History Facts, William Blackstone, and Law of God

History Facts, William Blackstone, and Law of God

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

William Blackstone Quotes

keyMan, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. ~Blackstone

The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed … tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity [happiness]. (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. 1:29-60, 64)

Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are: neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. (Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England)

Laws for human nature had been revealed by God, whereas the laws of the universe (natural law) must be learned through scientific investigation. (Commentaries, p.64) Blackstone stated that “upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws …” (Ibid., p.65)

“Free men have arms; slaves do not.”
William Blackstone

“The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity.”
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 4: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765-1769


William Blackstone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blackstone_from_NPGSir William Blackstone KC SL (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) was an English jurist, judge and Tory politician of the eighteenth century. He is most noted for writing the Commentaries on the Laws of England. Born into a middle-class family in London, Blackstone was educated at Charterhouse School before matriculating at Pembroke College, Oxford in 1738. After switching to and completing a Bachelor of Civil Law degree, he was made a Fellow of All Souls, Oxford on 2 November 1743, admitted to Middle Temple, and called to the Bar there in 1746. Following a slow start to his career as a barrister, Blackstone became heavily involved in university administration, becoming accountant, treasurer and bursar on 28 November 1746 and Senior Bursar in 1750. Blackstone is considered responsible for completing the Codrington Library and Warton Building, and simplifying the complex accounting system used by the college. On 3 July 1753 he formally gave up his practice as a barrister and instead embarked on a series of lectures on English law, the first of their kind. These were massively successful, earning him a total of £60,000 in 2014 terms, and led to the publication of An Analysis of the Laws of England in 1756, which repeatedly sold out and was used to preface his later works.

On 20 October 1758 Blackstone was confirmed as the first Vinerian Professor of English Law, immediately embarking on another series of lectures and publishing a similarly successful second treatise, titled A Discourse on the Study of the Law. With his growing fame, Blackstone successfully returned to the bar and maintained a good practice, also securing election as Tory Member of Parliament for the rotten borough of Hindon on 30 March 1761. In February 1766 he published the first volume of Commentaries on the Laws of England, considered his magnum opus—the completed work earned Blackstone £1,648,000 in 2014 terms. After repeated failures, he successfully gained appointment to the judiciary as a Justice of the Court of King’s Bench on 16 February 1770, leaving to replace Edward Clive as a Justice of the Common Pleas on 25 June. He remained in this position until his death, on 14 February 1780.

Blackstone’s legacy and main work of note is his Commentaries. Designed to provide a complete overview of English law, the four-volume treatise was repeatedly republished in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and in a posthumous edition in 1783. Reprints of the first edition, intended for practical use rather than antiquary interest, were published until the 1870s in England and Wales, and a working version by Henry John Stephen, first published in 1841, was reprinted until after the Second World War. Legal education in England had stalled; Blackstone’s work gave the law “at least a veneer of scholarly respectability”.[1] William Searle Holdsworth, one of Blackstone’s successors as Vinerian Professor, argued that “If the Commentaries had not been written when they were written, I think it very doubtful that [the United States], and other English speaking countries would have so universally adopted the common law.”[2] In the United States, the Commentaries influenced John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln, and remain frequently cited in Supreme Court decisions.

Read more about William Blackstone


US Constitution Series 16: Our Government has 3 Parts—Law, President, and Courts

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

US Constitution Series 16: Three Separate Branches of Government—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial

John Adams Pushes Separation-of-Powers Doctrine: Law, President, and Courts

3-branches-govtIn 1776, when it first became apparent that the American people would have to set up their own government, John Adams practically stood alone in advocating a government built on a separation of powers. Even before the Declaration of Independence he was advocating a new national government with three separate departments but found himself severely criticized for such a revolutionary idea. (Skousen, 198)

John Adams Studies the “Divine Science” of Good Government

It is interesting that John Adams should have been the first among the Founding Fathers to capture the vision of Montesquieu in setting up a self-repairing national government under the separation-of-powers doctrine. As we pointed out earlier, he looked upon politics as a “divine science,” and determined to devote his life to its study. (Skousen, 199)

John Adams Writes Separation of Powers into a the Massachusetts Constitution

[I]n spite of all the opposition John Adams encountered, he did succeed, almost single-handedly, in getting his state to adopt a constitution based on separation of powers. (Skousen, 201)


The Modern Apostle of the Divine Science of Good Government Unappreciated for a Century

johnadams2In later years, Adams was successful in getting his ideas incorporated in the U.S. Constitution, but he was never able to gain a genuine acceptance of himself. Even though he was elected the first Vice President of the United States and the second President, he very shortly disappeared into history with scarcely a ripple. A hundred years after the founding of the country, neither Washington nor Massachusetts had erected any kind of monument to John Adams. It was only as scholars began digging into the origins of American constitutionalism that John Adams suddenly loomed up into proper perspective. Even he suspected there would be very few who would remember what he had attempted to accomplish. (Skousen, 201)


A Constitution for 300 Million Freemen

Nevertheless his political precepts of the “divine science” of government caught on. Even Pennsylvania revised its constitution to include the separation of powers principle, and Benjamin Franklin, one of the last to be converted, finally acknowledged that the Constitution of the United States with its separation of powers was as perfect as man could be expected to produce. He urged all of the members of the Convention to sign it so that it would have unanimous support.

John Adams said it was his aspiration “to see rising in America an empire of liberty, and the prospect of two or three hundred millions of freemen, without one noble or one king among them.” (Koch, The American Enlightenment, p. 191)


Principle 17: A System of Checks and Balances to Prevent the Abuse of Power

US Constitution Series 15: Government, Liberty, and Business Economy




US Constitution Series 9: Divine Law vs. Big Government

God’s Law Protects Us from Tyranny

keyThe 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

US Constitution Series 9: To Protect Man’s Rights, God has Revealed Certain Principles of Divine Law

Rights, though endowed by God as unalienable prerogatives, could not remain unalienable unless they were protected as enforceable rights under a code of divinely proclaimed law.

[The Creator is not only all-powerful], but as He is also a Being of infinite wisdom, he has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice …These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all His dispensations conforms. Such …are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due.

The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed … tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity [happiness]. (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. 1:29-60, 64)

Moses and 10 cropThis divine pattern of law for human happiness requires acknowledgment and acceptance of certain principles; these are widely known as the famous Ten Commandments.

  • God is supreme
  • Man is specifically forbidden to attribute God’s power to false gods
  • The name of God is to be held in reverence, and every oath taken in the name of God is to be carried out with the utmost fidelity, otherwise the name of God would be taken in vain
  • There is also a requirement that one day each week be set aside for the study of God’s law
  • It is also to be a day of worship and the personal renewing of one’s commitment to obey God’s law for happy living
  • There are also requirements to strengthen family ties by children honoring parents and parents maintaining the sanctity of their marriage and not committing adultery after marriage
  • Human life is also to be kept sacred; he who willfully and wantonly takes the life of another must forfeit his own
  • A person shall not lie
  • A person shall not steal
  • Every person must be willing to work for the things he desires from life and not covet and scheme to get things which belong to his neighbor. (Skousen, pp.132-133)


Divine Law endows Mankind with Duties as well as Rights

In recent years the universal emphasis on “rights” has seriously obscured the unalienable duties which are imposed upon mankind by divine law.


