Jim Delaney's Posts - REAL CONSERVATIVES2024-03-29T07:08:39ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaneyhttps://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/73999210?profile=original&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1https://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blog/feed?user=3kh5wdff99s19&xn_auth=noBush Bashes Cheney, Rumsfeld and Trumptag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-11-06:3180617:BlogPost:2588032017-11-06T19:34:20.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p><span>POOR GEORGE. Maybe he really did have a silver spoon shoved in his mouth--and brain as well.</span></p>
<p><span>In his upcoming book, "The Last Republican" (hope he's right), he not only lambasted Trump as a "blowhard", but attacked Trump's America-first ideology and, yes, George defended his globalism. (Geez, George. Why weren't you as openly critical of your successor? And you're wondering why folks think you're a tad out of touch?)</span></p>
<p><span>And to shore up…</span></p>
<p><span>POOR GEORGE. Maybe he really did have a silver spoon shoved in his mouth--and brain as well.</span></p>
<p><span>In his upcoming book, "The Last Republican" (hope he's right), he not only lambasted Trump as a "blowhard", but attacked Trump's America-first ideology and, yes, George defended his globalism. (Geez, George. Why weren't you as openly critical of your successor? And you're wondering why folks think you're a tad out of touch?)</span></p>
<p><span>And to shore up</span><span class="text_exposed_show"> his own legacy, an annoying dynastic preoccupation afflicting both sides of the aisle during these waning days of the republic, he attempted to diminish VP Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld by pointedly asserting that "they did not make any f****** decisions." (Touchy. Touchy. And such naughty language too for a Bush.)</span></p>
<p><span class="text_exposed_show">Is it my imagination, or are these dinosaurian establishment types becoming increasingly unhinged, defensive and overly self-absorbed.</span></p>
<p><span class="text_exposed_show">George and his Dad are nice guys, but I'm afraid their desperate need for immortality now supersede their sense of proportion, decency and objectivity. I did read Rumsfeld's book, an excellent work, but I think I'll pass on "The Last Republican", and merely rejoice in the title of the book itself.</span></p>Our Founders Couldn't Get Elected Todaytag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-11-04:3180617:BlogPost:2586932017-11-04T15:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<div><div class="_1mf _1mj"><p><font face="inherit">A TROUBLING THOUGHT: Isn't it more than ironic that today both the Right AND the Left routinely idolize, deify and politically invoke the virtues of Lincoln. Why?</font></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><div class="_1mf _1mj"><p><font face="inherit"> </font><span style="font-family: inherit;">This might surprise some of you, but like Lincoln, both the modern Left and Right subscribe to a consolidated, monopolistic central government model. (Yup,…</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><div class="_1mf _1mj"><p><font face="inherit">A TROUBLING THOUGHT: Isn't it more than ironic that today both the Right AND the Left routinely idolize, deify and politically invoke the virtues of Lincoln. Why?</font></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><div class="_1mf _1mj"><p><font face="inherit"> </font><span style="font-family: inherit;">This might surprise some of you, but like Lincoln, both the modern Left and Right subscribe to a consolidated, monopolistic central government model. (Yup, our hero was a big government, one-party rule kinda' guy. And in shaping such a top-heavy, unitary government, he played the game for keeps. Bye-Bye federalism.)</span></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><div class="_1mf _1mj"><p><font face="inherit"> </font><span style="font-family: inherit;">In effect, we now have Left-wing totalitarians and Right-wing socialists (neo-Cons, RINOs). Exceptions like Paul, Lee, Gohmert, Blackburn etc. comprise but a tiny minority within the ruling class. Thus, our leaders' and our own faithfulness to the principles of limited, efficient government and dual federal-state sovereignty are, at the very best, tenuous and, most certainly, of scant constructive effect.</span></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><div class="_1mf _1mj"><p><font face="inherit"> </font><span style="font-family: inherit;">There are many, many years of bad governing habits to overcome if we are to once again return to our Founders' bedrock principles of government. And in this what's-in-it-for-me bread and circuses atmosphere, I'm no longer sure that most of us are any longer fully committed to returning to those principles.</span></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><div class="_1mf _1mj"><p><font face="inherit"> </font><span style="font-family: inherit;">In truth, given the severe foundational damage wrought by years of violations and neglect since the Constitutional Convention, my guess is that brilliant luminaries like Madison, Jefferson, Morris, Adams and Franklin wouldn't stand a chance in the once hallowed halls of Capitol Hill in 2017. Hell, they'd be lucky to even get elected.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><div class="_1mf _1mj"><p><font face="inherit"> </font></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><div class="_1mf _1mj"><p><font face="inherit">Yup. We've come a long way--in the wrong direction.</font></p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><font face="inherit">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</font></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7" style="font-family: arial black,avant garde; color: #000080;"><strong><font face="inherit">CLICK HERE</font></strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/forum/topics/proclaim-truth-let-freedom-reign"><font face="inherit">http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/forum/topics/proclaim-truth-let-freedom-reign</font></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><font face="inherit"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/52792985?profile=original" width="160"/></font></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><font face="inherit">.</font></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><font face="inherit">.</font></p>
</div>
</div>NRA On Wrong Side of the "Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act"tag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-07-28:3180617:BlogPost:2575892017-07-28T23:05:27.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p>When we ignore the Constitution in our “righteous” quest to safeguard the 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment, we are little better than the Bloomberg crowd.</p>
<p>Currently under consideration by Congress, the <i>Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act</i> (HR38) would expand our right to carry across State lines, compelling sovereign States to defer to federal authority in such matters.</p>
<p>Please understand that the ONLY authority over arms delegated to the federal government by the States is Art I Sec…</p>
<p>When we ignore the Constitution in our “righteous” quest to safeguard the 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment, we are little better than the Bloomberg crowd.</p>
<p>Currently under consideration by Congress, the <i>Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act</i> (HR38) would expand our right to carry across State lines, compelling sovereign States to defer to federal authority in such matters.</p>
<p>Please understand that the ONLY authority over arms delegated to the federal government by the States is Art I Sec 8, Clause 16 which, per the Militia Act of 1792, empowers the feds <i>to organize, arm and discipline the Militia</i>. That’s it!!!</p>
<p>The 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment was wisely intended by our founders to limit the federal government—not the States. It was intended to prohibit the federal government from regulating a citizen’s right to bear arms outside a citizen’s duty as a militia member.</p>
<p>So, while the feds may constitutionally protect a State citizen’s right to be armed in order to carry out his responsibility as a member of the State Militia, the federal government is not constitutionally empowered to in any way extend its authority beyond that specific purpose.</p>
<p>State Constitutions define their citizens’ 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment rights, and if a State Constitution inadequately protects citizens’ 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment rights, then citizens of that State are duty-bound to amend the State Constitution—NOT to encourage the federal Leviathan to superimpose its superimpose its 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment desires on the States.</p>
