Minh talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States. And President Sang indicated that even if it’s 67 years later, it’s good that we’re still making progress.

Perhaps Obama missed that Ho Chi Minh had been a communist operative for more than 20 years at the time of that letter. That he spent most of his life living outside his country and that some of that time was in Moscow studying in the Lenin School. With the military aid of America, the Vietnamese communist guerrillas had just finished expelling the Japanese invaders. Ho Chi Minh was on very close terms with the U.S, Office of Strategic Services (already heavily infiltrated by American communists), which was the forerunner of the CIA.

Per Trevor Loudon:

The Vietnamese communist’s next step was to expel the French colonialists. They were keen to enlist American help in this battle, or at least not to provoke US opposition. In 1945, US foreign policy was still very soft on communism. It would only harden under Democrat president Harry Truman a couple of years later. Imagine what today’s Democrats would think of Truman – or JFK for that matter.

Ho Chi Minh had a brilliant mind and he played America like a communist fiddle. He lied with aplomb to gain support against the French and when that didn’t work with the Americans (at first), he turned to the Russians and ousted them by 1954.

Up is down, black is white and history has now been turned inside out. It’s like America is stuck in a never ending game of Lucy and Charlie Brown football. We keep falling for the same old communist tricks, because they swear it’s different this time. The Vietnam War was more of the same and so are today’s trends:

Then, after a period of consolidation, this great admirer of Thomas Jefferson attacked sovereign South Vietnam, with covert Soviet and Chinese support, sparking the Vietnam War.

The communists played a similar game in China, deliberately portraying themselves (with the help of American sympathizers in the State Department) as non-communist “agrarian reformers.”

Fidel Castro played similar games in pre-revolutionary Cuba.

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela repeatedly denied he was a socialist – until he had consolidated sufficient power.

I would suggest that a protege of Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and a long time “Party friend” like Barack Obama, would be well aware of the history behind his statements.

The Devil can cite Scriptures to suit his purpose. Communists have a long history of citing the US Constitution and invoking American patriotism to suit theirs.

Barack Obama does it regularly…

Ho Chi Minh was The Butcher of North Vietnam and he is the recipient of high praise from Barack Obama. Obama is rewriting history to suit his Marxist vision. Make no mistake that Obama knew exactly what he was saying and whom he was praising.

While China is gearing up for war with us and paying very special attention to radiation-hardened electronics (gee, I wonder why), Obama is kanoodling with communists, Marxists, religious radicals and dictators across the planet. He has left us wide open to attack by seriously downsizing our military and gutting our weapon arsenals. He wants us attacked and brought down. It would be the ultimate redistribution of wealth and would give Obama the accomplishment of his long-dreamed of agenda.

Obama’s meeting with Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang was a slap in America’s face — it was the ultimate bow and grovel moment. This is a country that on a regular basis imprisons and tortures bloggers and priests, quashes reporting and free speech, and routinely silences any form of political dissent. They are also heavily into forced labor and slavery. Obama said they “discussed the challenges that all of us face when it comes to issues of human rights.” You betcha! I’ll wager Obama was taking notes on how to improve his flowering dictatorship. Michelle Obama told supporters in her latest email that Barack is working to make Americans free from government. Yes, free from our form of government so Obama can rule as he wishes from on high. And that is at the core of his bromance with Ho Chi Minh, with Mao, with Stalin, with Che and with every other blood thirsty communist/Marxist/progressive that has unfortunately graced history. Note that “freedom from government” is the anarchist/chaos stage used to catapult dictators to power.

From a 1968 Reader’s Digest piece on the rule of Ho Chi Minh:

The village chief and his wife were distraught. One of their children, a seven-year-old boy, had been missing for four days. They were terrified, they explained to Marine Lt. Gen. Lewis W. Walt, because they believed he had been captured by the Vietcong.

Suddenly, the boy came out of the jungle and ran across the rice paddies toward the village. He was crying. His mother ran to him and swept him up in her arms. Both of his hands had been cut off, and there was a sign around his neck, a message to his father: if he or any one else in the village dared go to the polls during the upcoming elections, something worse would happen to the rest of his children.

Bloodbath Discipline.

The terror had its real beginning when Red dictator Ho Chi Minh consolidated his power in the North. More than a year before his 1954 victory over the French, he launched a savage campaign against his own people. In virtually every North Vietnamese village, strong-arm squads assembled the populace to witness the “confessions” of landowners. As time went on, businessmen, intellectuals, school teachers, civic leaders — all who represented a potential source of future opposition — were also rounded up and forced to “confess” to “errors of thought.” There followed public “trials,” conviction and, in many cases, execution. People were shot, beheaded, beaten to death; some were tied up, thrown into open graves and covered with stones until they were crushed to death, Ho has renewed his terror in North Vietnam periodically. Between 50,000 and 100,000 are believed to have died in these blood-baths — in a coldly calculated effort to discipline the party and the masses. To be sure, few who escape Ho’s terror now seem likely to tempt his wrath. During the 1950s, however, he had to quell some sizeable uprisings in North Vietnam — most notably one that occurred in early November 1956, in the An province, which included Ho’s birthplace village of Nam Dan. So heavily had he taxed the region that the inhabitants finally banded together and refused to meet his price. Ho sent troops to collect, and then sent in an army division, shooting. About 6,000 unarmed villagers were killed. The survivors scattered, some escaping to the South. The slaughter went largely unnoticed by a world then preoccupied with the Soviet Union’s rape of Hungary.