“Man has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” ~Thomas Jefferson

Examples of Public and Private Duties

responsibilityPublic duties relate to public morality and are usually supported by local or state ordinances which can be enforced by local police.

Private duties are those which exist between the individual and his Creator. These are called principles of private morality, and the only enforcement agency is the self-discipline of the individual himself.

Here are some of the more important responsibilities which the Creator has imposed on every human being of normal mental capacity—Duties:

  • To honor the supremacy of the Creator and his laws.
  • Not to take the life of another except in self-defense.
  • Not to steal or destroy the property of another.
  • To be honest in all transactions with others.
  • Children are to honor and obey their parents and elders.
  • Parents and elders are to protect, teach, feed, clothe, and provide shelter for children.
  • To support law and order and keep the peace.
  • Not to contrive through a covetous heart to despoil another.
  • To provide insofar as possible for the needs of the helpless—the sick, the crippled, the injured, the poverty-stricken.
  • To honorably perform contracts and covenants both with God and man.
  • To be temperate.
  • To become economically self-sufficient.
  • Not to trespass on the property or privacy of another.
  • To maintain the integrity of the family structure.
  • To perpetuate the race.
  • Not to promote or participate in the vices which destroy personal and community life.
  • To perform civic responsibilities—vote, assist public officials, serve in official capacities when called upon, stay informed on public issues, volunteer where needed.
  • Not to aid or abet those involved in criminal or anti-social activities.
  • To support personal and public standards of common decency.
  • To follow rules of moral rectitude. (Skousen, pp.133-135)


God’s revealed law provided true “justice” with the law of “reparation”—repairing the damage, requiring the criminal to pay for damages and also punitive damages for all the trouble caused, to remind him not to do it again. This system of justice through reparation was practiced anciently, and is adopted by some states today. The “reparation” system requires the judge to call in the victim and consult with him or her before passing sentence.


Should Taxpayers Compensate Victims of Crimes?

In some status, the victims of criminal activities may apply to the state for damages. This most unfortunate policy is a counter-productive procedure which encourages crime rather than deters it.

seal-of-the-united-states-originalWhat if a law is passed by Congress or some legislature which is contrary to God’s law?

God’s law is the supreme law of the land.

Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. ~Blackstone

But who will decide? When it comes to lawmaking, the nations of most of the world throughout history have been subject to the whims and arbitrary despotism of kings, emperors, and magistrates. How can the people be protected from the autocratic authority of their rulers? Where does the source of sovereign authority lie?


This question is answered in Principle 10.


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



US Constitution Series 8: Men are Endowed by their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights

US Constitution Series 8: Life, Liberty, Property are Rights from God


US Constitution Series 6: Law, Liberty, and Socialism

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

All Men are Created Equal

key The Founders distinguished between equal rights and other areas where equality is impossible. They recognized that society should seek to provide equal opportunity but not expect equal results; provide equal freedom but not equal possessions; provide equal protection but not equal status; provide equal educational opportunities but not equal grades.

decofindependence1The Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that some truths are self-evident, and one of these is the fact that all men are created equal. Yet everyone knows that no two human beings are exactly alike in any respect. They are different when they are born. They vary in physical strength, mental capacity, emotional stability, inherited social status, in their opportunities for self-fulfillment, and in scores of other ways. Then how can they be equal?

The answer is that everyone’s individual differences should be accepted, but be treated as equals as human beings. Constitutional writer Clarence Carson describes two ways all persons should have their equality guaranteed:

1) Equality before the law. this means that every man’s case is tried by the same law governing any particular case. Practically, it means that there are no different laws for different classes and orders of men [as there were in ancient times]. The definition of premeditated murder is the same for the millionaire as for the tramp. A corollary of this is that no classes are created or recognized by law.

2) Each man has an equal title to God-given liberties along with every other.

Rousseau’s Error

johnadams2John Adams was in France when Jean Jacques Rousseau was teaching that all men were designed to be equal in every way. Adams wrote:

That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has …But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids, by Brahmins, …or by the self-styled philosophers of the French Revolution.

Minorities: Crossing the Culture Gap

Being a minority, even in the United States, is painful because acceptance depends on “crossing the culture gap.” This means learning the English language; attaining the general norm of education—which in America is fairly high; becoming economically independent—which often means getting out of the ghetto; and bedoming recognized as a social asset to the community—which always takes time. (Skousen, p. 106)

There is not a single ethnic group in the United States but what has been treated at one time or another as a minority, or less than first-class citizens. The story of minorities in the United States is a fascinating tale. Beginning with the French in the 1500s and the English in the 1600s (and Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Scots, and Irish in between),it was one grand conglomerate of tension, discrimination, malice, and sometimes outright persecution. But the miracle of it all is the fact that they fought side by side for freedom in the Revolutionary War. So all of this became America—a nation of minorities. (Skousen p.107)

The Black Minority

Providing equality for the blacks has never been approached with any degree of consensus. Some felt that with education and job opportunities the blacks could leap the culture gap just as other minorities had done. Others felt they should be made the beneficiaries of substantial government gratuities. Experience soon demonstrated, however, that government gratuities are as corrupting and debilitating to blacks as they are to the Indians [Native Americans] or any other minorities. The blacks themselves asked for equal opportunity at the hiring hall.

Violence Proves Counter-Productive

In the mid 1960s there were groups of Marxist agitators who move in among the blacks to promote direct action by violence. One of these was Eldridge Cleaver, who had been trained in Marxist philosophy and tactics. He became a leader for the Black Panthers. Cleaver describes the rationale behind their philosophy of violence. It was to destroy the whole economic and social structure of the United States so that blacks could enjoy equal right under an American Communist regime. (Skousen p.109)

The crescendo of violence increased year after year. During the summer of 1968 over a hundred American cities were burning. But the burning was always in black ghettos. But the burning and fire-bombing backfired. The black population began to realize it was only the homes of the blacks that were being burned. Other than police, it was primarily blacks that were being hurt in the melee of the riots. In the shoot-outs with the police, nineteen of the Black Panther leaders were killed. Eldridge Cleaver was wounded. He and his wife later fled to Cuba and then to other Communist countries.

The whole scenario of violence had proved tragically counter-productive. It temporarily jolted out of joint a broad spectrum of reforms which the blacks were really seeking and the rest of the nation was trying to provide.

