Skip to content

Let’s Fight Tyranny

December 4, 2016

Walter E. Williams


Source …..

walter-williams-they-should-nullifyFor more than a half-century, it has become abundantly clear that our nation faces increasing irreconcilable differences. At the root is the fact that there is one group of Americans who mostly want to be left alone and live according to the rule of law and the dictates of the U.S. Constitution while another group of Americans wants to control the lives of others and ignore both the rule of law and constitutional restraints on the federal government.

Should those Americans who favor the rule of law and constitutional government fight against or yield to those Americans who have contempt for the rule of law and constitutional government? Let’s look at a few of those irreconcilable differences.

Some Americans prefer to manage their own health care needs. Others wish to have the federal government dictate their health care. Some Americans want their earnings to be taxed only for the constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government, which are outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Others think American earnings should be taxed for anything on which Congress can muster a majority vote.

Though there is no constitutional authority for federal involvement in public education, some Americans want the federal government involved. The list of irreconcilable differences among the American people is nearly without end. These differences survive because of the timidity of those offended and the brute power of the federal government.

I think reconciliation is impossible; therefore, separation is the only long-term peaceful solution. Separation and independence do not require that liberty-loving Americans overthrow the federal government any more than they required Gen. George Washington to overthrow the British government in order to secede or required his successor secessionist, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, to overthrow the U.S. federal government.

You say, “All those government acts that you say violate the rule of law and the Constitution have been ruled constitutional by the courts!” That’s true. The courts have twisted the Constitution, but Thomas Jefferson warned, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

State governors and legislators ought to summon up the courage our Founding Fathers had in their response to the fifth Congress’ Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Written by Jefferson and James Madison, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 stated that those states’ legislatures considered the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional.

They said, “Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government … and … whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” The 10th Amendment to our Constitution holds, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The federal government should not be permitted to determine the scope of its own powers. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 28, said, “The State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”

One response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void and refuse to obey them. In other words, they should nullify federal laws that violate the Constitution. In good conscience, liberals could not object to nullification. There are hundreds of so-called sanctuary cities in the U.S. — liberal places that have chosen to nullify federal immigration laws and harbor immigrants who are here illegally.

Former slave Frederick Douglass advised: “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. … The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” We Americans appear to have very limited endurance in the face of tyrannical oppression.

Obama administration stiff-arms lawmakers questioning secret refugee deal

December 3, 2016

Melissa Jacobs


Source …..

jeh-johnsonNearly 2,500 refugees from terrorism hotspots around the world are bound for the U.S. after being rejected by Australia, but not even top lawmakers can get answers about who they are.

In an unprecedented move, the U.S. State Department has classified details on refugees to be resettled in America via a secret deal made with Australia. The bi-lateral agreement, which Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called a “one-off,” involves 2,465 people currently being held in Papua New Guinea and Nauru who will now be transferred onto U.S. soil.

“This is a backroom deal, wheeling and dealing with another country’s refugee problem,” Center for Immigration Studies fellow Don Barnett told “I don’t believe for a moment it’s a one-time deal. That’s for public consumption.”

The move has also raised a red flag among Congressional oversight members.

In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, key lawmakers Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., complained about the lack of transparency.

“This situation is concerning for many reasons,” read the letter, charging that “your departments negotiated an international agreement regarding refugees without consulting or notifying Congress.”

Watche related video here …..

Screeners from the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services are set to leave for the Pacific Island nations next month to begin vetting the refugees.

When staffers probed the number of individuals being considered for resettlement, they were told it was “classified,” even though refugee admissions are traditionally public. Officials, however, did confirm countries of origin to be Iran, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Sudan, as well as some deemed “stateless.”

Iran, Sudan and Syria are the three countries on the U.S. current State Sponsors of Terrorism list. But Barnett said the “stateless” category is most worrisome.

“These could be Burmese Muslims, who have posed assimilation issues for every nation which has taken them,” said Barnett. “It’s a dangerous precedent which says, ‘We’ll take any ethnic group with which you don’t get along.’”

Australia has been under fire for paying poor surrounding island nations to house detention centers for refugees. Australia created the camps in an effort to curtail “people smuggling” and has long had a policy which prevents individuals seeking asylum from entering the country before being vetted.

In a statement, the State Department said the Obama administration is proud of its role in taking in refugees, even ones other nations don’t want.

“The United States is proud of its long history as the largest refugee resettlement country in the world,” read the statement. “As the President has announced, our refugee resettlement program has grown substantially in the last year.

“The United States has agreed to consider referrals from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) of refugees now residing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea,” the statement continued. “These refugees are of special interest to UNHCR and we are engaged on a humanitarian basis, as we are in other parts of the world.”

The Goodlatte-Grassley letter also asked why Australia and other countries refused to take in the refugees.

“If they’ve been vetted and deemed inadmissible, the U.S. can’t say, ‘You don’t want them, so we’ll take them,’” said Barnett.

Speaking at a Nov. 14 press conference, Turnbull said, “Nobody is taking any more refugees, but what the Americans are doing is assisting these individuals on Nauru and Manus by bringing them in within their existing quota.”

The Obama administration increased the quota for the 12-month period that began in October to 110,000 refugees, up from 85,000 the previous year.

