By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings
A recent news item had to do with the Goochland County Public School Board demanding home schooled children justify their religious beliefs. When I read this on the internet my first reaction was, “Really? This could become very interesting”.
“A policy approved by the Goochland County School Board in 2013 has several parents who home school their children upset.
The policy requires children ages 14 and up who want to be home schooled to provide a statement about their religious beliefs to the school system.
As part of that, the board reserves the right to bring the child and his or her parent in for a hearing.”
It should be pointed out that the Goochland County School Board has no ‘rights’; rather, they have ‘powers’ given them by the citizens who have placed this board in charge of their school district. Their assumed or presumed responsibility to govern all aspects of family life beyond what is taught in classrooms becomes a can of worms.
Paul Newman played the part of a washed up ambulance chasing lawyer looking for a chance to redeem himself in, The Verdict. His client sought damages for negligence against two doctors who treated a patient, a patient who died as a result of their being too tired to read the patient’s admission chart. During the course of the trial the lawyers for the hospital and doctors began asking questions to a nurse who’d been on duty the night of the incident; but the answers she provided were unexpected and all but buried the hospital and the doctors for having been incompetent and negligent.
My reason for bringing up this up, as the Newman character pointed out, “Never ask a question for which you do not already know the answer”.
What purpose would it serve the Goochland County School Board to obtain answers about any student’s religious beliefs, much less singling out home schooled children and their families?
The supposed purpose of any school board is to administer the secular teachings of children, costs of education, maintenance of buildings and other property associated with such schooling. There really is no function of the school board which provides any governance with regard to a family’s religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Looking beyond their poorly worded ‘right’ to demand the ability to interrogate home schooled children and their parents, what is the school board afraid of?
It is a given that the school board represents the all powerful State; but at what point is the State interfering with the sanctity of the family unit? Are they afraid that a clear line would be established, a line separating where the authority of parents and educators was shared or flat out ended?
“Sir William Blackstone, in 1769, captured this shared responsibility when he articulated the doctrine of in loco parentis, literally “in the place of the parent.” Blackstone asserted that part of parental authority is delegated to schoolmasters.”
Many schools have thrown in with Common Core as the foundation for all aspects of teaching, and by design, Common Core is nothing more than communist indoctrination, a method of transforming our society into a totalitarian Utopia wherein the State replaces the family unit, something which has been deemed a threat to the state, no longer necessary or wanted.
Indeed, family values constitute a threat to government agencies that usurp powers never granted nor intended by the citizenry.
As of January 16, 2015, the Goochland County School Board reversed its decision to have home schooled children and their parents justify their religious beliefs; but, “the school board still maintains the right to demand a hearing with homeschooling families”.
Just for fun what could/would happen in such a hearing?
If the school board demanded a child account for his religious teachings at home, perhaps a child from an LDS family, a child who had been taught proper principles as found in church handbooks? There’s a strong probability that the youngster would explain the need for a moment of prayer and supplication to the Lord prior to moving forward.
“I’d say that when you start a meeting that way (with prayer), people aren’t stuck up with the pride of their opinions. You pretty quickly come to an agreement as to what ought to be done in any situation.”
I can’t imagine the members of any school board sitting still and listening to a young person in such a manner; it violates elitist arrogance, their demanding a ‘right’ they never had to begin with. What an opportunity to teach the Plan of Happiness, the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
Another movie comes to mind, People Will Talk, where a prominent doctor and member of the teaching staff had been accused of an unsavory and even criminal behavior. During the ‘informal hearing’, a hearing which would be used to remove the good doctor from his teaching position, the board directed the accused to voluntarily make an accounting of his actions. Dr. Praetorius calmly explained that he had no intention of voluntarily explaining anything and that he considered ‘this trial to be a trial’.
Can you imagine the home schooled child of a local attorney pointing out to the school board that they were in violation the law, that they never had the power to do anything other than regulate the secular education of any child, much less interrogate anyone about their religious beliefs?
No, it wouldn’t do to be shown up by some kid who’d been home schooled, not good at all. So what are they afraid of?
They are afraid everyone would find out that home schooled children are receiving a well rounded education, one which meets or exceeds anything the State can provide.
Members of public school boards which attempt to shut down home schooling are afraid that their ‘powers’ really are limited, at least for now, they are restricted from interfering with the family unit and its sanctity.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: What Is Your Opinion Of the New Proposed Internet Rules President Obama Wants The FCC To Impose?
