History Facts: World War 1 Heroes, American Exceptionalism in History honored by United States Congress

History Facts:

World War 1 Heroes, American Exceptionalism in History honored by United States Congress

Embracing the American’s Creed

By Paul S. Gardiner

It’s a safe bet that most Americans do not know that year 2018 was the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the American’s Creed by the United States Congress (House of Representatives).  In April of 1918, the Congress accepted the words composed in 1917 by William Tyler Page during World War I as the official American’s Creed.

Referring to the Creed, Page said: “It is the summary of the fundamental principles of the American political faith as set forth in its greatest documents, its worthiest traditions, and its greatest leaders.”  His wording of the Creed includes passages and phrases from the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Daniel Webster’s reply to Robert Y. Hayne in the Senate in 1830.  The Creed reads as follows:

I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies.

If today’s politicians, at all levels of government but especially members of the United States Congress, strongly embraced and let the American’s Creed guide their daily actions and decisions, this would certainly be in the best interest of America.  Such a lifestyle should help overcome, hopefully in a major way, the terribly bitter and divisive political environment that presently exists in America.  Americans of all backgrounds and situations need to unite under the banner of the American’s Creed!

Paul S. Gardiner is an avid lover of America living in Hoschton, Ga.  He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Alabama, and Army War College.

Advertisements

US Constitution Series 15: Free Market and Business Economy

US Constitution Series 15: Free market Business Economy

 

keyThe practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge of the Constitution, to 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

ThomasJeffersonThe Highest Level of Prosperity Occurs when there is a Free-market Business Economy and a Minimum of Government Regulations

The Founding Fathers built the political and social structure based on natural law, and were looking for a foundation for economics. In 1776 Adam Smith published a set of five books called The Wealth of Nations.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “In political economy, I think Smith’s Wealth of Nations is the best book extant.”

 

 

adamsmithwlthofnationsAdam Smith’s Free-enterprise Economics Tried First in America

Adam Smith’s formula includes the following:

   1. Specialized production—let each person or corporation of persons do what they do best.

    2. Exchange of goods takes place in a free-market environment without governmental interference in production, prices, or wages.

3. The free market provides the needs of the people on the basis of supply and demand, with no government-imposed monopolies.

4. Prices are regulated by competition on the basis of supply and demand.

5. Profits are looked upon as the means by which production of goods and services is made worthwhile.

6. Competition is looked upon as the means by which quality is improved, quantity is increased, and prices are reduced.

 

free-enterprise-capitalismThe Four Laws of Economic Freedom

Prosperity also depends on a climate of wholesome stimulation protected by law. There are four laws of economic freedom which a nation must maintain if its people are to prosper at the maximum level.

1. The Freedom to try.

2. The Freedom to buy.

3. The Freedom to sell.

4. The Freedom to fail.

 

The Role of Government in Economics

The Founding Fathers agreed with Adam Smith that the greatest threat to economic prosperity is the arbitrary intervention of the government into the economic affairs of private business and the buying public.

Historically, this has usually involved fixing prices, fixing wages, controlling production, controlling distribution, granting monopolies, or subsidizing certain products.

 

The government is supposed to prevent:

  1. ILLEGAL FORCE in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products.
  2. FRAUD in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought.
  3. MONOPOLY which eliminates competition and results in restraint of trade.
  4. DEBAUCHERY of cultural standards and moral fiber society by commercial exploitation of vice—pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.

 

NOTE: Today, the government is supposed to PREVENT all of the above abuses. Instead, it is guilty of the very things it is supposed to prevent. ~C.D.

After 1900 Adam Smith Got Lost in the Shuffle

At this time a new Populist movement in which certain agriculture and labor groups were demanding that the government get involved in the redistribution of the wealth. People began clamoring for a “new system” would involve extensive government regulation if not outright expropriation of major industries and natural resources.

It was in this climate that Adam Smith and the free-market economy fell out of favor. Collectivism, socialism, government ownership of industry, subsidy of the farmers, and a whole spectrum of similar ideas were permeating the country when World War I broke out. (Skousen, 182-183)

By the 1920s, the debunking of the Founding Fathers was in full swing. The ideas of Adam Smith were considered archaic.

barrymarxAdam Smith Out, Karl Marx In

Now, in colleges everywhere, professors are defending Marx, and trashing liberty. The Left continues to gin up hatred for the private sector, the internet, health care, and anyone or anything that preserves our liberty.