Turnbull’s announcement that his country would be “taking more refugees from Central America” as part of some “commitments at President Obama’s Refugee Summit” has also sparked speculation that the deal is a trade of refugees from the most dangerous areas of the world for ones from Central America.

In July, Costa Rica agreed to set up a detention center for those wishing to enter the United States through a new program the administration established initially for children to reunite with U.S. -based parents. The program has been expanded to include those fleeing gang violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. It also created a special category for female heads of households.

“All you have to do is say is you’re a single mother and you’re in,” said Barnett. “There is all sorts of twisting of the law here.”

A “particular social group,” is one of the five categories applicants must meet to obtain refugee or asylum status. The designated group could be a religion, nationality, race or political group whose members have a “well-founded fear” of persecution for belonging.

While U.S. law stipulates refugee status should not be granted based on generalized violence, according to officer training materials obtained by, status can be considered for women heads of households who are vulnerable to crime, economic hardships or could be a victim of “Machista,” described in materials as a “cultural pattern where men father children, [then] abandon [their] family.”

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 146,000 individuals will apply to enter the U.S. through the Costa Rican Center.

In a July 26, 2016 press release the State Department laid out the logistics in which after pre-screening and transfer to Costa Rica, “they will undergo refugee processing before being resettled to the United States or another third country.”

Representatives from the Grassley-Goodlatte committee are set to receive a classified briefing on the Australian refugee deal next week. However, numerous questions could remain shielded from public view including costs, timing, benefit to the U.S. and perhaps most importantly why it was done in secret.

Virginia Schools Ban ‘Huckleberry Finn’ for ‘Racial Slurs’

December 3, 2016

Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.


Source …..

mark-twainIn a move to protect students from “racial slurs,” a Virginia school district has banned the reading of two classics of American literature: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird.

Dealing with the era of American slavery, Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn places the word “nigger” in the mouths of both white and black characters, while Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird recounts a lawyer’s defense of a black man accused of raping a white woman in Alabama.

The Accomack County Public Schools has banned the classic novels after a mother said her high school-age son was troubled by the racial slurs they contain and asked for the books to be removed from school reading lists.

The mother, whose son is biracial, said her son was required to read Huckleberry Finn for a high school assignment, but could not get past a certain page in the story on which the N-word appeared seven times.

“I keep hearing, ‘This is a classic, This is a classic.’ … I understand this is a literature classic. But at some point, I feel that children will not—or do not—truly get the classic part, the literature part, which I’m not disputing,” she argued at a school board meeting. “This is great literature. But there (are so many) racial slurs in there and offensive wording that you can’t get past that.”

This is not the first time that these novels have faced censorship. Since its publication in 1884, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been criticized, censored, and banned for an array of perceived faults, including “obscenity, atheism, bad grammar, coarse manners, low moral tone, and antisouthernism.”

Watch related video here …..

Despite the fact that the thesis of Huckleberry Finn is profoundly anti-racist, the inclusion of offensive language has been enough to anathematize the work.

For its part, the Pulitzer Prize-winning To Kill a Mockingbird has been banned repeatedly from school classrooms and libraries since its appearance in 1960, due to its “racial content, profanity, and references to rape.”

A racial slur reportedly appears 219 times in Huckleberry Finn and 48 times in To Kill a Mockingbird.

“So what are we teaching our children?” the mother asked. “We’re validating that these words are acceptable, and they are not acceptable by (any) means,” she said, while noting psychological effects that language has on children.

“There is other literature they can use,” she argued.

The mother proposed assembling a committee of parents and teachers of different ethnic backgrounds to compile a list of books that would be “inclusive” for all students.

Tench Coxe on State vs Federal Power under the Constitution

December 3, 2016

Michael Maharrey


Source …..


The federal government has no constitutional authority to do the vast majority of the things it does today.

Of course, this truth runs counter to conventional wisdom and everything you learned in your high school government class. Suggest the feds shouldn’t formulate policies on marriage, healthcare, education or infrastructure, and you’ll get blank stares at best. Most will adamantly disagree. And many will simply write you off as some kind of “anti-government” kook.

But most ratifiers of the constitution would find the breadth and scope of federal power today shocking and absurd.

Of course, many who were in the anti-federalist camp would say, “Yeah, I told you so.” Opponents of the Constitution predicted the federal government would eventually swallow up the states – or as anti-federalists put it, that the Constitution would result in “the consolidation of the United States into one government.”

In essence, that’s what we have today – a singular national government centered in Washington D.C. with states functioning as mere political subdivisions doing the bidding of their federal overlords.

This may be the result, but supporters of the Constitution swore this wasn’t the intent.

Tench Coxe was a prominent advocate for ratification and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He later served as Secretary of the Treasury. He wrote three essays published in the Pennsylvania Gazette in early 1788 under the pen-name “A Freeman.” In these essays, Coxe offered some of the most forceful arguments asserting the limited nature of the federal government under the proposed Constitution.

The purpose of these essays was to counter this idea that the Constitution would swallow up state sovereignty. As he put it, he would set out to “exhibit clear and permanent marks and lines of separate sovereignty, which must ever distinguish and circumscribe each of the several states, and prevent their annihilation by the fœderal government, or any of its operations.”

Coxe insisted that while the Constitution would strengthen the existing confederation  – or union – it would not diminish the fundamental sovereignty of the states that had existed from the moment they declared their independence from Great Britain.

