The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There is but
one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
To
subscribe, see note below
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From
Our Founders
"This was the
object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or
new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had
never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the
subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify
ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at
originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and
previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and
to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the
occasion." --Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, 1825
"Very many and very meritorious were the worthy patriots
who assisted in bringing back our government to its republican tack. To
preserve it in that, will require unremitting vigilance." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William
Berry, 1822"[W]e ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds, from being too strongly, and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems, before they are capable of appreciating their own." --George Washington, letter to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 1795
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Miller, 1808
~~~~~~
Liberty -- Endowed
by Whom? By Mark
Alexander
The
Eternal Bequest:
"God
who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when
we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot
sleep forever."
--Thomas Jefferson (1774)
Amid
all the contemporary political and cultural contests, too many conservatives
fail to make the case for overarching eternal truths -- whether in debate with
adversaries across the aisles of Congress, or with neighbors across Main
Street. Lost in the din is the foundational endowment of Essential Liberty, and
any debate that does not begin with this eternal truth will end with temporary
deceits. The most oft-cited words from our Declaration of Independence are
these: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The
eternal assertion that Liberty for all people is "endowed by their
Creator" and is thus "unalienable" should require no defense,
because "we hold these truths to be self-evident," and because the
rights of man are irrevocable from the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God." But
the root of all debate between Liberty and tyranny -- or, in political
parlance, between Right and left -- is the contest to assert who endows Liberty
-- God or man.
The
left's humanist position has been made plainly evident by Barack Hussein Obama,
who has a history of deliberately and repeatedly omitting the words
"endowed by their Creator" when citing in open constituent forums the
Declaration's reference to "Rights." What, exactly, is the
inspiration for such overt and explicit omissions by the titular head of the
Democratic Party? Contemporary
Leftist protagonists seek to replace Rule of Law with the rule of men. This
is because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is
"endowed by our Creator," while the latter asserts that government is
the giver of Liberty.
The
history of man, since its first record, has repeatedly and tragically
documented that when the people settle for the assertion that government is the
source of their rights, tyranny is the inevitable result. And tyrants always
attempt to undermine Liberty by driving a wedge between it and its foundational
endowment by our Creator. For generations, American liberals
have driven that wedge by asserting that our Constitution provides a
"wall of separation" between church and state. But does it?
The
short answer is "yes," but it is most certainly not the faux wall
constructed by judicial activists, who have grossly adulterated the plain
language of our First Amendment especially during the last 50 years.
Contrary
to what many liberals would have us believe, the words "wall of separation
between church and state" do not appear in our Constitution -- nor is this notion even implied.
Thomas Jefferson penned those words in an obscure 1802 letter to the Danbury
Baptist Association in response to concerns about Connecticut's establishment of
Congregationalism as their state church. Jefferson assuaged their concerns, telling
the Baptists that the First Amendment prohibited the national government from
establishing a "national church," but he concluded rightly that the
Constitution prohibited the national government from interfering with the
matters of state governments -- a "wall of separation," if you will,
between federal and state governments. The "wall of
separation" argument is thus a phony one. Indeed, it is a blueprint for
tyranny.
~~~~~~~~
63% View Too-Powerful Government As Bigger Threat Than
Weaker One
More
Americans than ever (63%) think a government that is too powerful is a bigger
danger in the world today than one that is not powerful enough. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone
survey finds that just 21% disagree and think a government that is not powerful
enough is a bigger danger. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.
~~~~~~
66% Know Someone Out of Work and Looking For Employment
The
bad news is that two-out-of-three Americans still know someone who is out of
work and looking for a job. The
good news is that the percentage of these Americans is at its lowest level in
several years. A new Rasmussen Reports
national telephone survey finds that 66% of American Adults know someone who is
out of work and looking for a job. That's down three points from 69% last
month. Two years ago, 75% knew someone in this situation. So, tell
me what priority this administration has that will make a dent in these
numbers? Do they seem too big to be
true? Of course because the way the
government reports unemployment is a scam!!
~~~~~~
American Atheists Show They Need God to Survive
T.S.
Elliott, wrote, “The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a
man can logically analyze his reasons for believing, but how far in
practice he will stake his life on his belief.”
True
enough, but we can apply this same truth to atheism:
“The
greatest proof of atheism for others is not how far a man can logically analyze
his reasons for disbelieving in God, but how far in practice he will stake his
life on his atheism.”
How
consistently will an atheist stand up for his atheist beliefs without borrowing
from the Christian worldview? Consider the dedication of the atheist monument
in Starke, Florida, on June 29th.
The
atheists representing the monument reject any notion of a transcendent God as
Creator and lawgiver. So how can they critique biblical morality and then
account for atheist morality in a world that is nothing but atoms? There is no
inherent moral category given atheist presuppositions. To be consistent,
atheists should not be concerned with morality since a list of moral “dos” and
“don’ts” have not been found in the fossil record, discovered in meteorite
samples, moon rocks, or culled from the stuff of this planet.