 

US Constitution Series 14: Property is Key to Liberty

https://dinnertopics.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/us-constitution-series-14-property-is-key-to-liberty/

Socialism Explained: Socialism Fails at Political Equality—It is about Tyrannical Power

Socialism Explained:

Socialism Fails at Political Equality—It is about Tyrannical Power

Socialism  is “a fervid but false solicitude [compassion] for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them.” ~David O. McKay

 

 

Socialism is about Tyrannical Power, not Political Equality

The White House February 19, 2019

“We know that socialism is not about justice. It’s not about equality; it’s not about lifting up the poor,” President Trump said yesterday. “Socialism is about one thing only: power for the ruling class. And the more power they get, the more they crave . . . All of us here today know that there is nothing less democratic than socialism.” ~President Donald J. Trump

 

 

More A.F. Branco cartoons at FlagAnd Cross.com here 

A crowd of Venezuelan Americans stood before President Donald J. Trump in Miami yesterday, cheering as he put America squarely on the side of those fighting for freedom. “We’re here to proclaim a new day is coming in Latin America,” he said. “In Venezuela and across the western hemisphere, socialism is dying and liberty, prosperity, and democracy are being reborn.”

His message to Nicolas Maduro: “Let your people go.”

American leadership is making the difference. The United States and more than 50 countries across the world have recognized the rightful government of Venezuela. “Within 30 minutes, the United States was proud to be the first nation in the world to recognize President [Juan] Guaido” as the country’s interim leader, President Trump said.

Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua offer a lesson to the world:

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect  for his great cartoon

Socialism always promises unity but delivers division and hatred. It promises a better future—and inevitably returns to the darkest chapters of the past. Not long ago, Venezuela was the richest country in South America. Today, after its tyrannical government nationalized industries and took over private business, nearly 90 percent of Venezuelans live in poverty.  

Americans know this history well, having witnessed socialism destroy countries throughout the 20th century.

 Nearly three-fifths of Americans have an unfavorable view of socialism; a majority have a favorable view of capitalism. Support for far-left schemes such as Medicare-for-All has plummeted as voters learn more about what’s in it. The extremist “Green New Deal” is beginning to suffer the same fate.

“We know that socialism is not about justice. It’s not about equality; it’s not about lifting up the poor,” President Trump said yesterday. “Socialism is about one thing only: power for the ruling class. And the more power they get, the more they crave . . . All of us here today know that there is nothing less democratic than socialism.”

Inoculate your Children against Socialism and Atheism HERE

Abuse of Power report: Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics destroy Innocent Man Roger Stone and family

Abuse of Power:

Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics destroy Innocent Man Roger Stone and family

Hat Tip: Suzanne Eovaldi

Ed.  This letter was written by Mrs. Roger Stone on the day she and her husband were assaulted by 29 armed FBI Swat team members. I’ve included the requests for contributions as I believe it your decision to donate.

Roger Stone and his wife were victims of the police state tactics of power hungry thugs Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein.

By now I’m sure you have heard about the terrifying pre-dawn raid on the house in Ft Lauderdale where I live with my husband Roger Stone.

A little before 6 am twenty nine assault weapon wielding FBI agents in full tactical gear and wearing night vision goggles surrounded our home because I am hearing impaired and I was sleeping I did not hear the commotion when an FBI agent pounded on the door demanding my husband open it and I did not know he had been handcuffed and taken into custody.

I woke up only when two FBI agents burst into our bedroom and demanded that I get out of bed at gunpoint. I was marched out to the street in front of our house wearing only a night gown and in bare feet. I was instructed to stand next to my husband who was handcuffed and also barefooted. I am not charged with any crime.

This has to be the most terrifying thing I have ever experienced as FBI agents swarmed into our home after announcing they had a search warrant.

My husband has no previous criminal record, not even a speeding ticket. He is charged and pled not guilty to seven non violent process crimes. We do not own a gun and my husband’s passport had actually expired. The idea that he is a danger to anyone or a flight risk was disproved hours later when a federal magistrate released him on a surety bond.

The FBI used twenty nine agents, seventeen vehicles including two armored vehicles, a helicopter and two amphibious units because our rented home backs onto a canal. Every agent was carrying an AK-47 as well as a sidearm. This is a much larger force than used to capture and kill Bin Laden or arrest El Chapo. It must have cost U.S. taxpayers a half a million dollars.