“The matter will be better understood by proceeding to those points which shew, that, as under the old so under the new fœderal constitution, the thirteen United States were not intended to be, and really are not consolidated, in such manner as to absorb or destroy the sovereignties of the several states.”

Coxe first addressed the expression —“We the People” in the preamble. Calling the phrase a “mere form of words,” he explained that while “the people” were in fact sovereign in the system, they acted not as one uniform mass, but through their existing political societies – the states.

“First, then, tho’ the convention propose that it should be the act of the people, yet it is in their capacities as citizens of the several members of our confederacy—for they are expresly declared to be ‘the people of the United States’—to which idea the expression is strictly confined, and the general term of America, which is constantly used in speaking of us as a nation, is carefully omitted: a pointed view was evidently had to our existing union. But we must see at once, that the reason of ‘the People’ being mentioned was, that alterations of several constitutions were to be effected, which the convention well knew could be done by no authority but that of ‘the people,’ either determining themselves in their several states, or delegating adequate powers to their state conventions. Had the fœderal convention meant to exclude the idea of ‘union,’ that is, of several and seperate sovereignties joining in a confederacy, they would have said, we the people of America; for union necessarily involves the idea of component states, which complete consolidations exclude.”

Coxe then moved on to the main thrust of his argument, explaining that the system of government proposed by the Constitution could not operate without the states because the federal government, being strictly limited to its enumerated powers, lacked the authority to do so many things necessary to maintain a political society. Since the federal government could not act, the states would have to.

“It will be found, on a careful examination, that many things, which are indispensibly necessary to the existence and good order of society, cannot be performed by the fœderal government, but will require the agency and powers of the state legislatures or sovereignties, with their various appurtenances and appendages.”

Coxe drove his point home by listing ten broad areas where the federal government has no authority to act. Several of these are self-evident, but the long list included in the tenth point drives home the extremely limited nature of the federal government supporters of the Constitution promised.

“They cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals; the making or regulation of roads, except post roads; building bridges; erecting ferries; establishment of state seminaries of learning; libraries; literary, religious, trading or manufacturing societies; erecting or regulating the police of cities, towns or boroughs; creating new state offices; building light houses, public wharves, county gaols, markets, or other public buildings; making sale of state lands, and other state property; receiving or appropriating the incomes of state buildings and property; executing the state laws; altering the criminal law; nor can they do any other matter or thing appertaining to the internal affairs of any state, whether legislative, executive or judicial, civil or ecclesiastical.[Emphasis Added]

In his second essay, Coxe approaches the issue from the other side, enumerating “what the state governments must or may do.” Again, many of the items Coxe lists as the exclusive purview of the states reveals just how far the federal government has usurped state authority.

“The several states can create corporations civil and religious; prohibit or impose duties on the importation of slaves into their own ports; establish seminaries of learning; erect boroughs, cities and counties; promote and establish manufactures; open roads; clear rivers; cut canals; regulate descents and marriages; licence taverns; alter the criminal law; constitute new courts and offices; establish ferries; erect public buildings; sell, lease and appropriate the proceeds and rents of their lands, and of every other species of state property; establish poor houses, hospitals, and houses of employment; regulate the police; and many other things of the utmost importance to the happiness of their respective citizens. In short, besides the particulars enumerated, every thing of a domestic nature must or can be done by them.[Emphasis Added]

As James Madison asserted, to properly interpret the Constitution, we must seek the understanding of those who ratified it.

“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.”

Coxe’s essays make it clear that the federal government was only intended to exercise limited, delegated powers, and the most authority remained with the states and the people. The states later ratified the Tenth Amendment to make this implicit construction explicit.

So no, the federal government does not have the authority to do the vast majority of things  it does today. It has usurped state sovereignty and made a mockery of those who supported ratification of the Constitution.

Did Jeb Bush Win The Election?

December 3, 2016

Chuck Baldwin


Source …..


Conservatives and Christians who supported Donald Trump need to wake up to the reality that the election is over. The Wicked Witch of the West, Hillary Clinton, lost, and their guy won. What that amounts to is, campaign rhetoric means absolutely NOTHING now. Donald Trump is the President-Elect. From this moment on, we must stop judging Trump on his rhetoric and start judging him on his actions. And the man is busy right now putting his presidential administration together. These are the men and women that are going to be in control of trillions of taxpayer dollars and are going to have their own gigantic sphere of authority and influence over our lives. The kind of people Donald Trump selects for these key leadership posts speaks volumes about the kind of administration he will have. And it is on this exact point that conservatives and Christians greatly contribute to the demise of our liberties: when a Republican is elected President, they tend to go to sleep and refuse to hold the President accountable for his unconstitutional, big-government, neocon decisions and policies.

And speaking of going to sleep, did I miss something? I thought Donald Trump, not Jeb Bush, won the election. But looking over the list of people that have been selected to serve in the new administration, I see mostly establishment insiders. The vast majority of people selected by Trump could easily have been (and probably would have been) selected by Jeb Bush. In fact, Trump’s newly formed administration is shaping up to be an almost carbon copy of the ultimate neocon administrations of George Bush Sr. and Jr. In other words, the people Trump is appointing have track records that are completely contrary to what Trump told us he was going to do when he was elected President.

