US Constitution Series 11: Liberty of the People vs. Government Force

US Constitution Series 11:

The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has Become Tyrannical

key“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” ~Thomas Jefferson

It is important to note that our Constitutional republic does not need to be changed. Congress has 2 duties assigned to accomplish the restraint or removal of a tyrant: 1) impeachment 2) Using the power of the purse to withhold funding from tyrannical actions.

When Congress fails in its duties, the tenth amendment still gives power to the states and the people. We do not have a majority of Constitutionalists in Congress, and the majority of the voters lack the wisdom and understanding needed to fix this from Washington. Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation. ~C.A. Davidson

The Founders’ Basic Principles: 28 Great Ideas that changed the world

The practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge to easily expose ignorance, anarchy and tyranny, and hold the government accountable.

5000leapFrom The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

The Founders were well acquainted with the vexations resulting from an abusive, autocratic government which had imposed injuries on the American colonists for thirteen years in violation of the English constitution. Thomas Jefferson’s word in the Declaration of Independence therefore emphasized the feelings of the American people when he wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.


John Locke

Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they [the government officials] forfeit the power the people had put into their hands …and it devolves to the people, who have a reight to resume their original liberty, and provide for their own safety and security. (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 75-76, emphasis added.)

Power Rests in the Majority

However, it is important to recognize that the “government” was established by the Majority of the people, and only a majority of the people can authorize an appeal to alter or abolish a particular establishment of government. (Skousen, 149)

No Right of Revolt in a Minority

When the Founders altered the British government, they got the consensus of the majority of the American people. The abuses of Americans were perpetrated by a minority—the British monarchy. Comparing this history to today, we have abuses heaped upon us again by a minority—Obama and his army of unelected bureaucrats. ~C.D.

. . .it [is] impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it …

johnlockeBut if either these illegal acts have extended to the MAJORITY of the people, or if the mischief and oppression has light [struck] only on some few, but in such cases as the precedent and consequences seem to THREATEN ALL, and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them, their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too, HOW THEY WILL BE HINDERED FROM RESISTING ILLEGAL FORCE USED AGAINST THEM, I cannot tell. (John Locke, Ibid., p. 73 208-9; emphasis added.)

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people …And that, when any government shall be MAJORITY of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. (Annals of America, 2:432; emphasis added.)

So, granted that the people are sovereign and the majority of them can take over whenever necessary to restructure the political machinery and restore liberty, what is likely to be the best form of government which will preserve liberty? The answer to this question was a favorite theme of the American nation-builders.


Principle 12: The United States of America Shall be a Republic

US Constitution Series 10: God and People vs. Government Control



US Constitution Series 10: God and People vs. Government Control

US Constitution Series 10: The God-given Right to Government is Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People

keyThere was no place for the idea of a divine right of kings in the thinking of the American Founders. They subscribed to the concept that rulers are servants of the people and all sovereign authority to appoint or remove a ruler rests with the people.

The Founders’ Basic Principles: 28 Great Ideas that changed the world

The practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge to easily expose ignorance, anarchy and tyranny, and hold the government accountable.

From The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

The God-given Right to Govern is Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People

There was no place for the idea of a divine right of kings in the thinking of the American Founders. They subscribed to the concept that rulers are servants of the people and all sovereign authority to appoint or remove a ruler rests with the people.


King Charles II beheaded Algernon Sidney in 1683 for saying that there is no divine right of kings to rule over the people. That same year, John Locke fled from England to Holland, where he could say the same thing Sidney did, but from a safer distance. (Skousen, 141,142)

View of the American Founders

signers3There was no place for the idea of a divine right of kings in the thinking of the American Founders. They subscribed to the concept that rulers are servants of the people and all sovereign authority to appoint or remove a ruler rests with the people. They pointed out how this had been so with the Anglo-Saxons from the beginning.

Dr. Lovell describes how the tribal council, consisting of the entire body of freemen, would meet each month to discuss their problems and seek a solution through consensus. The chief or king (taken from the Anglo-Saxon world cyning—chief of the kinsmen) was only one among equals:

The chief owed his office to the tribal assembly, which selected and could also depose him. His authority was limited at every turn, and though he no doubt commanded respect, his opinion carried no more weight in the debates of the assembly than that of any freeman. (Lovell, English Constitutional and Legal History, 5)

Alexander Hamilton

It is a maxim that in every government, there must exist, somewhere, a supreme, sovereign, absolute, and uncontrollable power; but this power resides always in the BODY OF THE PEOPLE; and it never was, or can be, delegated to one man, or a few; the great Creator has never given to men a right to vest others with authority over them, unlimited either in duration or degree. (Albert Long, Your American Yardstick, 167)

madisontyrannydefineJames Madison

The ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE. (Federalist Papers, No. 46, p. 294, emphasis added)