Even more humiliating, for some odd reason, A CNN camera crew had arrived at our home only fifty minutes before the FBI strike force and was allowed to film the assault on our home and my husband’s arrest. If my husband was considered “dangerous” why was a CNN film crew in position 10 yards from our front door? How convenient that the CNN producer at our home is a former special assistant to FBI director James Comey!

Cuba police state

My parents came from Cuba. I can understand how these kind of police state tactics can happen in a communist country but it is hard to believe that the FBI Director and acting Attorney General would allow this kind of brutal assault on a U.S. citizen with no prior criminal record and charged only with non-violent process crimes here in the United States.

After the FBI took my husband away, I was allowed to dress under the supervision of a woman FBI agent who even had to watch me while I used the bathroom. I was not allowed to touch my cell phone even though I could see that my children and grandchildren were calling to see if I was alright. FBI agents tore through every square inch of our home and removed my husbands computers and iPads. They also took my computer which means they got many beautiful pictures of my grandchildren.

I wasn’t allowed to turn on the television so I did not see the angry and hateful mob that gathered outside the federal courthouse in Ft Lauderdale where I later learned that my husband was placed in hand and foot shackles and held in a holding cell after being fingerprinted and having his mug shot photos taken. The FBI spent seven hours tearing through our house as well as raiding a storage facility nearby where they also took a computer and went through financial records that are at least fifteen years old.

Although you would never know it from the fake news media, my husband, Roger Stone is not charged with Russian collusion, Wikileaks collaboration or any other crime associated with the 2016 election. All the charges against him have been fabricated in an obvious effort to pressure him to turn on President Trump who has been our friend for forty years and who attended our wedding in Washington D.C. 27 years ago. I remember how he danced with my mother.

As my husband has made clear, he simple refuses to make up stories about the President or bear false witness against him in order to please Mr. Mueller who wants to undo the results of the 2016 election and remove our President.

Two years of constant intense investigation into every aspect of our family as well as two years of constant leaks from the special councils office have destroyed our family income.

In December I cancelled our health and life insurance policies because we could not longer pay the premiums. My husband sold his car even though it was a 2006 model and we didn’t get much for it. We burned through a small fund we had put aside from the sale of my husband’s books that was supposed to pay for the college education of our grandchildren.

Now we are facing a two million dollar cost for lawyers In order to fight the bogus charges against my husband who at 66 years old is facing a potential 45 year prison sentence for crimes he did not commit.

Every day brings death threats, late night anonymous phone calls threatening to kill us and it’s gotten so I can’t even go to the grocery store without somebody screaming at me and accusing us of being Russian spys — which is funny because my parents fled Cuba and the brutal regime of Fidel Castro while my husband’s family members were mowed down my Russian tanks in Budapest in 1956.

While Mueller has unlimited tax dollars and a platoon of vicious left wing Ivy League prosecutors to try my husband we can only depend on people like you to help fund Roger’s legal defense.

Won’t you please send a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500 or $1000 to the Stone Defense Fund today? No amount is too small or too big.

You have been so generous in the past and I hesitate to ask but frankly I have no one else to turn to.

You can contribute now by going here.

We deeply appreciate the thousands of Americans who are praying for us and supporting our fight against a run-away federal prosecutor bent on destroying my husband simply because he supported Donald Trump for President and helped defeat Hillary Clinton.

I have to begin packing everything we own because we must move into a small apartment which is less expensive and has better security so the days ahead will be busy for me.

The same Obama appointed judge who put Paul Manafort in solitary confinement prior to his being convicted of any crime is now considering issuing a gag order so that my husband can no longer publicly raise money for his legal defense- that’s why it is important that you rush me your answer today.

God bless you

NYDIA

Mrs. Roger Stone

P.S. you can see fake news stories online that say my husband and I are wealthy and worth millions of dollars. This is totally false. Roger says these stories are planted in order to make it harder for us to raise money for his legal defense. We urgently need your help again today.

 

https://thecoachsteam.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/my-husband-roger/

 

History Facts: What the Constitution Really says about race and Slavery

History Facts:

What the Constitution Really says about race and Slavery

David Azarrad

Daily Signal, Heritage Foundation

keyIn no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote.

lincoln-statueOne hundred and fifty years ago this month, the 13th Amendment officially was ratified, and with it, slavery finally was abolished in America. The New York World hailed it as “one of the most important reforms ever accomplished by voluntary human agency.”

The newspaper said the amendment “takes out of politics, and consigns to history, an institution incongruous to our political system, inconsistent with justice and repugnant to the humane sentiments fostered by Christian civilization.”