Let’s review what we have so far:

*Attorney General: Senator Jeff Sessions

Sessions is good on immigration and other issues, but he is terrible on Fourth Amendment issues. From “He’s a huge supporter of increased surveillance, and not a fan of civil liberties. Going back a decade ago, Sessions very publicly supported President George W. Bush’s surveillance programs that included warrantless wiretapping of Americans. . . .Just this year, Sessions spoke out against encryption on mobile phones in discussing the legal fights between Apple and the FBI.”

“He’s also spoken out vehemently against NSA reform that limits surveillance, complaining about the very modest changes in the USA Freedom Act.”

“On top of that, just recently, Sessions tried to massively expand the surveillance powers of the Justice Department, in an amendment he tried to attach to ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) Reform. We’ve been calling for ECPA Reform for many, many years, but to stop warrantless surveillance and data collection. But Sessions’ plan was to make it even easier for law enforcement to get data, so long as they ‘declared it was an emergency.’”

See the report here:

Trump’s Picks For AG & CIA Happy To Undermine Civil Liberties, Increase Surveillance

*Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): Congressman Mike Pompeo

This man is an absolute disaster! He is a major proponent of the surveillance society; he supports unlimited government spying on American citizens. He supports the indefinite detention sections of the NDAA that authorize federal agents or military troops to seize American citizens and hold them indefinitely without a warrant, without providing the person seized with an attorney, and without even the right of Habeas Corpus. He calls government whistleblower Edward Snowden a traitor who should be executed. The Police State has no better friend than Congressman Mike Pompeo. (See the report above.)

*National Security Adviser: General Michael Flynn

Flynn is a rabid supporter of the global “war on terror.” He will enthusiastically expand the global “war on terror” to levels never before seen. He has totally bought into the anti-Muslim hysteria that has swept through the conservative, Christian, and Republican worlds. It is anti-Muslim hysteria–created by our own CIA, the Israeli Mossad, British MI6, Wahhabi terrorists from Saudi Arabia (most of whom couldn’t even find Mecca on a map), and professional agitators from Turkey–which the neocon establishment uses to foment all of these endless wars of aggression that Trump said he opposes on the campaign trail. If Mr. Trump truly wanted to put an end to the perpetual war doctrine created by the Bush family, he would never have chosen General Flynn.

Personal Adviser: Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner

Jared is the son of Zionist billionaire Charles Kushner, who is a convicted criminal and, I suspect, an integral part of the Jewish mafia. The establishment media is now promoting the idea that it was Jared Kushner who masterminded Trump’s election victory. This is a 35-year-old young man that nobody even heard of before election night. Now, Kushner is on the front cover and is the center of the featured article of the current edition of the very influential Forbes Magazine. Let me quote a little bit from this article in Forbes. The title of the article is “How Jared Kushner Won Trump The White House.”

“Winners will emerge shortly. But today’s focus is on the biggest loser: New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who has just been fired from his role leading the transition, along with most the people associated with him. The episode is being characterized as a ‘knife fight’ that ends in a ‘Stalinesque purge.’

“The most compelling figure in this intrigue, however, wasn’t in Trump Tower. Jared Kushner was three blocks south, high up in his own skyscraper, at 666 Fifth Avenue, where he oversees his family’s Kushner Companies real estate empire. . . .”

“The speculation was well-founded, given the story’s Shakespearean twist: As a U.S. attorney in 2005, Christie jailed Kushner’s father on tax evasion, election fraud and witness tampering charges. Revenge theories aside, the buzz around Kushner was directional and indicative. A year ago he had zero experience in politics and about as much interest in it. Suddenly he sits at its global center. Whether he plunged the dagger into Christie . . . is less important than the fact that he easily could have. And that power comes well-earned.”

See the article here:

Exclusive Interview: How Jared Kushner Won Trump The White House

I suggest that anyone who thinks that the Kushner Empire’s world headquarters’ address is mere coincidence is truly not paying attention to how New World Order mystics operate. Numerology may not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal to THEM.

Kushner is a major player in the Zionist/Neocon agenda. And in all likelihood, this young man will be the most influential adviser that Trump will have. NOT GOOD.

*Ambassador to The United Nations: South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley

Haley was a strong critic of Donald Trump throughout the campaign. She was an avid supporter of neocon globalist Marco Rubio. As governor of South Carolina, she has zero experience in international affairs. The only experience Haley has in international affairs is when she eats breakfast at the International House of Pancakes. Why, then, would Trump select her as Ambassador to the U.N.? The senior senator from South Carolina gave us the answer. High-level neocon globalist Lindsey Graham said that Haley is “a strong supporter of Israel,” adding that her presence at the U.N. “will be reassuring to all of those who are concerned about the increasing hostility of the United Nations toward Israel.” (Egad! The United Nations was instrumental in creating the modern State of Israel.)

In other words, Nikki Haley is there to promote the interests of Israel–NOT the interests of the United States. I’m sure we can already thank Jared Kushner for this appointment.

*Secretary of Education: Betsy DeVos

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump was emphatic in his opposition to the Department of Education curriculum known as “Common Core.” Well, ladies and gentlemen, Betsy DeVos is a longstanding advocate of Common Core. has the report:

“President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team announces the choice of Common Core and charter school supporter Betsy DeVos as U.S. Secretary of Education.