Sounds like Obama and “Uncle Ho” are similar in many ways. He seems to be rolling in the deep with his beloved communists. I am very sure he is familiar with the Cambodian Killing Fields as part of Ho Chi Minh’s grand plan. I wonder… is it part of Obama’s? I’ll leave you with a candid quote from Fox News:

It may come as some unwelcome news to the families of the nearly 60,000 Americans who died in the Vietnam War that the whole thing was just a misunderstanding.

Truong Tan Sang and Barack Obama


Arizona’s Three Communist Affiliated Congressmembers

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Arizona has not one, but three Communist Party affiliated Congress members.

How could a libertarian leaning state like Arizona have any communist affiliated representatives?

Most Arizonans have no idea that Arizona even has a Communist Party local.

Lorenzo Torrez

Lorenzo Torrez

It all started with Lorenzo Torrez (who died in 2012), one of Arizona’s most influential ever politicians. Never heard of him? Neither have 90% of Arizonans.

In 1974, Torrez moved with his family to Tucson where he served as chair of the Arizona Communist Party for more than 30 years. He also led the party’s Chicano Equality Commission and was a member of the CPUSA National Committee.

He built the Arizona CP into an influential organization in all the progressive movements of Arizona.

Torrez helped establish the communist run Salt of the Earth Labor College in Tucson, which continues today.

Steve Valencia, president of the labor college, told the People’s World, “Lorenzo changed the political landscape of Arizona. For him, the liberation of the working class and equality for the Mexican American people were inherently tied together.”

Torrez was also a “pioneer in the struggle for Mexican American political representation,” Valencia added. “I always say: Before Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva, there was Lorenzo Torrez.”

Pastor and Grijalva are Arizona’s first two Mexican Americans members of the U.S. Congress. But Torrez ran for Congress before they ran, and also ran against Republican Senator Barry Goldwater.

“Lorenzo told us it is time for these majority Latino districts to be represented by a Mexican American,” said Valencia. “He wanted voters to see a Latino name on the ballot.”

When Pastor declared his candidacy, Torrez rallied the Tucson Communist Party club to join in the effort. Pastor’s victory in 1991, set the stage for Grijalva’s election in 2002.

Today, Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva are members of the far left Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Grijalva was involved with the Communist Party well before 2002, as this article he wrote for the Party’s People’s World in 1993 proves.


Both Pastor and Grijalva have been champions of the illegal immigrants “rights” movement – a movement that Lorenzo Torrez helped to found in California and Arizona and then helped to coordinate across the entire Southwest.

The third Arizona Rep. with provable Communist Party ties is Phoenix-based freshman Kyrsten Sinema.

While she likes to pretend moderation these days, Sinema is a hard core leftist with past ties to several extremist groups – including of course the Arizona Communist Party.

Here she is in 2003, putting her name to the Arizona Communist Party’s May Day greetings page – right over that of Lorenzo Torrez and Steve Valencia.


To find out more about Arizona’s communist connected Congress members, read Trevor Loudon’s new book “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress.”


The Enemies Within” will be officially released August 20, 2013, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

However, if you are a U.S. resident, you can receive one of the very first copies hot off the press by pre-ordering through the button below.

“Trevor Loudon does the job that few in the media ever attempt” – Glenn Beck


O’Reilly: Keep Those Right-on Commentaries Comin’ White Boy.

By: Lloyd Marcus

As a black conservative tea party activist, I am extremely excited about Bill O’Reilly’s recent series of commentaries and TV shows addressing the hypocrisy and exploitation by the American race industry that has and continues to devastate the black community.

O’Reilly boldly called out all of the usual suspects, Sharpton, Jackson, the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama.

Eric Holder and others on the left have been whining and arrogantly scolding us saying, “We need an honest discussion about race in America.” Whenever despicable race hustlers such as Holder suggest that we talk about race, it means they want to further the false narrative that America is still racist and somebody needs to get paid; more entitlements, growing government bigger and increased deficit spending.

Well, O’Reilly called Holder and company’s hand and “honestly” addressed race in America and the Left are out of their minds with rage. Why? Because like the famous line in the movie, the Left “can’t handle the truth”.

In fairness, Rush Limbaugh has been taking enormous heat for courageously and honestly addressing race issues in America for years on his radio show. However, O’Reilly is the only white host on a number one TV show with the stones to address the huge elephant in black America’s living room. Why is black America a mess?