But even if it is acknowledged that the PEOPLE are divinely endowed with the sovereign power to govern, what happens if elected or appointed officials usurp the authority of the people to impose a dictatorship or some form of abusive government on them? (Skousen, 144-145)



Principle 11: The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has Become Tyrannical

US Constitution Series 9: Divine Law vs. Big Government

Book Report: Real History vs. Government Control of World News

Truth Matters, not Fake News

Book Report: Real History vs. Government Control of World News

This book reveals a history of massive deception disseminated by leaders in the Soviet Empire, as they controlled news outlets during the Cold War. Many lies parroted in the mainstream news media are straight from the socialist disinformation strategy which is not only flourishing in the world today, but steadily increasing in power. ~C.D.

keyI give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations—Doctrine and Covenants 52:14



Former spy chief reveals secret strategies for undermining freedom, attacking religion, and promoting terrorism

By Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa

And Professor Ronald J. Rychlak

Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa served as acting chief of communist Romania’s espionage service and top adviser to President Nicolae Ceausescu. In July 1978, he was granted political asylum by the United States, where he continues to live as a proud American citizen. His first book, Red Horizons, brought down Romania’s communist dictator and was subsequently republished in 27 countries. His later book, Programmed to Kill, was judged a “must read for everyone interested in the assassination of President Kennedy.” Having survived several communist assassination attempts and still vigorous in his 80s, Gen. Pacepa remains an astute and uniquely insightful writer on current affairs.


In Disinformation, You’ll Discover:

  • How destroying the reputation of good leaders has been developed into a high art and science.
  • How Pope Pius XII—a generation ago the world’s most high-profile Christian leader, who personally saved countless Jews from Hitler’s Holocaust—was transformed, through the magic of disinformation, into a Nazi sympathizer.
  • How Christianity and Judaism have been targeted for constant denigration and defamation through an ongoing campaign of disinformation.

  • How the Soviet bloc planted 4,000 agents of influence in the Islamic world, armed with hundreds of thousands of copies of the most infamous anti-Semitic book in history, to fan the flames of ancient Arab resentments against the U.S. and Israel and sow the seeds of anti-Semitism that would later bloom in the form of violence and terror toward Jews and Christians.

  • How the defamatory attacks on American soldiers John Kerry made before Congress upon his return from Vietnam—charges later discredited and repudiated—were identical to a contemporaneous KGB disinformation campaign concocted to turn Americans against their own leaders.
  • wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-150x150How supposedly respectable institutions like the World Council of Churches have long been infiltrated and controlled by Russian intelligence.
  • How much of the world came to believe that the U.S. government itself masterminded the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
  • How the Soviet Union has been transformed into the first intelligence dictatorship in history.
  • How disinformation is still very much alive today, remaining a powerful engine in the ongoing socialist transformation of America.


The book, Disinformation available at

Praise of Disinformation

Disinformation is a history of a still-hidden part of the Cold War—the part hidden as deeply as the KGB’s moles in Western intelligence services—which has to be studied to truly understand how communism sought to subvert everything in its path. Like Whittaker Chambers’ Witness, any study of the Cold War without Disinformation would be profoundly incomplete.” ~Je Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense and author of In the Words of Our Enemies, and Inside the Asylum: How the U.N. and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think

“Challenging false histories and subtle slanders, Pacepa and Rychlak take us on a journey through the Empire of Disinformation. Here we learn the theory and practice of the Big Lie deployed against Christianity—against popes and bishops. We learn how the Kremlin, even after the collapse of Communism, continues its war against the West; we learn how dezinformatsiya is used to inspire a deep hatred of the Jews in order to mobilize Islam as a battering ram against Israel and America—to the benefit of Russia. If you want to understand the forces at work behind the decline of Christianity and the rise of militant Islam, you must read this book.” ~Jeffrey Nyquist, author Origins of the Fourth World War, columnist, and radio talk show host on WIBG (Ocean City, NJ)

“As a Jew growing up in New York, I hated even hearing Pope Pius XII’s name. but after seven years of investigating and 46,000 pages of pertinent documents collected, I came to the startling discovery that Pius XII was revered and praised as a hero by all Jews during, and just after, the war. If you want to know how 1 billion people were tricked into hating him, read this book by Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa and Professor Ron Rychlak about the Kremlin’s still-secret dezinformatsiya. That immense machinery accomplished the worst character assassination of the twentieth century, and caused great strain between Jews and Catholics. But let me warn you: this book is scary! When you read it, you will discover how you were maneuvered like a chess piece to achieve a specific goal. You will also learn that the dezinformatsiya enterprise is still dividing the Judeo-Christian world with deadly international consequences.” ~Gary Krupp, chairman of Pave the Way Foundation, dedicated to reconciling relations among the world’s religions