“Anti-Common Core grassroots groups of parents and teachers urged Trump to abandon DeVos as his choice, citing her support for the education reform policies of pro-Common Core Jeb Bush and her influence through the Great Lakes Education Project (GLEP) in favor of Common Core.”

“DeVos, whose family founded Amway, was an at-large delegate for pro-Common Core Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Kasich received a grade of “F” at The Pulse 2016 for his support of the controversial standards.”

“Frank Cannon, president of American Principles Project, said in a statement prior to the announcement of DeVos’ nomination:

‘President-elect Trump rightly slammed Governor Jeb Bush for his support of Common Core on the campaign trail. Betsy DeVos would be a very Jeb-like pick, and the idea that Trump would appoint a Common Core apologist as Secretary of Education seems unlikely.’”

See the report here:

Donald Trump Announces Pro-Common Core Betsy DeVos As Education Secretary

Obviously, Frank Cannon thought he knew Donald Trump better than he does, because Trump did indeed select Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. All of her current backpedaling aside, she is a TERRIBLE appointee to be trusted with the anti-Common Core agenda promised by Trump on the campaign trail. Of course, Jeb Bush gave Trump high praise for selecting DeVos.

On November 22, I said this on my Facebook page:

“Folks, from this point onward, keep an eye out for how many CFR members Trump appoints. Over the past several decades, both Democrat and GOP administrations have been littered with CFR members. This is one of the BIGGEST reasons that nothing much changes regardless of which person is elected president.”

Well, folks, it didn’t take long for Donald Trump to join his presidential predecessors from both parties and start appointing members of the globalist agenda-driven Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to his administration.

*Deputy National Security Adviser: K. T. McFarland


Let me remind readers of what Rear Admiral Chester Ward warned about the CFR. Admiral Ward was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-1960 and a former member of the CFR who pulled out after realizing what they were all about. He warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission).

Admiral Ward said, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common–they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”

Admiral Ward also said, “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government.”

Plus, the short list for Trump’s selection to the office of Secretary of State are said to be Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Mitt Romney, and General David Petraeus. Each of these men is totally and thoroughly an establishment neocon. And if Trump picks Petraeus, it will be another CFR member picked by Trump.

Besides being a globalist CFR member, Petraeus is an anti-Second Amendment gun-grabber and convicted criminal.

Petraeus hates guns so much that he teamed up with anti-gun leader Mark Kelly and his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, to co-found the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, an anti-gun organization devoted to “do[ing] more to prevent gun tragedies” by “urging lawmakers to toughen gun laws.” (Source: Gun Owners of America)

Petraeus was convicted (and pled guilty) to sharing classified information with his lover, Paula Broadwell. He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years on probation. On the campaign trail, Trump used Petraeus as an example of the kind of carelessness and criminality that Hillary Clinton was guilty of as Secretary of State. During the campaign, Trump said that Hillary “has to go to jail” for what she did. Is Trump really going to turn around and appoint a CFR globalist and a man who was convicted of the same kind of crimes that he accused Hillary Clinton of committing to the very same office? God help us if he does. It’s bad enough already.

Senator Rand Paul has hinted that he will oppose the nomination of David Petraeus should Trump appoint him. Good for Rand!

*Secretary of Transportation: Elaine Chao

Chao is another longstanding CFR member. She served in the cabinets of both G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush. She is a high-level neocon and globalist. She is a horrible pick! She is also the wife of the Senate Majority Leader, neocon Mitch McConnell. Gee! Why is that not surprising?

*Secretary of The Treasury: Steven Mnuchin

Talk about a globalist banking elite: no one personifies it more than Mnuchin. He was an Investment Professional with Soros Fund Management LLC and spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs. No single individual is more responsible for the attempted surrender of the United States to global government than George Soros. And no institution on the planet has done more to promote globalism than Goldman. When Mnuchin is confirmed as Treasury Secretary (and he will be), he will be the third Goldman alumnus to hold that position. The other two are Henry Paulson under President G.W. Bush and Robert Rubin under President Bill Clinton.

Goldman, JP Morgan, Rothschild, Warburg, Lehman Brothers, Lazard Brothers, Israel Moses Seif,  Rockefeller, and Kuhn Loeb control the Federal Reserve; and no institution on the planet is more responsible for the surrender of U.S. sovereignty and independence than the Federal Reserve. Talk about a swamp: the Federal Reserve bankers are the ones who are most financially responsible for filling the swamp.

For Donald Trump to say he intends to drain the swamp and to then appoint a Goldman-Sachs partner as Secretary of the Treasury is the height of either simplicity or duplicity. Either way, it’s BAD for America. If Trump truly wanted to drain the swamp, he would have appointed Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury.

*Secretary of Commerce: Wilbur Ross

Here we go again! Ross worked for Rothschild for twenty-four years. When Trump’s three casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, were going bankrupt, it was Wilbur Ross who stepped in and fronted the monies needed to keep them afloat and rebuild his business. Ross also served under President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund.

As I said at the beginning of this column: conservatives and Christians who supported Donald Trump need to wake up to the reality that the election is over. Hillary Clinton lost, and their guy won. What that amounts to is, campaign rhetoric means absolutely NOTHING now. Donald Trump is the President-Elect. From this moment on, we must stop judging Trump on his rhetoric and start judging him on his actions. And the man is busy right now putting his presidential administration together. These are the men and women that are going to be in control of trillions of taxpayer dollars and are going to have their own gigantic sphere of authority and influence over our lives. The kind of people Donald Trump selects for these key leadership posts speaks volumes about the kind of administration he will have. And it is on this exact point that conservatives and Christians greatly contribute to the demise of our liberties: when a Republican is elected President, they tend to go to sleep and refuse to hold the President accountable for his unconstitutional, big-government, neocon decisions and policies.

