Monday, September 12, 2016

The Founding Fathers Embraced a Republic: Will it Prevail?

Because of the U.S. Constitution, Americans have had the privilege of more than two centuries of freedom. Keeping government in a limited role as envisioned by the Founding Fathers has allowed us to take entrepreneurial risks and be rewarded for our successes. Although there are still many who take their liberties for granted, true patriots understand the Constitutional roots of freedom and the proper role government should have.

When forming the document, the Founding Fathers acknowledged that our rights come from God, not the government, and that the basis of the Constitution was to protect those rights. This Republic had the goal to govern the government and not the people.

It instituted unambiguous boundaries of governmental power and just so the limits were understood; they added the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The first nine limit the government from infringing on specific individual rights, and the tenth basically says, “If we forgot anything, you can’t do that either.”

Many will argue that we live under a democracy, but the word doesn’t even appear once throughout the Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew that a democracy meant being governed by popular opinion without regard to individual rights, and that it could easily lead to a tyrannical government. The word itself comes from the Greeks and means literally “government by the people.” (Republics and Democracies Booklet) Many of the founders understood the dangers that came along with a democracy. John Adams warned Americans, “Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”

On the other side of the coin, a republic is full of checks and balances. The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica and means literally “the public affairs.” It means that the people are governed by law. It holds in check anyone who would infringe on our God-given rights, including the government. Benjamin Franklin was the one who answered whether the United States was a republic or a democracy when he said, “A republic …if you can keep it.”

As the federal government increasingly continues to ignore its Constitutional boundaries, are we going to keep our republic? Are we going to hold our government accountable to the vision of our Founding Fathers? Is the seizure of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial going to continue by the federal government or are we going to prevent this centralization of power? Learn what you can do to defend freedom, liberties and our republic with the synergy of The John Birch Society!

U.S. Lawmakers Aim to Block Obama's Internet Giveaway

With Obama illegally plotting to hand over a crucial piece of the Internet's architecture to a United Nations-style outfitbefore he leaves office — and potentially crush Internet freedom as we know it in the process — Republicans in Congress are fighting back. Among other serious concerns, lawmakers have been warning that giving up control of ICANN, which manages the assignment of website domains, could open the door to Internet censorship by the UN and its oftentimes totalitarian member governments. Other critics have warned ofpotential international taxes levied by UN agencies. But with the White House aiming to complete the surrender by September 31, a growing coalition of liberty-minded GOP lawmakers are working to derail the controversial administration effort.

The uprising against Obama's scheme is being led by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas). “Today our country faces a threat to the Internet as we know it,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor on Thursday, September 9. “In 22 short days, if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away the Internet to an international body akin to the United Nations. I rise today to discuss the significant, irreparable damage this proposed Internet giveaway could wreak not only on our nation but on free speech across the world.” Cruz recently launched a website with a count-down clock to highlight the deeply controversial plot by Obama. A Senate hearing next week will delve deeper.

Another U.S. lawmaker mounting at least a semblance of opposition is Senator John Thune (R-S.D), who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee that oversees the U.S. Commerce Department managing the ICANN surrender. In an interview with Politico, Thune sounded skeptical about the Obama plot and suggested he may work to block it. “I don't think the foundation has been appropriately laid for this,” he said. “Some members are adamantly opposed to transition, period, and a lot of them just think now is not the time, and it really just hasn't been vetted, and it's not ready yet.” Working with others, he is reportedly planning to block the surrender — at least temporarily — using the upcoming government funding bill.

Thune also expressed concerns in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Commerce Department Secretary Penny Pritzker. “As you know, many in Congress have expressed concerns that this irreversible decision could result in a less transparent and accountable Internet governance regime or provide an opportunity for an enhanced role for authoritarian nation-states in Internet governance,” reads the letter, asking the Obama officials to address those concerns. It was also signed by other relevant congressional committee chiefs: Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) of the Commerce Committee, and Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) of the House Judiciary Committee.

If lawmakers fail to restrain Obama's giveaway, outside groups may act, including by filing lawsuits against the White House's illegal plot. “In the event that Representatives prove unable to provide the requisite authority required to defend these interests, then we will explore all remaining options, including legal action brought by the people that Congress represents,” said the liberty-oriented organization TechFreedom, which has challenged the purported legal basis for Obama's latest radical decrees to handover control of key Internet components to foreign entities.

Officially, the crucial Internet architecture, currently overseen by the U.S. Commerce Department, will be surrendered to what Obama is touting as a “global multi-stakeholder community.” However, as The New American reported in 2014 after a summit convened by totalitarian-minded Latin American rulers, the misleading terminology about a “global multi-stakeholder community”appears to be an elaborate ruse to conceal the true nature of what is happening here. The implications of the scam are enormous and, if not stopped, will almost certainly pose a mortal threat to the continued existence of a free and open Internet, as well as thefree speech it has enabled worldwide.

While Obama and his increasingly discredited allies in the establishment media have pooh-poohed concerns about UN and autocrat control over ICANN, analysts have pointed out that there is a very real risk of precisely such an outcome. Indeed, as The New American has been reporting for years, the UN and its largely dictatorial member regimes have been clamoring for global Internet regulation by the UN and its members for many years. The original plan, dropped only in the face of massive global opposition, was to have the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU) take the lead.

That UN agency, of course, as this magazine has already reported, is under the control of communist Chinese agent Houlin Zhao. He claimed in media interviews that censorship is in the eye of the beholder. Offering a chilling warning of what UN Internet regulation might look like, Beijing operates an Orwellian censorship regime known as the “Great Firewall of China” — and the overt censorship is backed by brute force against dissenters, and constant propaganda from the mass-murdering communist autocracy.

