Frosty Wooldridge -- Impossible to Vet The Minds Of 110,000 Syrian Muslims

Frosty Wooldridge -- Impossible to Vet The Minds Of 110,000 Syrian Muslims

Hillary is for more immigration....and we have citizens out of work and our crime rate is soaring......and our country financially and culturally cannot afford any more immigration......Immigration is not a right....
ABC anchor David Muir, Wednesday, September 14, 2016, reported that Barack Obama successfully imported 11,000 Syrian refugees into America this year. He expects to import a total of 110,000 in 2017 with Hillary’s election to the White House.

This fact remains: you cannot ‘vet’ the mind of a Muslim. Such a mind feeds on the terrorist handbook: the Quran. That book compels its followers to “convert or kill all non-believers.” That’s the prime directive of Islam.

Whether it’s a collective of Muslims or a lone wolf Muslim, America’s citizens face throat-slitting as they walk down the street like the American college professor Darlene, Horton, 64, who suffered her death at the hands of a Somali Muslim who slashed her throat on her last day in London. He injured five others in the attack. Date: August 4, 2016.

One look at the Muslim Alton Nolen in Moore, Oklahoma, worker at Vaughan Foods, who decapitated his colleague, Colleen Hufford, a grandmother, with a knife at work September 24, 2014—shows you any Muslim at any moment could kill you or a family member at his or her whim.

The story of the Muslim couple that shot up their fellow employees at a Christmas party in December 2015 at a Christmas party in San Bernardino proves Muslims can strike for any excuse at any time. Following the dictates of the Quran, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 and injured 21 in their shooting rampage of co-workers.

Since Muslims kill all homosexuals, they bring their death-culture into the United States as shown by Muslim Omar Mateen who executed 49 and wounded 50 at the Orlando, Florida nightclub for gays. In other words, you don’t know when or where a Muslim or group of Muslim-Americans will shoot, behead or slice your throat as you work at the office, walk down the street or dance at a nightclub.

The two Tsnarnaev brothers lived and enjoyed free educations at taxpayer expense before they set off to bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing and maiming countless Americans. The younger brother, Dzhokhar faces death by injection. “He and his family had traveled to the United States on a tourist visa and subsequently claimed asylum during their stay in 2002. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen on September 11, 2012.”

In the past month, Muslims slit the throat of an 85-year-old priest in his own church. “Two terrorists, proclaimed as “soldiers” by the extremist group ISIS, cut the throat of Father Jacques Hamel, an 85-year-old priest, after taking worshippers including two nuns hostage during mass at a church in Normandy.” (Source: The Telegraph, July 26, 2016)

What if you were there? Fort Hood killer, Chattanooga killings or the honor killings in Phoenix, no go zone in Detroit, Paris, France restaurants slaughter, Brussels, Belgium airport, Charlie Hebdo office, Times Square car bomber, airplane with shoe bomber, rapes of women in streets of Europe, and the list grows into the thousands of individual incidents perpetrated by Muslim refugees.

Unfortunately, the more Muslims we import, the more terror events. It's the nature of the religion. It's not going to change, because, as their numbers grow, so does their push for Sharia Law. There's no way to soften their prime directive: "Convert or kill all non-believers." One look at Europe shows you our future. Journalist Daniel Greenfield wrote, “When you turn on the evening news and see a running death toll, it’s happening more and more often. The new brand of Islamic terror only needs one thing… Muslims. Lone wolf terrorism operates off the existing Muslim population in a particular country. The bigger the Muslim population, the bigger the risk. The FBI or other law enforcement agencies cannot monitor even a fraction of the Islamic settler population sympathetic to terror. As the Muslim settler population in the country increases, the number of cases will grow.” (Source: Right Side News, Stop Lone Wolf Terrorism by Ending Muslim Immigration, August 2, 2016)

Therefore, why do Obama and Hillary advocate for another 110,000 Syrian Refugees to be injected into the United States by 2017—while Muslim refugees ransack, rape, riot and burn their way across Europe? Secondly, why does the American public, which you are a member, stand idly by while your elected officials in Washington DC, aide, abet and fund this massive migration of people adhering to the most violent religion on Earth?