What I am seeing right now is another G.W. Bush administration developing. The vast majority of Trump’s appointments so far could easily have been selected by either Bush, either Clinton, or Barack Obama. They are the same establishment insiders that have been running the federal government for decades. Even perceived outsider Steve Bannon is a Goldman-Sachs alumnus, so I am very skeptical of exactly what he will bring to the table.

And the reason that Republican administrations generally do so much more damage to our liberties than Democratic ones is because once they are in office, they have no meaningful opposition. Christians and conservatives lie down and go to sleep. But if they go to sleep on Donald Trump, they may wake up in an enslaved country.

Accordingly, I call on Alex Jones to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on Steve Quayle to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on Bradlee Dean to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on Joseph Farah to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on Ann Coulter to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on the writers on (most of whom I hold in high regard) to be honestly objective about Donald Trump.

The fact is, we owe Donald Trump NOTHING. He owes us his fidelity to constitutional government. Therefore, as radio hosts, writers, and opinion makers in the alt-media, we owe it to our country to be as faithful to constitutional government as we expect our civil magistrates to be. When the day comes that we lose our honest objectivity, we also lose our credibility and integrity.

I like Trump’s stated decision to ban former government office holders and employees from being lobbyists for five years. I like his stated position that America does not need any additional gun control laws and that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, he said many things on the campaign trail that sounded good, including investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton–a promise he has recanted since being elected.

I will happily give Donald Trump all due praise when he acts constitutionally and in the interest of the liberties protected in our Bill of Rights. I give him praise for convincing the Carrier company to keep their manufacturing plant in Indianapolis and not moving it to Mexico. But I will NOT give him a pass simply because he is a Republican or because he said a bunch of good things on the campaign trail. And giving him a pass by comparing him to Hillary Clinton is now moot. He’s not candidate Donald Trump any longer; he is now President Donald Trump. As such, I find it SCARY that Trump would suggest that burning the American flag in protest should result in the loss of citizenship or a year in jail. That’s Hitlerian kind of talk. The freedom to protest–even by burning the flag (as despicable as that is)–is what America is all about. For the government to punish peaceful protest is a huge step down the slippery slope to oppression. This is the kind of thing that has always bothered me about Donald Trump.

Again, Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric means nothing now. As President of The United States, he has one main responsibility: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And to the people he convinced to vote for him on November 8, he has one major promise to fulfill: to drain the swamp! But he is not going to drain the swamp with the people he is choosing to help him thus far.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural Right, not a “Constitutional Right”

December 1, 2016

Mike Maharrey


Source …..


The 2nd Amendment doesn’t create a right to keep and bear arms. What is does is prohibit the federal government from violating the natural right you already have.

And that prohibition is absolute.

“The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” — Joseph Story

A strong movement to end state conceal carry permit requirements has blossomed in the U.S. over the last couple of years. Supporters dub the idea “constitutional carry,” and often argue, “The Constitution is my gun permit,” or a variation on the theme, “The Second Amendment is my gun permit.”

While I fully support the idea of permitless conceal carry, this insistence that the Second Amendment counts as some kind of gun permit makes me want to stab an icepick through my eardrum. Not only does the idea fundamentally misrepresent the purpose of the Second Amendment, it actually assumes a fundamental change in the American constitutional system that a vast majority of “gun rights” advocates would likely reject wholesale if they really thought about it.

The first problem with the “Second Amendment is my gun permit” mantra lies in the fact that it implies the amendment creates a right.

It doesn’t.

It does not “give you” the right to keep and bear arms. It merely prohibits the federal government from infringing on a right you already had.

The right to keep and bear arms flows from a more basic right – the right to self-defense. This falls within the umbrella of “natural rights.” You have them “naturally” simply because you exist. The right to defend yourself and your property makes up part of what it means to be human. In other words, it’s natural to human existence.

No government can bestow natural rights – and no government can take them away. But governments can “infringe” on natural rights. Or to put it another way, interfere with them.

St. George Tucker wrote the first systematic commentary on the U.S. Constitution and stood as one of the preeminent constitutional scholars through the 18th century. Tucker called the right of self-defense the “palladium of liberty.”

“The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.”

The Second Amendment was drafted and ratified to prevent the federal government from doing just that. But it was not meant to apply to the states.

This leads us to the second, more dangerous aspect of this notion that “the Second Amendment is my gun permit.” To make it so requires a complete transformation of the American constitutional system in order to make the Second Amendment limit state governments’ ability to regulate firearms.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear exactly which government the provisions apply to. State ratifying conventions insisted on a Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the government created by the constitution] powers.”

There simply exists no credible founding era evidence supporting the idea that the Bill of Rights – including the Second Amendment – was intended to restrict state actions. State constitutions feature their own bills of rights for that purpose. And it’s unthinkable that a founding generation so wary of centralizing power would have created a mechanism for federal courts to veto or nullify state laws. In fact, this idea was floated in the Philadelphia Convention during the drafting of the Constitution and soundly rejected.