When the plan to directly put the UN ITU in charge flopped, the UN, globalists, and dictators had to come up with a new plan. So, they got together in Brazil at a summit convened by the now-impeached ex-President and “former” communist terrorist Dilma Rousseff, changed the language a bit, and kept the agenda going. However, despite some superficial changes, the agenda remains the same — remove control over crucial Internet functions from the United States, where the First Amendment protects the God-given right to free speech, and transfer those to foreign entities not so constrained.

Indeed, writing in the Wall Street Journal, L. Gordon Crovitz recently explained how the UN ITU could still end up directly in charge. “It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption,” he wrote. “The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an 'instrumentality' of government.”

Once it is no longer under the control of U.S. authorities, the trap springs shut. “Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption,” Crovitz continued. “Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a 'government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.'”

Diane Kepus -- Danger: Gulan Charter Schools and the Fethullah Gulan Movement, Part 5

Over 27 Florida History and Social Studies textbooks being used at the time of the study showed over 200 false or misleading statements. In one 7th grade History book there were 34 pages regarding Islam and Sharia and NOTHING in regard to Christianity.

Anita Hoge -- HillaryCare and Her Scheme To Dissolve the Second Amendment Through Mental Health

Anita Hoge -- HillaryCare and Her Scheme To Dissolve the Second Amendment Through Mental Health

Hillary's agenda has always been control – control the kids and control guns... through mental health. If Hillary would get her way, mental health at school under the soothing banner of social, emotional, and behavioral standards, will fully implement her original plan from 1993, which will eliminate the 2nd Amendment by coding children with mental health disabilities.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Exposed: FBI Director James Comey's Clinton Foundation Connection

Root out the enemies of the US...this election is a war against the enemies of Freedom | Paul Robbins | Pulse | LinkedIn

Head of DHS and Islamic Society of North America – 'Nox & Friends

Head of DHS and Islamic Society of North America

By Uriel | September 11, 2016 | 2016 Election, Asshat Alert, Barack Hussein Obama, COMMUNISM, CONGRESS:, CONSTITUTION:, Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), Dept of Justice (DOJ), DOMESTIC ISSUES:, GANGSTER GOVERNMENT:, Hillary Clinton, Islam in America, Lefty Insanity, LEFTY MEDIA:, MIDDLE EAST:, NATIONAL SECURITY:, TERRORISM:

The Clarion Project
By Meira Svirsky
September 5, 2016

US Homeland Security Chief At Brotherhood-Linked Conference

Jeh Johnson spoke at the annual Islamic Society of America event telling participants, ‘Your story is the quintessential American story.’

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson spoke at the annual Islamic Society of America (ISNA) conference over the weekend, in what the Washington Post called an “impassioned speech” to empower ISNA’s participants.

ISNA is a group with Muslim Brotherhood origins and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. In fact, the Holy Land Foundation was based within the ISNA building. ISNA also deposited checks into its account that were made out to the “Palestinian Mujahadeen [jihadi fighters],” the name used at the time for Hamas’s military wing. The funding was transferred to the Holy Land Foundation.

The ISNA conference that Johnson spoke at included extremist speakers, as it has done in previous years. This year’s speakers included Jamal Badawi, a founder of another Brotherhood entity, the Muslim American Society. Badawi has praised the terrorist organization Hamas, preached in support of “combative jihad” and was personally listed in a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood directory.

Another conference speaker was Nihad Awad, found and executive director of the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR), another U.S. Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land terror financing case.

Johnson told conference participants, “Your story is the quintessential American story,” and was described by the Post as the “highest-ranking U.S. official to address an ISNA conference.”

However, the Post’s description of Johnson is misleading as President Obama himself addressed the 2013 ISNA conventionin which he praised the group for its partnership with his administration. That convention also featured a roster of speakers including many extremists.

One of Obama’s senior advisers, Valerie Jarrett, also spoke at ISNA’s 2009 convention.

The Obama administration’s close relationship with ISNA is about more than photo ops and press releases. It is about policy formulation. The input of ISNA to the administration is so treasured that government officials coached the organization on how to engage the White House.

Instead of working with anti-Islamist Muslims, the Obama administration continues to embrace Muslim Brotherhood legacy group. (Let’s not forget Loretta Lynch’s address at Muslim Advocates Dinner December 2015.)

Interestingly, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, only 4% of Muslim-American males and 7% of females chose ISNA as the organization that most represents their interests. Other Islamist groups like CAIR garnered similar small affiliations in the poll.

A generous interpretation of the Obama administration’s’ outreach to Islamist groups is that the administration feels that, since they represent mainstream Muslim thought, then it’s better to have them on our side rather than against us.

This thinking is flawed on two accounts: First, because the numbers do not support this thesis as shown by the above-cited Gallup Poll, and two, because the raison d’etre of Islamists is the implementation of Islam on a political level – i.e. sharia governance.

Islamists will only work “with” Western governments to use democratic principles to implement their political goals. There is no ultimate “with us” when it comes to Islamism, as sharia is antithetical to democratic principles (free speech, freedom of religion, etc.)

The way to integrate the Muslim community in America and counter radicalization is to discredit the Islamist ideology, not promote and empower it by giving it a platform and sending high-ranking government officials to legitimize it.

For a complete look at the Islamic Society of America (ISNA), see Clarion Project’s profile on the organization by clickingHERE.