O’Reilly tells it like it is: fatherless homes, out-of-wedlock births, high rate of school dropouts, drugs, crime and high unemployment in the black community. http://bit.ly/13VhTy7

Arrogant racist white liberals have been patting themselves on the back for their superior compassion for minorities for years. Their crappy entitlement programs and insulting lowered standards have clearly destroyed the black family.

In reality, O’Reilly and Limbaugh are the guys who are expressing real compassion for black Americans. The first step to fixing a problem is to acknowledge that there is one.

Laura Ingraham guest hosted on the O’Reilly show. In her discussion with a black pundit, Ingraham stated that Al Sharpton’s hypocrisy injures blacks. The idiot pundit’s reply was, “How dare white people tell us who our leaders should be.”

What a racist stupid response. I thought, “Madam you and your ilk are the problem. You are the reason why blacks continue to die via black on black crime, suffer broken families and end up in jail. Get off of my TV you vile human being!” Yes, I grabbed my remote and muted her.

Folks, my passions are high because this is serious business. Black lives are being destroyed while white limousine liberals feel good about themselves and black liberal sell-outs get rich.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media or generation-of-vipers as I like to refer to them, punishes and seeks to destroy anyone who dares to honestly address the issues fueling the extinction of blacks in America.

Yes, with blacks killing blacks in record numbers and half of black pregnancies ending in abortions, we blacks are well on our way to self-induced genocide. http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html

O’Reilly’s revelations about what has gone terribly wrong in the black community are not new. Myself along with other black conservatives have been fighting on the front lines writing articles and books, giving speeches and more confronting these issues for years.

But with the mainstream media’s boycott of black non-liberal voices on TV, exposure of our ideas have been extremely limited.

O’Reilly’s rant has unquestionably brought the source of the problem and our ideas front and center. Finally, a broad audience of Americans, black and white, have a rare opportunity to hear the truth.

I am prayerfully optimistic that O’Reilly’s “honest” conversation about race will spark positive change; saving black lives and the futures of black youths.

Thanks Bill. Keep those right-on commentaries comin’ white boy.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman: http://www.conservativecampaign.org/


A Good Move and a Very Bad One

Arlene from Israel

Motzei Shabbat (after Shabbat)

“A Good Move and a Very Bad One”

How refreshing to be able to report on a minister who has taken a stand that reflects a strong Israel:

Minister of Defense Moshe Ya’alon has ordered a cessation of all cooperation with the EU in area C of Judea and Samaria. The IDF will neither grant new permits nor renew existing permits for EU construction projects in Area C (where Israel has full civil and military control).

No documents will be issued or renewed for EU personnel to travel into Judea and Samaria or Gaza from Israel. And there will be no more work or coordination meetings between EU official or personnel and the offices of the Civil Administration and the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).



Right on, Bogie!

Credit: Calevbenyefuneh

Not only does this directive reflect Israeli pride and sense of independence, free of groveling for foreign favors, it puts a stop to an unfortunate practice that has gone on for too long: The EU has been underwriting Palestinian Arab construction in Area C. The goal has been to put Arab facts on the ground in an area that is supposed to be Israeli, and to push Jews out.

I just shared important information about this days ago, which I repeat here:



Ironically, on Friday, the JPost ran an interview with Elmar Brok, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in the European Parliament.

Brok, a German Christian Democrat, is considered a friend of Israel. He concedes that the new guidelines may be detrimental to the EU. Speaking of one major flagship innovation project that is in the works — Horizon 2020 — he says:

“I am not quite sure that it is only an Israeli advantage to have Horizon cooperation. I think it is a European interest. It would be stupid of us if we do not continue this cooperation. Because it is very much to our advantage… the quality of Israeli research [is among the best in the world] and it would be stupid from our side to boycott that.”


Well, the Europeans don’t exactly have a reputation for being smart, where Israel is concerned. The question is how many other EU leaders think this way, or will hear what he says.

From our side, keeping this in mind is exceedingly important as well: Guys, you don’t want to work with us? You are going to be the big losers. We know our value.


While we can celebrate the strong stand taken now by Minister Ya’alon, we don’t have to look far to see an example of what happens when we try too hard to be conciliatory and appeasing.

When President Obama was here, he pushed Prime Minister Netanyahu into calling Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and offering an apology for the death of the nine “activists” — that is, terrorists who had deliberately attacked our soldiers after provocation — on the Mavi Marmara.

A great many people at the time, myself included, were not happy about that. WE should apologize? But there were multiple assurances offered as to what good this would reap: The Muslims needed their pride assuaged, now there will be full diplomatic relations between the two countries again. Etc. etc.

Well, now the JPost is citing Israeli officials who are saying that Turkey is not interesting in diplomatic reconciliation, but rather humiliation.

Should we be surprised?