Eldridge Cleaver Returns

Eldridge_Cleaver_1968After nearly eight years as an exile in Communist and Socialist countries, Eldridge Cleaver asked to be allowed to return to the United States and pay whatever penalty was due on charges pending against him. He and his wife were no longer atheists. They were no longer Communists. Those bitter years behind the iron and bamboo curtains had dispelled all the propaganda concerning “equality” and “justice” under Communism. Cleaver told the press: “I would rather be in jail in America than free anywhere else.” He then went on to say:

“I was wrong and the Black Panthers were wrong …We [black Americans] are inside the system and I feel that the number one objective for Black America is to recognize that they have the same equal rights under the Constitution as Ford or Rockefeller, even if we have no blue-chip stocks. But our membership in the United States is the supreme blue-chip stock and one we have to exercise.”

By 1981 Eldridge Cleaver had paid his final debt to society. soon after that he began accepting speaking engagements before schools, churches, community gatherings, and even prison groups to describe his new and yet profound appreciation for America.

He described the despondency which came over him when he found what a betrayal of human rights and human dignity Communism turned out to be. He described the long and strenuous intellectual struggle with his Marxist atheism before he recognized its fraudulent fallacies.

He frankly and patiently dialogued with university students still struggling with similar philosophical problems. He assured them, as Locke had done, that a persistent pursuit of the truth would bring them to the threshold of reality, where the Creator could be recognized and thereafter have a place in their lives. (Skousen, pp. 110-111)

Declaration_independenceThe Founders distinguished between equal rights and other areas where equality is impossible. They recognized that society should seek to provide equal opportunity but not expect equal results; provide equal freedom but not equal possessions; provide equal protection but not equal status; provide equal educational opportunities but not equal grades.


Principle 7: The proper Role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, Not Provide Equal Things

US Constitution Series 5: Trust in God


Truth vs. Hype: Law, Race and Character

Truth vs. Hype


keyOver 100 years ago, Booker T. Washington said this:  “There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” ~ Booker T. Washington from 1911

220px-Booker_T_WashingtonBooker T. Washington, 1911, more than a hundred years ago on the grievance industry.  He’s talking about the Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpton and you pick your name. Anybody else who does this kind of stuff, he’s talking exactly about them.  They do not want it to stop.  They do not want it to go away.  They “do not want the Negro to lose his grievances” means they don’t want any of this solved because they did not want to lose their jobs.  There were race hustlers even back in the day of Booker T. Washington.  There were race hustlers back in the days of slavery.  This isn’t gonna end.  This is not gonna end until the Democrat Party somehow, some way, is ever held accountable for what they have visited on this country. ~Rush Limbaugh

“The right end of the problem I will tell you, as a law enforcement officer, is not to build larger jails. It’s not to hire more law enforcement officers. It’s to get into our families and our school systems, and yes, into our churches and start to bring back the training of character and integrity to our communities.” ~Sheriff David Morgan

Sheriff Speaks Out on Law, Race, and Character

Some History of Race Relations and Identity Politics

Race Hustlers & Thugs Won’t Like What This Florida Sheriff Has to Say to the Black Community
Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan had some wise words he delivered lately. However, I’m sure some of the race baiters, the Obama administration and others who thrive off of the constant war of ethnic communities in America are going to be going after him once they hear what he had to say. However, he was right on.

flag1“First off, let me take issue with the title ‘African-American,'” Sheriff Morgan said. “We’re Americans. I’m fourth generation Welsh. I, nor my family, do not pretend to say we are ‘Welsh-American.’ We are Americans. I was not born in Wales and the Blacks that currently reside in the united States of America are not from Africa.”
He went on to point out that terms like “African-American” are the kinds of terms that are used to divide Americans. Sheriff Morgan asked what the issues minority communities face in Escambia County.

“Many are real and many are perceived,” he said. “I will tell you that I think most of them are perceived.”

Why would Sheriff Morgan say that? He pointed back to the history of our nation. I will point out that after taking issue with the term “African-American,” he then uses the very term to address the issue he is speaking about.

barack-obama-birth-certificate“Not that many years ago, the thought of electing an ‘African-American’ president would have been unthinkable in the United States of America,” said Sheriff Morgan.

Indeed, it would have since the person must be a natural born citizen in order to be president, but the current usurper-in-chief has all sorts of questions not only about his place of birth, but even about who his mother, father and grandparents are.

Sheriff Morgan reminded the Black community that they are a little less than 13% of the united States.

“Had every one of those people been voter eligible, only 13% could have voted for President Obama,” he noted. “President Obama has won two elections as president of the united States.”

He then pointed to what that meant. It simply means that a wide variety of Americans from various ethnicities voted for him. He then dropped the bomb on the race baiters.

martinlutherkingRacist Nation?

I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. ~Martin Luther King, Jr.


“If we are such a ‘racist nation,’ then why do we have…

  • A Black president?
  • Why was General Chappy James the first 4-Star General?
  • Why was General Colin Powell promoted to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and later to Secretary of State?
  • Why do we currently have an Attorney General who is also Black?

Sheriff Morgan then said that anyone making an argument that America is a “racist nation” is “focusing on a specific instances where we may have had problems with race relations, but it certainly does not paint any organization or any individuals or any nation as racist.”

However, he did point out that the Black community has embraced a “thug culture.” This culture, according to Sheriff Morgan, embraces “foul language, shooting cops, abusing women.”

“If you don’t think those things have an effect on our children, you need to get a grip,” he warned.

The video then cuts to clip of Sheriff Morgan addressing the issue of Black on White crime in Florida and asking, “Where is the outrage?”

Sadly, there are crickets from the racist administration of Barack Obama because that would not fit his agenda. However, Sheriff Morgan did have some wise words.

black-family-dinner“The right end of the problem I will tell you, as a law enforcement officer, is not to build larger jails,” he said. “It’s not to hire more law enforcement officers. It’s to get into our families and our school systems, and yes, into our churches and start to bring back the training of character and integrity to our communities.”

“We have raised an a-social generation,” he concluded.

He then pointed to the fact that criminologists had predicted this years ago, referring to this time as “The Rise of the Super Predators.” These are people who are untethered to either faith, family, religion or community. For these kinds of people, it is all about them to the exclusion of anyone else.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/04/race-hustlers-thugs-wont-like-what-this-florida-sheriff-has-to-say-to-the-black-community/#0M7wdyuUPFVPCJay.99


Are Barack Obama’s Actions True Crime? Congress seeks answers

Are Barack Obama’s Actions True Crime? Congress seeks answers

Congress finally takes up ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

keyArticle II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.”


1st step taken in defining reason for impeachment

Greg Corombos

3-branches-govtSaying he and his constituents are tired of presidents violating the Constitution to achieve their political goals, a Florida congressman is bringing forth legislation to define “high crimes and misdemeanors” and what actions ought to trigger impeachment proceedings against a president.