<p>Though the Reciprocity Act is a wonderfully convenient remedy for conceal carry gun owners to carry across State lines unimpeded, the Act is blatantly unconstitutional. That must matter to us all, for if we permit the feds to illegitimately grant “rights”, at a future date the feds may just as easily deny those “rights”, reducing God-given and constitutional rights to nothing more than federal “privileges”. Is that what NRA patriots want? God, I hope not!!</p>
<p>As an NRA member in good standing for many years now, when it comes to protecting citizens’ rights to be armed, the Constitution must ALWAYS be our guide—NOT any short-sighted desire for personal convenience. </p>
<p>Assailed from all sides today, the Constitution was intended to be the Supreme Law of the Land. Let’s try to restore it to that lofty status. Let’s not foolishly, unwittingly—or conveniently—subvert it.</p>SCOTUS RULING ON TRUMP BAN/REFUGEE SUSPENSIONtag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-06-26:3180617:BlogPost:2562842017-06-26T17:07:37.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p>Having read the ruling this morning, and though reading tea leaves and divining the meaning of America's Delphic Oracle, aka the Supreme Court, can be problematic, here's my take on the court's ruling this morning:</p>
<p>In the interest of national security, 5 justices have ruled that the Trump ban is in force pending a final SCOTUS decision on the matter when the court reconvenes in October. This ban applies to persons in the six countries (Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq) covered…</p>
<p>Having read the ruling this morning, and though reading tea leaves and divining the meaning of America's Delphic Oracle, aka the Supreme Court, can be problematic, here's my take on the court's ruling this morning:</p>
<p>In the interest of national security, 5 justices have ruled that the Trump ban is in force pending a final SCOTUS decision on the matter when the court reconvenes in October. This ban applies to persons in the six countries (Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq) covered in Trump's revised travel ban order (<span class="text_exposed_show">EO-2) and will apply to all persons in those countries EXCEPT bonafide students (already accepted by a university), employees who have been offered and have accepted employment by a US company, invited lecturers and those with a "close familial relationship" in the US. It also broadly validates the President's authority to exercise immigration policy as part of his constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy.</span></p>
<div class="text_exposed_show"><p>From my reading of the ruling, this also validates the President's authority to immediately enforce a suspension of refugee admissions into the US pending the President's review of the current vetting process. Exception is granted to those foreign nationals with "close familial" ties in the US. Also, the 50,000 refugee cap is authorized, but can be exceeded to accommodate those refugees with close family ties. (Lots of greedy refugee resettlement workers here are loudly wailing and moaning. Get the anti-depressants out.)</p>
<p>Though pleased, am shocked the court actually upheld the law for a change. How very novel.</p>
</div>Lib Assault on Trump Legitimacy Continuestag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-06-13:3180617:BlogPost:2560972017-06-13T17:29:55.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p>As part of the Liberals' orchestrated assault upon the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, and on the basis of their shoddy understanding of the Constitution's "emoluments clause", two Liberal Attorney Generals (Maryland & DC) have recently sued Trump for owning and earning income from his properties while President. Unsurprisingly, their contention is utterly without foundation. To counter idiotic leftist arguments in this regard, it is important you arm yourself with facts. …</p>
<p>As part of the Liberals' orchestrated assault upon the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, and on the basis of their shoddy understanding of the Constitution's "emoluments clause", two Liberal Attorney Generals (Maryland & DC) have recently sued Trump for owning and earning income from his properties while President. Unsurprisingly, their contention is utterly without foundation. To counter idiotic leftist arguments in this regard, it is important you arm yourself with facts. <span class="text_exposed_show">Don't permit lawyerly spinmeistering to dictate your viewpoint. When in doubt, ALWAYS consult the Constitution. Here are the facts:</span></p>
<div class="text_exposed_show"><p>An “emolument” is a perk attached to an office. See Webster’s 1828 dictionary which is more contemporaneous to our founding period <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwebstersdictionary1828.com%2FDictionary%2FEmolument&h=ATPzZZAhdmX2OUgq8YWxSiyq5v0ohpSVo-MSw5OOc1mDluRzdk80tjYUUXE9I3I-eg3HpwkeLyUiDFXRhOjjjdMUdn6tSNTLlZvclQ3h5xL2zkULyyciXxCoq6vthMlLO9IFN242jgOK1zTw1JIjux39fSood43OtM0&enc=AZP7QKUfYUcYkoBMrZhFmYQxSzMyrK_lZkTxUVdmKlxp6q21NvyJ4VJ2bpw9BZ2s--4NZilkuDaetiS8pHCu1i-YDtX64xSTBATP7c_u-SqLLPJ97m8Ufv8LbDYxsXpgcRNS8cdxwJPQOy8UD8K0Ee_RY7OUn2PImTNymteh6AjrXanqWI0SqDT0HJFT2cWr-7g&s=1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Emolument</a>.<br/>See also the 12 Federalist Papers which mention the term “emoluments” <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foundingfathers.info%2Ffederalistpapers%2F&h=ATO1T4xwWlW9MF63ld0fWv9H9Vi-cagxCDEkc7XwczqqKaziyUCVBeP4I3huHmkjCHpLN-ax1f3y8jB02wPNeOKRImWJipFg6W98G2cVXL_nByCU0tfcrZitYpGWJKNvqNPf0KHSS1wXUMCTVfDiCjmZxjT2zB6QCPo&enc=AZMPHo6WMaCA6UjUeVRZKqwU9zPs6OcBHovQME3PFIvgETYfzvxWTm_WmP_fFtsq1dLS3m7r4jn5q38UciQ_ghlN8ZUqEpMH-USzl-SjfzBWMr4kZ9JOeluScLwvLuTut3JE5sbOa8nDDoGpZTNGQO1HdpYyPswlcM18jEUwYpUk2Ay2pwqnlcCEIeD-7su6gQM&s=1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/</a></p>
<p>"Emoluments” are mentioned at Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, and at Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause.</p>
<p>Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, prohibits any federal officer from accepting (without the consent of Congress), any present, Emolument, Office, or Title from any foreign State.</p>
<p>Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause, prohibits the President from receiving additional Emoluments from the United States or from any State.</p>
<p>The Emoluments now attached to the office of Presidency include living in the White House, with a full staff, Air Force One, security protection, and similarly relevant perks. Those perks can’t be increased or decreased by the United States or any of the 50 States. And Trump can’t get a job lobbying for any foreign State while he is President.</p>
<p>But this has nothing to do with Trump’s private businesses!</p>
<p>George Washington’s Mount Vernon was a large business enterprise selling whiskey, flour, among other produce. When Washington’s farm sold its produce, the proceeds weren’t “emoluments” within the meaning of the Constitution – they were the income from his farm.</p>
<p>It has been so long since we had a President who did something besides live off the taxpayers while in public office, that we have forgotten that real men can have successful businesses BEFORE they run for office. In fact, it was the purpose of the founders to send "citizen representatives" to Washington for short periods of time who would, after performing their civic responsibilities as stewards of their country, return to their regular vocations/businesses. The founders did not intend that income earned from their private enterprises automatically be denied these citizen representatives while they were fulfilling their civic responsibilities in Washington. Today, of course, most representatives to Washington become careerists and blood-suckers who haven't a clue as to the original meaning and intent of a Constitution most of whom have never even read - NOT what our founders anticipated or intended.</p>
<p>Why do these AGs do this? Recall the Democrat Goal: RULE OR RUIN</p>
</div>TIGHTROPEtag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-06-04:3180617:BlogPost:2556402017-06-04T22:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1">Philip, </div>
<div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
<div class="post-header-line-1">At the risk of being presumptuous, I thought you might be interested in this.…</div>
<div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
<div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1">Philip, </div>
<div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
<div class="post-header-line-1">At the risk of being presumptuous, I thought you might be interested in this.</div>
<div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