The Independent Sentinel: It’s the government getting its tentacles into one more thing.
It gives companies immunity when they share our data. We no longer have privacy protections from the government in the name of security. The government will freely share our information among government agencies.
The government claims the information-sharing system would not put privacy at risk as the information disclosed will principally concern the method of attack on computer data and systems, rather than its content.
Who trusts them?
Why do they need these rules when they can already do it? Is it just a way of bullying companies into doing it more readily? They have been resistant.
According to the Guardian, “it would criminalize the overseas sale of stolen US financial information like credit card and bank account numbers, would expand federal law enforcement authority to deter the sale of spyware used to stalk or commit ID theft, and would give courts the authority to shut down botnets engaged in distributed denial of service attacks and other criminal activity.”
Meanwhile, our government won’t allow illegal immigrants to be charged or held if they steal IDs.
There will be more consumer notifications pushed on companies who become aware of breaches, but they already notify consumers. It’s more regulation and more expense that will be passed down to consumers.
The bill is vague and will be misinterpreted.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: If we have learned anything with this administration, what they say and what we get are diametrically opposed. The Affordable Care Act has proven unaffordable for many. President Obama wants the FCC to reclassify the internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act and extend that regulation to mobile broadband service as well. Net neutrality will not lead to a fairer, more open and free internet as the president promises. As Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz stated: “Net neutrality puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers.” I believe that about sums it up.
The internet has been working very well in a free market system. If we want to keep an affordable, free, and open internet, we must keep government out of it.
The Glittering Eye: I’m not sure how to answer the question. Perhaps the best way would be for me to state what I’m in favor of. First, a brief preface.
The Internet grew from developments by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for a computer network that could survive nuclear war. The Internet has succeeded because a) it was in the public domain, b) ICANN (the ultimate registrar of domain names) has been seen as apolitical and fair, c) it has largely been free of regulation and taxes, and d) the cost of entry was relatively low. Later that development was augmented by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the University of Illinois’s computer science department.
Previous attempts at large scale computer networks whether public (in France) or private (by many companies) had failed. There is no reason to believe that any proprietary network would have succeeded.
I am unsympathetic to the complaints of the mega-service providers. In large part they enjoy the position of power they hold because of their government-granted monopolies. They have expended very little capital on research and development in their Internet service enterprises and have enjoyed substantial revenues with things as they are. That other companies, e.g. Google, Netflix, are making profits out of the Internet as it is is merely sour grapes on the part of the ISPs. If they demand more money from their investments on network infrastructure, minor relative to the revenues they’ve derived from them, they should meter bandwidth at the customer level and leave providers alone.
Consequently, I believe in network neutrality, that the Internet should be largely free of sales taxes, that it should remain predominantly uncensored, and that Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and so on should be regulated by the FCC. In particular I think that any business that has gained its present position as the result of government-granted monopoly should be kept out of the content business. I’m not sure where that puts me relative to the Obama Administration but that’s what I think.
JoshuaPundit: What government can regulate, it can control. And what it can control, it can tax. Ultimately, screwing yet more tax revenues out of the American people is a lot of what this is all about,and the fact that this president wants the FCC to impose these new proposed rules without congressional oversight while it has a majority of his appointees who took their seats while he had a congressional majority tells me all I need to know.
The other major part of what this is about is censorship and control of content. This president is also not only hyper-partisan but a long time appeaser of Islamists, and he has already said that he is going to ‘fight the media ‘ and the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles,using the lame excuse that he is suddenly concerned about the welfare of the same troops overseas whose lives he has endangered with ridiculous Rules of Engagement and his illegal wars. Rest assured that very selective censorship in a great many areas will be the order of the day if he gets his way.
Ask Marion: On Thursday 01.15.15 the White House said legislation was not necessary to settle the “net neutrality” rules issue because the Federal Communications Commission had the authority to write them. And President Obama’s rallying cry this past week has been… ‘Everyone deserves free Internet’. Beware of politicians bearing free gifts!!!
What actually is at immediate stake here is what rules should govern how Internet service providers (ISPs) manage web traffic on their networks to ensure they treat all Internet content fairly. At the heart of the latest phase in the debate over the rules is what legal authority should guide those regulations.
Obama is urging the FCC to regulate ISPs more strictly under a section of communications law known as Title II, treating them more like public utilities. The broadband companies adamantly oppose this plan, saying the added regulatory burden would reduce investment and stifle innovation in their industry.