The Constitution created a federal system. The states maintained their sovereignty except within a few spheres where power was delegated to the federal government. The Constitution did not create a national government with all power and authority flowing from it. In fact, most Americans in the founding era feared this.

Many will argue everything changed after the War Between the States. They claim that the 14th Amendment now applies the Bill of Rights to the states, and that should include the Second Amendment. But the weight of evidence does not support what has become known as the “incorporation doctrine.” In fact, Supreme Court justices milked the idea out of the words of the 14th Amendment nearly five decades after it was ratified. (You can read more about the original intent of the 14th Amendment HERE.)

During the Massachusetts ratifying convention, delegate Fisher Aims argued for the inclusion of what would later become the Tenth Amendment.

“A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this article is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation. The State Governments represent the wishes and feelings, and the local interests of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protect the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights.” [Emphasis added]

Today, many gun advocates essentially want to go ahead and consolidate the states under a national government, so they can empower Washington D.C. to enforce the Second Amendment on the states. They happily appeal to a Supreme Court invented incorporation doctrine to accomplish their goal. But in so-doing, they subvert the Constitution. They tacitly accept a consolidated, national government, bound by Supreme Court precedent. They remain painfully unaware that when they nationalize gun laws based on Supreme Court precedent, they open the door to nationalize everything under Supreme Court precedent, no matter how badly it bastardizes the constitutional structure.

Conservatives who support the Supreme Court enforcing the Second Amendment in every state generally bemoan that same panel of politically connected lawyers enforcing their conception of religious liberty, their conception of marriage and their conception of abortion rights on all of the states. But you can’t have it both ways. You either accept the Supreme Court’s version of a consolidated, national government or you don’t. If you continue to insist on a nationwide application of the Second Amendment, then you can never again question the constitutionality of Row v. Wade, or the constitutionality of Obamacare, or the constitutionality of federal marriage laws, or the constitutionality of federal education, or the constitutionality of school prayer bans. It all grows out of the same philosophical soil – consolidation, nationalism and the supremacy of federal courts.

“But Mike,” some will ask, “Are you saying the states can just violate our right to keep and bear arms, and we can’t do anything about it? We have to have somebody to protect us from state governments.”

But that raises a bigger question. If you can’t control the political process in your own state and ensure that it protects the right to keep and bear arms, what in the world makes you think you can control a bigger, more powerful, more intrusive, less responsive federal government?

And therein lies the rub. You can’t. That’s exactly why the founding generation created a decentralized system with very little power at the top. They recognized that while every level of government threatens liberty, centralized, monopoly governments pose the greatest threat.

Sadly, many Americans seem to think subverting the Constitution and concentrating authority in an oligarchy along the Potomac in exchange for federal permission to carry a gun across state lines is a good trade-off.

Federal Agency Cutting Funds for Cancer Research and Medicare, to Aid Illegal Alien Minors

December 1, 2016

Katie McHugh


Source …..


President Barack Obama’s administration has transferred $167 million in just one month from programs which aid Americans to the programs which feed, house, school, and entertain a wave of illegal alien minors.

Obama’s deputies are delivering an average of 255 illegal alien minors every day to Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Service, which already has 11,200 illegals in its care as of Nov. 27. HHS is getting the money for the illegals by cutting funds from programs which benefit vulnerable Americans.

The non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reports that the cuts took:

  • “$14 million from the Health Resources and Services Administration, including $4.5 million from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and $2 million from the Maternal and Child Health program;
  • $14 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for contagious disease prevention and treatment and other critical public health programs;
  • $72 million from the National Institutes of Health, for research on cancer, diabetes, drug abuse, mental health, infectious diseases and much more;
  • $8 million from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, for treatment and prevention programs;
  • $8 million from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;
  • $39 million from the Children and Families Services Program;
  • $4 million from the Aging and Disability Services Programs;
  • $3 million from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, including more than $1 million from the Pandemic Influenza and BioShield Fund.”

Also, HHS wants Congress to provide it with another $1 billion to $2 billion by Dec. 9 to “meet our legal and humanitarian obligations” and avoid “stranding” illegal aliens at the border.

CIS found that in October alone, immigration authorities apprehended 46,195 illegal aliens attempting to cross the border, which is the most massive surge since June 2014.

The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

November 26, 2016

Mike Maharrey


Source …..


When challenged on the federal government’s constitutional authority to create welfare programs, meddle in education or run a national healthcare system, progressives will almost always appeal to the “general welfare clause.”

Huffington Post columnist Paul Abrams demonstrated this line of thinking in a March 9, 2011, piece.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the United States government the unqualified and unlimited power to raise and spend money, for example, to: provide healthcare for the elderly (or for everyone); provide old-age pension; build roads, bridges, train tracks, airports, electric grids, libraries, swimming pools, housing; educate our children, re-train the unemployed, provide pre-school and day care; fund public health projects; invest in and conduct basic research; provide subsidies for agriculture; save the auto industry; create internets (sic); and, yes, Tea Party Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), even provide emergency aid from natural disasters, and so forth. All subsumed under the authority to spend for the general welfare.

The term “general welfare” actually appears twice in the Constitution. We find it first in the preamble and then in the opening line of Article I Sec. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

These words create something of a dilemma. Either the founders didn’t really intend to create a general government of limited powers, or the general welfare clause doesn’t really mean unlimited federal authority to do things beneficial to the nation as a whole.