“Written by two foremost experts, this book is an eye-opening, demystifying work of political and historical archeology, a passionate and captivating endeavor to highlight the communist techniques of cynical deception, vicious plots, and perversely skillful concoction of propaganda legends masquerading as historical evidence. The authors display impressive erudition and unique insights into the deep secrets of the Soviet and post-Soviet disinformation machine. As a former highest-level intelligence officer within the Soviet Bloc who broke with the system for moral reasons and courageously exposed its terrorist underpinnings, Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa is a formidable witness to and a respected analyst of the communist intrigues, schemes, and manipulations.” ~Vladimir Tismaneanu, author of Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism, director of the university of Maryland’s Center for the Study of Post-Communist Societies, and president of Romania’s Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes



Clear History: World News on Liberal Method to gain Government Control

Clear History: World News on Liberal Method to gain Government Control

Newspaper Clipping from Oct 13, 1975.

Here is an old C.G. newspaper clipping a mother saved in her Bible. She had been a school teacher and believed prophecy, so she always kept up on issues, long before most ever thought of them here.


YouTube Video: Government Control, Health Insurance Plans, Disaster for Americans

Warnings against Government Control of Health Insurance Plans (Socialized Medicine)


Ronald Reagan’s urgent warning


The Terrifying Reality of Socialized Medicine

Amir George

Amir George’s family is from the Assyrian Tiari Tribe from northern Iraq. He is the author of Liberating Iraq: The Story of the Assyrian Christians.

As one who grew up under socialized medicine overseas, I can identify one extremely important part of Obamacare almost all current discussions have missed.


ObamaDictatorshortThe real reason for government-run medicine has nothing to do with medicine, but with control.

When the government controls your health, it controls your life.

State-run healthcare stops literally all opposition to government and produces an obedient, non-dissenting populace, because all realize that at any time that same government can literally kill them by withholding treatment—and worse.

Political dissent is stifled as normal discussion of issues tone down, because everyone begins to realize that at a certain point, one’s very life is in danger.


Two examples make clear the degree to which government can interfere in the life and death of citizens once it is in charge of their healthcare.


Racially Motivated Termination of Births


obama-deathpanels-naziShigeru Kayano, an Ainu, one of the indigenous peoples of Japan, was puzzled that the Ainu women seemed to always have trouble giving birth and had an extremely high level of stillbirths.

When he became a member of Parliament, one of the first things he did was o demand records of the Ainu and their medical situation.

He was shocked to discover an unofficial program under which doctors were instructed to terminate the births of the full-blooded Ainu in order to reduce their numbers.

One of his first acts as a member of Parliament was to have the law rescinded.


Politically Motivated Limited treatment of Elderly


obama-deathpanelsOne day I received a call from the family of a dear friend.

Mr. Yamamoto was 75, in great health and had just returned from a trip overseas.

“Mr. Yamamoto is dying,” was the message. “He has asked to see you.”

Shocked, I immediately rushed to the hospital and was shocked to discover that my friend had malaria.

While malaria was once a much-dreaded disease, these days it is simply treated.

Relived, I told Mr. Yamamoto that he was going to be fine; all we had to do was get malaria medicine.

Talking to the doctor to inquire about the treatment, I was stunned when he told me: “We don’t have malaria medicine.”

“Where do they have it?” I inquired.

“Downtown at the University Hospital,” he replied coldly. “There isn’t enough time,” he glared.

Not quite understanding what was happening, I realized that minutes away was a U.S. military installation.

Calling there, I found that they of course had malaria medicine and could bring it over in a few minutes.

Relieved that my friend was going to be OK, I informed the doctor that we had found the urgently needed medicine.

I was not ready for the response.

“What do you think you are doing?”

The doctor immediately called the family together. “Who do you want to trust—this guy or me?” he inquired.

The poor family, no matter how I tried to explain, felt they had no choice but to trust the doctor.

My dear friend died.


death-panelsIn the discussions on Obamacare, it is critical to understand how the exact same government-run medical systems operate in other countries.

They all share one very basic principle: Because they are run by the government to contain costs, the elderly and terminally ill simply have to have their treatment limited.

What people do not realize until the practical effects of government medical care are upon them is that, for the first time in their lives, they literally become fearful of their government because they suddenly realize that it controls their very lives.

When normal political discussions on issues begin to take place, one begins to realize that if you speak up beyond a certain level, the government can “punish” you by interfering in your treatment.

Just like the Ainu were prevented from having children, and Mr. Yamamoto was denied simple lifesaving medicine for malaria, political discussion is immediately stifled as citizens begin to realize they cannot stand p to the government that controls their health—and by extension, their lives.

This is the true reason for government healthcare.

It is not for health coverage; it is to create obedient, subservient citizens who live in fear of a government that can take their lives at will.

