archives

Constitution

This tag is associated with 53 posts

Hey! Rights Ain’t Dead, Yet!

This, courtesy of Wirecutter

For the first time, a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained without a warrant by U.S. law enforcement using a stingray, a surveillance device that can trick suspects’ cell phones into revealing their locations.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant Raymond Lambis’ rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment.

The DEA had used a stingray to identify Lambis’ apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug-trafficking probe. Pauley said doing so constituted an unreasonable search.
MORE

stingray

If you are keeping score, that’s the anti-constitutional Statist bastards – 356

Liberty and Freedom – 3

 

Is This The Beginning Of The End?

I’m speaking of this Republic.

With Rome, it was either when the Ottoman Turks took Byzantium (Constantinople) 1453 AD or when a barbarian deposed the last western Roman emperor 476 AD (ancient history About.com)

My Western Civilization professor said it began with (and I’m quoting here) “Moral decadence and pleasures of the flesh!” (to the cheers of the 400 or so horny underclassmen)

What is/was the beginning of the end of this Constitutional Republic we know as The United States?

The Whiskey Rebellion? (1791)

The Civil War? (1861)

Federal income tax (1913)

Direct election of Senators?  (1913)

Establishment of the Federal Reserve?  (1913)

The National Firearms Act (1934)

Or is it an amalgamation of these and many other things, eating away at our Constitutional substance, punctuated by further federal government oversteps such as Ruby Ridge and Waco?  No-knock warrants, followed by airport searches and sobriety checkpoints.  Massive surveillance of our electronic communications.  Prohibitions of Speech seen as ‘politically-incorrect’.  The killing of Blacks by police – whether or not legitimate actions – spun by self-serving propagandists into an ersatz race war?

Now followed by widespread racial civil unrest, punctuated by acts of terrorism against civil authority.

I’m certain all ‘civilizations’, be they primitive neolithic cultures like the American Indian when the White man first laid eyes on him, or the Romans, or the Christian Turks all thought they would endure forever.

And so have most of we Americans.

I guess the true question isn’t what was the tipping point.

It’s what do we do NOW?

dark ages

from a miniseries The Dark Ages

Redress Of Grievances

Ever wonder HOW to do that, exactly?

Remember the post I did a while back (along with many other bloggers) regarding this administration’s ongoing attempts to restrict the rights of law-abiding Social Security recipients?

Did that tick you off?  It did me.

How may one address – or rather redress – this grievance?!

I was given an answer!  (from the G.O.A., in part)

A Brief Note from the Executive Director

Dear Guffaw,

Earlier this week, Gun Owners of America emailed you about Obama’s latest gun grab — a ban that is aimed at Social Security recipients who want to pass on their gun collections to their children and grandchildren.

Unfortunately, we neglected to include in that email, the sample text which can be sent to the Social Security Administration.  It was posted on the web version of this alert, but was not included in the email.

I apologize for that omission.  

You can now find the sample text below, with instructions on how to send it to the Social Security Administration — thus registering your opposition to these diabolical regulations which jeapordize gun collections in hundreds of thousands of American homes.

As always, I want to thank you for your activism.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director
Gun Owners of America

How to Take Action

The Social Security Administration has posted regulations here.  And they are inviting comments from the general public.

While you can fax or mail your comments, they “strongly recommend that you submit your comments via the Internet.”

So here’s what to do:

  • Visit the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
  • Use the “Search” function to find docket number SSA–2016–0011.
  • Submit your comments, using the pre-written text suggested below or by uploading your own text.

NOTE:  The regulations state that, “The system will issue a tracking number to confirm your submission.  You will not be able to view your comment immediately because we must post each comment manually.  It may take up to a week or more for your comment to be viewable.”  

You have until July 5 to submit your comments.

Suggested Response to the Social Security Administration (below) 

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you regarding the SOCIAL SECURITY GUN BAN — docket number SSA–2016–0011 — which was formally published in the Federal Register in May.

I am in opposition to this rule and urge the administration to withdraw it.

We have seen this game before at the hands of the Veterans Administration:  To date, over 250,000 law-abiding veterans who have served their country honorably have had their constitutional rights stripped from them.

The VA claims veterans can contest the removal of their rights — and can petition to have them restored.  This rule claims the same right to petition.

But you know — as does the VA — that that process costs at least $10,000. In fact, to be successful, the cost would be more like $20,000 to $100,000. 

For this reason, data shows that a tiny fraction of these veterans have successfully used these illusory mechanisms to reclaim their rights.