“Every time we go back to the district and even before I ran, crimepeople said, ‘The three branches of government are out of balance. When is Congress going to stand up and have some accountability and rein in the power of the executive branch?’” said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

The congressman said the thirst for power in the executive branch is a longstanding problem that’s only getting worse.

“The executive branch has been growing stronger and stronger over the past two or three decades, but this administration with President Obama seems to be on steroids,” said Yoho, who argued that enough is enough.

ObamaWreckingBall2“I think the last straw was on Nov. 20 with the executive order on amnesty overreach of the president,” Yoho said. “Over 30 times in a six-year period of time, he said he did not have the authority to change the law on immigration, yet he went ahead and did.”

Federal District Court Judge John Hanen placed an injunction on the Obama orders and recently shot down an Obama administration attempt to activate the program while its constitutionality is sorted out elsewhere in the federal system.

Yoho said immigration is just one issue where the executive branch is aggressively challenging its constitutional limits.
“Pretty much every week we’re up here, we hear one of the legislators or the news talk about the constitutional crisis we’re facing,” he said. “It’s in so many different areas, whether it’s religious freedoms or redefining marriage or trampling on states’ rights.

“At some point, we’ve got to draw that line that says from this point forward, all presidents – I don’t care if they’re Republican, Democrat, from the planet Mars – they’re going to be held to the confines of the Constitution,” he said.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.”

impeach4constYoho is now seeking to define high crimes and misdemeanors. His legislation would include “failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of non-enforcement.” Another would be “substituting executive agreements for treaties.”

In addition, Yoho’s bill would also target presidents who start military action without receiving authorization from Congress, violate appropriations laws to force money toward their political priorities or defy congressional subpoenas for documents or testimony.

Yoho insists this is not designed to kickstart impeachment proceedings against President Obama, but he admitted Obama’s actions are in many ways the inspiration for this.

“If we had a chief executive that would faithfully execute the laws … this wouldn’t be an issue, and we could get on with America’s business,” Yoho said. “But when you have to play like a babysitter and say, ‘No you can’t do that’ over and over and over again, the American people are tired of it.”

He added, “The beauty of this is that this is not attacking this president. It’s attacking this president and all future presidents.”

Much like how teams enter a sporting event by acknowledging the rules that guide the game, Yoho said it’s time for all political players to recognize and obey the Constitution as the rule book for our government.

“Unlike football, which is a game, you’re talking about the United States of America and preserving our Constitution so that we don’t have to talk about a constitutional crisis in the future,” he said.

signers3Non-partisan critics may be quick to point out that America’s founders deliberately left “high crimes and misdemeanors” vague so as not to dictate to all future leaders what constitutes an impeachable offense.

“The founders actually did make it very vague [rather than saying] it’s based on incompetence or it’s based on ignorance; they started to play around with that, but what they found is those are very loosely defined. So they allowed Congresses to go ahead and define those in the future,” Yoho said.

And that’s what the congressman believes his bill does now. He believes support for his plan ought to be unanimous.

demdonkey“There’s no reason for any representative of the American people, I don’t care what state or what party, Democrat or Republican, should shy away from this,” he said. “This holds all presidents accountable.”

Yoho said this warning also applies to any future Republican president who seeks to undo unpopular or unconstitutional actions of Obama through illegitimate means.

“If we got a Republican president in 2016 and they didn’t want to enforce parts of Obamacare … and they wave their pen and their phone and say, ‘Nope, we’re not going to do that.’ We have got to hold them accountable,” Yoho said.

In addition to Obama’s unilateral action on immigration, Yoho is very concerned about the president’s attempts to go it alone on a nuclear deal with Iran.

ImmigrationlawGOPEndPIX“Many of the legislators feel (his bill) is needed to resist an executive encroachment on their authority,” Yoho said. “I think what you’re seeing is a natural reaction to the president’s overreach in many areas and a desire for the Senate to re-assert its traditional and constitutional role.”

Yoho stressed once again that the legislation should not make any president nervous but that it gives them a clear guide as to which actions will not be tolerated.

“This is not about impeaching,” he said. “This is about following the rule of law. This is a notice that says, ‘From this point forward, there will be no impeachment as long as you stay within these parameters.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/congress-finally-takes-up-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors/#L5zKfUlzU0UGAjP1.99



Liberal Law, False Stories vs. Christian Faith

Liberal Law, False Stories vs. Christian Faith

keyoldWoe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ~Isaiah 5:20


Internet in Bull’s Eye For New “Hate Speech” Plan

By Jerome Corsi*

keyAll violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice. This law is a grave threat to the First Amendment because it provides special penalties based on what people think, feel or believe. ~Erik Stanley, Senior Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom

Southern Poverty Law Center, Leading Money-maker in the Smear Industry

free-speech1Last year the Southern Poverty Law Center branded the World Congress of Families, a respected International Christian coalition that opposes same-sex marriage, p—-graphy and abortion, as being an “anti-LGBT hate group.”

It also operates a “Hate Map,” which apparently was used by a confessed attempted terrorist to identify Christians to kill in 2012.

In that case, Floyd Lee Corkins II identified SPLC as his source of information when he decided to murder staff members at a Christian organization in Washington, the Family Research council. Corkins, a homosexual activist, told investigators he had gotten details about the Family Research Council from SPLC, which publicly had labeled FRC as a “Hate group” because of its biblical position on homosexuality.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014, proposed by Senator Ed Markey and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, both Democrats, “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” according to Markey’s office.

The Boston Herald took issue with the bill, calling it “frankly chilling” that Markey is seeking to “empower an obscure federal agency to begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening.

“Perhaps he could crack a briefing book on the crisis in Ukraine rather than looking for his own extra-constitutional methods of punishing speech he finds unacceptable,” the editorial added.

censhorship-1st-amendmentAmerican Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned the new law “creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in non-normative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American.”

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, testified before Congress against the hate-crimes bill. “It is fundamentally unjust for the government to treat some crime victims more favorably than others, just because they are homosexual or transsexual,” Dacus said. “This bill is an unnecessary federal intrusion into state law-enforcement authority, and it is an unwise step toward silencing religious and moral viewpoints.”

* World Net Daily

(excerpts, Whistleblower, March 2015, 44-45)


Southern Poverty Law Center—Smearing Christians

Ed Vitagliano

American Family Association Journal

free-speech-ben-franklinAdmittedly, America’s culture wars can get pretty heated. Increasingly, however, leftist groups are labeling Christian organizations such as AFA “hate groups” in order to delegitimize and shame them out of the public debate over homosexual marriage.

One of the secularist organizations most successful with this strategy is the Southern Poverty Law Center. Founded in 1971 by Alabama lawyer Morris Dees and based in Montgomery, the group has successfully traded on its earlier years as an organization committed to combating racial segregation.