Government Control vs. Internet Services, American Liberty

Net Neutrality Is Obamacare All Over Again


keyoldTherefore my people are gone into acaptivity, because they have no bknowledge. ~ Isaiah 5:13


Rush Limbaugh

RUSHI’ve never felt more surrounded by ignorance than I am.  I don’t mean here.  I’m talking about opinion leaders and CEOs, tech leaders, industry leaders.  I have never seen such ignorance in my life. I don’t know how to deal with it.  This net neutrality features almost as much ignorance as there was going into Obamacare, and to me there’s no excuse for the ignorance anymore. 

MediaLowInfoWe’ve got seven years, six and a half years now — let’s count the year of the campaign, make it seven years.  Seven years, there is no excuse for not knowing who the man is leading the country.  There’s no excuse for not getting it.  There is no excuse for not being able to open your eyes and see what’s right in front of your face.  And yet with every issue, with every issue that comes up, it’s like nobody’s learned anything.  Or even worse, if they have learned it, they don’t care.

“From all indications, the FCC contemplates that the new rules will be sufficiently burdensome and costly — and sufficiently ambiguous — that affected parties will be invited to seek exemptions from the new mandates through ‘waiver’ requests or other administrative mechanisms.”

So they’re gonna knowingly implement a bunch of arduous, complicated, punishing regulations, and then they’re gonna invite injured parties to come up and ask for exemptions or waivers.  Knowingly this is going to happen.  To the uninitiated who may be shouting, “Why, why?”  Because this is how you get control.  This is how, if you’re Obama and the government, you simply take control of the Internet and make it yours.  And then you implement all of these burdensome regulations. 

freedomofspeechBut, for most favored supporters you can get an exemption, but your competitors may not.  How badly do you want to support the Regime?  How badly and how loyally will you support the Democrat Party?  “Oh, forever.  Whatever you need.”  Fine.  You’ve got your waiver.  But your competitor doesn’t.  We’ll help you put your competitor out of business in exchange for your loyalty to the Democrat Party.  And that’s how it’s gonna go.

Add to that the company then may not be favored by the Regime, in which case it will not get exemptions from some of these punitive regulations.  Therefore, why would anybody invest in a company like that?  Now, multiply that times however many hundreds or thousands of companies that do business on the Internet.  Wait ’til the day comes where you are forced to get a license for your website based on the content of your website.


Five Unelected FCC Bureaucrats to Control our Internet Freedom

And they refuse to obey the law and disclose what’s in this decree.

Barack Obama power grab triggers 1st Amendment nightmare

ObamaDOCtatorIt’s perhaps the biggest power grab of Barack Obama’s time in office.

And even big-name analysts such as Judge Napolitano are fretting, “People don’t know the danger that is coming” …


Greg Corombos

Fox News Channel senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate the Internet constitute a major infringement upon freedom of speech, but he believes the new plan will get struck down in court for lack of transparency.

The five members of the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, are scheduled to vote Thursday on a plan to advance Obama’s net neutrality agenda, which also allegedly calls for the Internet to be treated like a utility. Despite the major changes the plan could well involve, lawmakers and the media have been rather quiet about it.

“People don’t know the danger that is coming,” Napolitano told WND. “The danger that is coming is a gaggle of bureaucrats here – three Democrats and two Republicans, the Republicans will probably dissent – claiming they have the power to regulate the Internet.”

He said Congress has passed no statute authorizing new government controls on the Internet, and the First Amendment clearly states that neither Congress nor any government agency it created can make a law restricting the freedom of speech.

Napolitano admits the stated goal of net neutrality sounds innocuous when first presented, but he said the problem Obama and his allies really have is with the free market.

“They claim that the purpose of their regulation is to prevent the Internet from affording priority and faster service to certain preferred users,” he explained. “Would we all like to have fast service? Yes. Do we all know how to get fast service? Yes, we do. Might that cost us something? Yes, it might, but at the present time it is free from government regulation.”

However, the judge said the public goal of establishing Internet fairness will come at a very heavy price.

competition-erase“If the government regulates the Internet and tells providers how fast they can move information, we will soon see the government regulating the cost of the Internet. We will eventually, just like with broadcast television, see the government regulating the content of the Internet,” said Napolitano, who described the chain reaction he believes the FCC proposal would trigger.

“Right now, the Internet is the freest marketplace of ideas and transfers of information that the world has ever known,” he said. “At least in the United States, it is utterly and totally – there are some minor exceptions – unregulated. Once these federal bureaucrats get their hands on it, give them a couple of years. It’ll look like broadcast television, a watered-down version of what we now have.”

“Think about it,” he said. “You’re a commissioner on the FCC. You’re regulating telecoms and broadcast TV. Wouldn’t you like to regulate cable while you’re at it? Wouldn’t you like to regulate the Internet while you’re at it? It’s human nature when you have power to want to expand the power. That’s why we have a Constitution, to prevent these expansions of power.”