With the passage of the 13th Amendment—which states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”—the central contradiction at the heart of the Founding was resolved.

constitution1Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States.

While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.

Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution.

Such arguments have unsettling implications for the health of our republic. They teach citizens to despise their founding charter and to be ashamed of their country’s origins. They make the Constitution an object of contempt rather than reverence. And they foster alienation and resentment among African-American citizens by excluding them from our Constitution.

The received wisdom in this case is wrong. If we turn to the actual text of the Constitution and the debates that gave rise to it, a different picture emerges. The case for a racist, pro-slavery Constitution collapses under closer scrutiny.

Race and the Constitution

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.

The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).

Slavery and the Constitution

Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).

Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.

Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:

Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.

Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), former slave and abolitionist broke whites' stereotypes about African Americans in the decades prior to the U.S. Civil War. His literary and oratorical excellence, and his dignified bearing, converted many to support the abolition of slavery in the United States. 1855 portrait. (Newscom TagID: evhistorypix007462.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), former slave and abolitionist broke whites’ stereotypes about African Americans in the decades prior to the U.S. Civil War. His literary and oratorical excellence, and his dignified bearing, converted many to support the abolition of slavery in the United States. 1855 portrait. (Newscom TagID: evhistorypix007462.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.

Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.

Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote.

One can readily imagine any number of clauses that could have been added to our Constitution to enshrine slavery. The manumission of slaves could have been prohibited. A national right to bring one’s slaves to any state could have been recognized. Congress could have been barred from interfering in any way with the transatlantic slave trade.

It is true that the Constitution of 1787 failed to abolish slavery. The constitutional convention was convened not to free the slaves, but to amend the Articles of Confederation. The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.

Regrettably, early Congresses did not pursue a consistent anti-slavery policy. This, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution itself. As Frederick Douglass explained: “A chart is one thing, the course of a vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the government wrong.”

Congress and the Slave Trade

ThomasJeffersonIn his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the African slave trade an “execrable commerce” and an affront “against human nature itself.” Because of a concession to slave-holding interests, the Constitution stipulates that it may not be abolished “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).

In the meantime, Congress could discourage the importation of slaves from abroad by imposing a duty “not exceeding 10 dollars on each person” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although early Congresses considered such measures, they were never enacted.

Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.

Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.

The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.

Congress and the Expansion of Slavery

Banning the importation of slaves would not by itself put an end to slavery in the United States. Slavery would grow naturally even if no new slaves were brought into the country.

Although Congress could not prevent this, it could prevent slavery from spreading geographically to the territories from which new states would eventually be created.

Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), to forbid the migration of slaves into the new territories (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and to stipulate conditions for statehood (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).

In no way could the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery.

Regrettably, early Congresses did not prevent the spread of slavery. Between 1798 and 1822, Congress enacted 10 territorial acts. Only half excluded slavery.

As a result, seven slaveholding states and five free states were admitted into the union. The seeds of what Abraham Lincoln would later call the crisis of the house divided were sown.

Slavery in the Existing States

As for the existing slaveholding states that had ratified the Constitution, what could Congress do to restrict the growth of slavery within their borders? Here Congress had more limited options. After 1808, “the migration” of slaves across state lines could have been prohibited (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). This was never done.

In principle, slavery could have been taxed out of existence. However, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states made it impossible to exclusively target slaveholders. A capitation or head tax, for example, even though it would have been more costly for Southerners, would also impose a heavy burden on Northerners.

While one could perhaps have circumvented the apportionment requirement by calling for an indirect tax on slaves—as Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., would later do during the Civil War—such arguments were not made in the early republic.

There was one clause in the original Constitution that required cooperation with slaveholders and protected the institution of slavery. Slaves who escaped to freedom were to “be delivered up” to their masters (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The motion to include a fugitive slave clause at the constitutional convention passed unanimously and without debate. This would seem to indicate that all knew it would be futile to try to oppose such a measure.

James Madison

James Madison

The debate instead focused on the wording. Whereas the original draft had referred to a “person legally held to service or labor in one state,” the final version instead refers to a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof.” This change, Madison explains in his notes, was to comply “with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal,” as it gave the impression “that slavery was legal in a moral view,” rather than merely permissible under the law.

This remark by Madison captures the Constitution’s stance vis-à-vis slavery: permissible, but not moral. Legal, but not legitimate.

In no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. And it contains within it several provisions that could have been and were at times used to prevent the spread of slavery.