Am I missing something? Do you have a death wish for yourself or your family or for your country? Why haven’t you organized in your own community to reject any refugees? Why haven’t you demonstrated, called your congressperson or spoken out at your city council meetings? How much more proof of Islam’s violence do you need? Are you waiting for a Paris, France or Brussels, Belgium or Boston Marathon or Orlando, Florida to hit your community? Stop them:refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com

www.NumbersUSA.org

 ; www.CapsWeb.org

 ;www.CarryingCapacityNetwork.org

 . Join them to empower yourself to stop this invasion.

Because, the fact stands: anyone of us WILL be the next victim of a Muslim immigrant attack.

That’s why we must call for a total shutdown of all immigration into America. Shut immigration down! Stop it! Cease and desist! No more immigration, whatsoever. It’s either that or you become the next victim or someone in your family. It’s only a matter of time and numbers.

It’s safe to say: Muslims follow the deadliest religion on the face of the planet. It celebrates death over life. It encourages death through terror. Wherever they migrate, chaos and mayhem dominate given enough of their numbers. There’s only one-way to stop them: stop importing them and deport all of them.

Chuck Baldwin -- What Is Wrong With Hillary?

Chuck Baldwin -- What Is Wrong With Hillary?

What in the world is wrong with Hillary Clinton? Besides her criminal activities and her warmongering, socialist, gun-grabbing politics, I mean. She collapses; has fainting spells; refuses to do press conferences; bobbles her head back and forth like a plastic, well, bobblehead; goes into weird, wide-eyed, out-of-control facial contortions; has constant coughing fits; and is escorted by physicians everywhere she goes. What gives?

After her blackout last Sunday, her campaign office said Hillary is suffering from pneumonia. The problem is that pneumonia does not come close to explaining all of the disturbing symptoms that the American people have been watching Hillary exhibit. And this is not to mention the fact that it is hard to imagine anyone in politics more unlikely to tell the truth than Hillary Clinton--except for maybe Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, John McCain, Al Gore, Lindsey Graham, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Ted Cruz--oh well, skip that point.

According to confirmed reports, here is what we know about Hillary’s health so far (this column being written before Hillary’s campaign released more of her health information on Wednesday, September 14):

* Hillary Clinton suffered her first blood clot in 1998 while she was First Lady and experienced a second incident in 2009.

* In 2012, she was given blood thinners for a venous thrombosis of her right transverse sinus, which drains blood from the brain. This occurred some two weeks after falling and suffering a concussion. (By her own admission, Hillary could not remember security briefings, etc., regarding her email leaks. She attributed this memory loss to her concussion.) Her venous thrombosis was found on a CT brain scan. Typical symptoms of a venous thrombosis of the transverse sinus include headaches, strokes, and seizures. (Several reports have noted Hilary has suffered from blinding headaches for years, which tends to explain her often wearing dark glasses.)

* She has been diagnosed with hypothyroidism.

* She broke her elbow from a fall.

* She collapsed when she left a 9/11 ceremony this past Sunday. Her office said she has pneumonia.

A diagnosis of venous thrombosis of her right transverse sinus might help explain the blackouts, severe head-bobbling, wild-eyed facial contortions, coughing spells, etc. On the other hand, if she has completely recovered from the 2012 diagnosis (about 57% of such patients do), her current symptoms stem from something else altogether.

I’ve heard some physicians speculate that Hillary might also be suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. Medications prescribed for Parkinson’s Disease could also cause some of the symptoms we are seeing with Hillary.

The BIG question is: Are Hillary’s health problems serious enough to disqualify her from being President of the United States?

And I suppose the next biggest question is: If her health problems ARE serious enough to disqualify her from holding the office of President, would anyone bother to tell the American people?