While SPLC insists that it continues to maintain a watchful gaze for racial injustice across the American landscape, it has expanded its mission over the years. SPLC now also scours the land looking for something else: people and groups who refuse to embrace homosexuality from a secular progressive perspective.

truth-orwell-quoteSuch folks are labeled “hate groups” and tossed into SPLC’s “extremist files.” Both AFA and Family Research Council were stained with these epithets in 2010.

So what constitutes hate for SPLC? Mark Potok, director of publications and information for SPLC, told CNN that his organization does not stick the “hate” label on groups solely because of biblical beliefs about homosexuality – such as saying that homosexuality is a sin.

Rather, the label comes because groups like AFA engage “in straight-up defamation of a very large group of people.” They “spend their days and nights attacking gay people.” In another interview, Potok said Christian hate groups were “consciously promoting falsehoods and demonizing an entire group of people. It’s fact-free demonization.”

PC-TruthHow do such groups “demonize gay people”? According to SPLC’s website, organizations such as AFA do so by teaching things like: there are environmental and relational causes for homosexuality, rather than a genetic or biological cause; the homosexual lifestyle can lead to negative physical and mental health consequences; it is better for children to have both a mother and father in the home, rather than two same-gender parents; and there is evidence that some homosexuals can leave the lifestyle.

These “myths,” SPLC shrilly asserts, “almost certainly contribute to hate crime violence directed at the LGBT community.”

Of course, AFA does not believe such statements are myths – and it continues to present plenty of evidence to prove their veracity. But Potok and his ilk are not satisfied with an “agree to disagree” end to the discussion. If you don’t agree with SPLC, you’re a hater.

From hype to hypocrisy
It’s understandable that the group claims the hate label isn’t applied simply for the biblical beliefs of Christians. That would be bigotry on its face, and SPLC loves to keep up the appearance of tolerance on its part.

Still, it’s a ruse. For example, while AFA often puts forward sociological evidence to declare that kids are better off with their biological mother and father – rather than two moms or two dads – it’s clear that this belief is rooted in a Christian worldview. To call the sociological argument “hate” is to call a biblical view of marriage and family hate as well.

freedomofspeechIt is SPLC’s hypocrisy that is perhaps most appalling, for when liberals say harsh and hateful things about Christianity, they don’t wind up in SPLC’s “extremist files.”

The late Christopher Hitchens, for example, a brilliant polemicist who made his mark attacking Christianity and other religions, was notorious for his overheated rhetoric denouncing believers and their faith. In various public forums, Hitchens insisted that Christianity was a “sinister” religion and “explicitly totalitarian;” it “injects poison into our system;” it is overtly “sado-masochistic;” and that Christian clergy “lie to children for a living.”

And yet, lo and behold, Hitchens never made it onto SPLC’s list of extremists or haters. Neither do any of the other leftist demagogues who have created a cottage industry defaming the Christian faith.

Why not? Why is it hateful to say children deserve both a mom and a dad but not hateful to call Christianity “sinister” and to call pastors and priests liars?

war-on-christianityThe only obvious answer for this blatant double standard is that, at its core, the SPLC’s hate list is about attacking a belief system grounded in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Of course, there’s no law against having a double standard. And AFA understands that SPLC’s obvious hatred for Christianity is well within the expectations of those involved in public discourse. Debates in the culture wars are not for the squeamish. If Potok and other SPLC officials hear hate when Christians declare what the Bible says, that’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it.

There’s only one problem: The media regularly echoes the SPLC designation of “hate group” when journalists mention groups such as AFA. 

Moreover, for much of the first six years of the Obama administration, even government agencies like the Justice Department and Department of Defense were using SPLC’s hate group list to castigate AFA and FRC by name in meetings with staffers. It was only the threat of legal action that stopped this practice by the federal government.

This is a tremendous power for a clearly leftist organization to wield, especially given its open hostility toward Christian groups that won’t fall in line with SPLC’s secularist agenda.

In a world with a growing list of enemies of the faith, the Southern Poverty Law Center is now one of the most powerful.


Character, Race, and Law

Dinner Topics for Thursday

Race Relations and Law Enforcement

Reprinted by permission of Hillsdale College


keyLet us—all of us—have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. [May] you have the courage to stand firm for truth and righteousness. ~Thomas S. Monson

Jason L. Riley has great courage and strength of character to stand for truth and principle on this very sensitive and highly controversial issue. He gives valuable counsel, rather than mouthing empty platitudes. ~C.D.


Jason L. Riley
Editorial Board Member, Wall Street Journal

Jason L. Riley is an editorial board member and a senior editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal, where he writes on politics, economics, education, immigration, and race. He is also a FOX News contributor and appears regularly on Special Report with Bret Baier. Previously, he worked for USA Today and the Buffalo News. He earned a bachelor’s degree in English from the State University of New York at Buffalo. He is the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 30, 2015, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

I hope to bring more Light than Heat to the Discussion of Race

Thomas Sowell once said that some books you write for pleasure, and others you write out of a sense of duty, because there are things to be said—and other people have better sense than to say them. My new book, Please Stop Helping Us, falls into that latter category.

When I started out as a journalist 20 years ago, I had no expectation of focusing on race-related topics. People like Sowell and Shelby Steele and Walter Williams and a few other independent black thinkers, to my mind at least, had already said what needed to be said, had been saying it for decades, and had been saying it more eloquently than I ever could.

But over the years, and with some prodding from those guys, it occurred to me that not enough younger blacks were following in their footsteps. It also occurred to me that many public policies aimed at the black underclass were just as wrongheaded as ever. The fight wasn’t over. A new generation of black thinkers needed to explain what’s working and what isn’t, and why, to a new generation of readers. And the result is this book, which I hope will help to bring more light than heat to the discussion of race.

Back Home to Buffalo

The book is not an autobiography or a memoir, but I do tell a few stories about growing up black and male in the inner city. And one of the stories involves a trip back home to Buffalo, New York, where I was born and raised. I was visiting my older sister shortly after I had begun working at the Wall Street Journal, and I was chatting with her daughter, my niece, who was maybe in the second grade at the time.

Counterproductive Behavior

I was asking her about school, her favorite subjects, that sort of thing, when she stopped me and said, “Uncle Jason, why you talk white?” Then she turned to her little friend who was there and said, “Don’t my uncle sound white? Why he tryin’ to sound so smart?”

She was just teasing, of course. I smiled and they enjoyed a little chuckle at my expense. But what she said stayed with me. I couldn’t help thinking: Here were two young black girls, seven or eight years old, already linking speech patterns to race and intelligence. They already had a rather sophisticated awareness that, as blacks, white-sounding speech was not only to be avoided in their own speech but mocked in the speech of others.

I shouldn’t have been too surprised by this, and I wasn’t. My siblings, along with countless other black friends and relatives, teased me the same way when I was growing up. And other black professionals have told similar stories. What I had forgotten is just how early these attitudes take hold—how soon this counterproductive thinking and behavior begins.