<div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-1088355614893102033"><div class="_5pbx userContent" id="js_6s"><div>After 40 years thinking about my experience in Laos and only after being relentlessly encouraged by my family and friends--none of whom know the whole story--to write this book, I succumbed. In TIGHTROPE I candidly chronicle my unique professional challenges and personal trials as the director of a humanitarian program in Laos before, during and after the Communist takeover there in 1975. If nothing else, the book validates that in every human endeavor there is always a compelling personal side to the story as well. May be worth reading. Available online at "CreateSpace Store".</div>
</div>
<div class="_3x-2"><div><div class="mtm"><div class="_5cq3"><div class="uiScaledImageContainer _4-ep" id="u_jsonp_2_c"><img alt="Image may contain: text" class="scaledImageFitWidth img" height="360" src="https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/18739698_10213456552593973_5891436118557177440_n.jpg?oh=ac4e7a276332066deb5430fbdc09caa1&oe=59A14E14" width="487"/></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Moderate v Radical Muslimstag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-04-18:3180617:BlogPost:2555082017-04-18T14:21:08.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<div class="_5pbx userContent" id="js_6q"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_58f61ff4116c90100965439"><p>This brief and pithy article persuasively contends that the West's differentiating between "Radical Muslim" and "Moderate Muslim" is delusional. And while it is objectively difficult to argue with that premise when all professed Muslims adhere to the same basic teachings, my own view is that not unlike the reformation which occurred in Christianity hundreds of years ago, is…</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_5pbx userContent" id="js_6q"><div id="id_58f61ff4116c90100965439" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><p>This brief and pithy article persuasively contends that the West's differentiating between "Radical Muslim" and "Moderate Muslim" is delusional. And while it is objectively difficult to argue with that premise when all professed Muslims adhere to the same basic teachings, my own view is that not unlike the reformation which occurred in Christianity hundreds of years ago, is it really that intellectually difficult to believe that some Muslims--most particularly those who have <span class="text_exposed_show">been exposed to Western values and culture--have, indeed, moderated their INTERPRETATION of basic Koranic beliefs?</span></p>
<div class="text_exposed_show"><p>To wit, though all Christians believe in the Bible, does it necessarily follow that their interpretation of the Bible is the same? Obviously not.</p>
<p>Historically, and as the article points out, even Muhammed was angered by "moderates" (spouting what wasn't in their hearts) within his ranks. And the fact that extremists like Pres. Erdogen of Turkey, among other Islamists in the world today, are so incensed with the notion of "moderate Muslims" tells me that some moderate Muslims must exist. Otherwise these rigidly doctrinaire Islamists wouldn't be so fired up. And, of course, there's Dr. Jasser, American citizen, former US Navy Cmdr, who is often interviewed by FOX and who is a very vocal opponent of Jihadism/Islamism. To me, a hard-boiled cynic who understands that one of the teachings of militant Islam is Taqqia (lying to mislead), Dr. Jasser and others like him in the US simply do not strike me as congenital liars and disinformation campaigners for Jihadis. They strike me as genuinely reformed moderates. Of course, the challenge for us is to accurately differentiate moderate and extremist, and I'm not sure we're there yet. Am I naive?</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_3x-2"><div><div class="mtm"><div id="u_jsonp_3_j" class="_6m2 _1zpr clearfix _dcs _4_w4 _59ap"><div class="clearfix _2r3x"><div class="lfloat _ohe"><div class="_6ks"><div class="_6l- __c_"><div class="uiScaledImageContainer _6m5 fbStoryAttachmentImage"><img class="scaledImageFitWidth img" src="https://external-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCRLEnpvPrE8qTa&w=487&h=255&url=http%3A%2F%2Fipatriot.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2FIslam-Muslim-Erdogan.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&sx=0&sy=1&sw=1200&sh=628&_nc_hash=AQALoeamC_BwRHjk" alt="" width="487" height="255"/></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_3ekx _29_4"><div class="_6m3 _--6"><div class="mbs _6m6 _2cnj _5s6c"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fipatriot.com%2Fradical-muslims-moderate-muslims%2F&h=ATM5Bkys5OdqDDmzojjZ9DnF6owZHlf7_Dj4qrFZCECD2QKDWKkmndKgiD311_lCU5-QZ2lFNkbjTtughiWPkbPOQM99ZhWj6SITv3uZzJR4OsGNrQ2WQQ2aMI0wEyzQ_bAZcotZTAVNLdfSo2SviQ&enc=AZPfcxc-96sdYh2T4gM9AunEz7L0PNdjtlx3mG8UbAJEAUcpEkL-oq4-WpWKe86YhQBYK6FS1PY4qfGVWOBCRBlorC4eOXWyERrn7z42GHIQXu15ySp3YJeVQU--bPxzn8fIYY-nMuuadJdo6MwnLt2kg0MACzRGWllmcEF2EiynsN5UoO-5YJ1kiwqlzAgsbbqyJipEmO90zyiPesiKbCQS&s=1" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Radical Muslims and Moderate Muslims</a></div>
<div class="_6m7 _3bt9">Most non-Muslims have little actual knowledge of Islam. They have never read the Koran, hadith reports, or books on sharia, Islamic law. Thus, their knowledge of Islam comes primarily from the half-truths and lies provided by the mainstream media…</div>
<div class="_59tj _2iau"><div><div class="_6lz _6mb ellipsis">IPATRIOT.COM</div>
<p></p>
<div class="_5tc6"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Crickets & Judicial Tyrannytag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-04-03:3180617:BlogPost:2553432017-04-03T15:08:40.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2788402859448773663"><div>With respect to the Hawaii and Maryland judges' blatantly unconstitutional "rulings" against Trump's immigration EO, has anyone noticed how nimbly every single talking head and politician--BOTH left and right--have studiously avoided talking about the constitutional remedy for judicial overreach? Is it Ignorance, political Cowardice or a pervasive and irreparable Disdain for…</div>
</div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2788402859448773663"><div>With respect to the Hawaii and Maryland judges' blatantly unconstitutional "rulings" against Trump's immigration EO, has anyone noticed how nimbly every single talking head and politician--BOTH left and right--have studiously avoided talking about the constitutional remedy for judicial overreach? Is it Ignorance, political Cowardice or a pervasive and irreparable Disdain for what has become an irrelevant U.S. Constitution? In truth, folks, it is all three. Our constitutional <span class="text_exposed_show">republic is and has been for a very long time now but an illusion. That reality should frighten every American.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show"><div>Again, the remedy (Articles I and III) is twofold: 1) impeach the offending judges (not merely allow the 9th court to metastasize into three more toxic courts), and 2) the president should, in accordance with his oath of office, summarily ignore/nullify those judicial rulings.</div>
<div>Nothing less than these Constitutional remedies should be acceptable. Ignoring the Constitution and hiding under our desks are not remedies. They are spineless dodges. Someone among our honorable, principled leadership and thoughtful throng of talking heads is duty-bound to actually explain and promote these constitutional remedies. Until then, crickets and judicial tyranny.</div>
</div>
</div>Article V Convention of States is Dangerous & Unnecessarytag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-04-03:3180617:BlogPost:2551602017-04-03T15:00:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8188553537648732723"><div class="_5pbx userContent" id="js_pp"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_58dfc7dcceb2c4042592133"><div>To those of you who so passionately believe that the answer to big government tyranny is an Article V Convention, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ this Wisconsin pastor's perfectly clear, concise and persuasive explanation as to why an Article V Convention is not only…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8188553537648732723"><div class="_5pbx userContent" id="js_pp"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_58dfc7dcceb2c4042592133"><div>To those of you who so passionately believe that the answer to big government tyranny is an Article V Convention, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ this Wisconsin pastor's perfectly clear, concise and persuasive explanation as to why an Article V Convention is not only fraught with peril but is utterly useless.</div>
<div>Like many others smarter than I, I have said over and over again that merely rewriting the Constitution is, of and by itself, a meaningless exercise.</div>