For all intents and purposes, the mainstream media has been running Hillary’s presidential campaign from Day One. They have been talking for her, apologizing for her, promoting her, downplaying her physical liabilities--even covering up those liabilities. Mainstream journalists, news anchors, reporters, etc., are more than Clinton lackeys; they function as her campaign team. So, unless Hillary’s health deteriorates to the point that it absolutely cannot be disguised any longer, the media will NEVER reveal just how sick Hillary might be.

Obviously, the DNC and Democratic leadership in Washington, D.C., will never tell the American people the truth about Clinton’s health--unless, again, it becomes impossible to hide it any longer. So, unless her condition worsens to the point that she loses motor skills, verbal skills, or cannot stand upright, Hillary Clinton will be portrayed as being in “perfect health.”

But obviously something seems VERY WRONG with Hillary Clinton. And the American people are starting to notice.

Hillary’s poll numbers have plummeted from having a double-digit lead to now actually trailing Donald Trump. And the Clinton campaign knows that whichever candidate has the most momentum going into the election will win. And right now, Trump has ALL of the momentum.

It is no hyperbole to say that the DNC is worried. And for good reason. They have a candidate that is soiled from so many scandals it would be impossible to even name them all. She is disliked--even by people who plan to vote for her. Special interest groups favorable to the Democrat Party, such as radical feminists, are also down on Hillary, rightly blaming her for facilitating her husband Bill’s flagrant and perpetual abuse of women. She is speaking to crowds so small they could fit into a phone booth--remember those?

The only people who are publicly promoting Hillary right now are Party partisans, the sycophantic mainstream media, and the deviant-oriented Hollywood and entertainment crowds. Add a coughing, head-bobbling, stumbling, fainting, wild-eyed, face-contorting cartoon character to the mix, and Democrats have a VERY GOOD REASON to be worried.

I guess the next big question, then, is: What are they going to do about it? The options seem pretty simple:

1) They continue to do what they’ve been doing and keep Hillary out of the public eye as much as possible and let the media keep campaigning for her.

The problem with that strategy is the American people now notice Hillary’s health issues. The more the campaign tries to keep Hillary isolated and insulated, the more the American people will suspect that Hillary’s health is too problematic for her to be elected, and her poll numbers will plummet even further. But if Hillary’s health is as bad as some are suggesting, it will be impossible for her to function normally in the super-stress environment of a presidential campaign.

Then there are the presidential debates looming on the horizon. The campaign will not be able to shield Hillary from those appearances. And she will have no one standing next to her if she starts to fall down--and no doctor right beside her with a syringe in his hand containing whatever drug he’s using to quickly poke into her body in order to keep her lucid.

If Hillary’s health is truly not a serious issue, she should be able to continue her campaign normally. She will speak at all the rallies, hold press conferences, deal with the flashing lights from photographers, remain steady in the face of protesters and agitators, work with little sleep, take tough questions, etc.

But if Hillary’s health truly IS a serious issue, then the campaign will be forced to continue the current plan: keep Hillary out of the public eye as much as possible (except in VERY controlled environments) or risk letting Hillary try to fake her way through her illness (whatever it really is) and hope she doesn’t come apart.

Or, the other option would be:

2) They pull the plug and replace Hillary Clinton as the Democrat Party’s candidate for President.

If they choose this option, they must do so rather quickly. A couple more weeks or so, and it will be too late. And if they do choose this option, the question becomes: Who would they pick to replace Hillary?

Conventional wisdom would say that the mantle automatically falls to Tim Kaine. After all, he is the Party’s current nominee for Vice President. But that’s taking quite a risk.

Kaine is a liberal’s liberal. He is probably further to the left than Hillary (if that’s possible). Furthermore, he is a committed globalist, a total lackey for people like George Soros. A sizeable percentage of the Bernie Sanders supporters are already determined to not vote for Hillary due to her overt cronyism with the globalist and corporate elite. And these people would recognize Kaine to be even deeper in the globalists’ pockets than Clinton. Kaine would be a fresh face to the general population, but his political appeal is only to the extreme left. Hillary’s choice of Kaine was similar to John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin. Both Clinton and McCain chose a VP to try to bolster their respective bases. But to try to sell Kaine to the general public is quite a gamble.

Then there is Joe Biden.