New York City has the largest school system in America. Eighty percent of black kids in New York public schools are performing below grade level. And a big part of the problem is a black subculture that rejects attitudes and behaviors that are conducive to academic success. Black kids read half as many books and watch twice as much television as their white counterparts, for example. In other words, a big part of the problem is a culture that produces little black girls and boys who are already worried about acting and sounding white by the time they are in second grade.

Fear of being called Racist

PC-Charlie-BrownAnother big part of the problem is a reluctance to speak honestly about these cultural shortcomings. Many whites fear being called racists. And many black leaders have a vested interest in blaming black problems primarily on white racism, so that is the narrative they push regardless of the reality. Racism has become an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes, be they social or economic. If you disagree and are white, you’re a bigot. If you disagree and are black, you’re a sell-out.

The shooting death of a young black man by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, last year touched off a national discussion about everything except the aberrant behavior of so many young black men that results in such frequent encounters with police. We talked about racial prejudice, poverty, unemployment, profiling, the tensions between law enforcement and poor black communities, and so forth. Rarely did we hear any discussion of black crime rates.


Homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men in the U.S., and around 90 percent of the perpetrators are also black. Yet for months we’ve had protesters nationwide pretending that our morgues are full of young black men because cops are shooting them. Around 98 percent of black shooting deaths do not involve police. In fact, a cop is six times more likely to be shot by someone black than the opposite. The protestors are pushing a false anti-cop narrative, and everyone from the president on down has played along.

How can we even begin to address problems if we won’t discuss them honestly?

magnifying-glass-lightoftruthAny candid debate on race and criminal justice in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. Blacks constitute about 13 percent of the population, yet between 1976 and 2005 they committed more than half of all murders in the U.S.

The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault, and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population. So long as blacks are committing such an outsized amount of crime, young black men will be viewed suspiciously and tensions between police and crime-ridden communities will persist.

The U.S. criminal justice system, currently headed by a black attorney general who reports to a black president, is a reflection of this reality, not its cause. If we want to change negative perceptions of young black men, we must change the behavior that is driving those perceptions. But pointing this out has become almost taboo. How can we even begin to address problems if we won’t discuss them honestly?

“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote the late Harvard Law professor William Stuntz. “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments.”

The Left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and poverty, but back in the 1940s and ’50s, when racial discrimination was legal and black poverty was much higher than today, the black crime rate was lower. The Left wants to blame these outcomes on “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the U.S. today are run by blacks.

Drug Laws

truth2momentSome insist that our jails and prisons are teeming with young black men due primarily to racist drug laws, but the reality is that the drug laws are neither racist nor driving the black incarceration rate. It’s worth remembering that the harsher penalties for crack cocaine offenses that were passed in the 1980s were supported by most of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rep. Charles Rangel of Harlem, who at the time headed the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Crack was destroying black communities and many black political leaders wanted dealers to face longer sentences. In other words, black legislators in Washington led the effort to impose tougher drug laws, a fact often forgotten by critics today.

When these laws passed, even their opponents didn’t claim that they were racist. Those charges came later, as the racially disparate impact of the laws became apparent. What’s been lost in the discussion is whether these laws leave law-abiding blacks better off. Do you make life in the ghetto harder or easier by sending thugs home sooner rather than later? Liberal elites would have us deny what black ghetto residents know to be the truth. These communities aren’t dangerous because of racist cops or judges or sentencing guidelines. They’re dangerous mainly due to black criminals preying on black victims.

Nor is the racial disparity in prison inmates explained by the enforcement of drug laws. Blacks are about 37.5 percent of the population in state prisons, which house nearly 90 percent of the nation’s inmates. Remove drug offenders from that population and the percentage of black prisoners only drops to 37 percent.

What drives black incarceration rates are violent offenses, not drug offenses. Blacks commit violent crimes at seven to ten times the rate that whites do.

The fact that their victims tend to be of the same race suggests that young black men in the ghetto live in danger of being shot by each other, not cops. Nor is this a function of blacks being picked on by cops who are “over-policing” certain neighborhoods. Research has long shown that the rate at which blacks are arrested is nearly identical to the rate at which crime victims identify blacks as their assailants. The police are in these communities because that’s where the 911 calls originate.

How to Reverse these Trends

If liberals want to help reverse these crime trends, they would do better to focus less on supposed racial animus and more on ghetto attitudes towards school, work, marriage, and child-rearing.

2-parentfamily-silhouetteAs recently as the early 1960s, two out of three black children were raised in two-parent households. Today, more than 70 percent are not, and the number can reach as high as 80 or 90 percent in our inner cities. For decades, studies have shown that the likelihood of teen pregnancy, drug abuse, dropping out of school and other bad social outcomes increases dramatically when fathers aren’t around.

Fathers are Vital in the Home

One of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken in this regard concluded that black boys without a father are 68 percent more likely to be incarcerated than those with a father—that overall, the most critical factor affecting the prospect of young males encountering the criminal justice system is the presence of a father in the home. All other factors, including family income, are much less important.

Importance of Good Character

I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

black-family-dinnerAs political scientist James Q. Wilson said, if crime is to a significant degree caused by weak character, if weak character is more likely among children of unmarried mothers, if there are no fathers who will help raise their children, acquire jobs, and protect their neighborhoods, if boys become young men with no preparation for work, if school achievement is regarded as a sign of having sold out—if all these things are true, then the chances of reducing the crime rate among low income blacks anytime soon is slim.

Does Big Government really Help?

Many on the Left sincerely want to help the black underclass. The problem is that liberals believe bigger government is the best way to help. But having looked at the track record of government policies aimed at helping the black underclass, I’m skeptical.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s commencement speech at Howard University. Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act a year earlier and would sign the Voting Rights Act two months later. And he used the speech to talk about what the government should do next on behalf of blacks. These two laws marked merely the end of the beginning, he said:

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society—to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. . . . But freedom is not enough. . . . You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. . . . The next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights [is] . . . not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

truth-meter-falseBut what if Johnson was mistaken? What if there are limits to what government can do beyond removing barriers to freedom? What if the best that we can hope for from our elected officials are policies that promote equal opportunity?

What if public policy makers risk creating more problems and barriers to progress when the goal is equal outcomes?

The civil rights struggles of the mid-20th century exemplified liberalism at its best. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act outlawed racial discrimination in employment and education and ensured the ability of blacks to register and vote. All Americans can be proud of these accomplishments.

But what about the social policy and thinking that arose from the ruins of Jim Crow? Good intentions aside, which efforts have facilitated black advancement, and which efforts have impeded it?

The Limits of Social Policy—Good Intentions Not Enough

In 1988, right around the 25th anniversary of the Great Society, Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer published a book called the The Limits of Social Policy. Glazer analyzed Great Society programs from the perspective of someone who believed that government action was the best way to improve the lot of blacks.

But his assessment humbled him.