This may not make it an anti-slavery Constitution. But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.

 

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/28/what-the-constitution-really-says-about-race-and-slavery/

Abuse of Power Report: Socialist Ocasio-Cortez promises lead to Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics, Communism and Socialism Dictatorship, Genocide

Abuse of Power Report:

History Facts

Socialist Ocasio-Cortez promises lead to Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics, Communism and Socialism Dictatorship, Genocide

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Left-wing Policies: ” [A] fervid but false solicitude [compassion] for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~David O. McKay

 

faith-and-freedomInoculate your Children against Socialism and Atheism HERE

Ben Stein: Stalin, Hitler ‘Came to Power Promising Same Things Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Promising’

“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorship, it led to genocide.” ~Ben Stein

By Craig Bannister |

Hitler and Stalin, Kissing Cousins

Democrat Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is promisng Americans the same thing brutal dictators promised, and those promises are never realized, Ben Stein explained in a Fox News Channel interview this week.

Stein, an economist, lawyer and writer, warned that, when politicians promising to punish success in the name of equality obtain power, their policies invariably have terrifying results:

“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Miss Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is promising.

“That led to mass murder, led to dictatorship, and led to genocide.

“These promises are old promises, and they invariably lead to bad things. The promise of saying to the people do what you can within the law to make your life better and your family’s life better that system works extremely well. Capitalism is a system that allows people to make something of themselves instead of oppressing other people.”

American society works because people are free to succeed – but, communism and socialism lead only to oppression, violence, corruption – and broken promises – Stein concluded:

“Making money is one of the most of harmless things there is to do in the whole world. And, that’s what our society is about. It’s not about ordering people around, putting them concentration camps. What do you do if there is a richer or poorer person? What do you do? Do you take him away and shoot him?

“Well, that was what the communists tried; it didn’t work out very well for them. And, at the end of the day we wound with Russia with one of the most unequal societies there’s ever been in the world.

“In Vietnam, we were promised all these things and we wound up with one of the most of corrupt countries in the world. In Venezuela, I don’t know how corrupt it is, but people say it’s one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

“We don’t wind up with the promises people made.”

CNSNews: Ben Stein: Stalin, Hitler ‘Came to Power Promising Same Things Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Promising’

Robert Mueller’s police-state Gestapo tactics

Roger Stone’s SWAT team arrest: Are we even America anymore?

By Patricia McCarthy

After news broke of the pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone’s home Friday morning in Florida by twenty-nine heavily-armed agents in nineteen vehicles, lights flashing, CNN serendipitously on hand to film the raid, millions of us realized once and for all that we are no longer living in the America we knew and loved.

Those same millions of us have known for over two years that the Mueller “probe” is a huge and well orchestrated cover-up.  There are now at least two books, Gregg Jarrett’s and Dan Bongino’s, and well researched investigative articles that prove this beyond doubt.

Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein not to investigate Trump collusion with Russia.  The principals all knew that was not remotely true.  He was appointed to conceal and obliterate the volumes of evidence of crimes committed by Hillary Clinton; her campaign; and a group of higher-ups in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, all of whom were involved in a scheme to prevent Trump from being elected.  All of them have lied under oath and before Congress.  Mueller himself was involved in the Clinton scheme to sell 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia.

All of these felons are walking free; their homes are not being raided in the wee small hours of the morning, but their crimes are far more serious than anything Roger Stone or Paul Manafort might have committed.

That such an aggressive show of force could be visited upon a non-violent person accused of alleged verbal crimes is truly frightening.  That so many in the media are celebrating the use of such a Gestapo tactic is horrifying.  Suddenly, it is catastrophically clear that America is no longer a constitutional republic, a nation of laws and justice.  An unelected, tangential officer of the DOJ has for two years abused his position of power to destroy many lives in the cruelest of ways with impunity.  No one is stopping him and his band of legal bullies.