Many months ago, I predicted that the Democrats would dump Hillary for Biden. But, of course, my predictions don’t always materialize. However, this one might.

Don’t let Joe Biden fool you. He comes across as a kind of country bumpkin, but that is just a front. He is one of the smartest politicians in Washington. He has the charm and charisma of a Bill Clinton, the wit and humor of a Ronald Reagan, and the intelligence of a John Kennedy--ok, that might be going too far. But if you think Joe Biden would not square off formidably against Donald Trump, you are very mistaken. And from a strictly entertainment point of view, a Trump/Biden debate would be a hoot.

In my opinion, if the Democrats were smart, they would dump Hillary soon and pick Biden. As the sitting Vice President, he should easily be able to solidify the Party--including the Sanders people--and his disarming, whimsical manner would be a quick sell to a mostly distracted and shallow American public.

But make no mistake about it: should the Democrat candidate--be it Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine, or Joe Biden--be elected President, it will be little more than Barack Obama’s third term. Then again, Barack Obama’s terms were little more than G.W. Bush’s, and Bush’s terms were little more than Bill Clinton’s, and Clinton’s terms were little more than G.H.W. Bush’s--especially in matters pertaining to foreign policy. Each of these presidents was a toady for the globalist elite. Nothing more!

Right now, however, something seems mighty wrong with Hillary’s health. But the Trump campaign should be hoping that the Democrats stick with her, because I think whatever is wrong with Hillary will continue to negatively impact her campaign, and all that does is help Donald Trump win t

9/11: The Rise of the Surveillance State

9/11: The Rise of the Surveillance State

Almost immediately after 9/11, a series of events demonstrated that the power-brokers and insiders in Washington never let a tragedy go to waste. The USA Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001 — just six weeks after the attacks and while Americans were still reeling from the shock. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began as the Office of Homeland Security two weeks before the Patriot Act was signed and was made official on November 25, 2002. In the meantime, more and more surveillance cameras began appearing on street corners and government buildings. Under the newly enacted Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of everything from phone calls to texts to e-mails to Internet browsing histories to which books were checked out from the library became the standard tools of government in the “war on terror.” Anyone who spoke out against the rising surveillance state was quickly accused of not understanding the danger of terrorism or — worse — siding with the terrorists.

In the 15 years since that dreadful day, the surveillance state has risen to a level unimagined by most at the time. Just a brief look at the last two years is enough to cause any concerned patriot to be worried about where the surveillance hawks are taking America. In December of 2014, Judge Richard Posner — a Reagan appointee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals who has been called the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century by The Journal of Legal Studies — said the NSA should have free range to "vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks” adding that the only reason anyone would have for objecting is that they are "just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of [their] conduct.”

In his comments — which were made, ironically, during a panel discussion on “The Future of the Fourth Amendment” at the Georgetown University Law Center's conference, Cybercrime 2020: The Future of Online Crime and Investigations — Judge Posner went on to say, “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you're talking about national security,” because “the world is in an extremely turbulent state — very dangerous."

What is unfortunately conspicuous about Posner’s comments is that they are not conspicuous at all. Instead, they fit right in with the steady diet of surveillance propaganda being fed to the American mind by politicians, bureaucrats, and the media. That message is two-fold: mass surveillance is the best tool against terrorism, and unless you have something to hide (in other words, unless you are a terrorist) it shouldn’t bother you. Of course both of those points are demonstrably false.

First, mass surveillance is a lousy tool for fighting terrorism for several reasons. For one, terrorists use their own “home-grown” encryption tools for circumventing surveillance. For another thing, if the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other three-letter-agencies are looking for needles in haystacks, adding more hay is not a solution. By focusing their surveillance on any and all, the surveillance hawks limit their chances of actually fighting terrorism to something like lottery odds.

Second, plenty of ordinary non-terrorists have “something to hide.” In fact, everyone does. It's why we have curtains and blinds over our windows. It's why we use envelopes for our letters. We know, deep down, that our private lives should stay private. What happens when you need to do an Internet search for an embarrassing medical question? What about a private, intimate text to your spouse? What about that phone call where you argue with your spouse? We do these things in private because they are private. And they ought to stay that way.