One of the greatest frustrations for those concerned about the FCC plan eroding speech rights is that the commissioners will not, and say they cannot, reveal any details of the package until after the vote on Thursday. Napolitano said that tactic is actually a double-edged sword. He said the downside of the secrecy is obvious.

“It’s bad because the government has an obligation under federal law, when any of its administrative agencies plan on changing their rules and expanding their power or modifying substantially the manner in which they regulate, to publish those rules for 30 days,” Napolitano said.

And because the FCC is not following the law, it gives opponents fertile ground for an appeal.

Action Update: Don’t let Barack Obama control Internet Services!

Public being misled about “Net Neutrality”

It’s just another government power grab to stifle our liberty.

Congress Votes Thursday February 26

Please,  sign the petition to keep the Internet free.

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH:  I think, since you’ve asked, that there’s nothing wrong with the Internet that needs federal intervention.

CALLER:  I agree.

obama-internet-control-lieRUSH:  I don’t think there’s anything wrong that requires federal fixing, and I don’t think that net neutrality is net neutrality.  All they want to do is, under Title Two, regulate the Internet the way they regulate the phone companies.

CALLER:  Absolutely.  They’re trying to use a 1930s FCC law. They did it with Ma Bell, and no technology ever came out until we broke up Ma Bell. Both sides are wrong.  Now, the only thing I’ve seen that’s of any value is an article in Forbes Magazine last year. They updated it just recently. February 19th was the last day to put in your opinion.  I’ve put in mine.  But everything is secret.  Everything is secret until the new rules come out.

RUSH:  Here’s the thing.  I don’t want to make this simplistic.  I’m going to be accused of being simplistic. But who is it that wants to fix this?  Who is it that wants to “reform” this?  Who is it that’s running around saying it’s broken?  Who is it that’s running around saying it’s broken so he can get his fingerprints on it?  Who is doing this?  Barack Hussein O.  The One.  That’s all you need to know.  As far as I’m concerned, that’s all anybody needs to know.

Leave it alone.  Obama does not intend to improve it, not in the way you and I would think the Internet needs to be improved.  Obama wants to control it for a host of different reasons, not excluding money.  The control over the Internet will result in less access for more people.  It will result in more expensive access for more people.  If you don’t believe this, let me take you back to the ’90s. 

Each and every time there was a new bill that came out of Congress that was going to really fix the cable TV system — because they were ripping people off; they were overcharging everybody — Senator McCain, sitting on the commerce committee, would come out with legislation after legislation designed to lower cable rates and spread it more around equally.  And what happened?  Everybody’s rates went up.  The federal government has no business in this. The Internet is the essence of openness now.

People want everything to be FREE …

“Just because somebody has more money, it doesn’t mean they should get better speeds and better coverage!”  But, of course it does.  If you want to spend the money on 200-gigabytes down fiber coming into your house to have those kinds of speeds, you should be able to do it.  Under net neutrality, you won’t be able to.  Net neutrality, the people that are in favor of it, believe that Obama is going to punish all of these Internet service providers that are overcharging young millennials.  They also believe…

I’ll tell you something else. If you love Netflix… I happen to know a lot of the young millennial liberals love Netflix.  If you get net neutrality, you’re going to lose this open access to Netflix that you’ve got that you think is going to expand.  There’s a thing… I don’t know quite how to use the terminology here.  But some of these Internet service providers have been accused of throttling speeds and coverage based on the prices people are paying.

freedomofspeechThe more people pay, the less throttling and the more open and access the speed is. If you buy a Ferrari you get a Ferrari.  If you buy a Prius you get a Prius.  A Prius is not a Ferrari.  Net neutrality wants to turn the Ferrari into the Prius on the Internet, is basically what it does, under the guise of fairness and equality. And more importantly, as far as these young millennials are concerned, they think Obama is really going to get even with all these cable providers that these young liberal millennials hate.

That’s not what’s going to be the case.

The problem is, there’s nothing wrong with it now.  It’s as open and free as anything in this country is, and that’s the “problem.” That’s why they want their mitts on it.  It’s as open and free… How many things on the Internet can you access for nothing?  It’s incredible. If you look at an app that you buy for your smart phone or your iPad, it’s nothing. I can’t believe when I see people on these tech blogs I read complaining:  “Don’t buy this app! It’s way over priced at $1.99.”

So $1.99 is overpriced is because so many are free? Only $1.99 is overpriced?  It’s a testament to the relativity of things and how people end up being shaped not by reality but by perceptions.  The Internet is as wide open as anything is, and that’s why Obama wants his hands on it.  It’s a threat, the openness and the freedom that exists there.  They also are trying to sell net neutrality on the basis of content.