There has been on-going negotiations for some time now regarding the amount Israel was willing to pay in compensation for the deaths and injuries — itself galling. Assumption has been that there was no resolution because there was no meeting of the minds on the amounts. At one time outrageous sums were being demanded by Turkey.

But it turns out there are other issues as well: Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, who is leading the Turkish negotiating team, has complained that Israel wants to give the compensation ex gratia [without admission of liability or legal obligation]. But, he says, “Israel should accept that it’s paying the money as a result of its wrongful act. Nothing less than this will be accepted.”

What is more, yet another condition for Israeli-Turkish cooperation, says Arinc, is “making life conditions easier for the Palestinians,” by which he means removing the naval blockade of Gaza.

Nothing doing on either count. As far as admitting culpability for the deaths, one Israeli official explained, Netanyahu’s apology was crafted with great care, so as to not admit any legal liability.


End of story.

According to one Israeli official cited in this article, there is currently no US pressure for Israel to try to reconcile with Turkey. One would hope not. But have we learned anything?


If there is a theme to this posting, it has to do with Israel’s ability to stand strong for herself.

As I sat down to write tonight, I had determined not to second-guess what is going to happen tomorrow at the Cabinet meeting, when Netanyahu is going to bring forward for approval several items related to the prospect for going to the table for negotiations. I had felt that there were too many conflicting rumors, and it would be best to wait and see what transpired. And I had hoped that the prime minister’s position would be a strong one for Israel.

But Netanyahu, with an action he has just taken a short while ago, has moved one issue beyond speculation and rumor: He has released a letter to the public in which he has made it plain that he is going to ask the Cabinet to approve the release of Palestinian Arab prisoners with blood on their hands.


After talking about how important it is that we try to make peace with the Palestinian Arabs now, he writes:

“But with all the importance that I attach to a diplomatic process, I was not willing to accept the Palestinian demands for retreats and [building] freezes as preconditions for entering into negotiations.” (Note: there are indications that he has consented to a partial informal freeze.)

“I was also unwilling to accept their demand to release Palestinian prisoners before the negotiations begin. I did agree to release 104 Palestinians in measured portions after the beginning of the negotiation and in accordance with its progress.” (Emphasis added)

Well, I’ve said it before when this issue was raised and say it here now: He may pretend he is not acceding to a pre-condition because he will not release the prisoners before negotiations start. But that is game-playing because he AGREED to the release before the negotiations start. Abbas, who is talking now about “joyful news” he expects tomorrow, is already gloating about a “victory.” Many times I’ve read that the PA leaders place the most importance on this issue — and Netanyahu has given it to them!!

It rather makes me sick to my stomach.


What makes it worse is that he lists reasons why the prisoners should not be released:

” It hurts the bereaved families, it hurts the entire nation of Israel…

“It collides with an exceedingly important value – the value of justice.

“It is a clear injustice when evil people are released before the end of their sentences, even if an absolute majority among them have served over 20 years in jail.”

See the whole letter:


He doesn’t explicitly mention the fact that terrorists with blood on their hands may participate in the shedding of additional Jewish blood.

But even with the reasons he does list, he admits to overriding their importance in making this decision. Why? Because he says the “peace process” is more important. And, unspoken but obviously implicit — that there would be no negotiations without this concession.


This is our prime minister NOT standing strong.

And this letter that appeals to the electorate was written precisely because he knows most Israelis are against such a prisoner release. According to a poll by New Wave Research conducted last Wednesday, 85% of Israelis are opposed to release of prisoners who have committed deadly acts in order to facilitate peace negotiations.



I would say that, if he has taken this public stand, he expects to win the Cabinet approval tomorrow. We will see. Many are opposed to this.

It disturbs me more than a little that this same letter speaks about nine months of negotiations, during which time, “we will examine if the Palestinian element that faces us wants to truly end the conflict between us,”

At least two issues hit me in the face here:

Last we heard, it wasn’t certain that the PA was going to show up in Washington. And that if they did, in Washington there would be talk about the talks, with the PA warning that they would not proceed unless their demands were met.

So how is it that before the PA comes to Washington, and before they’re agreed on all terms so that substantive peace negotiations begin, he is talking about nine months? What does he know that we don’t? And what else has he agreed to?

He doesn’t say, “if matters can be arranged, and if negotiations begin, I believe they must last for at least nine months.” He writes, “In the next nine months…”


Then, he is phony on the face of it when he speaks about examining whether the PA truly wants to end the conflict. He knows as well as anyone that they do not.

Is this an exceedingly dangerous and stupid game meant to appease Kerry and expose the PA at the end of the day??? There is indication that Kerry may have promised the PA that the prisoners would be released. (I will have more on this.)

Or is he on board for signing on to something? That he can even pose the question of whether they are serious with a straight face, figuratively speaking, puts the veracity of everything he brings forth in doubt.

He promises that he will only reach an agreement if Israeli security and vital interests are protected. But how do we rely on that guarantee, or even know how he would define those vital interests?