He concluded that in many ways, the Great Society programs were causing just as many problems as they were solving—that good intentions aren’t enough.

Unlike Nathan Glazer, many policy makers today are still riding high on good intentions. They don’t seem particularly interested in reconsidering what has been tried, even though 50 years into the war on poverty the result isn’t pretty. While gains have been made, significant racial disparities remain in some areas and black retrogression has occurred in others.

The black-white poverty gap has widened over the past decade and the black poverty rate is no longer falling. The black-white disparity in incarceration rates today is larger than it was in 1960. And the black unemployment rate has, on average, been double the white rate for five decades.

Confronted with these statistics, liberals continue to push for more of the same solutions.

Last year, President Obama announced yet another federal initiative aimed at helping blacks—an increase in preschool education, even though studies (including those released by his own administration) have shown no significant impacts in education from such programs. He said that he wants to increase reading proficiency and graduation rates for minority students, yet he opposes school voucher programs that are doing both. He continues to call for job-training programs of the sort that study after study has shown to be ineffective.

Liberal Flight from Evidence

Fred Siegel, an expert on urban public policy, has written extensively about the liberal flight from evidence and empiricism that began in the 1960s.

The Left, wracked by guilt over America’s diabolical treatment of blacks, decided to hold them to different standards of behavior. Blacks, Siegel writes, were invited to enter the larger society on their own terms. Schools, which had helped poor whites, ceased incorporating poor blacks from the South into the mainstream culture.

Antisocial Behavior Enabled, not Disciplined

Discipline as a prerequisite for adult success was displaced by the authentic self-expression of the ill-educated. Blacks were not culturally deprived but simply differently-abled—more spontaneous and expressive and so forth. Liberals tried to improve conditions for blacks without passing judgment on antisocial black culture.

And this sort of thinking continues to this day. Walter Williams once wrote that he’s glad he grew up in the 1940s and ’50s, before it became fashionable for white people to like black people. He received a more honest assessment of his strengths and weaknesses, he says, than black kids today are likely to receive from white teachers and employers who are more interested in being politically correct.

After George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, President Obama explained the black response to the verdict this way. Blacks understand, he said, that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to that history.

In other words, Obama was doing exactly what the Left has been conditioning blacks to do since the 1960s, which is to blame black pathology on the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

push-backEfforts to Help are Holding down Blacks

This is a dodge. That legacy is not holding down blacks half as much as the legacy of efforts to help.

Underprivileged blacks have become playthings for intellectuals and politicians who care more about reveling in their good intentions or winning votes than advocating behaviors and attitudes that have allowed other groups to get ahead.

Meanwhile, the civil rights movement has become an industry that does little more than monetize white guilt.

Martin Luther King and his contemporaries demanded black self-improvement despite the abundant and overt racism of their day.

PC-criticizeKing’s self-styled successors, living in an era when public policy bends over backwards to accommodate blacks, insist that blacks cannot be held responsible for their plight so long as someone, somewhere in white America, is still prejudiced.

The more fundamental problem with these well-meaning liberal efforts is that they have succeeded, tragically, in convincing blacks to see themselves first and foremost as victims.

Today there is no greater impediment to black advancement than the self-pitying mindset that permeates black culture.

White liberals think they are helping blacks by romanticizing bad behavior. And black liberals are all too happy to hustle guilty whites.

Blacks ultimately must help themselves.

climbupThey must develop the same attitudes and behaviors and habits that other groups had to develop to rise in America. And to the extent that a social policy, however well-intentioned, interferes with this self-development, it does more harm than good.

This concept of self-help and self-development is something that black leaders once understood quite well, and at a time when blacks faced infinitely more obstacles than they face today.

Frederick Douglass

Asked by whites in 1865 what to do for freed blacks, Frederick Douglass responded: “I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! . . . If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength . . . let them fall! . . . And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!” Douglass was essentially saying, give blacks equal opportunity and then leave them alone.

Booker T. Washington

Booker_T_Washington_portrait_Booker T. Washington, another late 19th century black leader who had been born a slave, once said that it is important and right that all privileges of the law be granted to blacks, but it is vastly more important that they be prepared for the exercise of these privileges.

Douglass and Washington didn’t play down the need for the government to secure equal rights for blacks, and both were optimistic that blacks would get equal rights eventually, although neither man lived to see that day.

But both men also understood the limits of government benevolence.

Blacks would have to ready themselves to meet the challenge of being in a position to take advantage of opportunities once equal rights had been secured. The history of 1960s liberal social policies is largely a history of ignoring this wisdom.


Church, Law, Bible Moral Standard, and Weddings

An Open Letter to Russell Moore

Church Pastor criticizes Champion of Liberty Roy Moore for applying Bible Moral Standard and U.S. Constitution to Weddings

keyThe Federal Government has no legal right to force same sex marriage on states that do not want it and have amended their state Constitutions to not recognize it. The Federal Government also has no authority to force states to allow the murder of pre-born babies. However, the courts will continue to do whatever they want until some state actually has the courage to say no.

By Paul BlairBarbWire guest contributor

Image credit: Christian Examiner

roy-moore-and-russell-mooreDid you ever wonder why Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were the only three Hebrews that refused to bow down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar erected in the plains of Shinar?   I suspect that a distant relative of Russell Moore was on the scene misquoting Romans 13 to the others.

For those of you that are confused, Russell Moore, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, was quoted criticizing Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore’s instruction for state officials to disregard a Federal judge’s ruling and NOT issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Russell Moore (no relation to Roy) was quoted in the February 12 edition of the Baptist Press to say, “As citizens and as Christians, our response should be one of both conviction and of respect for the rule of law (1 Peter 2:13; Romans 13). Our system of government does not allow a state to defy the law of the land.”

While Mr. Moore sides with Pharaoh in Exodus 1, let me explain how our system was actually designed to work.

In 1787, members of twelve of the thirteen colonies gathered in Philadelphia charged by their respective state governments with amending the existing Articles of Confederation. Before they were finished, they crafted a new Constitution for the United States.

The new “federal government” was created by a compact between the states to serve the union of states and was delegated by the compact to have few and specific powers. As James Madison clearly stated in Federalist #45:

constitution2The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

According to Article 1, Section 8, this new creation was only given 17 areas of responsibility in which it held “supremacy” over the states. In case the new government attempted to exceed its limitations, it was not up to the Supreme Court to decide. Judicial review exists nowhere in the Constitution. It is ridiculous to think that the sole referee to determine if the Federal Government was exceeding its limits would be a branch of the Federal Government!

So what is the proper recourse if the Federal Government exceeds its limits? In 1798, the author of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote in the Virginia Resolutions:

…in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

[Roy Moore is well-known for defending the Ten Commandments in the past when under government attack]

In other words, Judge Roy Moore and the State of Alabama are right. According to our Rule of Law, when the Federal Government acts outside its authority, it is up to the states, who created the Federal government in the first place, to simply reject any unconstitutional and illegal acts committed by the Federal Government.