But they don’t want to pay the price for FREEDOM …

obama-internet-censor“Yeah, well, we’re not going to allow all these conservative sites to have free access to people.  We’re going to make sure the liberal sites get just as much access and have just as much access to high-speed delivery and all that!” It’s not going to happen.  That’s what they’re using and telling people that they’ll make happen.  That’s what the “neutrality” part means. Look it, all you need to know is Obama wants it; you should oppose it.  It’s that simple.  

RUSH:  If you like your Internet provider, if you do, you ought to be able to keep it.  You won’t be under net neutrality.  Try music streaming.  You have no idea how that’s going to be screwed up if they implement net neutrality.  Yup, streaming music to your device is going to become an absolute mess.  There’s no need for it.  And it’s not neutral.  And it’s not fair and it isn’t equal and it’s not going to punish anybody but the user.

Please,  sign the petition to keep the Internet free.


Terror, Gun Control, and Political Correctness

Absurd: Disarming Cops Worked Great in France, Didn’t It?

keyYou will remember that we won our freedom because we were armed. We were not a simple peasantry unused to weapons. The men who wrote our Constitution knew our people would be safe as long as they were armed.

You cannot submit to evil without allowing evil to grow. Each time the good are defeated, or each time they yield, they only cause the forces of evil to grow stronger. ~Louis L’Amour

BREAKING NEWS: Hostage incidents in Paris end with terrorists being killed

PARIS (January 9, 2015) – French police stormed a printing plant north of Paris on Friday, freeing a hostage and killing two brothers linked to al-Qaida who were suspected of slaying 12 people at a Paris newspaper two days ago.

Two groups of terrorists had seized hostages at separate locations around the French capital Friday, facing off against thousands of French security forces as the city shut down a famed Jewish neighborhood and scrambled to protect residents and tourists from further attacks.

By Friday afternoon, explosions and gunshots rang out and white smoke rose outside a printing plant in Dammartin-en-Goele, northeast of Paris, where brothers Cherif Kouachi, 32, and Said Kouachi, 34, had holed up with a hostage.

Security forces had surrounded the building for most of the day. After the explosions, a police SWAT forces could be seen on the roof of the building and one police helicopter landed near it. Audrey Taupenas, spokeswoman for the town near the Charles de Gaulle airport, said the brothers had died in the clash.

Rush Limbaugh

CALLER:  Good.  I think you’re a little bit confused about gun control. And the reason why I say that, you mentioned before that the police officer that was shot as he was laying on the sidewalk didn’t have a gun.  So with gun control that means, you know, the criminal or terrorist shouldn’t have a gun, either. So I’d like you to try to state your point on that.

Bike-Cops-ParisRUSH:  I wasn’t making a point.  I was simply reciting a fact.  The French cops — and I don’t know if it’s all of France or just Paris, but they’re not armed.  They carry billy clubs and that’s it.  It was about political correctness.  The leftist, the PC belief is that armed anybody threatens people, and if you disarm then you won’t threaten people and they won’t use their guns against you.  That’s how it works.  That’s why we’re getting rid of our nukes. We’re getting rid of our nuclear weapons to show Putin and everybody else that we’re not gonna nuke ’em.  And so the hope is they will get rid of theirs, too.  Do you think they will?

CALLER:  Yeah, well, I want to make one other point, Rush, if I can.  I know you’re pressed for time, but really quick. I mean, I know in Chicago they have some of the strongest gun control laws in the country.

RUSH:  Right.

CALLER:  And we know that there’s not a lot of crime going on there.

RUSH:  Yeah. (laughing) Okay.  We got a gun control guy here.  And look at what happened.  How many of you were surprised, by the way, when you heard that the French cops don’t have guns.  You were surprised?  Literally, you had no idea?  Well, Tom didn’t, either.  Can’t believe that.  But maybe that’s what gun control does, take the cops’ guns away from ’em, and the bad guys won’t shoot anyone.  That’s what the left will have you believe.

Why would you take guns out of the hands of cops?  Why would you do it?  To understand why, you have to understand liberalism.  You have to understand political correctness.  You have to understand the convoluted thought process that leads you to believe disarming the cops improves security.  Only if the cops are the bad guys in your eyes does that makes sense.

RUSH:  You know, I’m looking at my e-mail during the break here, and I’m being told by a lot of people they had no idea that French cops were unarmed.  Okay.  Well, let me add to that… (chuckles) By the way, just to fall deeper into the insanity here, Bloomberg News said that the terror attack in Paris shows the need for even stricter gun-control laws.  So the cops on the scene yesterday didn’t have any guns. No weapons.  Meanwhile, the terrorists had rocket launchers, grenades, RPGs. They had Kalashnikovs.

They were weaponized.

They were militarized.