The fact that the framers followed up the general welfare clause in Article I Sec. 8 with specific enumerated powers indicates the latter – a qualification on federal authority. If they had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific powers.

James Madison made this very point in a letter to James Robertson dated April, 20, 1831.

With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

Yes, promoting the general welfare falls among the responsibilities of the federal government, but it must do so within the scope of the specific powers delegated.

During the ratification debates, anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution, voiced fears that people like Abrams would come along and assert that the term “general welfare” granted unlimited power to the federal government. Supporters of the Constitution swore it would not. Even Alexander Hamilton, the framer most in favor of expansive federal power, conceded as much in Federalist 83.

This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.

Madison specifically addressed the anti-federalist fears in Federalist 41.

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Madison further illuminated the intended meaning of the general welfare clause in a letter to Edmund Pendleton dated 1793, pointing out that the phrase was lifted from the Articles of Confederation and was intended to retain its meaning in the new Constitution.

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.

So the words general welfare must mean something other than a grant of power for Congress to do whatever it pleased. What exactly did the framers mean?

Two words in the clause hold the key. General and common. The phrase simply means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for partial or sectional (i.e. special) interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism.


Mark Levin exposes potential DNC chief’s ties to Muslim Brotherhood

November 26, 2016

Chris Pandolfo


Source …..


Opening the week on the attack, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin sounded off on the Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (F, 2%)-endorsed frontrunner to be the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. (F, 28%).

“This guy’s a hater, he is a radical leftist … and he has connections to very dangerous organizations.” Levin said. “And Chuck Schumer supports him!”

Rep. Ellison’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are disturbing. Almost as disturbing as Democratic leadership pushing Ellison to be the public face of the party as DNC chair despite those ties to a terrorist group. And yet still more disturbing is the mainstream media’s complete silence on this subject.

“Let me ask you a question,” Levin said. “Have you heard about this much NBC or ABC or CBS? Or CNN or MSLSD? Has this been headlined everywhere, like it should be?”

Watch here …..

Gardasil, considered the most dangerous vaccine on the market, may soon be pushed for infants

November 26, 2016


Source …..

Infant gets an injection

Gardasil has been the subject of controversy for many years now. In fact, it has even been regarded as one of the most dangerous vaccines on the market today. Perhaps what is most alarming about this treacherous vaccine, however, is the fact that its manufacturer, Merck & Co, now wants to begin marketing their product to infants – and trials on babies have already begun. Merck recently launched a Gardasil vaccine trial on children at least one year old, and it’s set to conclude in early 2017.

You read that right. A pharmaceutical giant is testing a vaccine for an STD on babies. It doesn’t really get more corrupt and outrageous than that, now does it?

Gardasil was developed for the STD known as HPV, and was approved by the FDA in 2006. The disease did not become of concern until the 1980s, when research first suggested that there may be a link between HPV and cervical cancer. However, whether this link actually exists has been a major point of contention. There are several hypotheses that explain why HPV may not actually cause cancer, but one particularly interesting theory was expressed by McCormack et al in their paper published by the journal Molecular Cytogenetics in 2015. The research team also raised several significant questions about the prevailing theory on the connection between HPV and cervical cancer. For example, HPV is present in 70 to 80 percent of the American adult population, so why does cervical cancer only effect one out of ever 10,000 women?

According to their paper, neither HPV nor genetic predisposition is required for the onset of cervical cancer. In fact, all of the cervical cancer cells analyzed during the course of their study contained new abnormal karyotypes. The genetic makeup of these new abnormal karyotypes suggested that the cervical cancers originated within the karyotypes, and not from a virus. A karyotype is the size, number and shape of chromosomes within an organism. Their theory, called the Karyotypic Speciation Theory, essentially suggests that “carcinomas are generated de novo from cellular chromosomes, genes and proteins, which are not immunogenic in the host of origin (just like all other cancers).” As explains, in this theory, hypothetical cancer cells that are generated by viral proteins (such as HPV) would be eliminated by antiviral immunity.

So to put it simply, the researchers posit that these changes to cell chromosomes were occurring independent of viral stimuli (which would be HPV), rather than because of it — which in turn renders vaccination for such a thing relatively useless. notes that even after 25 years of research on HPV’s link to cancer, no definitive answers on how or why it causes cancer have been found.

While the link between HPV and cancer remains obscured, there is no shortage of evidence that the Gardasil vaccine does more harm than good. The vaccine has been linked to causing cervical cysts, crippling autoimmune diseases and even destroying women’s ovaries. Merck has even admitted that they “forgot” to see how a vaccine that was initially targeted at young women might effect a key component of their reproductive systems – their ovaries. Some have even died almost immediately following vaccination.

Despite the claims of safety being pushed out by the media, the medical industry and Big Pharma, the evidence that the Gardasil vaccine is a damaging injection continues to pile up. Even industry professionals have come forward to express their concerns. Dr. Dianne Harper, a leading HPV researcher that was involved in the approval of Gardasil, has cautioned, “Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year.”

Jabbing infants with this vaccine isn’t just unwarranted, it’s barbaric. If it wasn’t for independent research, and the bravery of those who speak out, the propaganda machine would continue to run unopposed and without consequence.


%d bloggers like this: