Search Blog Posts

Showing posts with label States Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label States Rights. Show all posts

Thursday, October 16, 2014

We have an Unlawful 14th Amendment

CAUTION: Do not use this irregularity to call for or support the Insiders call for a Constitutional Convention (CON-CON)!!
Posted on October 13, 2014 by admin in Education

There is No “Fourteenth Amendment”!

by David Lawrence, U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF—that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the “Fourteenth Amendment”—is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called “Fourteenth Amendment” was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

Outside the South, six States—New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland—failed to ratify the proposed amendment.

In the South, ten States—Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana —— by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law. A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the “Fourteenth Amendment.”

Congress—which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate —did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.

The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to “ratify” under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.

Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was “inseparable” and “indivisible.” After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be “entitled to representation in Congress.”

Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the “Fourteenth Amendment,” took an unprecedented step. No such right—to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment—is to be found anywhere in the Constitution.

Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States. President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various “ratifications” of a spurious nature were placed before him. 

The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State “to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification.” He added that the amendment was valid “if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States.” This was a very big “if.” It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced “ratification” by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey —two Northern States —was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.

The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 —three months after the Secretary’s proclamation was issued —passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the “Fourteenth Amendment” had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the “ratifications” in the Southern States were “usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void” and that, “until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment.”

What do the historians say about all this? The Encyclopedia Americana states:
“Reconstruction added humiliation to suffering . . . Eight years of crime, fraud, and corruption followed and it was State legislatures composed of Negroes, carpetbaggers and scalawags who obeyed the orders of the generals and ratified the amendment.”

W. E. Woodward, in his famous work, “A New American History?” published in 1936, says:
“To get a clear idea of the succession of events let us review [President Andrew] Johnson’s actions in respect to the ex-Confederate States.”

“In May, 1865, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty to former rebels. Then he established provisional governments in all the Southern States. They were instructed to call Constitutional Conventions. They did. New State governments were elected. White men only had the suffrage [the Fifteenth Amendment establishing equal voting rights had not yet been passed]. Senators and Representatives were chosen, but when they appeared at the opening of Congress they were refused admission. The State governments, however, continued to function during 1866.”

“Now we are in 1867. In the early days of that year [Thaddeus] Stevens brought in, as chairman of the House Reconstruction Committee, a bill that proposed to sweep all the Southern State governments into the wastebasket. The South was to be put under military rule.”

“The bill passed. It was vetoed by Johnson and passed again over his veto. In the Senate it was amended in such fashion that any State could escape from military rule and be restored to its full rights by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment and admitting black as well as white men to the polls.” In challenging its constitutionality, President Andrew Johnson said in his veto message:

“I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure.”

Many historians have applauded Johnson’s words. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, known today as “liberals,” wrote in their book, “The Growth of the American Republic”:

“Johnson returned the bill with a scorching message arguing the unconstitutionality of the whole thing, and most impartial students have agreed with his reasoning.”

James Truslow Adams, another noted historian, writes in his “History of the United States”:

“The Supreme Court had decided three months earlier, in the Milligan case, . . . that military courts were unconstitutional except under such war conditions as might make the operation of civil courts impossible, but the President pointed out in vain that practically the whole of the new legislation was unconstitutional. . . . There was even talk in Congress of impeaching the Supreme Court for its decisions! The legislature had run amok and was threatening both the Executive and the Judiciary.”

Actually, President Johnson was impeached, but the move failed by one vote in the Senate.

The Supreme Court, in case after case, refused to pass on the illegal activities involved in “ratification.” It said simply that they were acts of the “political departments of the Government.” This, of course, was a convenient device of avoidance. The Court has adhered to that position ever since Reconstruction Days.

Andrew C. McLaughlin, whose “Constitutional History of the United States” is a standard work, writes:

“Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such by Congress, perform the supreme duty of ratifying an amendment to the fundamental law? Or does a State —by congressional thinking —cease to be a State for some purposes but not for others?”

This is the tragic history of the so-called “Fourteenth Amendment”— a record that is a disgrace to free government and a “government of law.”

Isn’t the use of military force to override local government what we deplored in Hungary? It is never too late to correct injustice. The people of America should have an opportunity to pass on an amendment to the Constitution that sets forth the right of the Federal Government to control education and regulate attendance at public schools either with federal power alone or concurrently with the States.

That’s the honest way, the just way to deal with the problem of segregation or integration in the schools. Until such an amendment is adopted, the “Fourteenth Amendment” should be considered as null and void.

There is only one supreme tribunal — it is the people themselves. Their sovereign will is expressed through the procedures set forth in the Constitution itself.

via dueprocessrevisited

Saturday, October 11, 2014

States Permitting the FedGov to Erode & Erase the Individual Rights of National Guard Units & Citizens

"The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...." Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

Reserved sovereign right of a state partially preserved. Any state may abolish its national guard, replacing same with a "state guards." No federal monies will be forthcoming from federal taxpayers:
...(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces. 32 U.S. Code § 109 - Maintenance of other troops

Darest thou quote the US Constitution to those who rule us - yea, ye  shalt be struck down by a Supreme court gavel and sent off to the FEMA penal facility within the 475 Riverside Church in NYC until thou shalt renounce Christianity and accept the US president as your Savior. Thus it shalt be under Executive Order.

... But, then what lawful leg is a state legislator/governor to brace himself when congress has been duplicitous by permitting these Undeclared Wars for decades? Why, NULLIFICATION, of course!

The National Guard deploy overseas, too

By David Charns | July 27, 2011

WASHINGTON — The National Guard: The state militias that stay on American soil and help us out after natural disasters. Right? Kind of.

According to the Department of Defense, 292,765 National Guardsmen have deployed overseas since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Though the department could not release a year-by-year breakdown, there were a total of 470,000 active guardsmen in 2009.

Guardsmen overseas include both those “physically located within” U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, or those in combat, and those “directly supporting” those missions, support personnel based outside of the combat zone, the department said.

According to the website, which tracks the number of fatalities in both wars, 16 National Guard members have died since January: Four in Iraq, all by improvised explosive devices, and 12 in Afghanistan.

Sure the National Guard has done a lot at home over the past ten years: helping with search and rescue at Ground Zero, aiding the people of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and most recently, getting life back to normal for those affected by this summer’s storms — from flooding to tornadoes — all across the country.

But what many Americans don’t realize is though the Guard is doing a lot of important work at home, they’re playing a much larger role in our military efforts overseas.

“The Guard has played a huge role in both Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Ryan Sullivan, an assistant professor at the Defense Resource Management Institute at the Naval Postgraduate School. Sullivan served as an infantry soldier in the U.S. Army National Guard from 1998-2006.

“The National Guard is mainly responsible for combat operations when going to war and the Reserve’s responsibility is mainly for use in administration and support type activities,” he said.

Sullivan says the use of the National Guard for combat fighting is a new phenomenon.

“A soldier joining the guard today is definitely used in a different role than say one that signed up 15 years ago,” he said. “We had quite a few Guard and Reserve units actively participating in past conflicts, but nothing like this. 

Nicholas Armstrong, a research fellow at the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University agrees that the National Guard’s role in the U.S.effort overseas has increased since Sept. 11.

“Over the past decade, the National Guard has been used to supplement active duty forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, spanning nearly every major combat and support role on the battlefield from infantry and special forces to medical and logistics support,” Armstrong said.

While some units do deploy to combat zones, some, as noted by the Department of Defense, work to keep those in combat safe, through security force assistance, he said.

Armstrong said the mobilization for National Guard units for service in Iraq and Afghanistan was essential to avoid a draft.

“The need to mobilize additional National Guard units for service in Iraq and Afghanistan was especially great between 2004 and 2008, where the need for additional troops in both operational theaters was great,” he said.

Though an advantage to the Army overseas, Armstrong said the use of Guard units overseas, means less security at home.

“While our National Guard soldiers have served admirably in the Global War on Terror, a significant consequence of their repeated deployments is a decrease in their overall readiness for responding to U.S. domestic crises, like hurricanes and other natural disasters.”

The use of National Guard units overseas has also taken a toll on equipment and money, Armstrong said.

“Sustained operations [in Afghanistan] and in Iraq have taken a significant toll on the Humvees, Blackhawk helicopters, tanks, etc. across the total force,” he said. “Furthermore, because the lion’s share of funding for resources has rested largely on troops deploying overseas, the National Guard’s generally lags behind its active duty counterparts in terms of fielding new equipment, especially at home.”

They have also taken a toll on the Guard members themselves, and their families, but that may change, Sullivan said.

“The higher-ups in the Pentagon have tried to cut back on the number of deployments and are trying to use the rough rule of five years at home and one year deployed for many of the guard and reserve units,’’ he said. “The number of tours has been cut down and it should improve even more since we are drawing down in both Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Certainly we must thank the men and women of the National Guard for their work, but we must also remember that many of them—at times as many as 40 to50 percent—are working not in our homeland, but for our missions overseas.
via nationalsecurityzone

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Arizona's Prop 122 Pushes Back Against Federal Overreach - POWERFUL!

Thursday, 09 October 2014 01:00

On November 4, voters in Arizona will have the following proposal put to them on their general election ballot:





A "yes" vote shall have the effect of allowing the state to restrict the state and all local governments from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with a federal action or program that is not consistent with the Constitution of the United States. The state's authority is exercised if the state passes an initiative, referendum, bill, or pursues any other available legal remedy. YES

A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law relating to state and local governments and the Constitution of the United States. NO

This proposed amendment to the state constitution, known familiarly as Prop 122, is at once the most important and most irrelevant question to be decided by citizens of the Grand Canyon State. The explanation of this seeming incongruity is provided below.


First, as the reach of the federal government’s assumed authority lengthens and the scope of state sovereignty correspondingly contracts, the obligation of state legislators to enforce the limits of constitutional federalism grows more urgent.

Resisting federal trampling of the Constitution is not only a right of state lawmakers, it is in fact a constitutional obligation.

Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Simply put, this clause puts all state legislators under a legally binding obligation (assuming they’ve taken their oath of office) to “support the Constitution.” There is no better way, it would seem, for these elected state representatives of the people to show support for the Constitution than by demanding that the officers of the federal government adhere to constitutional limits on their power.

Perhaps a greater number of these state legislators, attorneys general, and judges would be more inclined to perform their Article VI duty if the people who put them in office would sue them and hold them legally accountable for any failures to carry this burden. 

Imagine, furthermore, the uproar in state assemblies across the country if, every day the legislators were in session, process servers showed up at their offices armed with lawsuits charging them with dereliction of their constitutional duty! FINISH READING

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Secession–Not Just a Southern Thang and Not Just Secular–Part Two

For those whom never learned in their government school, the Confederacy never surrendered. You're only told of Lee's troops laying down their arms at Appomattox. But, the CSA is alive to this day!
by Al Benson Jr.

Just before, and during, the War of Northern Aggression, the sentiment in favor of secession came from other areas of the country and not just from below Mason-Dixon.

In Douglas County, Illinois a meeting was held which announced that: “We regard the Emancipation Proclamation…as the entering wedge which will ultimately divide the middle and northwestern states from our mischiefmaking, puritanical, fanatical New England brethren…” Culturally, this has happened, even though Lincoln’s “mystical Union” has been held together with bayonets.

In Brown County, Indiana, a gathering was convened that put forth this sentiment: “…Our interests and inclinations will demand of us a withdrawal from political association in a common government with the New England states, who have contributed so much to every innovation upon the Constitution to our present calamity of civil war, and whose tariff legislation must ever prove oppressive to our agricultural and commercial pursuits.” Mind you, such secession sentiments are coming forth from Indiana and Illinois.

Other sources have cited secession sentiment in even the Middle Atlantic states–New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Author William C. Wright has written that: “The secession movement was prominent in the five Middle Atlantic states. Within these five states were three types of secessionists; first, those who wanted to join the Confederacy; second, those who wished to form a central confederacy, that is, to join with the other border states and divide the United States into three separate nations; third, those who preferred to let the South go in peace rather than to use force to save the Union.”

Wright noted that Pennsylvania was the most pro-Union of these states, while New Jersey had strong economic and social ties with the South. New York was divided between the up-state region which supported the Union and the Hudson Valley and New York City areas that had ties to the South. 

New York City Mayor Fernando Wood had even made the proposition that New York City be made into a “free city.” 

Wright has duly noted that: “Together, the advocates of secession weakened the Lincoln administration’s ability to react to the Confederacy. At the same time, they offered the South hope of Northern support if war broke out.” In view of this, one might be led to wonder if this situation was the real reason for Lincoln’s actions in regard to Fort Sumter. I might also question why almost none of this type of material is ever presented in our “history” books, if such they can seriously be called. But that would be little more than a rhetorical exercise because I already know why.

The majority of people today, North and South, largely due to the abolitionist propaganda presented in our “history” books (whoever said history books had to teach real history?) and the rampant apostasy in the country as a whole, have viewed secession and the War of Northern Aggression in a strictly secular light. Many who have studied history will readily admit to the political and economic causes of the War, though some continue to persist it was all about slavery. However, most will not touch the theological reasons for secession.

However, there were many in the South that viewed secession in the same light that they viewed the biblical separation spoken of in Second Corinthians 6:14-18. They looked at an increasingly apostate and “progressive” North, while, in the main, most Southerners clung to orthodox Christianity. Informed Southerners watched much of the Northern clergy, no doubt influenced by the taint of Unitarianism, seek to deify man and to exalt the goodness of his human nature and his “free will.” It was the same sort of thing they did with abolitionist/terrorist John Brown in 1859 where Northern Unitarians claimed that Brown’s gallows was equal to Christ’s cross.

The late Professor M. E. Bradford, writing in the Southern Partisan magazine for the fourth quarter of 1991, noted that: “…Professor Bell Wiley observes, the Southern churches had always warned their communicants against ‘extreme confidence in human endeavor.’ The ordinary Southerner of 1860 did not approach the world as did those who had voted for Mr. Lincoln. They were…’as dubious of human ability in social and political matters as in the matter of salvation.’ The belief of the sovereignty of God and dependence of man was the whole of their thinking.”

In regard to Southern clergymen, Professor Bradford wrote: “Because most Southern clergymen were, during the years of sectional conflict within their denominations, convinced that apostasy and infidelity had become the dominant religions of the North.” You know something? They were right! Bradford observed that: “As the War approached, these (Southern) clergymen more and more tended to view the sectional controversy as a dispute between those who acknowledged the authority of the Scripture and those who set their own moral sense above it–in other words, between Christians and infidels.”

Thus we have another, seldom acknowledged, yet perhaps the most important dimension to the secession question–the spiritual and theological dimension. The majority probably have no interest in dealing with this aspect of the question. 

The “history” they’ve been taught tells them not to, but the spiritual dimension was and is here and needs to be dealt with. As someone with a Christian worldview, I believe all truth is educational and all things, ultimately, reflect someone’s theology. Everything eventually comes down to this–choose who you will serve, the Trinitarian God of the Scriptures or the World System. It has to be one or the other. 

Many Southern secessionists held to this view. For them, although political issues were prominent as were economic ones, their ultimate view of secession was a theological view. They viewed the doctrine of biblical separation and secession as one. In our apostate day, such a conclusion merits our serious consideration.

Read PART ONE:  Secession–Not Just Southern and Not Just Secular

A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States
by Alexander H. Stephens (volume one)
Krause Reprint Company, New York, 1970

Democracy in America
by Alexis de Tocqueville (volume one)
Vintage Books, New York, July, 1990

The Hidden Civil War
by Wood Gray
Viking Press, New York, 1942

The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States
by William C. Wright
Associated University Presses, Inc. Cranberry, New Jersey, copyright 1973

A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession
by Al Benson Jr.
The Copperhead Chronicle, Sterlington, Louisiana, copyright 1995, reprinted 2009
(booklet 30 pages)

Monday, October 6, 2014

Liberty Hangs by a Thread: You Can Help Turn Things Around

The danger we face is real. The federal government claims the power to monitor your communication, track your location, restrict your right to defend your family, tax you for doing nothing – and so much more. But they can be stopped.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

How States Can Protect the 2nd Amendment from Federal Abuse

Members of Congress who want to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms will never give up. 

Fortunately, through our states we can effectively render any new federal gun laws powerless by using a legal doctrine upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

This is done by depriving the feds of any enforcement assistance by local law enforcement agencies in their state, a doctrine known as "anti-commandeering."

Essentially, it provides that state legislation can prohibit state law enforcement from aiding the federal agencies attempting to enforce federal gun laws.

In other words, the federal government cannot require a state to carry out federal acts. The federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but the state isn't required to help them.

Is this legal?

It is according to the US Supreme Court. For 150 years it has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of anti-commandeering laws.

Relevant court cases include:

* 1842 Prigg v. Pennslvania: The court held that states weren't required to enforce federal slave rendition laws.
* 1992 New York v. US: The court held that Congress couldn't require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
* 1997 Printz v. US: The court held that "the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."
* 2012 Independent Business v. Sebelius: The Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place.

Applied to Federal Gun Control

Anti-commandeering can have a significant impact on any prospective federal legislation undermining the Second Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution does not delegate any power to the federal government to regulate firearms. This authority does not exist within the "few and defined" powers James Madison outlines in Federalist 45.

The Second Amendment further clarifies the restriction on federal power, clearly stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." The plain meaning of the text offers no possibility of any federal legislation whatsoever restricting or regulating firearms or ammunition, even in the course of exercising legitimate constitutional powers. Therefore, any federal legislation pertaining to gun control is, in reality, unconstitutional.

Of course, federal courts have illegitimately eroded the constitutional limits on federal power, leaving Americans with little recourse in Washington D.C. But that does not leave we the people completely powerless. We can legally take action at the state level to thwart federal encroachment on our rights. While we might debate the constitutionality of such federal gun control laws, there is zero debate that states don't have to help enforce them.
The fact is, the federal government needs the states to play ball in order for any of its laws to be more than words on paper. They depend on state support to implement and enforce their laws. Judge Andrew Napolitano stated earlier this year that the federal government relies on the assistance of local law enforcement to give their laws teeth. 

Without their support, any future gun control laws would be "nearly impossible" to enforce.

That is exactly what the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act is designed to do. It bans all state and local employees and resources from providing material support to the enforcement of federal acts on firearms, accessories and ammunition.

This isn't just theory. For instance, during the 2014 legislative session, the Idaho Legislature unanimously passed an anti-comandeering law the prohibits the state from cooperating with enforcement of any future federal gun control laws. Other states can and should follow Idaho's lead in 2015.

But do Anti-comandeering Laws have Any Actual Effect?

In short, they already have.

Northern abolitionists used anti-commandeering laws in response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Fast forward 160 years, states like Washington and Colorado are helping end the war on cannabis by refusing to comply with federal prohibition.

The question isn't whether it will work. It's whether or not Americans are finally going to take the initiative and resist government encroachment on their right to bear arms.

Rosa Parks may have put it best:
People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.

It's time for Americans to stop giving in to violations of the 2nd Amendment and their right to keep and bear arms. 

Call your state representative and senator today and encourage them to introduce and pass a Second Amendment Preservation Act for your state.

View article...

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Ron Paul Thinks There Should Be More Secessionist Movements in the U.S.

The former U.S. congressman and perennial presidential candidate tells National Journal that he's "real pleased" with American secessionist groups.

(Photo by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images)

September 30, 2014 Secessionists across the world were inspired by Scotland's energetic attempt at independence from the United Kingdom earlier this month. Ron Paul, as it turns out, joined them.

In an essay on his eponymous institution's website Sunday, the former U.S. congressman from Texas wrote that any supporters of freedom should cheer secessionism because it allows for smaller government—a constant mantra for the libertarian and perennial presidential candidate, who didn't previously realize there were more than a handful of secessionist groups in the United States.

"I was real pleased with that, and a bit surprised," Paul told National Journal. "But then, on second thought, you think, 'Why not? Why not more?' "

Fringe groups calling for states and regions to secede from the U.S., such as the Second Vermont Republic and the Alaskan Independence Party, gained more publicity in the weeks leading up to the Scottish referendum. As the outsized federal government continues to encroach on individual rights, Paul said, he thinks there will be a groundswell of these movements.

"It's something that I think is going to grow, because the failure of the federal government is going to get much worse," he said. "When the bankruptcy evolves, and maybe some of these pension funds are confiscated, and the wars never end, and bankruptcy comes forth, people [will say], 'Hey, we're getting a bad deal from this. Why don't we leave?' "

He added: "I think it's inevitable people wanting to leave will be there, and the numbers will grow."

Realistically, though, Paul said he doesn't think any of these groups could actually succeed. Despite the founders' own deep belief in secession—they gained America's independence from Europe, after all—he said the Civil War set the precedent that secession would carry "very, very bad" results.

"By our history, the heavy hand of the federal government would come down," Paul told National Journal. "They'd probably shoot 'em."

In typical fashion, Paul argued that the principle of secession was more important than what could actually happen in reality. It's the threat, he said, that's important to keep the federal government in check.

"I think what is most important is we have a concrete right to secede," Paul said. "Even if we never had any secession, or any state declare independence, we would be so much better off, because there would always be this threat. Once the threat of a state leaving was removed, it was just open-door policy for the federal government to expand itself and run roughshod out over the states because the states couldn't do much."

Given that his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will likely run for president in 2016 with a much better chance of winning than his father ever had, the elder Paul's willingness to share his reasonably radical views seem imprudent, if not unexpected. In an election cycle that has often equated the politics of Ron and Rand, this latest remark is sure to annoy the potential 2016-er's supporters.

For Rand's sake, it's fortunate that Ron didn't express his support for the Texas Nationalist Movement or any other secessionist groups in the U.S. Before he'd back Texan independence, he joked, "I better check out and see who's running Austin before we decide about that."


Sunday, September 28, 2014

High school cheerleaders defy prayer ban at football games

Whereby parents lack the spine to stand their ground for Christianity, their children lead the way. Of course, as y'all know the fedgov or its agent, the ACLU, have no sovereign or lawful authority to be in education to begin with. What state reps don't nullify, the people will.

ONEIDA, TENN - For many on the Oneida High School cheerleading squad, faith has always gone hand and hand with Friday night football.

“We need prayer for so many reasons especially in our community now and the troubles we face every day,” said junior Kayla King.

The Oneida Special School district has decided to do away with prayer before athletic events in an effort to avoid national legal action. The district, like dozens of others in the state of Tennessee, has received pressure from organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation to end prayer at public schools.

Oneida's director of school's Ann Sexton says they received a letter last fall from the ACLU reminding them it is unconstitutional to hold school sanctioned prayer at football games.

“We were advised to stop the practice,” Sexton said. Instead, they instated a moment of silence before games.

But that didn't sit well with many students and community members in Oneida.

“During the moment of silence all the cheerleaders came together and recited the Lord's Prayer,” King explained.

On Friday night's game against Watertown, the cheerleaders from both teams joined hands and recited the prayer, and they weren't alone.

“In that moment the atmosphere was kind of great because it was nothing but heads bowed, and you heard the Lord's Prayer ring over the football field,” said King.

Kevin Acres has been announcing football games for Oneida for more than a decade, and he said he's been getting lots of questions about the discontinued prayers. That's why on Friday night he explained the change.

“First off, I wanted to let everyone know on both sides of the field, this wasn't our decision or the school board, it was pressure from outside groups,” said Acres.

The ACLU isn't alone in their efforts to stop prayer at public schools. The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation also sent letters to every school district in Tennessee after complaints over prayers in 2011.

“As you know, the First Amendment prohibits government policies and practices 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Both the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause operate to protect the religions liberty and freedom of conscience of all Americans. It is well settled that school faculty, coaches, administrators or invited clergy may not lead students in prayer or conduct a prayer during a school event,” read the letter from ACLU.

Acres says it's frustrating but he understands the schools the position.

“The majority of people in this area want to have prayer before a ball game, and I don't think its right for a minority out away from here dictates what we do here,” said Acres.

But Acres says in a way the student led prayer can be seen as a positive.

“Where you had one person saying a prayer over the PA, now you've got hundreds maybe a thousand people saying it together,” he said.

Because while prayer can no longer be said over the loud speaker, the Oneida cheerleaders hope to make sure it's still heard loud and clear.

“It is your option what you do in that moment of silence and this is our option,” explained King.

Monday, September 22, 2014

The Messianic Character of American Education - RJ Rushdoony

Not that y'all need reminding, but the Constitution prohibits the federal government from interfering in education in any manner or form.

 The Messianic Character of American Education

Rushdoony's study tells us an important part of American history: exactly what has public education been trying to accomplish? Before the 1830s and Horace Mann, no schools in the U.S. were state supported or state controlled. 

They were local, parent-teacher enterprises, supported without taxes, and taking care of all children. They were remarkably high in standard and were Christian. 

From Mann to the present, the state has used education to socialize the child. The school's basic purpose, according to its own philosophers, is not education in the traditional sense of the 3 R's. 

Instead, it is to promote "democracy" and "equality," not in their legal or civic sense, but in terms of the engineering of a socialized citizenry. 
Public education became the means of creating a social order of the educators design. Such men saw themselves and the school in messianic terms. This book was instrumental in launching the Christian school and homeschool movements. 

From the Dust Jacket: "Man does not live by bread alone"'; this language may be excluded from the public classrooms by court order, but the problem which is here involved for education cannot be avoided. The nature and the character of society, thus of education, hinges on the accepted concept of man; and, whatever this concept is in a given society, it can be based on an article of faith. 

This book will be bitter medicine, indeed, to those who see the answer to today's problem in more education, unless the question "for what?" is confronted and resolved. 

What the educationists have forgotten is that the sense of meaning and purpose in life which they take for granted was bought with the blood of saints from the time of the prophets and Jesus until this day. And the end is not yet in sight. By taking for granted that which can only be acquired by faith, the rationalist tradition of American education has severed itself from its roots, and indeed is paying the penalty for trying to "live by bread alone."
via Chalcedon

Friday, September 19, 2014

Angry with Washington, 1 in 4 Americans Open to Secession

Posted September 19, 2014 1:38 pm by PatriotRising

Can you begin to understand now why the Conspiracy regards it essential that the respective state national guards be deployed overseas whenever possible? Hmmm? Ironically, the St. Andrews cross flew across the US southern seceding states heralds back to Scotland!
Some 23.9 percent of Americans said they strongly supported or tended to support idea of their state breaking away.

South Carolina Sovereignty Flag
While the South had support all over the Union this was raised over the Alumni Hall at Yale University by Southern sympathizers on 20 January 1861.  This is also claimed that this was an early flag to be the flag flown in South Carolina shortly after her secession on 20th December 1860. (More secession flags here)

The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama’s handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

“I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done,” said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. “The state would be better off handling things on its own.”

Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin.

Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority – such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada’s Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights – is driving up interest in secession, experts said.

“It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama,” said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.