Under this proposed rule, if a person is on Social Security disability by reason of a mental health impairment, then their gun rights are gone. Period.

The regulation promises to aggressively search for and take away the gun rights of Social Security Disability recipients with PTSD, ADHD, post partem depression, Alzheimer’s, etc. 

But understand this:  Some parts of the regulation, like the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” in proposed CFR 421.105, are applicable to all Title II recipients, including old-age programs. 

Make no mistake: It is clear to everyone that your hidden agenda (disarming seniors) is much broader than your ostensible agenda (disarming the disabled).

Thus, under this language, if a senior can’t “manage their own affairs,” they are specifically acknowledged by the Social Security Administration as being a “mental defective” for purposes of making them a prohibited person. 

Barack Obama claims that this regulation would involve 75,000 persons (who would unconstitutionally lose their fundamental rights), but you understand that the number is more likely to be in the multiple hundreds of thousands.

Then you propose to turn in the names of these innocent law-abiding Americans to the FBI, for the sake of unilaterally stripping them of fundamental constitutional guarantees — all without a hearing or any due process whatsoever.

And, while you propose to do this on the basis of your victims’ incompetence (“mental defect”), you simultaneously assume they are competent to know what you are doing to them — and to round up and dispose of all their firearms in order to avoid becoming Instant Felons. 

You probably don’t know this and probably don’t care:  But octogenarians are not a high-crime demographic.  Very large numbers of them have firearms which they intend to pass on to their children, however.

And most of them would be surprised that they were being turned into “Instant Felons,” subject to SWAT teams and potential prison sentences.

I understand you’re marching to the beat of a Leftist political drummer.  But understand this:  groups like Gun Owners of America will work with Congress to defund this corrupt exercise. 

And every senior citizen in America will go into the polling booth this fall with the knowledge of your unsuccessful little effort to turn them into criminals.

For all these reasons, and more, I urge you to withdraw the SOCIAL SECURITY GUN BAN — docket number SSA–2016–0011.

Sincerely,

 

I did it.  It took less than 5 minutes.  You have almost a month to do the same.  Or, draft your own response!

Many of us whine BIGGOV isn’t listening.  We need to actually say something to them, not just grouse amongst ourselves.  Here is an opportunity.

Take Action!

_______________________________________________________

(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
I would ask all of you bloggers out there to at least make the effort to post a link to www.projectwelcomehometroops.org/#22kill

22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY

Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #9 of 22)

 

Parsing The Constitution

I always thought my public school education from the 50s and 60s was enough to get me by.  Certainly more learned than the folks who deliberately misunderstand the three-fifths compromise and the electoral college. And forget those college professors lecturers who taught communism in Constitution classes! (Who could I mean?)

I have often used the argument of the phrase ‘promote the general welfare’ as an argument against both welfare and enforcement thereof.

Thought I was pretty smart in so doing.

Now, here comes (or rather came) Judge Story’s interpretation regarding ‘the general welfare’.

From long before most of us were born!

“Thus we find in our conclusion that there is no general welfare clause in the Constitution;

that the power of Congress to legislate for every object which in their opinion might be for the benefit of the people, pressed by Mr. Hamilton in the Convention, was six times, directly or indirectly, rejected by that body; and, in spite of that, his followers have sought to con­strue these words as meaning what the authors of the Constitution had six times successively rejected; while Judge Story’s construction lands us in the same morass, a government of unlimited power, though he reaches it by a different road.

These facts show that a large majority of the Com­mittee of Eleven that reported these words to be in­corporated into the first clause of §8 Art. I were strongly opposed to the views of Mr. Hamilton and those of Judge Story that lead to the same end, tho’ by different routes, a government of unlimited pow­ers!”

**************************************************

This speech was delivered before the annual meeting of the Georgia Bar Association at Tybee Island on June 2, 3, and 4, 1927.Mr. PRESIDENT and gentlemen of the Geor­gia Bar Association: I make no apology for presenting to you today as the subject of my address a technical and abstruse question, be cause it involves the foundation stone of our form of Government.

The subject to which I invite your attention may be put in this form, “Judge Story’s position on the so-called General Welfare Clause of the Con­stitution of the United States.”