This was an attack, obviously the result of serious military training and rehearsal.  I’m looking at the e-mail, and it’s stunning how many people are shocked that the Paris police didn’t have any guns.  Well, let me add to it, then: The two cops who were shot, do you know how they arrived on the scene?  They rode their bicycles.  That’s right.  They came pedaling up.  After hearing about this attack, and the cops are dispatched, the two who were shot showed up on bicycles.

In the midst of all this — I’m not kidding you — Bloomberg News says the terror attacks in Paris shows the need for stricter gun control.  Yeah, we got the guns out of the hands of the cops, but somehow the criminals still have them.  The left cannot… I mean, how many times have I told you this story? I’m at a fashionable, Fifth Avenue New York dinner party at the home of a moderate Republican. Big name. You’d know it.  I apologize for never mentioning these names, but it’s out of respect for these people.

More about the hazards of Political Correctness


Sharia Law vs. Liberty

Defining Sharia Law vs. Freedom of Religion—

Month-Defining Moment

“Islam is protected under the First Amendment definitions of free speech and free religion,” she noted. “‘Shariah-ism’ is a totalitarian political movement that is not protected under the First Amendment.”

Obama’s remarks on Paris shooting ‘Shariah-compliant’

key“I don’t condemn Shariah law. If you want to pray five times a day because it’s Shariah law, you are practicing your religion. If you want me to pray five times a day, you are not practicing your religion. You have crossed the line and now what you are doing is unconstitutional, because your trying to impose the totalitarian edicts of your political movement on me. ‘Shariah-ism’ uses Shariah law to justify the complete control of others.”

“‘Shariah-ism’ is all about absolute power, absolute rule and absolute control, and it’s not just a European problem – it’s growing here in the United States as well.” ~Joy Brighton, Sharia Law expert

President submitting to Islamic moral code, says expert

muslimobamaUNITED NATIONS – By refusing to associated the Paris terrorist attacks with Islam, President Obama is engaging in “Shariah compliant” speech, charges Joy Brighton, author of the 2014 book “Sharia-ism is Here: The Battle to Control Women; and Everyone Else.”

“President Obama defends free speech vehemently, and the press lauds him for this; however, he refuses to use the words “Islam,” “radical Islam,” “Muslim,” “jihad” or “Shariah” when condemning the Shariah-driven shootings in Paris,” she said.
Shariah is Islamic law, the moral code of Islam that encompasses all realms of life, from the personal to the criminal, economic and political.

In addition to Obama’s comments Wednesday in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shooting, Brighton referenced his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York Sept. 25, 2012, in which he said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Not wanting to limit his remarks to Islam, Obama also addressed critics of Christianity and Judaism, saying, “But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Again, Brighton objected.

“Barack Obama is complying with Shariah law in suggesting that criticism of Islam could be a criminal hate-speech offense,” she said. “In his statement to the United Nations, Obama does not defend free speech, has given in to Shariah law, and doing so as president is unconstitutional, because with this statement Obama abandons the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.”

She pointed out that totalitarian movements historically have advanced by restricting free speech.

“Communism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of communism the same as Nazism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of Nazism,” she pointed out. “Shariah-ism, what I call the global political movement of radical Islam, will also succeed by shutting down criticism and political debate.”

Critical to Brighton’s thinking is the distinction between Shariah law and “Shariah-ism,” the term she has coined to define radical Islam as a totalitarian political movement.

“I don’t condemn Shariah law,” she distinguished. “If you want to pray five times a day because it’s Shariah law, you are practicing your religion. If you want me to pray five times a day, you are not practicing your religion. You have crossed the line and now what you are doing is unconstitutional, because your trying to impose the totalitarian edicts of your political movement on me. ‘Shariah-ism’ uses Shariah law to justify the complete control of others.”

She advanced this theme to distinguish between Islam and “Shariah-ism.”

“Islam is protected under the First Amendment definitions of free speech and free religion,” she noted. “‘Shariah-ism’ is a totalitarian political movement that is not protected under the First Amendment.”

Brighton extended her reasoning to argue that repeated efforts since 1999 by the United Nations to pass a resolution against religious defamation is really an effort to grandfather into international law blasphemy definitions derived from Islamic law in places like Pakistan.

WND reported Wednesday that not only did Obama refrain from associating Islam with the Paris terrorist attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Rebdo, so too did United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Al Hussein and UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova.

Brighton responded by underscoring the importance of the First Amendment protection of robust political speech.

“Political satire and political debate are the most valuable form of free speech, and it has to be protected at all costs,” she said. “Civilized people use words and cartoons to urge social change. Uncivilized people shoot people in the streets.”

She applied the point to how careful Obama and the various United Nations officials were to respect the conventions of political correctness in their comments on the Paris shootings.