The Republican chairmen of the Senate and House commerce committees, John Thune and Fred Upton, have been working to strike a legislative deal with Democrats that would adopt some of the same net neutrality principles but without resorting to Title II.
Late on Wednesday, Thune released a list of the net neutrality principles he would pursue, which closely echoed Obama’s, such as bans on blocking or throttling of websites.
While some Republicans have also sought a delay in the FCC’s vote to establish new net neutrality rules, planned for February 26th, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has indicated no interest in a change or delay.
“Chairman Wheeler believes it is important to move forward as quickly as possible to protect consumers, innovation and competition online,” FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart said in a statement.
Evoking net-neutrality and expanding the scope and power the FCC has been on the Obama administrations’ radar since day one and now that they are in their final two years, the administration has entered their complete lawless phase. So controlling communication is high on their agenda. It is all about control and these changes are just the tip of the iceberg. Censorship; monitoring newsrooms; and taking control of every aspect of communication… newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, news outlets, textbooks, movies, even art, plus the services that support them have been on Obama’s list since 2009, when both minority groups and Democrats questioned net neutrality.
The Republicans in Congress are in favor of a net neutrality law as long as the federal government doesn’t handle it, so are trying to drum up support for a bill that would counter the FCC’s upcoming new rules. But after the Obama administration’s comments getting Democrats on board could be difficult.
The proposed bill attempts to offer a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many progressive activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC’s “open internet” plan. That includes the following major points:
The proposed bill attempts to offer a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many progressive activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC’s “open internet” plan. That includes the following major points:
- No blocking of lawful services on a network
- No prohibiting the use of non-harmful devices
- No traffic throttling — except for “reasonable network management,” it would be illegal to slow or degrade any site or service
- No paid prioritization
- Transparency requirements for ISPs
Much of the language for this bill was lifted directly from the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order, which was thrown out in court last year?!? It includes less-than-ideal exceptions for network management and “specialized services” like VoIP, but it settles a major point of contention in Wheeler’s proposal by banning paid prioritization, which would have allowed ISPs to offer faster service for companies that paid more. In some ways, it’s exactly what net neutrality supporters have been asking for, although the advocacy group Public Knowledge has expressed concerns about how strong its protections would be in practice.
A crucial point is that the bill adds all of this to Title I of the Communications Act, classifying broadband as an “information service.” Title I services are regulated more lightly than Title II “common carriers” like telephone companies. The last FCC net neutrality framework plan was struck down because it came too close to making rules that only Title II allows:
“In terms of legislation, we don’t believe it’s necessary given that the FCC has the authorities that it needs under Title II,” said a White House official. “However, we always remain open to working with anyone who shares the president’s goal of fully preserving a free and open internet now and into the future.”
Of course in reality, preserving a free and open Internet is the opposite of the this administration’s goal and we all should have learned by know that anything regulated and run by the government makes it and us less free. In fact, in March of 2014 ICANN and the US government announced their intention to relinquish control of the Internet to the UN by 2015, so there is much more to this plan than just a few rule changes! Anything turned over to the United Nations brings us just us one step closer to globalization and the ruling elite’s goal of a New World Order which will definitely make us all less free.
Everyone deserves free Internet. Sounds good until you remember… you can’t have both freedom of speech and big government that controls the media… It is a choice!! And it not only won’t be free, it will more expensive for everyone. We (you) will all be paying for everyone’s Internet service plus the government bureaucracy that will run it.
Pay attention America, if government controls the media… TV, radio, the Internet… your free speech stops and the attempt to take over media and your information will be even easier and more blatant than it already is…
My feeling, like always, is less government involvement is always best!
Well, there you have it!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week!
And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.
By: Trevor Loudon
Hard on the heels of news that US Black radicals are connecting with Palestinian revolutionaries, come even more disturbing revelations.
In December of 2014, a conference was held in Moscow that united the black struggles in the United States, the “Palestinian” uprising, the Russian sponsored Ukrainian breakaway province now known as Novo rossiya (New Russia), separatist movements from Europe, Asia and even the Southern United States, with the US hard left and some elements of the “crazy right.”
For the conference video, go here
The conference mirrored current Russian geo-political strategy. In search of a “multi-polar” world, Russia is reaching out to its hard left communist allies and to elements of the disaffected nationalist “right” to create chaos in the Middle East, Europe and particularly the United States.
