Tag Archives: Constitution

How did the “Progressives” Empower Themselves at our Expense for Over 140 Years?

By Jerry Todd,  staff writer

A three-legged stool can always stand without wobbling – a solid foundation for good or evil. Addressing the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments.

The Articles (7) and their clauses, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) are original to the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers. The 11th and 12th Amendments serve to States’ protection. The 13th freed the slaves.

The 14th Amendment – This was the first of three Amendments that created the “progressive” three legged stool. The 14th was a mandatory ratification, a required condition before states were allowed reunification after the Civil War. Congress deliberately established federal supremacy. The 14th, 16th and 17th all go together creating a supreme federal “stool” (pun intended), departing from Inspired Design and destroying the sovereignty of the States with 3 words….”No State shall…”

The 13th and 15th freed the black slave and gave him the right to vote. The 14th made slaves of us all.

Our Creator endowed us with unalienable rights – man is not the grantor. The Constitution was designed as a Limiting Document. It was changed by the 14th. What was; The People Free > The States > The Federal goes upside down; The Federal > The States > The People Dependent.

The 16th Amendment through the privately owned Federal Reserve System gives the Federal Government the MONEY to usurp power from the states and the people. This 2nd leg creates money against new debt at arbitrary rates. Money created against debt is “TRIBUTE” paid by each and every man, woman, child and enterprise. It is the protein of federal growth and our meal of ‘bribery through compliance or the heartburn we suffer through behavior modification and social engineering.’ What they take with one hand, they give back only after we comply with their mandates, participate in their programs, or support by agreeing to their policies. It forces societal change without benefit of Constitutional Congressional oversight.
The 17th Amendment gives the Federal Government a Senate free of obligation to the States. Today’s Senators, no matter how great, are not obligated to serve the needs of the State that elected them. Once having served to lobby for the needs of the State Legislature, the 17th created a federal guarantee of political party ‘block and tackle.’ What was once a check and balance has become the dysfunction of D.C. Today’s Democrat-controlled Senate has over 140 job and economy bills submitted by the Republican House that Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to put on the docket for debate, compromise and passage. This is the real reason Congress is held in such low esteem – wrongly blaming the House.
These 3 Amendments usurp the entirety of the Constitution. New House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy is in a position to save our Country – a very important power – THE POWER OF ONE… few ever realize we all have it, or sadly when they do, they do not use it with integrity. Truth will win, but after how much suffering?

Will the D.C. Circuit Court uphold ObamaCare by ignoring the Constitution?

by Doug Book,  editor

On May 8th, oral arguments will take place in the D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals concerning the unconstitutional manner in which the Affordable Care Act was assembled and placed before congress for passage.

According to the Origination Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

In 2009, the House passed a bill concerning proposed tax credits for members of the military who were first time home buyers. The Senate took that Bill, removed ALL of the content and substituted the nearly 3000 pages of the Affordable Care Act. According to Senate Democrat leaders, this was perfectly constitutional as the Affordable Care Act became an amendment to the original bill! Nonsense, of course, thoroughly improper and unconstitutional. But the left was not about to miss something they had waited years for–an opportunity to place the activities and choices of 300 million Americans under the life and death control of the federal government.

However, case law goes directly against the obviously fraudulent shenanigans of the Senate by establishing that in order to be considered a “genuine amendment,” it must be “…germane to the subject matter of the House bill.” Clearly the Affordable Care Act had nothing to do with the subject matter of the House bill.

Does the Affordable Care Act qualify as a “bill for raising revenue?” The Supreme Court certainly believes it does. In fact, according to its June 28th, 2012 ruling in the National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, not only did the Court find ObamaCare’s individual mandate to be a tax rather than a penalty as claimed by congress, the entire law passed the Court only because it WAS declared a tax. The government’s argument that the ACA was constitutional under the Commerce Clause was thrown out by the Court.

In the last 5 years, the Affordable Care Act was manufactured in a thoroughly unconstitutional way and passed muster before the Supreme Court only thanks to some of the most disgracefully, activist rewriting of a law in decades. Will the D.C. Circuit Court actually make its ruling according to case law and the clear language of the Constitution?

Don’t get your hopes up.





For Islamists to force Sharia on us they must first kill our freedom of speech

by Kevin “Coach” Collins

Recently all fourteen Democrat Florida State Senators voted to allow the introduction of Sharia Law into the Florida court system. Fortunately they are nowhere near a majority (they lost 24 to 14) and the measure died at the hands of true Americans. The proposed law (SB386) was titled Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases.

A report on this vote, which included a brief outline of what living under Sharia law means, drew some comments that indicate a serious lack of understanding of the dangers of Sharia law. Several expressed skepticism that “this is what the Democrats actually voted for” and others attacked anyone who believed the brief list of horrors as quote,  “ring wing morons.”