BREAKING: Governor Defies Obama and Refuses to House Illegals

'Bout time at least one state has taken a step to protect its citizens from the Washington tyranny. Go Iowa!

BREAKING: Governor Defies Obama and Refuses to House Illegals

The opposition against President Obama continues to rise, as more Americans, both in politics and out, are starting to see through the border crisis, recognizing it’s a ploy to help Obama once again break the law, bypass Congress, and implement his agenda.

States at the border are experiencing heavy economic strain as local communities struggle to come up with funds and other resources to support the influx of illegals flooding into the U.S.

While many people think that the immigration crisis only impacts those states that are along the border, recent developments in states like Michigan prove otherwise.

Obama’s plan to orchestrate this invasion of illegals includes transporting these individuals all across the country to be housed in shelters established in communities both large and small. No one is exempt, and no one is safe.

Gov. Terry Branstad of Iowa has decided not to play Obama’s game, refusing to house illegals in his state.

Florida Schools Forced to Allow Satanic Church Access to its Young Students

Do religious groups have a right to push their material on innocent children in state schools? What ever happened to the ‘separation of church and state’? As liberalism and communitarian continue to sweep America, protections enjoyed by previous generations are now a thing of the past…
On the heels of their spectacular success in getting their agenda into childrens’ minds through Hollywood’s entertainment and music industries, Satanic groups have found a new way into your children’s lives by using the court system to force access to schools and distribute their satanic literature.

The Orlando Sentinel reported this week how The Satanic Temple wants to give out materials, including The Satanic Children’s Big Book of Activities, in Orange schools. What’s worse, the schools have no choice but to submit.

Ironically, it was because of a previous ruling won by the Atheist and evangelical Christian groups that the Satanic Temple has found a way into schools.

Pay close attention to the Liberal framing of the church’s mission, using popular liberal trigger words like ‘social justice’ :

The Orlando Sentinel explains:

“The Satanic Temple, a relatively new group that supports social justice causes and believes Satan is the “eternal rebel against the ultimate tyrant,” wants to give out materials such as The Satanic Children’s Big Book of Activities.”

Behind the Satanic drives to infiltrate schools – surprise, surprise… are an army of trial lawyers.
“The Freedom From Religion Foundation and its local affiliate, the Central Florida Free-thought Community, sued Orange schools last year after some of their materials were censored. The case was dismissed earlier this year when the school district agreed to allow all of the materials to be given out.”
“They have no ability to keep out the Satanists and the literature they want to distribute unless they close the forum altogether,” said FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel.”
There is something very wrong with this scene in America today. As expected, liberals and Democratic Party leaders are completely silent on this issue – which means that they approve...

Satanic Temple to distribute materials to school children in Florida

The Satanic Temple has announced that it will provide pamphlets on Satanism to students in Florida, following the school board’s decision permitting the distribution of religious materials.

Among the materials that are set to be distributed are pamphlets on the philosophy, practice of Satanism, the Satanic Temple’s tenets. Also, the sect tells school children about their legal rights to choose to practice Satanism, according to the official press release.

Earlier this month, the school system made a decision to let any religious and atheist materials be provided in schools.

The Temple said that although it does not agree with the school board’s decision to allow religious materials in schools, it will continue “to ensure that pluralism is respected whenever the Church/State division is breached.”

Temple spokesperson Lucien Greaves explains: “We think the responsible thing to do is to ensure that these students are given access to a variety of differing religious opinions, as opposed to standing idly by while one religious voice dominates the discourse and delivers propaganda to youth.”

“I am quite certain that all of the children in these Florida schools are already aware of the Christian religion and its Bible, and this might be the first exposure these children have to the actual practice of Satanism. We think many students will be very curious to see what we offer,” Greaves added.

The Satanic Temple came into the media spotlight after announcing it is going to erect a seven-foot Baphomet statue next to a Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol. It also unveiled plans to build a chapel in Detroit…

READ MORE HOLLYWOOD AT: 21st Century Wire Hollywood Files