This conferences is part of an anti-Western propaganda war as vicious as anything seen in Soviet times. Its aim is to destabilize and humble, then destroy, Israel and the US.
If the campaign succeeds in destroying “US hegemony” or “uni-polarity,” Russia, China. Iran and their neo-communist and Islamic allies will rule this planet.
Right of Peoples to Self-Determination and Building a Multipolar World was a conference held in Moscow on December 13, 2014, hosted by the Anti-Globalization Movement (AGM) of Russia.
Go to the conference KeyWiki page here.
The conference brought together activists from Novorossiya (Donetsk and Lugansk), TransDniester, Iran, Syria, the Serb Republic, Italy, the United States and several regions of the Russian Federation. The conference was opened by AGM President Alexander Ionov. Other speakers included Oleg Tsarev, the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia and Alexander Kofman, the minister of foreign affairs of the Donetsk People’s Republic.
According to a report from Moscow’s Press TV:
What brought together the participants of Moscow anti-globalization conference is an objective necessity of uniting major public and political organizations, struggling with the ideology of global imperialism domination. Right now it’s time to make real and serious step on the way to multipolar world, stop the civilian population genocide in conflict areas as well as to accept those who are fighting for their rights. Special attention was focused on the peoples right to self-determination. The existing world order is depriving the inhabitants of Novorossiya, Flanders, Catalonia, Texas, Alaska and Scotland and their legitimate right to self-determination, guaranteed to them by the UN Charter. The anti-globalization conference in Moscow was held to find out methods for resisting the ideology of global domination. Participants also discussed how to counter the EU and US policy of undermining sovereignty of independent states by orchestrating what is known as “colored” revolutions.
Delegates from organizations around the globe attended, including the Marxist dominated Scottish Nationalist Party, the Catalan Electoral Alliance Convergence and Union, The “rightist” New Flemish Alliance from Belgium and the Venetian Independence Movement.
Participants heard presentations by a number of “leaders from Novorossia (the area declared independent by the people of Eastern Ukraine), leading Russian journalists, representatives of the Italian European Communitarian movement, a representative from Srpska, the Serbian section of Bosnia, Israel Shamir, a leading anti-Zionist writer from Israel and others.”
Major themes of the discussion were the “U.S.-backed war against the people of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine; the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet Union and economic war against Russia, Venezuela and Iran; and the ongoing uprising against racism and police brutality in the United States.”
Activists from Donetsk, Lugansk and Odessa “eloquently described the atrocities and humanitarian catastrophe Washington’s proxy war is inflicting on the people of Novorossiya and the urgent attempts to bring medicine and food to that besieged region. The U.S. role in Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people was also on the agenda… Speakers also condemned the U.S.-NATO proxy war against Syria and U.S.-NATO crimes in Libya, Yugoslavia and the TransDniester Republic.”
According to US website UHURUNEWS.COM:
Our panel discussion will include delegations from Venezuela, Iran, Italia, Catalonia, Novorossia, USA, Flanders, France, etc. Famous Russian social and political leaders, human rights activists, members of Russian parliament and other honorable guests are expected to appear.
Essential attention will be given to a detailed report on the events in the American city of Ferguson prepared by one of the leaders of the Black Is Back Coalition, who participated in a series of large peaceful protests held in many cities of the United States.
Five Americans from the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) attended the Moscow conference. They were Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report and the UNAC Administrative Committee; Joe Iosbaker of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, the Rasmea Odeh defense campaign and the UNAC Administrative Committee; Bill Doares of the International Action Center: women’s rights activist, Mo Hannah; and UNAC Co-Coordinator, Joe Lombardo.
United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) is dominated by the pro-North Korea/Cuba/Venezuela/Zimbabwe/Russia and Iran Workers World Party – which has been heavily involved in recent anti-police rioting in the US. Its leading body also contains a representative from the Muslim Peace Coalition and another from the Filipino revolutionary support group Bayan USA.
Delegate Bill Doares is a long time WWP member, while Joe Lombardo was a guest at the Party’s 2014 national convention.
Joe Iosbaker is a leader of the Maoist leaning Freedom Road Socialist Organization. He and and several leaders of his group were raided by the FBI in 2010, for their alleged support for Palestinian and Latin American revolutionaries.
FRSO has also been heavily involved in recent anti-police rallies and demonstrations.
Marina Dudanova, who is active in the Antiwar Committee in Chicago, a UNAC affiliated group, also attended on her own and spoke at the conference. She is a Russian from TransDniester, which is part of Moldavia. She spoke on the situation of the Russian minority in Moldavia.
Dr. Michael Hill, President of The League of the South, an anti-Washington, neo-Confederacy group spoke (by Skype) to the conference:
Hill discussed The League of the South and its goal of the survival, well-being, and independence of the Southern people and how the South’s identity as an historic “blood and soil” nation conflicts with the current globalist agenda of the USA regime. He emphasized the importance of The League’s work not only in preserving a particular people living on a particular land, but also its direct Southern nationalist challenge to the political, economic, and financial engine of globalism—the Washington, DC/European Union alliance.
Daniel Miller’s Texas Nationalist Movement was also invited:
The Texas Nationalist Movement has been invited, alongside other representatives from independence movements around the world, to an international conference in Moscow in December.
The four day conference, hosted by the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia, will discuss such issues as the sphere of the sovereignty, the practical realization of the people’s right for self-determination, the influence of the Internet on independence movements, and mechanisms of the geopolitical influence with the help of legal institutions.
TNM will be the lone representative from Texas.
The UNAC delegate’s report is pure Russian propaganda. Some of it reads reads like the starry-eyed letters sent back home by US visitors to Comrade Stalin’s “worker’s paradise” in the 1930s.
During dinner one evening, we also spoke at length with one of the fighters for the defense forces in Donetsk. He lived in Kiev during the Euromaidan protests and initially joined the protests on the pro-Maidan side. It became clear to him that neo-Nazis were playing a leadership role and were fomenting anti-Russian sentiment. He eventually left Kiev and joined the defense forces in the East. He explained that they have been holding back the Kiev forces. He also said that in July, they had hopes that Russia would join their fight, but by August it was clear that such a move would cause a direct conflict with the U.S. and NATO and possibly a world war, which Russia could not risk.
.Later, we attended a demonstration at the US Embassy organized by our Russian hosts. At the demonstration, we chanted, “Hands up, don’t shoot,” and carried signs with the logos of UNAC and the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia in support of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. We laid flowers in front of the Embassy in honor of the murdered men.
Moscow is a modern city much like any large U.S. city. The people were dressed well, and looked healthy and cared for. We learned that many of the social benefits that existed under the Soviet Union still exist. These include free universal healthcare. For most people, college was free, and students received a stipend for their living expenses. Putin is very popular with a high approval rating among the Russian people. The people see him as a kind of populist leader.
If the UNAC delegates loved Russia, they showed nothing but contempt for their own country.
From Joe Lombardo’s speech:
The movement in the United States has taken heart from other mass rebellions, such as those in Tunisia and Egypt. Though these revolutionary uprisings have suffered setbacks, we saw the tremendous power of mass of people in the streets. Such mass movements were able to topple entrenched dictatorships that had strong U.S. backing. The Occupy movement in the United States tried to copy this, and parks were occupied for weeks in cities all across the country. Though these movements did not bring about a changed government in the U.S. and were defeated by the police, the movement learned a lot from the experience. We got a new vocabulary. We now talk about the 1% who rule our country and the 99% who are ruled for their benefit. We learned that unlike during the Vietnam protests, we don’t want to just protest and get back on our buses and go home. We need to sustain our protests over a period of time.
When Michael Brown, a black teenager was shot down and killed by a white cop in Ferguson, Missouri, the Ferguson community protested and sustained their protests, coming out every day and confronting a militarized police force. This gave heart to the movement, and so the U.S. is now in the midst of mass protests in cities all across the country. The spark of Ferguson has lit a tremendous fire, and however this rebellion ends, we can never go back. There is a new political consciousness, especially in the Black and Latino communities that will not go back to the old status quo. There is a new political reality in the United States today.
But in truth, black Americans have always been under the most surveillance, and are the most controlled group of people in the country. This level of control goes back to enslavement in the earliest days of American settler history and impacts us all two hundred years later. Slavery could not exist as an institution without police state terror and the legacy of that history continues until the 21st century and thus Ferguson.
The truth is this. The police in the United States are the 21st slave patrol and unless Americans acknowledge that fact, grand juries like the one in Ferguson, Missouri will issue verdicts that allow them to kill at will. This was a very difficult year for anyone concerned about police misconduct. In July a New York City man named Eric Garner died in what a coroner ruled a homicide at the hands of police. His killer was also not indicted. Two weeks ago a 12-year old child with a toy gun was killed by police in Cleveland, Ohio, a state which has laws on the books allowing for open carrying of firearms.
Rasmea Odeh is an activist in the Palestinian community in Chicago and is now a political prisoner. In a Federal Court in November 2014, she was convicted of a violation in her immigration application in 2004. This mockery of justice was a political trial masquerading as a criminal trial.
The case against her grew out of the investigation of 23 anti-war and Palestinian community organizers in Chicago and Minneapolis, who were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury in 2010. I am speaking today because I was one of those activists. My home was raided by 25 FBI agents on September 24th, 2010. They came after me because I had been a leader in a large protest against the Iraq War, and because I am a supporter of the cause of the Palestinian people.
The grand jury is investigating myself and the 23 activists for allegations that we provided “material support of terrorism.” This is a lie. The FBI and the Justice Department investigated us and are attempting to “criminalize” efforts to empower Chicago’s Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities, as well as work to build solidarity with the struggle in Palestine.
It is in our interest to stand in solidarity with the people of the world who are resisting imperialism. And we call upon people around the world to stand in solidarity with the national uprising now raging in the United States against police terror and mass incarceration. The US police state and prison-industrial complex be part and parcel of the global US war machine, and the freedom struggle of Black, Latino, Native and other people of color against racist oppression is its Achilles heel.
We stand with those around the world who are standing up to imperialism, with the freedom fighters of Novorossiya and Palestine, with all those who seek to build a different world, from Africa, Latin America, East Asia, the Middle East and here in Russia in the heartland of Eurasia. We say no to war, no to sanctions! No to imperialism, yes to a multipolar world, yes to global equality, yes to international solidarity! Together we will win!
From Mo Hannah’s speech:
Warm greetings from the people of the U.S.A. I know that a group like the one gathered here already knows this, but just to remind you, we delegates from the U.S. hate what the U.S. government is doing as much as or even more than our brothers and sisters who are being harmed by its horrific actions across the world. Although we hate this regime, we love our country. We also love the rest of the world, which is one reason why we are here in Mother Russia.
The same devious exploitation perpetrated by U.S. empire builders as they back the most brutal forces in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and other places in the word is also reflected in how the U.S. court system treats women and children. I could spend hours discussing what happens to divorcing and separating women in the U.S. who are victims of domestic violence—but you need only look at how the U.S. treats other disadvantaged groups–especially, of course, unarmed black, brown, and other non-white citizens like Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York City, Trayvon Martin in Florida, and countless others—to get an idea.
I myself do not take personal responsibility for the wickedness of the masters of empire, but I do take responsibility, as you do, for doing whatever I can to fight back.
Not content with speech-making, the delegation gave several radio interviews and took part in a press conference on December 15, with Russian and foreign media.
This was followed by a December 17, demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy protesting racism, police brutality and political repression in the U.S. Demonstrators carried photos of Mike Brown, Eric Garner and Rasmea Odeh and chanted, “Hands up! Don’t shoot” and “I can’t breathe!” The protesters “laid flowers outside the embassy in memory of Mike Brown, Eric Garner and others murdered by the U.S. state apparatus.”
On December 16, the UNAC delegation met with the Embassy of the State of Palestine Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Dr. Fa’ed Mustafa.
“First on the agenda” was to talk with Ambassador Mustafa about the case of Rasmea Odeh, the Palestinian activist from Chicago and the “newest political prisoner in the U.S.”
He urged our delegation to link her case to the stories of thousands of Palestinians who are also falsely arrested and imprisoned, tortured and brutalized by the Israelis.
Finally, we expressed to him that the U.S. government complicity with the Israeli occupation in Rasmea Odeh’s case exposes their overall role as the main backer of Israel’s occupation”.
Every old Soviet conference ended with a stirring “declaration” – a call to action and this modern version did not disappoint – it even obliquely attacked National Security Agency Intelligence gathering. The NSA is of course the body charged with monitoring people just like this delegation.
The world is changing. And, unfortunately, it is changing for the worse. The worsening geopolitical situation calls on us to support the nations and peoples who oppose the dictate [of] a unipolar world and seek to propose an alternative agenda. [The] progressive part of mankind stands for the development of international cooperation and solidarity, respectful of other peoples, their sovereignty, values and lifestyles as opposed to the current destructive manifestations of the “new world order”: the barbaric exploitation of the majority of the world population, the destruction of national sovereignty and spiritual foundations of society, [and the] suppression of sovereignty of personality through the illegal collection of information.