ThomasJeffersonThomas Jefferson commented in his Kentucky Resolutions:

…by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they (the states) constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

If I was to send Mr. Moore a letter on official stationary demanding that he paint his office lime green, he would be under no obligation to do so as I have no authority over him in the matter. The same holds true when the Federal Government attempts to act outside the seventeen specific areas in which they are allowed to act.

In America, we have no king. The people are sovereign and “We the people of the UNITED STATES” created, designed and then delegated few and defined powers to the general government. So in accordance to Romans 13, Judge Roy Moore and the State of Alabama are attempting to uphold Romans 13 from those seeking to undermine the Rule of Law.

The Federal Government has no legal right to force same sex marriage on states that do not want it and have amended their state Constitutions to not recognize it. The Federal Government also has no authority to force states to allow the murder of pre-born babies. However, the courts will continue to do whatever they want until some state actually has the courage to say no.

Christians, the law is on our side. We have the Biblical right, the legal right and the moral responsibility to end the attack on natural marriage and also to end the murder of 58 million pre-born babies.

We must decide whether we are a union of states who delegated limited powers to the Federal government to serve the states in areas of general welfare or recognize that we are now 320 million individuals RULED by our Supreme Leader in Washington DC along with nine politically appointed attorneys.

But Mr. Moore, please understand the ultimate consequence of your position. When a federal judge somewhere rules that a pastor must perform same-sex “marriages,” or that churches can no longer preach that sex outside of marriage is biblically immoral, you will have already consented to this unlawful affront against God and His church by what you said on February 12th. What will you do then?

Paul Blair was raised in Edmond, Oklahoma, and was a three year starter at offensive tackle for Oklahoma State University. After college, he was a Fourth Round Draft Pick of the National Football League’s Chicago Bears in 1986; he was one of only three rookies to make the team of the defending World Champion Bears. He spent five years in the NFL, and retired after the 1990 season due to a fourth and final knee injury. As Founder and Chairman of Reclaiming Oklahoma For Christ, and current Chairman of Reclaiming America For Christ, this Patriot Pastor’s desire is for Americans to understand their Christian heritage.

Image credit: Christian Examiner
Read more at http://barbwire.com/2015/02/17/0700-open-letter-russell-moore/

History: Law requires Teaching Truth about America

Dinner Topics for Thursday


North Dakota is Teaching American Greatness

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: This is from the Independent Journalism Review.  You know, there’s a lot of young bubbling up there effervescent conservative websites out there.  There are a lot of them and they are disdainful of the Drive-By Media, and some of them are even disdainful of the so-called existing conservative media, guys like James O’Keefe and Jason Mattera, but there are a bunch of others, the Campus Reform guys, GotNews.com.

There are a bunch of really pedal-to-the-metal young conservative — Conservative Review is one — websites out there, and they are take no prisoners.  Independent Journalism Review is one of them and there’s a story here about North Dakota is taking a new approach to ensure that its youths learn the value of the greatness of the United States.

“In an effort to ensure that high school graduates are aware how the U.S. government operates, the state legislature in North Dakota is considering a new bill, which would impose one more requirement on seniors prior to graduation.  From the Jamestown Sun newspaper:  ‘A bipartisan bill being introduced in the North Dakota Legislature would require high school students to pass the same civics test as new Americans seeking citizenship before they could graduate.’

“The proposed bill has many backers, including the Civics Education Initiative, whose goal is to have similar laws enacted in every state by September 17, 2017 — the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Some of the questions from the civics test that would be embodied by the new legislation involve American government, history, and integrated civics.”

You want to hear some of these questions?  Okay, here we go.

Number one:  “What is the supreme law of the land?” 

constitutionSee, now, Snerdley, there you go arrogantly, condescendingly answering the question as though everybody knows.  Not everybody can answer that question.  How many people — I gotta be very careful here.  What is your answer to that question, what is the supreme law of the land?  (interruption)  That’s right, okay, you get a gold star.  It’s the Constitution, 1787. 

Now, you understand there are a lot of communities in this country you can go to, they’d be clueless, wouldn’t even know what you’re talking about.  What do you mean, supreme law of the land?  You mean cops can kill anybody they want?  What do you mean, supreme law of the land?  Understand there are a lot of people that wouldn’t even comprehend what’s being asked.

Question 2: “What is freedom of religion?” 

Answer:  It doesn’t mean belief in global warming.  (interruption)  Right, okay, okay, I know you can answer it.  Right.  You can answer it.  The point is, they want to put these questions on a test in North Dakota that you can’t graduate ’til you know these things.

Number three:  “What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?” 

The answer today is “nothing.”  If you’re the executive branch, nothing.  But the answer, of course, is… (interruption)  Separation of powers.  Exactly right.

Number four:  “What are two cabinet-level positions?” 

Okay, now, you answer those easily, but not everybody else could.  Secretary of state, secretary of Treasury, you know, police chief. 

“Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?”  Taxation.  Okay, cool.

“Name one right only for United States citizens.” 

You say it used to be voting?  What about life and liberty?  What about pursuit of happiness?  Name one right only for US citizens.  The right to carry arms.  It could be a trick question.  Some people say a trick question. 

Lincoln“What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?” 

Ah, this is a trick question.  (interruption)  Right.  It did nothing at the time, but it is perceived to have freed black people, so that’s true.

“Who was president during World War I?” 

Predecessor Barack Obama, that’s right, Woodrow Wilson. 

“Name one of the two longest rivers in the United States?” 

Okay, Mississippi.  What is the next longest, or what is another longest river?  (interruption)  No.  Not the Rio Grande.  The Missouri River.  The Missouri River is huge.  There’s a Missouri River, it bisects the state of Missouri north to south.  Missouri River, oh, yeah.

“Why does the flag have 13 stripes?” 

[It stands for the 13 original colonies.]

flag2Do you know how few people know that?  I mean, that question befuddles people like you can’t believe.  Anyway, there are people that oppose doing this, do you understand this?  There are people in North Dakota who oppose this, and those people should be voted out of office as soon as possible.  This is just a baseline requirement.  What can there possibly be to object to in this?

You can’t say it’s too hard.  You can’t say it’s discriminatory.  You can’t say it’s racist.  You can’t say it’s sexist.  You can’t say it’s bigoted.  How is it discriminatory?  (interruption)  Oh, it’s discriminatory because it discriminates against people who don’t know.  Right. They don’t have white privilege and haven’t been taught this stuff.  Right, right, right.  Okay, anyway.  Here again, folks, if I may… (interruption)  Well, look, these are not all the questions.  It stops here at number 10.

The question on when did the United States steal Mexico is not here.  It’s just not here.  They only had space to publish 10 of the questions.  So when the United States stole Mexico is probably, I don’t know, question 18.