<div>Why are Article V adher<span class="text_exposed_show">ents so convinced that an amended Constitution will be in any way honored any more than is the current Constitution? AS WRITTEN, the current Constitution contains ALL--that's ALL--the remedies needed to checkmate an overweaning, tyrannical federal government. BUT, if we, the People and the States, are incapable or unwilling to exercise our Rights and our 10th Amendment authority to exercise those remedies, then what good is ANY Constitution, amended or otherwise?</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_3x-2"><div><div class="mtm"><div class="_6m2 _1zpr clearfix _dcs _4_w4 _59ap" id="u_jsonp_2_c"><div class="clearfix _2r3x"><div class="lfloat _ohe"><div class="_6ks"><div class="_6l- __c_"><div class="uiScaledImageContainer _6m5 fbStoryAttachmentImage"><img alt="" class="scaledImageFitWidth img" height="255" src="https://external-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDepNrhXbwIvBGe&w=487&h=255&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsonsoflibertymedia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2Farticle_v_2.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&_nc_hash=AQAaWjPXT5cJdkBz" width="487"/></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_3ekx _29_4"><div class="_6m3 _--6"><div class="mbs _6m6 _2cnj _5s6c"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsonsoflibertymedia.com%2Fchristian-pastor-wisconsin-committee-article-v-duty-interposition-stop-taking-money%2F&h=ATO3NI2fnrbnEMR3O2qnnxBO49d0KIEULz60tjBVU91n4o3HEgdBnUsy121e1T0celJGpEUJ8nEM7Ii6ZV3ABvvMQ-p-HlJgpuPg2E5zTl1ARo2Gfl0-6nAVWKjaprhks3v5PZeRkOWruVOavVOAwQ&enc=AZMYvtoSf-jGsxYdPO4ZYwsez0103jWZsaaEFehkpkjbT06KOIpRStTrCg_vgngszr7ifI80qsBipJAa1GmhWzWvjt-yONQe1oMbhOH-iFDdwERjNsVwGOtazhS0BflkucpM5E1yM6iyyqJhe3Y37ngZMNOPo0vNQNe-XyleM5_Gyeim71qX5vnUPAUY9yWUl7o&s=1" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Christian Pastor to Wisconsin Committee on Article V: "Your Duty is Interposition! Stop Taking the Money!"</a></div>
<div class="_6m7 _3bt9">Christian pastor and author Matt Trewhella, echoed my sentiments before my own state representatives a couple of years ago, when he confronted his…</div>
<div class="_59tj _2iau"><div><div class="_6lz _6mb ellipsis">SONSOFLIBERTYMEDIA.COM</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Debt Ceiling Insanitytag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-03-12:3180617:BlogPost:2551072017-03-12T22:41:47.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<div class="_5pbx userContent" id="js_e3"><div class="text_exposed_root" id="id_58c5cdf2aced00e76050505"><p>Nothing REALLY changes, does it.</p>
<p>Treasury is already calling upon Congress to raise the crushing debt ceiling yet again to meet debt payment obligations. Rubbish.</p>
<p>How about our government taking the breathtakingly politically courageous step of drastically CUTTING FEDERAL EXPENDITURES in order to service the current debt and to preclude having to suicidally raise the debt…</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_5pbx userContent" id="js_e3"><div id="id_58c5cdf2aced00e76050505" class="text_exposed_root"><p>Nothing REALLY changes, does it.</p>
<p>Treasury is already calling upon Congress to raise the crushing debt ceiling yet again to meet debt payment obligations. Rubbish.</p>
<p>How about our government taking the breathtakingly politically courageous step of drastically CUTTING FEDERAL EXPENDITURES in order to service the current debt and to preclude having to suicidally raise the debt ceiling again. </p>
<span class="text_exposed_hide">...</span><span class="text_exposed_hide"><span class="text_exposed_link"><a class="see_more_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/jim.delaney.1884/posts/773332776165984"><span class="see_more_link_inner">See More</span></a></span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="_3x-2"><div><div class="mtm"><div id="u_jsonp_3_g" class="_6m2 _1zpr clearfix _dcs _4_w4 _59ap"><div class="clearfix _2r3x"><div class="lfloat _ohe"><div class="_6ks"><div class="_6l- __c_"><div class="uiScaledImageContainer _6m5 fbStoryAttachmentImage"><img class="scaledImageFitWidth img" src="https://external-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCE9kw6B83tkPid&w=487&h=255&url=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fmedia2.foxnews.com%2FBrightCove%2F694940094001%2F2017%2F03%2F09%2F0%2F0%2F694940094001_5353836747001_5353809486001-vs.jpg%3Fve%3D1&cfs=1&upscale=1&sx=0&sy=16&sw=1280&sh=670&_nc_hash=AQCKF3wiIlTib_rt" alt="" width="487" height="255"/></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_3ekx _29_4"><div class="_6m3 _--6"><div class="mbs _6m6 _2cnj _5s6c"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffxn.ws%2F2mpyaxU&h=ATPKtzQJRiuKx5mEmCZ9AGvzY-4l0JX0DkGlZuG8GNYd-w2G_HxORb5aHmglZ_wlzWCxp-Nz68ETI_rj2l3ef8-09sHBiljRDm92A1k0ACXN0tau0IYluNuD6YDL4lqqEtaLnIL8uW9NsK94pPAwTQ&enc=AZNoeatrNGGkTyf7c-SrcEBEJRoVl26s_WO3vrTvWfYU7ytcZh8vTkVybGde8kCg5GlPWcIfFEfA8a507o99e1HI2PXubGIVuXoR7hvTLCMgu84nWDyTcMwYl_EDi1_QyUGfwumiIW9CXTKpVEK5r1e_AFXHtNEFS4m_BErm6f-jsD4_wQhr_vC98Z5ChdE8oYOx6cjwjp-4Me-jqPRNI20B&s=1" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Mnuchin calls for Congress to raise federal debt limit</a></div>
<div class="_6m7 _3bt9">The U.S. Treasury Secretary on Thursday encouraged Congress in a letter to raise the federal debt ceiling, which has been suspended since 2015, as soon as possible to prevent a U.S. default.</div>
<div class="_59tj _2iau"><div class="_6lz _6mb ellipsis">FOXNEWS.COM</div>
<p></p>
<div class="_5tc6"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Providing Healthcare is a State Power--NOT a Federal Powertag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-03-12:3180617:BlogPost:2552032017-03-12T22:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p style="text-align: center;">.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7" style="font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><strong>F Y I</strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-5">...one may read a large body</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-5">of Mr. Delaney's work</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-5">at the following link:…</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial black,avant garde;" class="font-size-7"><strong>F Y I</strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-5">...one may read a large body</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-5">of Mr. Delaney's work</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-5">at the following link:</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://opinerlog.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">https://opinerlog.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="irc_mut i7ApjycR471E-HwpH6ZlgJaI" alt="Image result for HEALTH INSURANCE" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRot43W8jDghhQKHydkrCuIRFhxLA6QQhDV556cP7LznvxBQFcr6A" style="margin-top: 0px;" height="288" width="291"/></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p>I know most of you won't do it, but I'm begging you to <strong>please read pages 70-74 in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action". Read it three times. Only 5 pages. Carefully researched,</strong> it succinctly and clearly explains the founders' understanding of the "welfare clause" WHICH DOESN'T INCLUDE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PROVIDING HEALTHCARE!!!!! AGAIN this authority, per the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, rests with the individual States, NOT with the federal government, aka Leviathan. For this reason and without reservation, I support repeal of Obamacare because it is grossly unconstitutional. But, I also advocate the feds' returning healthcare to the States where it constitutionally belongs.</p>
<p>Let's be clear, folks: Ryancare/Trumpcare/Obamacare/whatever federal care, is but another lame-brained, misguided federal entitlement which needlessly adds to our national debt and further erodes both State sovereignty and individual freedom. Is that really what we want?</p>
<p>If we want a suffocating unitary welfare state vs a constitutional republic, then we should support Ryancare or Obamacare. Fine. But, don't then pretend to be advocates for a return to constitutional order. Such a pretense falls flat.</p>
<p>Trump is a good man and is well-intentioned, but he, like so many other patriots today, is caught up in this self-destructive welfare state mentality which has been plaguing our country and our failing brains for over 150 years!</p>
<p>States are MUCH better equipped to experiment with and to provide healthcare models for its own citizens. A one-size-fits-all federal entitlement program is sinister, unmanageable, lawless, uninspired and short-sighted. Here's our chance to get it right, but you know what? We won't--again! And so goes the republic...</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">~~~~~~~~~~~~</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7" style="font-family: arial black,avant garde; color: #ff0000;"><strong>CLICK HERE:</strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/trump-s-infrastructure-spending-plan-is-grossly-unconstitutional">http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/trump-s-infrastructure-spending-plan-is-grossly-unconstitutional</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">.</p>Trump's Infrastructure Spending Plan is Grossly UNCONSTITUTIONALtag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-03-10:3180617:BlogPost:2549802017-03-10T03:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2176060788840443851"><div class="_5pbx userContent" id="js_2r"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_58c1c9f0429dd9765424236"><div>FELLOW TRUMP SUPPORTERS won't like this, but that's the way it goes sometime.</div>