Then came the inevitable attack on US foreign policy:
Organizations participating in the international panel discussion urge people worldwide to unite and establish a united front against discrimination, violation of human rights, religious and racial intolerance. We condemn the crimes and murders perpetrated against the people of Novorossia. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the innocent victims in Odessa, Lugansk and Donetsk. We strongly condemn political repression, particularly in countries that have positioned themselves as democratic nations.
The interference in the affairs of sovereign states, the sponsorship and support of extremist and terrorist entities are unacceptable in the XXI century. Events in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine demonstrate the predatory foreign policy of the U.S. and its NATO allies. Local conflicts have affected more people than those affected during World War II. The U.N. no longer performs [its] role as peacekeepers, as more than 70 armed conflicts have taken place since the establishment of the organization.
Then the country that murders journalists, jails opponents of the regime, supports global insurrection and invades sovereign countries at will, had this to say about US human rights – even invoking the names of FBI agent murderer Leonard Peltier and cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal:
The U.S. government has depressing statistics in the field of human rights. The latest example of political repression is Rasmea Odeh, an activist of the Palestinian community of Chicago, who is a political prisoner now. The U.S. Department of Justice has sent her to the tribunal because her migration card had no information about the fact that in 1969 she was imprisoned in Israel by the Israeli military court based on the information extracted under torture. As part of the support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the U.S. government supports the Israeli occupation and military courts. Rasmea’s torture was part of a series of repressions against [the] pro-Palestinian movement in the United States. We demand the release of Rasmea Odeh and an end to the U.S. support for the occupation of Palestine!
African Americans, [Latinos/as] and other minorities are oppressed in the U.S. We condemn the systematic killings by the police in the USA!
We condemn the murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Eric Garner in New York City and many others!
We support the protests in the U.S. cities as part of their struggle for freedom from police brutality, against mass defiance of human rights by the police, and call for the release of political prisoners such as Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal!
We call upon the people of the United States to take activities of the police under their control and demand investigation into the atrocities committed by the police officers!
And the Grand Finale!!!
The time of retreat has passed! It’s time for advancing! This Declaration is the first step toward the consolidation of the progressive part of mankind! We will make every effort to build a multipolar world! We are the alternative!
This conference could not have occurred without Russian government support. Its program is completely in line with Russian strategy.
It is evidence that Moscow is working with both its old leftist base and less than stable elements of the “right” to export chaos and revolution to the West.
The United States is led by Barack Obama, a man who comes from a similar background to many of the activists profiled above.
His views are the same as theirs. He’s just acting at a much higher level. His goal is the same though – to bring his country to its knees.
As my book The Enemies Within:Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the US Congress details, the leadership of the Democratic Party has been co-opted by people of similar views – as sadly have some elements of the GOP.
Many libertarians and paleo-conservatives, though completely sound on the Constitution, have been completely gulled by Russian propaganda and now believe the US government and military as the biggest threats to their lives and liberty. Many of them believe that Russia and China are morally superior to their own country!!!
Part of the “responsible right” has even fallen under Putin and his propaganda machine’s spell. Pat Buchanan loves Putin. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher from California, a good man and a true Reagan conservative, wants to use Russia as an ally against China!! Russia and China ARE allies against the West.
Just Google the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Many Western Christians and conservatives think that Putin will ally with the Russian Orthodox Church to save us all from Islam.
The cruel hoax there is the that Putin’s Soviet KGB/Russian FSB has always controlled the Orthodox Church, just as it controls much of Islam.
That leaves the defense of the West down to a very small strata of thinking conservatives, who understand that Russia/China/Iran/Cuba/Venezuela/North Korea and radical Islam are all allies and mortal enemies of the West. That these forces have infiltrated every Western country to the highest levels and are now empowering street level agitators to weaken and divide us.
To end this threat, to save the West, security has to be strengthened both externally – and internally. The US military must be cleansed of political correctness, adequately funded and modernized. The Western Alliance must be re-strengthened. That’s a no-brainer.
How much should America and the West spend on National Defense? How much should you spend on household insurance? Whatever it takes to adequately protect you.
Do you think that Putin would begin the re-conquest of Europe, that the Middle East would be on fire, that terrorists would be infiltrating the Southern Border, that China would be bullying its neighbors, if Ronald Reagan was currently Commander-in-Chief of the US military?
But even more importantly, America must begin to take internal security seriously again. More than 100 Democratic Congress members and Senators could not pass a basic FBI security clearance to clean the toilets at any military base in the United States. And neither could the President.
If the new Republican Congress refused to seat any Congress member onto any Congressional Committee without an FBI background check, all hell would break loose. The GOP would lose a few of their own, but the Democrats would be decimated.
The United States of America is under assault from the rulers of Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, Havana, Caracas, thousands of mosques (foreign and domestic), the AFL-CIO, the Communist Party USA, the Workers World Party, Democratic Socialists of America, many elements of the Federal Government, a third of Capitol Hill and the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Winning the first “Cold War” was not the “end of history,” but losing this one certainly would be.
Thinking conservatives and patriots know what has to be done to save the Republic and the West.
Everything we hold dear is at stake. There is no time to lose.
By: Trevor Loudon
What’s new in the 2015-2017 edition of Trevor Loudon’s “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the U.S. Congress“?
The San Antonio connection -who are those Castro twins? Joaquin is a Congressman. Julian runs HUD. The Latino Obama they call him. Possibly on the Democratic ticket in 2016. Being talked about as a future Democratic Party Presidential candidate. San Antonio has been a hot bed of communism since the 1920s, and it didn’t all end with Emma Tenayuca and the Pecan Sheller’s Strike.
The movement reaches out far beyond Texas. See how even Eric Holder was connected. Obama too. See how the Castro twins are deeply rooted in Texas communism, not just through their La Raza activist mother Rosie Castro, but through their own radical ties, right up to the present day.
The 2015-2017 edition of “Enemies Within” will expose covert Congressional radicals in several new states, including Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana and Rhode Island, plus, it will include new profiles from California (seven), Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New York (four), North Carolina, Texas (three), Wisconsin and Vermont.
The book will profile more than 75 serving members of the US House of Representatives and the Senate.
My new book will be released on April 11, 2014, but you can begin to pre-order PERSONALLY SIGNED copies immediately.
By Publius Huldah
Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding Principles that:
- All men are created equal.
- Rights come from God.
- People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).
- When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.
These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.
These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”: Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.
This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.
The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates
“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.
The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and issuing instructions to Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (North Carolina and New Hampshire) gave instructions which arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation. 2
But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution. Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at another convention.
The Delegates also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.
Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?
So! Do you see?
If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a new Constitution with its own new method of ratification.
New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:
- Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.
- The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.
- The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.
Warnings from the Wise
Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoral to dismiss their warnings:
- Alexander Hamilton writes of “the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…” Federalist No. 85 (9th para)
- James Madison writes in his 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. In Federalist No. 49, he shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.
- Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”
- Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”
Can State Laws Control Delegates?
Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling their Delegates.
Really? James Madison, Father of our Constitution and a consistent opponent of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.
But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t – I will show you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented.
Let’s use House Bill 148, recently filed in the New Hampshire Legislature, to illustrate this:
Section 20-C:2 I. of the New Hampshire bill says:
“No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” [italics mine]
Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:
“any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New Hampshire”.
What is wrong with this?
- It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving a new Constitution.
- Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.
- New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.
- It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.
And if the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison always advised.
Section 20-C:2 II. of the New Hampshire bill says:
“Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V convention.”
What is wrong with this?
- What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings secret? At the federal convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers made rules restricting publications of their proceedings.
- What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.
Section 20-C:2 III. of the New Hampshire bill says:
“Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:”
“I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]
Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last clause, of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution.
Who today honors his Oath of Office?
Section 20-C:2 IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:
“Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”
Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:
- As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.
- Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.
- The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.
- If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.
- The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?
Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates.
Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain
If there is a convention today, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t know. Do you trust them?
Our Framers never said that when the federal [and State] government violate the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution they violate. They never said the remedy is to file a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.
They expected us to act as they did – with “manly firmness” 3 – and resist unconstitutional acts of the federal and state governments. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read and enforced by our votes; and failing that, by manly opposition – resistance – nullification.
1 Rhode Island boycotted the Convention. See RI’s Statement of Reasons in document at 2 below.
2 For the texts of the States’ instructions to their Delegates and a helpful commentary, go to Principled Policy Blog HERE.
3 The 7th paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” [boldface mine] PH