The words “the general welfare” are to be found in two places in the Constitution—in the preamble thereto and in Article 1, section 8, clause 1. All reputable writers concur in the statement that the words of the preamble to the Constitution consti­tute no grants of power, and therefore our investigation is confined to the words as found in Article 1, section 8, clause 1. which reads,

“The Congress shall have power lo lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Apparently, lots of wisdom existed before I was born!  :-P

courtesy of Free North Carolina
______________________________________________________
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
I would ask all of you bloggers out there to at least make the effort to post a link to www.projectwelcomehometroops.org/#22kill

22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY

Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #6 of 22)

Shadow War

from Free North Carolina

On Resistance

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3516131809/dc8c25f6e8c84465a3d8b749efa31358.jpeg

History shows that all successful revolutions established an alternate ‘shadow’ government
during the uprising.  Many of those unsuccessful also did, but weaker, less competent, or
just as corrupt as that which they opposed.  It was and is, a hallmark of the Communists.

The noise of the internet shows no such activity among the ‘Patriot’ or ‘Freedom Forces’.
Lots of gabble about local resistance, and resisting Mil/LEO oppression, all of which sounds
great over a beer and a bag of wings, but not so pretty good the deeper we get into this
morass.

The Confederacy established, from the get go, a legitimate central government, with legal
authority to act in defence of the Southern States.  Unfortunately, as a confederation of
sovereign states, it lacked the power to make its laws stick.  Lesson there for would be
secessionists.  Common cause is insufficient to ensure common effort.  Various States
went their own way, leaving Richmond to scrounge, scrabble, and root hog or die.
North Carolina and Georgia were two that withheld critical supplies from troops of other
states, in dire need.

Appomattox saw thousands of starving, ragged, barefoot rebels stack arms, while tons of
supplies were held back, including 80,000 pairs of shoes, thousands of uniform jackets,
and rations were left to be taken up by Yankee soldiers or freed slaves.  Lee had to beg
rations of Grant while warehouses in certain states were full.

In the American Revolution, New England, once the English were removed from Boston,
pretty much forgot about the war, busy selling foods and produce to the enemy; and handed
it off to Southern States to fight.  Royal Navy ships had no difficulty receiving water, meat,
vegetables or grain from the Yankee ‘rebels’.  At Valley Forge, the Army starved while good
Pennsylvania farmers supplied the British with beef, poultry, and all the sustenance needed.
The occupying forces of Philadelphia and New York never went hungry.

So, from our own history, we have key lessons in the conduct of a War for Independence.

Not everybody on your side is on your side.  Beware the convenient “Patriot”.  Beware of the
personal jealousies, selfishness, and downright ignorance of your ‘fellow patriots’.  Know that
better than two thirds of Americans did not participate in the Revolution.  Know that more than
a few ‘Southern Gentlemen’  avoided service with the Armies.  Know that many just up and left
for Europe or Mexico, to save their precious skins.  Know also that the war against Dixie was
largely fought by Irish and German immigrants, recruited for the purpose by Lincoln’s agents.

The idea of the Noble American, brave and true, is mostly a *fiction created after the fact. Yankee
states recruited ex- slaves in occupied territories and counted them against their quotas for draftees
Yankees bought ‘substitutes’ in Europe rather than get down and dirty in Southern mud and blood.
Draft dodging didn’t start with Bill Clinton. *I disagree. The War Didn’t End At Appomattox

So, all this leads to this . . . my fear is that somebody somewhere will start a fire he can’t put out.
Unprepared, unplanned, unorganized, unsupported, unwanted, the rising will be crushed locally,
and the result will pogroms against anyone suspected of harboring dissident ideas.  And America
will cheer the slaughter.  We don’t need another Shay’s Rebellion, nor another Whiskey war, nor
another Appomattox.

The Bundy Ranch incident was heartening, after a fashion, but know that DotGov is rounding up anyone they can identify for punishment.  The Refuge seige is getting the same treatment.  Neither were Lexington or Concord, nor Manassas.  DotGov demonstrated at Waco that they will kill anyone, anytime with no reason at all.  Ruby Ridge demonstrated that they will manufacture a reason if necessary, and get away with it.

I think that we’d be better off establishing a shadow government to assume control once the whole bankster  bomb explodes.  When the federal government expires of its own weight and criminality, somebody will pick up the pieces.  Somebody better have a revenue plan ready to implement, a plan to pay the emergency services, and the troops they take under command.  A plan to secure territory and resources.  Someone will be doing that, the question is, “Who do you WANT doing that?” 

Maybe Trump can pull this rabbit out of the hat, but I doubt it.  I wish him all the best and pray for my country. But all the will in the world didn’t keep ‘Titanic’ afloat; all the will and prayers didn’t save the Confederacy. We too long ago let that wildcat out of the bag and nobody’s gonna get him stuffed back in.

–Dick
YIKES!  Is this what everyone is NOT talking about?  Do these folks truly believe the American Republic is on her last legs.  And will the Progressive Oligarchy who pretends they are the ongoing American Republic see the above as secessionist speech?  Or worse yet, HATE speech?
tin_foil_hat_areaAnd will lovers of Liberty everywhere continue to turn a blind eye to the every-increasing power of government, straighten the brim of their aluminum fedora, and retreat back to the warren wherein they reside?  With cases of energy drinks and sketchy Internet access?
Until the Dream of a Constitutional Republic conceived in Liberty collapses under the morass of her own laws…
Inquiring minds want to know.  On second thought, I don’t want to…
______________________________________________________
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
I would ask all of you bloggers out there to at least make the effort to post a link to www.projectwelcomehometroops.org/#22kill

22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY

Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable!

The Social Contract – Endgame

lockeThose of you who have read (political) History are familiar with John Locke, and his concept of the Social Contract(?)  You remember, the idea that ‘We The People’ make a Contract with those we ‘choose’ to govern us(?)

The basis for The Declaration of Independence.

Well, here is a prime (negative) example.

(courtesy of Joel)

Hey, remember last month when Virginia’s Attorney General threw CCW holders under the bus?

Well, good news, everyone! Governor Terry McAuliffe and “republican leaders” have concluded a series of backroom agreements that restores reciprocity, sort of, and all the repubs and the NRA had to give away was any hope of Virginia gun owners ever feeling safe from the state…

In exchange, Republicans softened their stances on issues that have long been non-starters in the GOP-controlled General Assembly. Under the deal, the state would take guns away from anyone who was under a two-year protective order for domestic-violence offenses. And State Police would have to attend all gun shows to provide background checks for private sellers if they requested the service.

So everything’s cool, Virginia, except that you better never get your wife mad at you and there’ll be armed goons looking over your shoulder any time you think it might be fun to pop into a gun show. But other than that, yay! Say hey for the beauties of compromise, I guess…

Of course, there’s that pesky (federal) Lautenberg Amendment thing, too.

When we make a contract with government, there is ALWAYS the other side to the contract.  Their codicil spelling out our duties and responsibilities under the ‘agreement’.

Because they never just give us anything – not when they can use a hook!

New World Order?

YES, WE ARE ALMOST DONE.
JUST ONE ELECTION DECIDES OUR FATE….
ALMOST THERE


There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to
create a socialist/communist State.  The first is the most important.

5 OF THE 8 ARE DONE – THE LAST 3 ARE ALMOST THERE???

1.  Healthcare:  “Control Healthcare and you control the People.”  DONE!!!
2.  Poverty:  “Increase the Poverty level as high as possible.”  Poor
People are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing
everything for them to live.  DONE!!!
3.  Debt:  “Increase the National Debt to an unsustainable level.”  That
way you are able to increase Taxes, and this will produce more Poverty.
DONE!!!
4.  Gun Control:  “Remove the ability to defend themselves from the
Government.”  That way you are able to create a Police State – total local
control.  ALMOST THERE!!!
5.  Welfare:  “Take control of every aspect of their lives” (Food, Livestock, Housing, and Income).  DONE!!!
6.  Education:  “Take control of what People read & listen to take control of what Children learn in School.”  ALMOST THERE!!!
7.  Religion “Remove faith in God from the Government and School.” ALMOST THERE!!!
8.  Class Warfare:  “Divide the People into the Wealthy against the Poor.
Racially divide.”  This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to Tax the Wealthy with full support of the voting Poor.  DONE!!!

 The bases are all covered!  We are ripe for the New World Order.

I’ve no idea where this list originated.  I’ve seen similar lists for many years, even before the existence of the Internet.  Some purporting to be born of the Communist Party of the United States after WWI (?!)

Regardless, it does appear to be a suitable group of steps necessary for fundamental change from this Constitutional Republic to something progressing past it.

Fundamental change – where have I heard that before?

h/t Boyd & Donna

Today Is Bill Of Rights Day!

(As posted on Cato.org)

Today Is Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day. So it’s an appropriate time to consider the state of our constitutional safeguards.

Let’s consider each amendment in turn.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, have insisted that they can gag recipients of “national security letters” and censor broadcast ads in the name of campaign finance reformand arrest people for simply distributing pamphlets on a sidewalk.