<div>Over and over again, I have appealed for a restoration of constitutional order.…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2176060788840443851"><div class="_5pbx userContent" id="js_2r"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_58c1c9f0429dd9765424236"><div>FELLOW TRUMP SUPPORTERS won't like this, but that's the way it goes sometime.</div>
<div>Over and over again, I have appealed for a restoration of constitutional order. Central to that appeal is the requirement that we each--despite our proclivities or political persuasion--faithfully adhere to the Constitution, a tall order in this age of relativism and self-destructive bread-and-circuses giveaways.</div>
<div>While I appreciate the need for repairing/modernizing/upgrading our "infrastructure", p<span class="text_exposed_show">oint to any article in the Constitution which permits the federal government to fund such projects. (Neither Art 1, Sec 8, the Necessary & Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause nor the terribly misinterpreted Welfare Clause permit it.)</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show"><div>In short, there are some campaign promises not worth keeping--especially if acting on those promises violates the Constitution one is pledged to uphold.</div>
<div>You need but to review the words of James Madison, "Father of the Constitution", in his message to Congress in 1817 which accompanied his veto of just such an infrastructure bill by pointing out that the Constitution disallows such federal expenditures.</div>
<div>Except for "post roads"--and I suppose, with tongue-in-cheek, we could stretch that definition to encompass the interstate highway system over which many federal postal deliveries are made--Congress has no business whatsoever financing the repair and upgrading of bridges, airports, etc. NONE!!!! ZERO!!!! NADA!!!! There simply is no authority in the Constitution to permit the feds to do this. (To enable Congress to fund such projects would require a constitutional amendment.)</div>
<div>So, where does the rightful authority to rebuild infrastructure lie? The individual States and the private sector!! NOT the federal government!!!!</div>
<div>In short, if we, as patriots, really do support the Constitution, then, in good conscience, we cannot support Trump's infrastructure expenditure plans. It is not only profligate; it is in violation of the Constitution. Don't like what I'm saying? Then listen to the Father of the Constitution. Don't like what he has to say either? Then the Constitution is, at best, an irrelevance to you. And so goes the republic...</div>
<div>Let's not repeat in any way Obama's lawless infrastructure nightmare. Time to draw a line in the stand. It's time to stop such gross violations of the Constitution here and now.</div>
<div>Though they sure as hell act that way for most of the time, States aren't helpless or without financial resources. They can and SHOULD work with the private sector to upgrade infrastructure within their sovereign territories. The federal government is NEVER the answer in such matters.</div>
<div>We continue to surrender our authority to Leviathan at our own peril. More debt and less liberty.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_3x-2"><div><div class="mtm"><div class="_6m2 _1zpr clearfix _dcs _4_w4 _41u- _59ap" id="u_jsonp_2_1n"><div class="clearfix _2r3x"><div class="lfloat _ohe"><div class="_6ks"><div class="_6l- __c_"><div class="uiScaledImageContainer _6m5 fbStoryAttachmentImage"><img alt="" class="scaledImageFitWidth img" height="255" src="https://external-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQAoKY9oFfbYHoCC&w=487&h=255&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftenthamendmentcenter.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2Fmadison-specified-and-enumerated.png&cfs=1&upscale=1&sx=0&sy=0&sw=1199&sh=628&_nc_hash=AQCBhgoXsZzhnWDE" width="487"/></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_3ekx _29_4"><div class="_6m3 _--6"><div class="mbs _6m6 _2cnj _5s6c"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftenthamendmentcenter.com%2F2017%2F03%2F03%2Ftoday-in-history-james-madison-vetoes-infrastructure-bill-as-unconstitutional%2F&h=ATM4bWsVYZ2fYY0_bmEcsOwLDbSIaytbxVfydBJgHdeCnJlGuCJ26-tuR0WqF4WWdrURPR0Cjnw_Gi1y8dhM3eQ4xpM7nH1n1AmR5ZjqDPCj-Pv1jaRlM2F_0PM_qxndZTIGmpHWrlS3Ax4GwyukRw&enc=AZM1ETIpJgPQBq7mH8JSNzHka5a0V_PzMCQ3-xAJSGZLyKldBsEdeSCxAQMcmdHTvqBq7ySbh1VvFMFeDibQAxybU2WSDMLLeEJhNOasgzAHNVDHdg-cgfuBmC6IYJuLAnsecFGsvuF_UuxMyy2bsDcSAExmByslhbwCqahld4ZnAmv5Hi4mvIX3lzz0Lc3qY4r6_eXtM51WELPJaRCEvtuB&s=1" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Today in History: James Madison Vetoes Infrastructure Bill as Unconstitutional</a></div>
<div class="_6m7 _3bt9">Exactly 200 years ago today, President James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill of…</div>
<div class="_59tj _2iau"><div class="clearfix"><div class="_522u rfloat _ohf"></div>
<div class="_42ef"><div class="_6lz _6mb ellipsis">TENTHAMENDMENTCENTER.COM<span class="phs">|</span>BY <a class="profileLink _2iv2" href="https://www.facebook.com/beijingdavid">DAVE BENNER</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Free Press is "Free" to do What?tag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2017-02-22:3180617:BlogPost:2548292017-02-22T20:00:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p>To those on the left AND the right (McCain) who insist that Trump's justifiable and long overdue castigation of America's renegade press somehow jeopardizes the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press, I have to ask, "FREE TO DO WHAT"? Misinform? Propagandize? Indoctrinate? Mislead? Advance a political agenda?</p>
<p>It is not that "free press" our Founders advocated which today's patriots object to: it is today's ideologically-driven press which consistently violates fundamental…</p>
<p>To those on the left AND the right (McCain) who insist that Trump's justifiable and long overdue castigation of America's renegade press somehow jeopardizes the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press, I have to ask, "FREE TO DO WHAT"? Misinform? Propagandize? Indoctrinate? Mislead? Advance a political agenda?</p>
<p>It is not that "free press" our Founders advocated which today's patriots object to: it is today's ideologically-driven press which consistently violates fundamental journalistic standards of conduct and integrity which we find to be loathsome and intolerable--and of absolutely no redeeming value in a constitutional republic.</p>
<p>When the press abandons its search for objective truth, it abandons its sacred responsibility to the First Amendment, the Constitution and to the People who created this republic.</p>
<p>Properly so, the onus is on the press to regain the respect and trust of the People by more fully honoring its responsibility as that free press envisioned by our Founders. Nothing less will be--or should be--acceptable.</p>
<p></p>
<p>________________________________________</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>ed. note</strong> - the American left wing, in their relentless agenda to undermine Traditional American Values and transform the culture from a God-Fearing people to a SICKular ( misspelling intended ) society managed to corrupt and bastardize the concept of "freedom of the press" when the left-wing Warren court ruled in favor of Larry Flint of Hustler magazine. The God fearing Founding Fathers never intended that depraved prurient pornography would have the same protection as the Great Classics...or the Holy Bible.</p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-7" style="font-family: arial black,avant garde; color: #ff0000;"><strong>CLICK HERE:</strong></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-1" style="font-family: arial black,avant garde; color: #0000ff;"><a href="http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/freedom-is-not-free-neither-is-today-s-press">http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/freedom-is-not-free-neither-is-today-s-press</a></span></p>
<p></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>.</p>"Operation Parse & Dodge": AG Lynch Hearing Another Disgracetag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2016-07-12:3180617:BlogPost:2507012016-07-12T16:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005678?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005678?profile=original" width="400"></img></a></p>