Roger Stone’s SWAT team arrest: Are we even America anymore?
Jan 26, 2019 01:00 am
As a nation, we are in the throes of self-destruction.

faith-and-freedomInoculate your Children against Socialism and Atheism HERE

Exclusive: Joseph Farah wants FBI chief held accountable for raid on Stone home

Chris Wray needs to be held to account for this, too. After James Comey, the FBI needs a major housecleaning, not more unaccountable rogue activity at the top.
https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/muellers-gestapo-police-state-tactics/

Muslim congresswoman ‘lied big-time’ about residency

Rashida Tlaib registered at false address to run for office

https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/muslim-congresswoman-lied-big-time-about-residency/

Political Cartoon: Democratic Party and History of Slavery

Political Cartoon:

Democratic Party and History of Slavery

Since we’re removing historical relics of Oppression, racism, and slavery when will they call for the abolition of the Democrat party? Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

 

Biblical Worldview History: Abraham Lincoln and the Covenant with God

Biblical Worldview history:

Abraham Lincoln and the Covenant with God

keyLiberty is your Birthright! ~Abraham Lincoln to Americans of all colors, races, and creeds

 

Lincoln_HypothesisIt was a dark time in the history of America. The covenant land had fallen into sin, perpetrating or at least condoning the evils of slavery and the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities. But there was an answer to the country’s woes, and two great leaders both knew it. Those leaders were Joseph Smith and Abraham Lincoln.

Joseph Smith was killed for his attempts to bring the nation to repentance; Abraham Lincoln lived long enough to play a crucial role in returning the country to its covenant relationship with God. In this fascinating account, author Timothy Ballard shows how that role developed and how Lincoln came to consider himself “a humble instrument in the hands of God.”

 

History of the American Covenant

How to restore the covenant with God—and peace for your family in this troubled world

 

Civil War history facts

mcclellans-1864-electionContrary to current opinion, it was the Democrat party that favored slavery. The Republican party was anti-slavery. In election campaign of 1864, Lincoln had already issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and Douglas opposed him on the Democrat ticket with a platform favoring slavery.

Although at first the Civil War was about preserving the Union, the North came to accept that the war was punishment by God for the sin of slavery. The resulting 13th and 14th amendments adjusted the Constitution so that the evils of slavery and the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities by individual states were done away.

 

Are we seeing a current breach of the American Covenant?

constitution2“For a good while, there has been going on in this nation a process that I have termed the secularization of America . . .We as a nation are forsaking the Almighty, and I fear that He will begin to forsake us. We are shutting the door against the God whose sons and daughters we are . . . .

“Future blessings will come only as we deserve them. Can we expect peace and prosperity, harmony and goodwill, when we turn our backs on the Source of our strength? If we are to continue to have the freedoms that evolved within the structure that was the inspiration of the Almighty to our Founding Fathers, we must return to the God who is their true Author . . . .

“God bless America, for it is His creation.” ~Gordon B. Hinckley

 

Secret to Peace for your family

How to restore the covenant with God—and peace for your family in this troubled world

Cultural Marxism vs. Judeo-Christian Heritage: Notre Dame Columbus Murals banned for Political Correctness

Cultural Marxism vs. Judeo-Christian Heritage:

Notre Dame Columbus Murals banned for Political Correctness

Notre Dame bows to political correctness and covers Christopher Columbus murals

by Lauren Cooley

 

The University of Notre Dame announced its intentions to cover murals of Christopher Columbus over the weekend.

University President John Jenkins wrote in a campus-wide email that the murals once reflected “the attitudes of the time” but that they are now “demeaning” to “the indigenous peoples.”

Painted in 1882-84, the artwork has great historical value and resides in the university’s iconic Main Building, aka the “Golden Dome.”

The Native American Student Association of Notre Dame issued a statement via Facebook, applauding the “thoughtful and wise decision,” calling it “a good step towards acknowledging the full humanity of those Native people who have come before us.”

The Young Americans for Freedom chapter at the University of Notre Dame is calling on the university to reverse its decision.

“Sadly the University of Notre Dame decided to coddle its students by shielding them from a painting of an important figure in world history,” Grant Strobl, YAF spokesperson and Notre Dame law student, said in a statement. “If we adopt the standard of judging previous generations by current standards, we may reach a point where there are no longer accomplishments to celebrate.”

YAF chapter leader Luke Jones wants his school to “proudly display the remarkable artwork depicting Christopher Columbus.”

Notre Dame to Cover Up Columbus Murals

RUSH: In order to keep the mob at bay before they really get mad at us, we’re gonna eliminate whatever it is that might upset them.

RUSH: How about this: “Notre Dame [University] to Cover up Murals of Columbus in the New World.” They have a series of artwork, tapestries and murals that depict various moments in history. And the University of Notre Dame has announced — obviously out of fear of the mob or because they themselves have been totally given over now to the phony political correctness — they are going to cover them.

Notre Dame to Cover Up Columbus Murals

Inoculate your Children against Cultural Marxism and Atheism HEREfaith-and-freedom