If he can say releasing prisoners is the right thing to do in spite of the fact that it’s an injustice and hurts the entire nation, what vital interests might he pass over because reaching the end of negotiations is, for him now, “the right thing to do”?


I still do not believe that there will be an “end” to negotiations that brings resolution. Because Abbas is NOT sincere and will not sign on to anything that entails compromise.

But we cannot and should not simply count on this. Every step that Netanyahu takes now must and should be watched carefully. It may be time, soon, for massive political activism.

The irony here is that I’ve been encouraged by a number of ways in which I’m seeing increased nationalist strength in the country. And so I don’t see us as defeated. But I do see the need for vigilance and determination at all levels.

Shall we laugh? Or cry?

Khaled Abu Toameh wrote on Friday that Muhammad Dahlan, former commander of the PA’s preventative service in Gaza, has now lodged complaints about Mahmoud Abbas with the UN, the EU and the International Criminal Court. He is accusing Abbas of “dictatorship, arbitrariness and corruption.”

Saying that Abbas is guilty of “political persecution” and “human rights violations,” Dahlan charges that, “Mahmoud Abbas is exploiting the money, resources of the Palestinians and Palestinian Authority, as well as the security forces he heads, to carry out his arbitrary measures without regard for any Palestinian or international law.”


Dahlan — who is no shrinking violet himself — has been a political threat to Abbas. Thus he has been on the receiving end of a heavy-handed vendetta against him; Abbas plays tough. Not for a micro-second do I doubt these charges. (I’ve seen documentation of how Abbas uses his security forces to intimidate for personal reasons.)

This is our “peace partner” we’re talking about. In light of the charges, might the UN or the EU have a niggling doubt about promoting him as the one who can bring a — peaceful, moderate, democratic — Palestinian state to fruition? Nah. And Kerry? He received a copy of the charges as well.

For that matter, does Netanyahu care what sort of state would be at our border, should — Heaven forbid a thousand times! — one be established?


The Obama administration has now officially decided not to label Morsi’s overthrow a “coup,” which means that the $1.5 billion in US aid to Egypt will not be held up. One senses that Obama arrived at this decision with considerable reluctance. The announcement that four F-16 fighter jets would not be delivered as planned was a way of expressing dissatisfaction with the current situation in Egypt.


Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable?

By: Publius Huldah

Our Declaration of Independence says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” (2nd para) [emphasis mine]

So! Rights come from God; they are unalienable; the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and when government takes away our God given rights, it’s time to “throw off such Government”.

That is our Founding Principle.

Let us now compare our Founding Principle with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It enumerates 30 some “rights”, among which are:

“Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 21 … 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections …

Article 29 … 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” [all boldface mine]

So! Rights are enumerated; they come from man [constitutions or laws]; governments may do whatever a majority of people want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us]; and rights may be limited by law & are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].

Now, let’s look at the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) from the website of parentalrights.org and compare it with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1


The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.


The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.


Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.


This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life. [all boldface mine]


No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

So! Under the PRA, parental rights come from the Constitution – not God. They are only “fundamental” rights, not unalienable rights. They are enumerated rights, the extent of which will be decided by federal judges. 2 And these “fundamental” rights may be infringed by law when the government has a good reason for infringing them.

And even though parental rights.org uses the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into supporting the PRA; 3 the PRA itself is the repudiation of our Founding Principles that Rights come from God and are unalienable, and that the sole purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us; and adoption of the U.N. doctrine that rights come from the State, will be determined by the State, and are revocable at the will of the State.

Let’s turn to Michael Farris’ paper posted July 9, 2013 in Freedom Outpost. His paper followed my initial paper where I addressed, Section by Section, the PRA of which Farris is principal author. He is also Executive Director of parentalrights.org.

1. Mr. Farris’ rationale for the PRA: Scalia’s Dissent in Troxel v. Granville (2000)

Farris cites Scalia’s dissent to support his own perverse theory that unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can’t enforce it, and the right can’t be protected.

But Farris ignores the majority’s holding in Troxel, and misstates the gist of Scalia’s dissent. I’ll show you.

This case originated in the State of Washington, and involved a State Statute (§26.10.160(3)) addressing visitation rights by persons who were not parents. Two grandparents filed an action under this State Statute wanting increased visitation of their grandchildren. The mother (Granville) was willing to permit some visitation, but not as much as the grandparents wanted.

This State family law case got to the U.S. supreme Court on the ground that the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment was at stake.

And what did the supreme Court say in Troxel v. Granville?

“…In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children…

“…We therefore hold that the application of §26.10.160(3) to Granville and her family violated her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters.” [all boldface mine]

Do you see? The supreme Court has already “discovered”, in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, a parental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of children.

Now! In order to understand Scalia’s dissent, one must first learn:

• That the powers of the federal courts are enumerated and strictly defined; and
• The original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and how the supreme Court perverted it.