<div><p>In today’s hearing, the Democrats' shameless effort to deliberately and wholly distract attention from Hillary’s felonious behavior with respect to <i>emailgate </i>and AG Lynch’s consistently stonewalling relevant <i>emailgate </i>queries were on full display. <strong>It was sickening.</strong></p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div><p>The primary purpose of the…</p>
</div>
<p></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005678?profile=original"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005678?profile=original" width="400"/></a></p>
<div><p>In today’s hearing, the Democrats' shameless effort to deliberately and wholly distract attention from Hillary’s felonious behavior with respect to <i>emailgate </i>and AG Lynch’s consistently stonewalling relevant <i>emailgate </i>queries were on full display. <strong>It was sickening.</strong></p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div><p>The primary purpose of the Republican committee members’ questions to the AG was to determine whether or not there is a difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence”, and whether or not “intent” is necessary to prove that US Code Section 793 was violated. Asked again and again what the legal distinction was, AG Lynch routinely deferred to Comey and her “team “ of career Justice Department attorneys. <strong>After all, she’s only the Attorney General. Why would she be expected to answer such a legal question?</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005696?profile=original"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005696?profile=original" width="608"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div><p>Committee Democrats' deflecting attention from Hillary’s “extreme carelessness” by <u>pretentiously</u> asserting their caring about “more important” issues like the death of black victims in Louisiana and Minnesota as well as the assassination of five Dallas police officers was their painfully <strong>self-serving way of dodging the burning issue of Hillary's lawlessness and electability--the Rule of Law obviously of considerably less concern to them.</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005832?profile=original"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005832?profile=original" width="480"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
</div>
<div><p>Once again, the ideological lines have been drawn, and there is zero interest on the part of the Democrats to uphold their oath of office and to honestly, objectively address <strong>Hillary’s lawlessness. </strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005954?profile=original"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74005954?profile=original" width="453"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div><p>Who suffers by this charade and gross irresponsibility: nothing less than the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States. And without either, there can be no equal justice under the law, no Liberty, no republic, and, most certainly, no chance for restoring public trust in government. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div><p><span class="font-size-4"><em><strong>In short, we, once citizens of America but now subjects of Leviathan, have again been duped, dismissed and utterly ignored. </strong></em></span></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74006007?profile=original"><img width="750" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74006007?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" height="309" width="549"/></a></p>
</div>
<div><p><span class="font-size-4">Get this through your heads: this is no longer a constitutional republic; this is now very clearly a country where the rule of Man, not of Law, is preeminent.</span></p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div><p>Welcome to the Banana Republic of America—clearly NOT the country for which I and my veteran friends fought and died, and certainly not the country for which those thousands of patriots who preceded us were maimed and died in her defense.</p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div><p>We must now look to our Founders for solace, yes, but also for their wise counsel and remedies. Those Founder-sanctioned and inherently rightful remedies are <b>Civil Disobedience</b> to express our unwillingness to submit to intolerable acts of government, <b>State Nullification </b>of unconstitutional federal acts in order to restore the State-Federal balance of power, <b>Secession </b>to defend constitutional order on at least the State level, or <b>Rebellion</b> in the face of tyranny. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>The choice before us couldn't be more stark: to restore our constitutional republic--<u>while we are still able to do so</u>--or to accept submission to Leviathan.</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div><p><strong>What will YOU choose?</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74006017?profile=original"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/74006017?profile=original" height="598" width="494"/></a></strong></p>
</div>
<div><p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." Alexander Hamilton</strong></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>.</strong></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><strong>.</strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: arial black,avant garde;" class="font-size-7"><strong>CLICK HERE:</strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #0000ff;" class="font-size-2"><strong><a href="http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/america-lost-lets-lead-her-back">http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/america-lost-lets-lead-her-back</a></strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-3"><strong>.</strong></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>.</p>
</div>Hillary Lucks Out Againtag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2016-07-05:3180617:BlogPost:2503162016-07-05T17:09:45.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
On the heels of my previous post, "IF Indicted, Can Hillary Prevail?", this:<br />
<br />
Well, the suspense is over.<br />
<br />
Today, Director Comey announced that he will not recommend criminal charges, observing only that Hillary was "extremely careless" and alluding to a potential misdemeanor offense if Justice is willing to go that route. I'm sure she and her hubby are deliriously happy and relieved, as are her flipper-clapping loyalists. How nice. Now the Clinton Camp faux indignation and spin begins.<br />
<br />
While…
On the heels of my previous post, "IF Indicted, Can Hillary Prevail?", this:<br />
<br />
Well, the suspense is over.<br />
<br />
Today, Director Comey announced that he will not recommend criminal charges, observing only that Hillary was "extremely careless" and alluding to a potential misdemeanor offense if Justice is willing to go that route. I'm sure she and her hubby are deliriously happy and relieved, as are her flipper-clapping loyalists. How nice. Now the Clinton Camp faux indignation and spin begins.<br />
<br />
While I respect Mr. Comey's judgement and even-handedness, his description of her handling of classified material as "extremely careless" is a perfect bumper sticker for those of us who are justifiably opposed to a Hillary presidency. That description pretty much sums up what she is all about--from emailgate, to Benghazi, to Whitewater, etc. etc, etc.<br />
<br />
The bigger question for me is what of the many Americans currently serving prison terms for doing exactly what HilLIARy has done, i.e. carelessly handling classified and official emails. Let's face it, folks, she got off light--and WE ALL KNOW IT.<br />
<br />
That said, there IS a silver lining: this poses an opportunity for those imprisoned for having committed similar offenses to appeal their convictions.<br />
<br />
In any event, we'd best get used to a system that, in the end, favors the well-connected and powerful. You and I would be in jail, or at the very least, we would have been officially reprimanded and probably fired from our job. No reasonable American can deny that with a straight face regardless of one's political persuasion.<br />
<br />
Lingering, of course, is what clearly appears to be a mountain of evidence that the Clinton Foundation received seriously questionable donations from businesses and foreign governments alike while HilLIARy was Sec. of State. One thing you have to say about the Clinton Mafia: when it comes to skirting the law, the Clinton underworld it is a target rich environment.<br />
<br />
Are thoughtful Americans willing to tolerate such an unethical scoundrel being our President? If so, it really is the beginning of the end of this union.If Indicted, Can Hillary Prevail?tag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2016-07-03:3180617:BlogPost:2503022016-07-03T18:58:55.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p></p>
<div><p><a href="https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftargetfreedom.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2Fconstitution-burning.png&f=1"></a>I did some digging to get a somewhat cogent answer to that question, and , in brief, here is what I found so far:</p>
</div>
<div><p><i>First</i>, while there is a consensus that there are sufficient grounds for the FBI to recommend indictment, the chances of the Lynch-Obama duumverate permitting indictment is, at best and for…</p>
</div>
<p></p>
<div><p><a href="https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftargetfreedom.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2Fconstitution-burning.png&f=1"></a>I did some digging to get a somewhat cogent answer to that question, and , in brief, here is what I found so far:</p>
</div>
<div><p><i>First</i>, while there is a consensus that there are sufficient grounds for the FBI to recommend indictment, the chances of the Lynch-Obama duumverate permitting indictment is, at best and for purely political reasons, slim.</p>
</div>
<div><p></p>
</div>
<div><p><i>Second</i>, if the charges are sufficiently egregious (multiple felonies), and if the Justice Department does not refer the matter to a grand jury for review and possible prosecution, it is generally believed that there will be electrifying high-profile resignations from and sensitive leaks by the FBI, the intelligence community and the Justice Department which, <i>presumably</i>, would adversely affect Hillary’s ability to win at the convention or in a general election. </p>
</div>
<div><p></p>
</div>
<div><p><i>Third</i>, from a constitutional standpoint there is no legal reason for Hillary to withdraw her candidacy before the convention, and Hillary, with the assistance of the media, would draw upon “the court of public opinion” to get elected and to see her through to inauguration in January. (Note: the Constitution only lists qualifications for a president, not disqualifications; adding ex post facto disqualifiers would be unconstitutional.)</p>
</div>
<div><p></p>
</div>
<div><p><i>Fourth</i>, since it’s a near certainty that Hillary will not withdraw even if indicted before the convention, a “brokered convention” might well ensue which could force her out. Though her delegates are committed to supporting her on the first round of balloting, the 712 super delegates could easily bolt and rally around another candidate if they felt the chances of her election had been seriously jeopardized. Party loyalty could well trump loyalty to Hillary.</p>
</div>
<div><p></p>
</div>
<div><p><i>Fifth</i>, if Hillary is indicted, there is no constitutional requirement for her to withdraw. Period.</p>
</div>
<div><p></p>
</div>
<div><p><i>Sixth</i>, if Hillary is indicted, wins the general election and <u>delays the trial</u> until after inauguration in January, per Art II Sec 4 only <b>impeachment</b> by a majority in the House and conviction by 2/3 vote in the Senate can remove her from office. (Note: indictment is not an impeachable offense; and an impeachable offense is not necessarily an indictable offense; impeachment is a political process.) And if she’s not convicted by the Senate, which is the most likely scenario, Hillary skates free—at least while she’s president. If she leaves office before the 5-year statute of limitation which begins ticking from date of indictment is met--in other words, she’s not elected to a second term--she can still be tried. (Note: for terrorism and financial crimes the statute of limitations is 8 and 10 years respectively.)</p>
</div>
<div><p></p>
</div>
<div><p><i>Seventh</i>, a sitting president can order the AG to drop all charges, or to not either pursue prosecution or to enforce any sentence imposed. Such an action would surely place into question her constitutional responsibility to “faithfully execute the laws” of the United States and would be, therefore, an impeachable offense.</p>
</div>
<div><p></p>
</div>
<div><p><i>Eighth</i>, since there is no limit on a president’s pardoning authority, but as no president or governor has ever attempted to pardon himself/herself in the past, Hillary’s pardoning herself would be unprecedented and could easily be construed by the public and Congress as morally—not legally—reprehensible. The repugnancy of a self-pardon might well be sufficient for an otherwise reluctant Congress to impeach, try and remove her from office.</p>
</div>
<div><p></p>
</div>
<div><p><u>Conclusions</u>: my guess is that a narcissistic Hillary Clinton would be more than willing to put the country through the wringer to achieve political power--public interest, traditional standards of rectitude and moral conduct be damned.</p>
</div>
<div><p>If nothing else, these unseemly developments should spark renewed interest in an Art V Convention of States to tighten up qualifications for presidential candidates, to say nothing of limiting the constitutional authority of an increasingly imperial Executive Branch. These acrid developments should also both incur the moral outrage of the People and encourage individual States to review their election standards as well.</p>
</div>
<div><p>If the charges are as substantive, well-founded and egregious as many on both the left and right agree they are, and if 1) Hillary wins the general election and, 2) Congress abdicates is constitutional responsibility to impeach and remove her from office, then all bets are off as to the viability of this once venerable constitutional republic. If massive marches on the White House to force her resignation are not attempted or don't succeed, then secession or rebellion can be Americans' only salvation.</p>
</div>
<p><i>Opinerlog.blogspot.com</i></p>A Powerful Judiciary is the Very Definition of Tyrannytag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2016-06-11:3180617:BlogPost:2497262016-06-11T19:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif">For decades now, the Chief Executive, the Supreme Court and the mammoth unaccountable federal bureaucracy have been operating FAR FAR outside the Constitution, and too many folks just don't seem to get it or, worse, don't c-a-r-e. …</font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><br></br></font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif">For decades now, the Chief Executive, the Supreme Court and the mammoth unaccountable federal bureaucracy have been operating FAR FAR outside the Constitution, and too many folks just don't seem to get it or, worse, don't c-a-r-e. </font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><br/></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif">By our silence and routine submission to this endless stream of lawlessness we, in effect, further weaken the Constitution and jeopardize those safeguards which it embodies. </font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><br/></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif">The Chief Executive and the Judiciary MUST be reined in by Congress, failing which it is up to the States, per their 10th Amendment authority, to defy and nullify these non-stop encroachments on our liberty and the Rule of Law. </font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><br/></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif">When it gets to the point--<u>where we are now</u>--that the strongest argument for supporting a GOP presidential candidate is to ensure that only "conservative" judges are appointed to fill court vacancies, it should then occur to us that we have simply vested far too much authority in the judiciary--much, MUCH more authority than our Founders ever intended or could have ever envisioned. </font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><br/></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif">When voters fear the appointment of either conservatives or liberals to the court, we are exposing our total ignorance of the constitutional role and limitations of the judiciary by our having accepted the wholly heretical notion that this judicial monster which now dominates our political system is the ultimate authority on legal, political and social issues. After all, don't these omniscient jurists obtain their infallible judgement and wisdom from God? Well, that is most certainly how most Americans view these black-robed oligarchs.</font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><br/></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif">To checkmate judicial tyranny, the Constitution delegated to Congress the sacred duty to carefully vet federal judicial appointments to ensure that they are reliably committed to upholding the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution as originally ratified, failing which it is the constitutional duty of Congress to immediately impeach and remove any federal judge who violates that trust, be s/he Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.</font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><br/></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font>In short, the proximate cause for the relentless stream of lawless, unconstitutional judicial rulings is FIRST faithless, agenda-driven judges and SECOND an unprincipled, spineless Congress unwilling to exercise its constitutional authority to impeach and remove demonstrably faithless judges.