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, make it difficult to keep a gun in the home and make it a crime for a citizen to carry a gun for self-protection.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners. This safeguard is one of the few that is in fine shape – so we can pause here for a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can conductcommando-style raids on our homes and treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can use eminent domain to take away our property and give it to other private parties who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial—“throwing the book” at those who refuse to plead guilty—which explains why 95 percent of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines on people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will beretained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers they possess, and have extended federal control over health care, crime, education, and other matters the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.

It’s a disturbing snapshot, to be sure, but not one the Framers of the Constitution would have found altogether surprising. They would sometimes refer to written constitutions as mere “parchment barriers,” or what we call “paper tigers.” They nevertheless concluded that having a written constitution was better than having nothing at all.

The key point is this: A free society does not just “happen.” It has to be deliberately created and deliberately maintained. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. To remind our fellow citizens of their responsibility in that regard, the Cato Institute has distributed more than six million copies of our pocket Constitution. At this time of year, it’ll make a great stocking stuffer.

Let’s enjoy the holidays (and remember many of the positive trends that are underway) but let’s also resolve to be more vigilant about defending our Constitution. To learn more about Cato’s work in defense of the Constitution, go here. To support the work of Cato, go here.

Presidential Proclamation — Bill of Rights Day, 2015  (Link – NOT posted here)

Why, you might ask, did I not post it here?

Well, the President fails to mention any of the First Ten Amendments specifically, but does mention The Civil Rights movement, LGBT rights, equality and ‘fairness’.

No mention of no-knock warrants, secret prisons, ‘enhanced’ interrogations or wholesale privacy erosions.

Or firearms.

You can go an read it for yourself, if you like.

How to celebrate the day?  I’d suggest reading the entire Bill of Rights aloud, then going shooting!  :-)

AH! The Virtues Of A Higher Education!

Via Bill

Freedom of Speech and all that…

Bet Che’ t-shirts aren’t banned…because it’s for the children!

I love how Lenin’s useful idiots clamor for freedom of speech, and protection from other’s speech simultaneously.  Not realizing that if the agenda they so love comes into power they will no longer have that freedom!

MAROONS!

h/t Brock Townsend

 

Three-Fifths Of An Idea

by Walter Williams  (Human Events)

Many of my columns speak highly of the wisdom of our nation’s founders. Every once in a while, I receive an ugly letter sarcastically asking what do I think of their wisdom declaring blacks “three-fifths of a human.” It’s difficult to tell whether such a question is prompted by ignorance or is the fruit of an ongoing agenda to undermine American greatness. Let’s examine some facts about our founders and slavery.

At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, slaves were 40 percent of the population of southern colonies. Apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections would be based upon population. Southern colonies wanted slaves to be counted as one person. Northern delegates to the convention, and those opposed to slavery, wanted to count only free persons of each state for the purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The compromise reached was that each slave would be counted as only three-fifths of a person.

If the convention delegates had not reached this compromise, the Constitution would have not been ratified and there would not have been a Union. My questions to those who criticize the three-fifths clause are twofold. Would it have been preferable for the southern states to be able to count slaves as whole persons, thereby giving southern states more political power? Would blacks have been better off without constitutional ratification and a Union made possible by the three-fifths compromise? In other words, would blacks have been better off with northern states having gone their way and southern states having gone theirs and, as a consequence, no U.S. Constitution and no Union? Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was “a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states” that deprived them of “two-fifths of their natural basis of representation.”

Patrick Henry expressed the reality of the three-fifths compromise, saying, “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” With union, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade in 1808. According to delegate James Wilson, many believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid “the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.”

Many founders openly condemned slavery. George Washington said, “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” John Adams: “Every measure of prudence … ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. … I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in … abhorrence.” James Madison: “We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” Benjamin Franklin: “Slavery is … an atrocious debasement of human nature.” Franklin, after visiting a black school, said, “I … have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race than I had ever before entertained.” Alexander Hamilton’s judgment was the same: “Their natural faculties are probably as good as ours.” John Jay wrote: “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”

Completely ignored in most discussions of slavery is the fact that slavery was mankind’s standard fare throughout history. Centuries before blacks were enslaved Europeans were enslaved. The word slavery comes from Slavs, referring to the Slavic people, who were early slaves. What distinguishes the West, namely Britain and the U.S., from other nations are the extraordinary measures they took to abolish slavery.

The Founders knew without the South’s vote, they wouldn’t survive as a Republic.  And in their genius put this together.

And now, they are being beaten-up for having done so, by people who don’t know history.

Or people who do…

Because forcing that political view is in the anti-constitutional, anti-Republic agenda.

Believe it.

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 398 other followers