These are explained in detail here: Judicial Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation, & Gay Marriage. In a nutshell, the linked paper shows that federal courts may lawfully hear only cases falling within the categories enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. One of these categories is cases:

“…arising under this Constitution…”

In Federalist Paper No. 80 (2nd para), Alexander Hamilton says that before a case can properly be said to “arise under the Constitution”, it must:

“…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” [emphasis added]

So! Does our federal Constitution “expressly contain” provisions about abortion? Homosexual sex? Homosexual marriage? Parental rights? No, it does not.

Since these matters are not delegated to the federal government, they are reserved to the States and The People (10th Amendment). The federal government has no lawful authority over these issues.

Well, then, how did the supreme Court overturn State Statutes criminalizing abortion and homosexual sex, and State Statutes addressing parental rights?

They used the “due process” clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to usurp power over these issues. Section 1 says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [boldface mine]

Professor Raoul Berger proves in his book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

Professor Berger also shows (Ch. 11) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial!

Professor Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials – to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It does not involve judicial power to override State Statutes!

Justice Scalia understands this.

And now, you can understand Scalia’s dissent. What he actually says is:

• Parental rights are “unalienable” and come from God (Declaration of Independence). They are among the retained rights of the people (9th Amendment). [Parental rights don’t come from the 14th Amendment!]
• The Declaration of Independence does not delegate powers to federal courts. It is the federal Constitution which delegates powers to federal courts.
It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the State has no power to interfere with parents’ God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect State Legislators who understand that the State may not properly infringe God given parental rights.]
• The federal Constitution does not authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what “rights” people have 4 and use their lists to overturn State statutes. [That is what the supreme Court did when they fabricated “liberty rights” to abortion and homosexual sex, and overturned State Statutes criminalizing these acts.]
• The federal Constitution does not mention “parental rights” – such cases do not “arise under the Constitution”. So federal courts have no “judicial power” over such cases.

In his closing, Scalia warns against turning family law over to the federal government:

“…If we embrace this unenumerated right … we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.” [emphasis mine]

Do you see? “Parental rights” is a state matter; and parents need to replace bad State legislators.

But the PRA delegates power over “parental rights” to the federal government and makes it an enumerated power.

So! When Farris says:

“4. The Parental Rights Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the judiciary’s exercise of its existing power.”

His words are false. The PRA transforms what is now a usurped power over parental rights seized by the supreme Court by perverting Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment [the majority opinion in Troxel illustrates this], to an enumerated power of the federal government.

2. The PRA expressly delegates to the federal and State governments power to infringe God-given parental rights!

Mr. Farris asserts that the PRA gives no power to Congress over children because he – the principal author of the PRA – purposefully left out the language which appears in other amendments that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

So! What did Farris put in his PRA? Look at his SECTION 3:

“Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.” [emphasis mine]

The wording assumes the federal and State governments will be making laws “infringing” parental rights! And because of the PRA, such laws will be constitutional! 5

The only issue will be whether such acts of Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] “serve the government’s interest”. And who will decide? The federal courts [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] will decide.

The same goes for State Statutes and State courts.

Furthermore, Acts of Congress or State Statutes need only recite the boilerplate language that the law “serves the government’s interest, etc.”, and it will go to the courts clothed with a presumption of correctness.

3. The PRA is not “just like” the Second Amendment

Mr. Farris says the PRA is:

“… just like the Second Amendment in this regard. The Second Amendment gives no level of government the power to regulate guns. (Any such power comes from some other provision of the Constitution [state or federal]). And the Second Amendment is a limitation on the exercise of such powers.”


WE THE PEOPLE did not delegate to the federal government power to restrict our arms.

The 2nd Amendment shows that WE THE PEOPLE really meant it when we declined to give the federal government enumerated power to restrict our arms.

So! As shown here, all federal laws and rules of the BATF pertaining to background checks, dealer licensing, banning sawed off shotguns, etc., are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The PRA is not “just like” the 2nd Amendment because the PRA is an express delegation of power over children and parental rights to the federal and State governments!

4. Pen Names

Publius is the pen name used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay when, during 1787 and 1788, they wrote The Federalist Papers to explain the proposed Constitution and induce The People to ratify it.

Huldah is the prophet at 2 Kings 22. The Book of the Law had been lost for a long time. When it was found, it was taken to Huldah who gave guidance about it to the king and his priests.

Do you see? And it’s about Our Country – not my personal glory, fame, and fundraising.

My qualifications? My work speaks for itself.

5. Learn the Constitution and understand the PRA? Or put your trust in Farris?

My previous paper is about the PRA and our Constitution. It isn’t about Mr. Farris.

But Farris’ response is about persons: 429 of his 2,044 words are devoted to his illustrious self; 170 words are spent to disparage Publius Huldah.