These comments set the stage for this first in a series of CiR special reports on Sharia Law: Sharia and freedom of speech.

The political arm of Islam in America is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR, whose very name betrays the fact that Muslims don’t think of themselves as Americans, has a long history of whining to their allies in the Democrat Party (Muslims vote overwhelmingly Democrat) asking them to silence those who make even the mildest critical comments about the so-called “Religion of Peace.”

Recently CAIR demanded Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma apologize for saying that Barack Obama favors Islamists over Judeo-Christian Americans.

This is a strong statement but it is exactly the type of protected speech our Founding Fathers had in mind when they enshrined Freedom of Speech into the Bill of Rights. The examples of these attempted and successful infringements of the Freedom of Speech go on. Another that serves this purpose is the fact that Islamists used American police to arrest American citizens peacefully demonstrating outside an Islamist gathering in Dearborn Michigan.

This steady pressure on our rights is part of what Islamists do whenever they gain enough strength in a given area. Minneapolis is now well on its way to being a Sharia run city. Islamist cab drivers are refusing passengers they believe are carrying alcohol or are bringing a dog with them – even a Seeing Eye Dog.  They have gotten away with turning down rooftop ads for Cleveland’s Gay games as well.

A look across the Atlantic at the sad condition of England gives us an idea of the ultimate goal of the Islamists in stage one of their destruction of America.

A patriotic English politician was recently arrested for quoting Winston Churchill on the slovenly habits of Muslims and how they breed destruction of society wherever they “rule or live.”  The arrest came after a single Muslim complained to a cowardly British government which is already too far gone to be helped.

For a look at what American patriots will be demanding in the near future unless we wake up and fight back, consider this first demand from patriotic Brits: “Introduce a US style First Amendment guaranteeing free speech.” 

Those who say Islam and its Sharia law are not a threat to America are either self-delusional fools or lying supporters of Sharia themselves. Either way they must be pushed aside as we fight for our liberties.       





http://thestoryoflibertyblog.com/2012/06/28/shock-video-shows-muslims-allegedly-stoning-christian-protesters-inmichigan/ http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=2827800&page=1.





Was John Roberts’ ObamaCare ruling a curse or a blessing for Republicans?

by Doug Book,  editor

Though Coach is Right published this piece in early January, the subject matter may be even more pertinent today as countless doctors refuse to treat ObamaCare patients, hospitals deny them admittance and the negative impact of the law has moved from talking point to reality.

When Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s Marxist bloc in ruling the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate constitutional, stunned conservatives immediately accused him of committing an “act of judicial cowardice.”  “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” wrote the supremely hypocritical Roberts as he shattered one of the first rules of judicial restraint by rewriting sections of ObamaCare from the bench. Although he refused to “protect” the people, it seems he was more than willing to protect DC lawmakers from the consequences of passing unconstitutional legislation.

But did Roberts manufacture his creative penalty-is-really-a-tax revision of ObamaCare for the purpose of bailing out the lawmakers who wrote the Act? Or was it actually his intention to help destroy them! American Thinker contributor Bill Dunne believes Justice Roberts used his ObamaCare ruling to set a “diabolical trap” designed to imperil Democrats even as it “saved the Republican Party from going into a death spiral…”

It is Dunne’s contention that Justice Roberts’ decision spawned a “Great Awakening” of the American people by making it clear that “…ObamaCare [was] a civics lesson from hell, with vast implications for America’s future.” Had the Chief Justice sided with court “conservatives,” the disastrous effects of the Affordable Care Act would have disappeared with the law itself. The largest tax increase in American history would not be taking place. Millions would still have healthcare insurance which has since been cancelled by the ACA; premiums would not have doubled–or worse–thanks in part to unwanted coverages; family doctors would still be available to longtime patients; a non-functioning, $600 million website would not threaten to transform average citizens into “skofflaws.” Moreover, identity theft would not run rampant and some semblance of a right to medical privacy might still exist for the American public.

Perhaps the most important consequence of Roberts’ ruling is that millions of Americans finally understand that “…[ObamaCare] has less to do with insuring the uninsured than with one political party’s lunge for unprecedented power and control over people’s lives.” The utter contempt for individual rights which is the hallmark of DC Democrats has at last been clearly revealed to any interested American. And the fact that healthcare may no longer be affordable or available interests one Hell of a lot of Americans.

Did John Roberts assume the role of visionary in finding the ObamaCare mandate constitutional? In spite of the happy faces assumed by party loons such as Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Senate Democrats like Mark Udall (Co) and Mary Landrieu (La) are facing Election Day 2014 with the dread of THEIR vote being advertised as the one which passed ObamaCare into law.

Was John Roberts a gutless traitor to the American nation and people? Was he blackmailed into finding the Act constitutional? Was he hoping to become an important part of history? Or did his presumed prescience help to save the Republican Party from an historic collapse?

Whatever Justice Roberts motivation, it certainly IS the Court’s job to “protect the people” when the passage of unconstitutional legislation threatens to result in an historic abuse of political power.


Gun store owner pays price for betrayal of pro-gun public

by Doug Book,  editor

When Oak Tree Gun Club owner James Mitchell decided to be the first U.S. seller of the Armatix iP1 smart gun, he opened the flood gates to such widespread animosity from gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters that it would threaten the continued existence of his store.

In October of 2013, the National Shooting Sports Foundation polled 1200 Americans on smart guns and smart gun technology. Seventy four percent said the guns were not reliable, 81% said they would NOT buy a smart gun and 70% said the government should not mandate use of the technology. 

But the story of Mitchell’s enthusiastic support for the iP1, a pistol which features “smart gun technology,”–that is, a gun designed to fire only for its officially recognized owner–had already gone viral. Mitchell had long before leased office space in his store to Armatix; he had built a special display area for the .22 caliber, LR product and dedicated a portion of his pistol range to the exclusive demonstration and test-firing of the pistol.

In February, the Washington Post reported smart gun technology to at last be available to gun buyers. “Electronic chips inside the gun communicate with a watch that can be purchased with the gun, making it impossible to fire without the watch. Gun control advocates, who believe smart guns could reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings, marked the moment as a milestone.”

The Post also reported that, according to the “extremely pro-gun Mitchell,” the iP1 could “…revolutionize the gun industry.”

But unfortunately, in addition to revolutionizing the gun industry, the anti-gun left was equally determined to revolutionize the rules of gun ownership.

For on February 20th, Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey introduced a bill entitled the Handgun Trigger Safety Act (S-2068). According to the Act, smart gun technology must be included on ALL handguns within 2 years of the law’s passage. And within 3 years, “…all pre-smart” handguns will become illegal to sell … until they are retrofitted with the technology.” It is already existing statute in New Jersey that within 3 years of the very first smart gun sale anywhere in the nation, “…only those handguns with the new “feature” will be legal to buy in the state (except by “Only Ones” [police] and other government hired muscle).”

How much will smart gun retrofitting cost America’s gun owners? Not a thing as Sen. Markey’s bill also mandates all existing handguns be made into smart guns FREE OF CHARGE by the nation’s gun manufacturers. Rather a clever way to bankrupt every company which makes pistols in the United States, isn’t it!

So not only will the nation’s anti-gun politicians have a field day dismantling both the 2nd Amendment and the country’s gun makers, it will all be accomplished in the name of a firearm manufacturer, Armatix, which proudly guarantees their product will determine “…with 90 percent accuracy, whether a gun was being held by a person wearing a watch meant to pair with the firearm.”

Huh? Does that mean one shot in every 10 round magazine might be fired by someone not meant to be able to use the weapon? Or is Armatix saying that the gun might misfire 10% of the time?

Either way, the Examiner reports Oak Tree owner Mitchell “…is facing a furious backlash from customers and gun rights advocates who fear the new technology will encroach on their Second Amendment rights if it becomes mandated.” And make no mistake–James Mitchell was DEPENDING upon the state and/or federal governments to mandate the purchase of smart guns in order that he might cash in. For even in California, who in their right mind would pay the Armatix asking price of $1,399 dollars for the pistol, plus another $399 for the companion watch when the manufacturer guarantees their pistol to function properly only 90% of the time?

In 2010, my Glock 23–a  .40 caliber pistol which fires EVERY time–was $525.

“These people are anti-gunners,” said a customer on the Oak Tree Facebook page. “If you care about the ability to exercise your [Second Amendment] rights, I would suggest that you do not continue to frequent this place,” added another.

So distressed is James Mitchell by the nationwide animosity resulting from his having gone “all in” with Armatix that he is RUNNING, not walking back the story of his relationship with the company.  In fact, the Oak Tree owner now effectively claims to have never even HEARD of the smart gun manufacturer! What leased space, what exclusive right to sell the gun, what remodeling of his store and pistol range? According to Mr. Mitchell, “our facility does NOT carry the Armatix pistol, never has, and the comment (that Oak Tree was) ‘the only outlet in the country selling the [Armatix] iP1′ was taken out of context in an interview conducted by the Washington Post.” This from the gun store whose address Armatix  “… lists on its importation FFL as its premises.”

Like so many before him,  self described, “pro-gun conservative” James Mitchell found discretion to be the better part of valor and cancelled plans to make a bundle by embracing the smart gun agenda of the gun-grabbing left.

No one should wish that bad things happen to a businessman for wanting to make a profit. In Mr. Mitchell’s case one might make an exception.








http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-announces-new-legislation-efforts-to-combat-gun-violence     Feb 14. 2014