“Under the First Amendment, we have to be able to use our words freely, and when we have public officials like the president and the United Nations not using their words freely, but hedging to avoid describing the violence as radical Islamic terrorism, then we can see the extent to which ‘Shariah-ism’ has already developed strong roots in American society and the international community,” she said.

MuslimWarriorShe agreed that protected free speech attacking religion can be offensive to believers, but she maintained that avoiding totalitarianism demands a First Amendment definition of protected free speech that many will find distasteful.

“Yes, many object that the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo were offensive and distasteful, but those cartoons inspired people to look at things socially and politically without bringing harm to anyone,” she said. “Which would you rather have, offensive language or 12 dead cartoonists, including the editor-in-chief, in a room?”

She said the “line for defending free speech is that the most offensive and disgusting free speech is the free speech that must be protected, because crossing that line means picking up rocks and stones and throwing things at each other.”

“There we have the difference between the civilized and the uncivilized,” she said. “That’s the constitutional line that must be protected.”

She also objected to defining speech critical of religion as hate speech.

“Hate speech has to be narrowly defined to something that is imminent and possible in that moment, like saying, ‘Let’s all pick up guns and shoot everybody in this room,’ when you know guns are available and the people you are addressing are capable of shooting everyone,” she said. “That’s hate speech. What we are dealing with is political speech, whose point is to produce social or political change. That is speech that has to be protected, even if many people find it offensive or distasteful.”

She stressed that as regrettable as many may find the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo, the radical Islamic terrorist attack is a criminal act that in no way can be justified to support Islam as a legitimate religion.

“The terrorist attack in Paris is a tragedy and a sobering reminder that ‘Shariah-ist’ ideology tolerates no dissent, no debate, no questioning, no challenge,” she warned.

“‘Shariah-ism’ is all about absolute power, absolute rule and absolute control, and it’s not just a European problem – it’s growing here in the United States as well,” she stressed.

“Our state and local governments and public institutions need to get educated about this threat so they can take action to stop its growth. Western European countries allowed the threat of ‘Shariah-ism’ to spread until now tragically, it may be too late there. Let’s hope it’s not too late here.”

Brighton is a longtime champion of women’s rights. Notably, in 1998, she partnered with Save the Children to create one of the earliest micro-finance programs for women in Africa and the first financial literacy course for women in Mozambique.



Obama and Muslim Control vs. Liberty

Cheney: Obama ‘has actually done things that have supported the Muslim Brotherhood.’

keyMuslim Brotherhood was the beginning of all the Islamist groups that we’re dealing with now, like Hamas and ISIS and Hezbollah.

Obama’s policy threatened liberty in Egypt; the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the White House

Rush Limbaugh

treasonaidabetenemy“According to Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, Cheney said Obama ‘has actually done things that have supported the Muslim Brotherhood.'”  He did.  That’s not conjectureIt’s not theory.  He did!  The Arab Spring. We got rid of Mubarak in Egypt. We empowered the Muslim Brotherhood.  What were we told?  They’re the peaceful Islamists.  The Brotherhood is the moderates. The Brotherhood we can deal with. The Brotherhood, yeah.  We put them in there and we send CNN’s Nic Robertson over to Egypt to ask citizens, “Are you happy with what President Obama is doing?”  Citizen, “Obama schmama.”

But Cheney’s exactly right.  We’ve done things to actually support the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood ruined Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood is Hamas. They are Hezbollah. They are very close to ISIS.  They’re all related, and this Arab Spring is all about the new caliphate.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s right in there.  Cheney went and told the Republicans, “Hey, it’s President Obama who has done things that have helped them accomplish this.” 

Cheney went on to name the Muslim Brotherhood as the beginning of all the Islamist groups that we’re dealing with now, like Hamas and ISIS and Hezbollah.  “In Fleming’s account, Cheney said that by ‘facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood … our policies have been exactly opposite to where they should be.’ … Fleming’s description of the meeting was echoed by Rep. Peter King of New York, who said that while Cheney didn’t criticize ‘the Rand Paul types’ in the GOP,” the isolationists, “but he called for ‘comprehensive’ action that is even more aggressive than what Obama has in mind.”

Dick Cheney’s right.  This is serious.  The American people expect to win whenever we engage in battle, conflict. There is this real undercurrent of concern that Obama is not focused on winning and said he didn’t think we could wipe ’em out, which leads people to question: Does he want to wipe ’em out?  It’s only a natural thing for some people to ask.

Obama did facilitate the Muslim Brotherhood.  They were the “moderates.” They were “the good guys.”  Obama went over, made the speech in Cairo and everything was gonna be cool. Remember that?  We were gonna have a new relationship with the militant Islamists.  We were gonna find a way to forge a relationship with moderate Muslims, and they were gonna join us in a massive effort to “minimalize” the radicals and so forth.

The exact opposite has happened.