I teach the original intent of our Constitution so that our People can become what Alexander Hamilton expected them to be:

“… a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority…” Federalist Paper No. 16 (next to last para)

To that end, I have published some 50 papers proving that original intent, using The Federalist Papers as the best evidence of that original intent. Several are posted here.

We must all do our civic duty and learn our Founding Principles and Constitution so that we can learn to think for ourselves and help restore our Constitutional Republic.

But Farris says you should believe in … him. He says:

“6. Who are you going to believe—a trusted advocate for parental rights or an anonymous blogger?”

He doesn’t ask you to learn and think – he asks you to believe … in him.

6. An Alternative Organization: National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD)

NHELD has been warning for years about the Parental Rights Amendment. NHELD

“…does not believe in blindly following the word of anyone. NHELD … does not believe in just directing families to act in unison on the basis of an opinion that NHELD … has formed on its own. NHELD … believes in an informed, empowered citizenry, who is able to fight for freedom effectively…”

NHELD advises:

“…individuals not to take the word of anyone else about what … legislation says, but to read the text for themselves …”

7. How do Governments “secure” our God given Rights?

Our rights must be “secured” from people & civil governments who seek to take them away.

For an illustration of how the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government enable it to “secure” our God given rights to life, liberty & property, see Nullification Deniers! This is what James Madison Really Said, under the subheading, Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell. The federal government isn’t to secure these rights in all ways – just in those ways appropriate to the national government of a Federation of Sovereign States.

The powers reserved by The States and The People enable the States to secure these rights in the ways appropriate to States. States secure our right to life by prosecuting murderers, drunk drivers, quarantining people with infectious deadly diseases, etc. States secure our property rights by prosecuting robbers; by providing courts for recovery for fraud, breach of contract; etc.

Our federal Constitution secures our God given rights by strictly limiting the powers of Congress, the powers of the President, and the powers of the federal courts.

Civil governments are controlled by limiting their powers.

To delegate to the federal government express power to infringe “parental rights” under the pretext of “protecting” such rights is absurd! But that is Farris’ argument.

Parents! Justice Scalia gives excellent advice: elect to your State Legislature people who understand that your responsibilities to your children are determined by God alone.

We must stop looking for the magic pill, roll up our sleeves, man up, and fix our own States.


The PRA is a radical transformation of our conception of Rights from being unalienable gifts of God to the UN Model where “rights” are granted by government and revocable at the will of government. This is being sold to you as a means of “protecting” your parental rights! But it transfers power over children to the federal and State governments. You are being told to trust the “experts” and “believe” what they tell you. But if the PRA is ratified, the federal and State governments will have constitutional authority to infringe your “parental rights”. And you will have no recourse.


1 Craigers61 pointed out that Section 3 of the PRA is a paraphrase of [Article 29] of the UN [Declaration] in which:

“… all of the rights “given” by the UN earlier in the document can be taken back if any right goes against the UN’s “mission.” It’s a big finger on the chess piece in which the Political power can take back the right granted at any time they deem…

…Also, do you see the other problem here? The STATE grants the right to the parents! … In classical liberalism, the philosophy that founded the USA, all rights are INALEIANBLE! They reside in the human being themselves! They cannot be given, they cannot be taken and they cannot be circumscribed by the STATE…”

2 Bob in Florida asks Farris:

“But, what you say we must do – pass the Parental Rights Amendment – to defeat the Scalia argument that there is no legal text to cite to allow parents to have rights to direct their children’s education, medical care, etc., requires that we do exactly what the writers of the Constitution did not want to do – enumerate each and every right we have.

Their reason was that this would require that we enumerate each and every right and to leave one out would imply we don’t have that right. Their chosen approach was to only define the powers given to the government and all others were reserved to the States or the People. [emphasis mine]

Are you not advocating we do exactly what they didn’t want to do – enumerate each and every right?”

3 Congress may lawfully ratify only treaties which address enumerated powers. Since “parental rights” & “children” are not enumerated powers, any ratified treaty addressing such would be a proper object of nullification. But if the PRA is ratified, then these will be enumerated powers, and the Senate will have lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

4 It is GOD’s prerogative to decide what Rights we have. Not mans’.

5 Un-anonymous blogger Doug Newman pointed out four years ago that:

“…The PRA actually puts a constitutional blessing on federal intrusion into parenting…”


Most Influential Blogger Award – My Nominations and the Rules

I want to thank Maggie Thornton at Maggie’s Notebook for nominating me for Most Influential Blogger. There’s no voting on this award, just an acknowledgement from a friend or compatriot on your work. For years, I have admired Maggie’s Notebook, one of the very best blogs on the web and a site I visit every day. You should too.