~~~~~~
Egypt's Morsi behind murder of U.S. ambassador? by Aaron Klein
Intel
fingers Muslim Brotherhood in deadly Benghazi attack
Was
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood involved in the
deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya? Circumstantial
evidence possibly links the attack to Morsi’s campaign to free the so-called
blind sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is serving a life sentence in the U.S. for
conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Rahman’s release has
been one of the Morsi’s main foreign policy issues.
Last
week, several major Arabic newspapers ran with a story, first reported by the
Kuwaiti paper Al Rai, quoting a Libyan intelligence report on the Benghazi
attack that mentions an alleged connection to Morsi and other prominent
Egyptian figures.
The report, prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, director of national security
for Libya, is based on purported confessions of some of the jihadists arrested at
the scene. The report states that “among the more prominent figures whose names
were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed
Morsi; preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the
satellite station Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheik Muhammad Hassan; former presidential
candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Ismail.”
‘Dr. Morsi sent us’ While the credibility of the confessions solicited in
Libya, probably under duress, can easily be called into question, there is
other information pointing to Morsi’s possible involvement in the Benghazi
attack. YouTube videos of the attack find some of the jihadists speaking an
Egyptian dialect of Arabic, as previously reported by FrongPageMag. One
of the videos shows a jihadist carrying out the attack while stating in an
Egyptian dialect, “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us.” There
were also unconfirmed reports Egypt would not allow the U.S. to interrogate
suspects in the attack.
Originally,
the Obama administration claimed there were popular protests outside the U.S.
Benghazi mission over an obscure anti-Muhammad film. It would later be determined no
such demonstrations took place; instead the attacks were a coordinated jihadist
assault.
The
White House sought at first to connect the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack to
protests that same day in Cairo, Egypt, in which rioters climbed the walls of
the U.S. Embassy and tore down the American flag. The Cairo protests were
widely reported as acts of defiance against the anti-Muhammad movie. However,
the protests were announced days in advance as part of a movement to free
Rahman.
In
July 2012, Rahman’s son, Abdallah Abdel Rahman, threatened to organize a
protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and detain the employees inside. On the
day of the Sept. 11, 2012, protests in Cairo, CNN’s Nic Robertson interviewed
the son of Rahman, who described the protest as being about freeing his father.
No Muhammad film was mentioned. A big banner calling for Rahman’s release can
be seen as Robertson walked to the embassy protests.
Targeting ‘Christian overseers’
The
release of Rahman has been a key issue for Morsi. One week before the attack in
Benghazi, Morsi once again called for the U.S. to free Rahman. A jihadist group
seeking the release of the blind sheik and calling itself the Omar Abdul Rahman
Brigades reportedly was previously responsible for a June 6, 2012, bomb attack
on the U.S. facility in Benghazi. The bomb exploded at the perimeter to the
facility, wounding one. There is information murdered U.S. ambassador Chris
Stevens or another U.S. employee was the target of the attack. The SITE
monitoring group documented the Rahman Brigades said they were “targeting a
group of ‘Christian overseers’ who were preparing to receive one of the ‘heads
of instigation’ from the State Department.” The group was calling for Rahman’s
release as well as vengeance for the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, one of the
most senior al-Qaida operatives. Al-Libi, of Libyan descent, was killed by a
U.S. drone in Pakistan in June 2012. CNN
previously cited a report that the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades was also
responsible for a rocket attack against the convoy of the British ambassador in
Benghazi on June 11 and an attack against the Red Cross in Misrata on June 12,
2012.
Further,
the deadly January 2013 assault on an Algerian natural-gas plant was reportedly
carried out as part of an attempt to trade hostages for the release of Rahman.
Thirty-eight people were killed in a three-day siege that ended the hostage
crisis.
WND
previously reported on the ties of the Algerian assault crisis to the attack in
Benghazi. The ties run through al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. CNN
quoted sources disclosing several Yemeni men belonging to AQAP took part in the
Benghazi attack. CNN further quoted one source revealing
counter-terrorism officials learned the identity of the three men and later
traced them to northern Mali, where they are believed to have connected with
the jihad organization led by Moktar Belmoktar. Belmoktar, an Algerian, is a
senior leader of the Islamic Maghreb. He claimed responsibility for the Algeria
gas facility attack. Another intelligence source told CNN that Belmoktar had
received a call in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack from someone in or
close to the city. The person on the other end of the call stated, “Mabruk, Mabruk!”
meaning “congratulations” in Arabic, according to the source. With additional research by Joshua
Klein.
~~~~~~
Does The CIA Director Have Barack Obama’s Records That
Prove He Is Ineligible To Be President?
by Leon Puissegur
We
know that John Brennan got the head job of the Central Intelligence Agency.