And, just to put in the for-what-it’s-worth column, mass surveillance has not stopped major terror attacks in even recent years with the surveillance state operating overtime. In fact, think of the attacks right here in America in the past few years; the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the 2014 Garland, Texas shooting at the “Draw Muhammad” cartoon exhibit, the 2015 Chattanooga shootings at military recruiting stations, the 2015 San Bernardino shootings, the 2016 shootings at an Orlando, Florida nightclub, the ambush style murders of police officers across the country including those in Dallas, Texas and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Not to mention the hundreds of terrorist attacks in other parts of the world including France, Germany, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and almost everywhere in the Middle East. If mass surveillance is the answer, why has it failed to uncover and prevent these attacks? Even with what almost everyone now knows about the state of the surveillance state in the wake of both the revelations made by Ed Snowden three years ago and the subsequent leaks and reports since then, CIA Director John Brennan said the attacks on Paris last year were the result of too little surveillance. Too much, it appears, is never enough for the surveillance hawks. Even when it doesn’t work, they can’t admit the simple fact that it can’t work, they simply say more is needed.

What mass surveillance has managed to accomplish — at least in large part — is the erosion of the idea of privacy and liberty. Many Americans have come to accept the practices of being stripped (whether literally or digitally) or groped before being allowed to board a plane. Many have come to expect that their every web search, e-mail, phone call, text, and other communications will be logged and monitored. In fact, a report released last year by the Pew Research group revealed that fifty-five percent of the experts surveyed by the report do not believe that there will be an infrastructure of privacy rights within the next decade. Only 45 percent believe things will get better.

So, while terrorism — and the war on terrorism — continues, surveillance is becoming the norm. Police departments all over the nation are using cell-site simulators to vacuum up all mobile phone traffic within range, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The NSA and other agencies routinely capture all communications and web traffic. The federal government has ended the cease-fire in the Crypto-Wars and is seeking to circumvent or outright ban the technology which allows private communications.

The mantra in the months following 9/11 was “If we (fill in the blank), the terrorists have won!” This was used to try to convince Americans to buy new cars, build houses, take vacations, and accept the surveillance that was increasing (but was not fully understood until Snowden). The truth though, is that if we accept the surveillance state, the terrorists have won. Consider the chilling words of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden who, in an interview with Al-Jazeera in the weeks after 9/11, gloated, “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed.” He added, “The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”

On the 15th anniversary of the day America changed, Americans who still care about liberty and privacy must redouble their efforts to maintain and restore those God-given rights. Because the alternative is that the legacy of 9/11 will be bin Laden’s “unbearable hell” and “choking life” under constant surveillance.

Freedom, Liberty are on the Elimination lists of the tyrants of the New World Order. The establishment loves false information. | Paul Robbins | Pulse | LinkedIn

Freedom, Liberty are on the Elimination lists of the tyrants of the New World Order. The establishment loves false information. | Paul Robbins | Pulse | LinkedIn

By Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics
September 13, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

Some people spend their whole lives seeking positive reinforcement of their beliefs. They reject information that contradicts their beliefs. They will never learn if their beliefs are wrong.

Democrats, in general, believe our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous global warming. Only about 0.001 percent of these believers can claim any expertise in climate. They believe because it is part of their political religion.

If they are atheists, it makes no difference. Their religion is global warming. They believe it without question.

They become cocksure they are correct because they reject information that contradicts their belief and accept information that reinforces their belief.

That’s how we end up with people who are totally cocksure they are right when they are on opposite sides.

Rogers & Hammerstein illustrated this confusion in “The King and I: A Puzzlement”

There are times I almost think Nobody sure of what he absolutely know. Everybody find confusion in conclusion he concluded long ago. And it puzzle me to learn that tho' a man may be in doubt of what he know. Very quickly he will fight... He'll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!

The philosophy of science teaches us we can never prove our belief is true.

We can only prove our theory or belief is false.

Einstein said (to paraphrase), “Many experiments may show my theory is correct but it takes only one experiment to prove my theory is wrong.” Einstein was a master of the philosophy of science.

Our only path to truth is to reject false beliefs or theories. Our schools should teach all students this part of the philosophy of science but they do not.

All true scientists try to prove their theory or belief is false. Those who do not are not real scientists.

If there were no arguments to show a theory is false, then we may begin to accept that the theory may be true.

In the case of global warming, the theory is “our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change.”

There are hundreds of overwhelming arguments that prove the global warming theory is false. Therefore, it is irrational for anyone to claim the global warming theory is true. And even worse to claim “the science is settled.”

Yet the delusional promoters are out there. They do everything they can to shut down America’s production of abundant cheap energy. And they have no idea their belief is completely wrong.

But because 99.999 percent of global warming believers do not understand climate science, they never got the memo that their belief is wrong. They should apply for jobs as Energizer bunnies.

The proper mode of thinking, to reject a belief that is wrong, threatens many people. They don't want to learn the truth.

Recently, in comments on edberry.com, Democrat climate alarmist, David Appell, was unable to assimilate simple plots of temperature and model predictions that proved him wrong.

Moving to politics, some people who claim to be conservatives cannot back Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton for president. In politics, you don’t need to love the person you vote for.

It’s really quite simple: You only need to vote for the person who you believe will do a better job than the other candidates.

One person bet me $100 that Marco Rubio would win the Republican nomination, while I bet that Donald Trump would win. Now that I won the bet, this person unsubscribed from my email list and has not offered to pay me my $100.

But my point is this person would send me article after article that bashed Trump. This person would read only what gave him positive reinforcement. That’s why he was wrong.

You can find hundreds of articles and media news that bash Trump. If you get all your political information from positive reinforcements, you will never get smart.

Politics comes down to these questions:

Do you think for yourself? Or do you rely on what other people say?

If you can’t think for yourself, you will read or listen to what other people say Trump said rather than read or listen to what Trump really said for yourself.
If you think for yourself, you will watch or read Donald Trump's speeches and decide for yourself whether you want Trump or Hillary.

So my message for today is to suggest you actually watch or read Donald Trump's speeches.

If you think for yourself, you will acknowledge your only viable choices are Trump or Hillary. You will not waste time with third-parties. You will not promote irrelevant, pseudo-intellectual thinking that attempts to dissect Trump's behavior. You will focus on the question at hand.

Some people can't figure out their political orientation.

It’s now 67 days before the election. If you can’t tell people they should vote for Donald Trump to save America, then you should quit pretending to be a conservative. Really. Admit you are a Democrat.

Intelligent people don’t make things complicated. They make things simple (but not stupidly simple like Al Gore did).

Any moron can find fault with another person. So what? Negative thinking doesn’t solve a problem. It takes intelligence to decide how one candidate is better than another candidate for President and CEO of the United States.

Anyone can list his “worst” presidents of America. So what? Negative thinking doesn’t solve a problem. It takes intelligence to decide and tell people that Donald Trump will make a better president than Hillary Clinton.

I notice Romney supports Marco but won’t support Trump. Not intelligent.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts Email Address* First Name  *required field

If you want a liberal Supreme Court that will misinterpret our Constitution, then by all means criticize Trump and don’t tell people to vote for Trump. It's that simple.

The Rasmussen poll for September 1 shows Trump 40%, Clinton 39%, Johnson 7%, and Stein 3%. That leaves 11% undecided. The race will hinge on that 11%.

My forecast: The Never-Trumps will lose and Trump will win.

• Click here to go to edberry.com. Then…• Watch Donald Trump’s speech on immigration or read the text of his speech.• Check out the Trump Train song by Angel Leydig.• Watch the movie, Hillary Clinton, Please stop killing people.• Watch the movie, Donald Trump’s Long Road to the White House.• Watch how a true athlete respects other people, Usain Bolt stops his interview during the US Anthem.

The Founding Fathers Embraced a Republic: Will it Prevail?

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

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

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.