While over the years, I have been called a myriad of things, this is a first and I am honored. Beats the heck out of being called a spy, infidel or a more colorful term. Just sayin’. 😉

1. Display the award logo on your blog.

2. Link back to the person who nominated you.

3. Answer 7 questions decided upon by your nominator.

4. Nominate ( no limit of nominations ) other bloggers for this award and link back to them.

5. Notify those bloggers of the award requirements.

Here are the questions Maggie asked me to answer:

1. Why did you start a political blog and when?

I started this blog immediately after 9/11/2001. Incensed by the murder of nearly 3,000 on that fateful day, I felt a calling to, in my own way, spread the truth and real news to all I could to fight our enemies. I lost friends and colleagues that day — their early passing still cries out for justice and I still fight for them.

2. Who is the one person still living that you would most like to meet and chat with?

I typically don’t go out of my way to meet others, due to my line of work and the fact that I feel I am just a regular American and no more or less than anyone else. But, if I could meet anyone still alive, it would be Glenn Beck. I believe that his insight would be refreshing and similar to mine. That would be a conversation that would be entertaining to say the least.

3. Would you replace Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts if given the opportunity, and if so why and replace with whom?

Yes, Roberts has been compromised and does not belong on the Court. He is no longer unbiased, independent or unaligned. Someone, somewhere, got to him with something that he is being blackmailed with, I’m convinced of it. I would replace him with Judge Jeanine Pirro who is not only brilliant, but moral and ethical as far as I know. She is unafraid and I don’t believe she would bow to underhanded tactics in Chicago-style politics.

4. If you could visit one nation you have never visited before, what nation would that be?

That nation would be New Zealand where my friend and colleague Trevor Loudon resides. Not only is it beautiful, but any country that can produce a patriot such as Trevor has got to be awesome. Kiwis rock!

5. What is something you would collectively change about humanity?

I would change the fact that humans tend to think the universe revolves around each of them. Get over yourselves. God certainly has and in my humble opinion, each of us needs to get our soul right with God. I am incredibly tired of the selfishness that leads to corruption and evil. America’s soul needs an exorcism to get rid of the evil permeating it.

6. What book has influenced your life (other than the Bible or Torah) and describe how?

It is a tie between Stephen King’s (can’t stand him personally) The Stand and Sun Tzu’s Art of War. The Stand woke me up in the 90’s that there was far more to our destinies than meets the eye and that the path we were on was a very dark one. The Art of War enlightened me on the cunning, deliberate manipulations within war, business and personal politics. The most influential author in my life is Dean Koontz. A Libertarian, a good man and one hell of a writer – not only has he riveted me through the years with his writing, he opened my eyes to the evil that is possible in our world and why it is worth fighting. Thank you Dean.

7. If you were free to live in any city/town you choose in the U.S., which would you choose and why?

We just moved to the Tulsa, Oklahoma area. I have fallen in love with this city and state in the short time I have been here and would not live anywhere else now. The people, the manners and the way of life is heaven to me. Arguably, the most conservative state in the Union, Oklahoma has some of the best people I have ever met. They are religious and moral and oh so, giving. Tulsa and Broken Arrow are lovely. So far, I have seen no graffiti, no derelicts – just lovely green areas and neighborhoods that would knock your socks off. People love their homes and neighborhoods here. My father was from Miami, Oklahoma. I feel like I’ve come home.

The following are my nominations of those out there that I find the most influential. I can’t include everyone, but these are ones I go to all the time. I will limit myself to 15, my compatriots on The Watcher’s Council.

Here are the members of The Watcher’s Council. (Nominees, see your 7 questions below.)

The Watcher’s Council

  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty’s Spirit
  • The Mellow Jihadi
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Political Commentator
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels
  • Nominees, here are your 7 questions:

    1. What is the most important issue facing America?

    2. If you could have anyone out there be President, who would you choose?

    3. Who is your hero?

    4. Who is the greatest enemy of America and why?

    5. If you were fighting for your way of life, would you choose principle or security?

    6. Who are the conservative leaders that you admire?

    7. Has communism/Marxism/progressivism infiltrated America and what would you do to stop it?

    Rob at JoshuaPundit renominated me (thanks Rob!), so here are my answers to his questions:

    1) Who is your favorite fictional character?

    My favorite fictional character is Odd Thomas from Dean Koontz’s magnificent series.

    2) Whom would you like to see as president?

    That’s a tough one — right now I would love one of the following: Sarah Palin, Allen West or Ted Cruz.

    3)What do you feel is the most vital issue facing America?

    The enemy within – the infiltration of our government and institutions by the communist/Marxist/progressive faction.

    4) What do you find most satisfying about blogging?

    It is an outlet for me and far cheaper than therapy. 🙂 And every once in a while, I get to help someone.

    5)Do you have a secret talent few people if any know about?

    By day, I’m a professional trouble shooter — I solve problems for a living and love it.

    6)What would you say the odds are on America remaining a free country?

    Not good currently… but I believe in the American people and we are scrappers. Perhaps we will lay the groundwork for our children’s children to taste freedom once more.

    7)What’s your favorite comedy movie or play?

    That’s a hard one too — I love Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles, Life of Brian, Airplane I and II and Roxanne. There are sooo many.