However, as we stated in a previous article, by obtaining the records of Barack
Obama he may well show that Obama is not eligible to be President. We have to go back to 2008 and a break-in
that very few people even knew about. It was a structured break-in to obtain
records that may well show Obama is not a United States Citizen. However, this
break-in was not seen nor heard of. It was kept silent to all, including the
Obama campaign. Let us look at what Mr. Douglas Hagmann says about this.
“Since
2008, the accepted and unchallenged motive for the breach was that the
perpetrators were looking at the passport and biological data on all three
presidential candidates in some sort of ‘exploratory’ mission,” Hagmann writes.
“They were summarily fired from their jobs and disappeared into the night
before they could be interviewed by investigators working on the case. What
took place following this admitted breach, however, has an extremely sinister
overtone.”
Hagmann
continues, “Recall that at the time of the passport office break-in, Barack
Hussein Obama was on the campaign trail as the presumptive Democratic
presidential nominee. The news of the breach was made public within a week of
the last intrusion, and a week later, on March 21, 2008, Obama was asked for
his reaction by ABC News Jake Tapper while campaigning. Obviously, Obama
now officially knows that the public has been informed about the level of the
breach, and that Obama’s personal and confidential biographical information, in
addition to his international travel was apparently ‘accessed.’” It is
important to note that the files accessed included Obama’s personal passport
and not limited to his diplomatic passport.
Hagmann then adds:
On
April 8, 2008, Obama continued to comment on the fact that the confidentiality
of his passport records were apparently compromised. It was on this occasion
when Obama admitted, for the first time in any public venue as a
presidential candidate, that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981.
One wonders whether Obama would have disclosed his Pakistan trip at this time
had it not been for the uncertainty that the information was already “in
play.” Even ABC News appeared surprised
at this sudden and unexpected revelation, considering all of the talk about
Pakistan and U.S. foreign policy during the previous several months. Research
shows that Obama did not disclose this trip at any time during any policy
discussions or debates prior to the passport office breach. It is also
important to point out that during the investigation of the breach of the
passport office records, the Washington Times reported that “officials
do not know whether information was improperly copied, altered or removed from the database during the
intrusions” [Emphasis added]. As time progressed, however, so did the
leaks. It was reported that at least one employee within the U.S. State
Department shared passport information with a man identified as Lieutenant
Quarles Harris Jr.
My investigation suggests
that Harris was the intended recipient of stolen credit card information from
the State Department employee, but received more than what he bargained for.
When he realized the scope of the crime and the explosive nature of the
information he possessed, he turned to investigators for protection. He also
began to talk with investigators and ultimately, made a deal with federal
prosecutors. Before he could make good on
his deal, Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. was found shot to death in his car on
April 17, 2008, just over a month after the last breach. He was found in front
of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in the northeast section of
Washington. He had been shot in the head. The murder of Harris remains
unsolved, and the official narrative of that murder is that Harris was either a
victim of random violence, or his murder was a result of a “street deal gone
bad.”
It
is important to note the two employees of Stanley, Inc., along with a third
individual employed by another defense contractor identified as The Analysis
Corporation, were identified as the perpetrators who breached the records of the
U.S. passport office on three occasions in 2008 and “improperly accessed” the
passport records of Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The
breaches occurred on January 9, February 21 and March 14, 2008. It is important to note that the CEO of the Analysis
Corporation at the time of the passport office break-in was John O. Brennan,
who served as a close advisor to Obama in 2008 on matters of intelligence and
foreign policy. He was also Obama’s counterrorism chief and the
first assassination czar. Brennan also contributed to Obama’s 2008 presidential
campaign and also had a 25-year career in the CIA. Does this look like an inside job
to keep Obama’s records closed or blackmail? Could it be both? It is very
strange that the man that found nearly all the information that Obama does not
wish to be seen suddenly gets shot! Is Obama behind this killing? Could it be that
maybe he directed that murder, or was it some one that was working with Obama?
So many questions and so very few answers.
~~~~~~~
The Massive Costs of the Latest Obamacare Waiver
Costs?
Like liberals care anything about costs. Policymakers
are still recovering from yesterday’s shocking admission by the Administration
that it can’t implement Obamacare’s employer mandate without destroying jobs. The announced one-year delay in enforcement
brings with it an immediate revenue loss. But by further encouraging firms to
drop coverage now—allowing businesses to privatize gains and socialize losses—the change could cause federal spending
on Obamacare exchange subsidies to soar. The Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) estimated in May that the employer mandate would raise $10 billion
in revenue in its first year. (Because the employer mandate is a tax penalty,
firms will pay the penalties the following year—penalties for 2014 will be paid
in 2015; penalties for 2015 will be paid in 2016, etc.) That $10 billion in employer mandate revenue projected for
fiscal year 2015 will almost certainly disappear. Then there’s the
separate question of whether, when, and how employers will drop their health
insurance plans and dump their workers on the exchanges.
~~~~~~
† † † † † † † † † † †