</font></font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font><br/></font></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font>The fault also lies with the States which routinely submit to judicial imperialism with but a faint whisper of objection. Per the 9th and 10th Amendments, States are absolutely empowered to render null and void any unconstitutional acts, not only of the federal court system, but also of the Chief Executive, the Congress and the fourth branch of government, the latter being that suffocatingly lawless federal bureaucracy which now routinely operates outside the Constitution.</font></font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font><br/></font></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font>So, why doesn't Congress impeach, and why do the States fail to protect their citizens from the blizzard of federal encroachments? In the case of our timid Congress, it is our reps' propensity for self-aggrandizement, ideological accommodation and political survival. In the case of the States, it is the mountains of federal hand-outs they receive for their submissiveness. In short, MONEY and POLITICAL SELF-INTEREST drive this government--not bedrock constitutional principles. </font></font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font><br/></font></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font>By original design, the States and Congress are the People's principal defenders of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. BUT it is the People who must ensure that our Founders' clear meaning and intentions are no longer ignored or flouted by local, State or federal apparatchiks. Thus, the ball is in our court. But, alas, what will we do with that ball? Kick it down the road again, or simply pretend it's not there.</font></font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font><br/></font></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font>As the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional, We, the creators of this federal constitutional republic, continue to ignore and dodge our responsibilities in this regard at our own peril. </font></font></p>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font><br/></font></font> <font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font>Finally, I urge readers to join and support the Article V Convention of States whose sacred task it is to restore constitutional order, the ultimate guarantor of our Liberty. I also urge thoughtful readers to join and support the Tenth Amendment Center whose herculean efforts to restore the balance of power between States and the federal government has been nothing short of stellar.</font></font></p>
<div><p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font>------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></font></p>
</div>
<p><font color="#1D2129" face=""helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"><font> </font></font></p>
<div><p><font face=""times new roman" , serif"><font><i>"Seemingly guided by Chief Justice Hughes’s arrogant and insidious assertion in 1941 that 'we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is', the court's unelected judicial oligarchs, aka judicial legislators, have, over the years, proven to be unreliable defenders of the Constitution"</i>. Jim Delaney, "A Patriot's Call to Action" (2013)</font></font></p>
<p><font face=""times new roman" , serif"><font> </font></font></p>
</div>Hillary is What Too Many Americans Have Becometag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2016-06-07:3180617:BlogPost:2495072016-06-07T17:15:50.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7932018200333612634"><span>On <i>Politico</i>, the headline read "Clinton Aide: Reporters don't ask questions voters care about." This, of course, was Hillary's dismissive attempt to quash reporters' insistence that she has been anything but accessible and open to questions. Well, there are reasons for her lack of…</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7932018200333612634"><span>On <i>Politico</i>, the headline read "Clinton Aide: Reporters don't ask questions voters care about." This, of course, was Hillary's dismissive attempt to quash reporters' insistence that she has been anything but accessible and open to questions. Well, there are reasons for her lack of openness and engagement with the press--and all but the willfully ignorant and Party-first loyalists among us are painfully aware of those insidious reasons.</span><br/><span><br/></span><span>For me anyway, the headline of the story says it all: "reporters don't ask questions voters care about."</span><br/><br/><span>Though cynically defensive and obviously self-serving on Hillary's part, the terrible truth is that at least 50% of American voters genuinely DO NOT CARE IF HILLARY IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISABLED, AND A FELON, and so many other voters are either ignorant or totally disengaged. And therein lies our sorry fate as a constitutional republic of laws.</span><br/><br/><span>If so many Americans "don't care" about the character of the people who represent them, then Americans are unworthy of constitutional governance and individual freedoms and will, by their own dereliction and depravity, forfeit the blessings of Liberty and constitutional Rule of Law for themselves and their posterity.</span><br/><br/><span>As a constitutional republic we are now as close to self-destruction as we've ever been! But, let there be no mistake: <u>Hillary is but a symptom of our depravity and suicidal proclivities; the 50+% are the root cause.</u></span><br/><br/><span>It is not easy to see a good or peaceful end to this national crisis. With a Hillary presidency, widespread turmoil, civil disobedience and, yes, dissolution of this once venerable union of States would no longer be the stuff of idle speculation. My guess is that Hillary's ascendancy to the White House would surely stiffen patriotic resolve and resistance.</span><br/><br/><span>Unless legally prevented from assuming office in January 2017, political and societal upheavel and political disunion are most likely inevitable. </span><br/><span><br/></span><span>Despite his obvious shortcomings, with Trump, untried but a patriot, we would still have something of a chance to hold it all together for a while longer...or at least until we as a people can summon the courage and clarity to restore a virtuous society, constitutional order and the rule of law.</span><br/><span><br/></span><span>No Pollyanna I. Semper paratus. </span><br/><b><br/></b><b><i>"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."</i></b>John Adams<br/><b><br/></b><b><i>"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."</i> </b>Thomas Jefferson<br/><b><br/></b><b><i>"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."</i> </b>George Orwell</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Leftist Bullies & America's Futuretag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2016-05-04:3180617:BlogPost:2484632016-05-04T02:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-906260722025232725"><a href="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSBZfN3hCijpxsYGqOdAAuKM5T7WUSrZxX73lHqRo8MqbF4ieeYA"><img alt="Image result for Godlessness and Tyranny images" border="0" class="align-center" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSBZfN3hCijpxsYGqOdAAuKM5T7WUSrZxX73lHqRo8MqbF4ieeYA"></img></a></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-906260722025232725"><a href="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSBZfN3hCijpxsYGqOdAAuKM5T7WUSrZxX73lHqRo8MqbF4ieeYA"><img alt="Image result for Godlessness and Tyranny images" border="0" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSBZfN3hCijpxsYGqOdAAuKM5T7WUSrZxX73lHqRo8MqbF4ieeYA" class="align-center"/></a></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">Amidst the presidential campaign maelstrom and relentless Progressive violations of our liberties, traditional values, religious freedom, free enterprise, and constitutional underpinnings, now this:<br/> <br/> Until I recently read about the 16 Attorneys General--all Progressives, of course--<strong>who are promising to target any company that challenges Liberalism's climate change RELIGION</strong>, I honestly thought I was beyond being shocked by the Left's propensity for tyranny and bullying.<br/> <br/> Reminiscent of the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition of 1478, these fascist high priests <em><strong>intend to vigorously pursue corporate "climate change deniers" to the "fullest extent of the law"</strong></em>--whatever contrived law that might be.<br/> <br/> Asserting that "climate change deniers" are committing "fraud" and are, therefore, unprotected by that pesky First Amendment, these modern-day inquisitors--New York State's AG Schneiderman being among them--plan to <strong>levy huge fines against anyone who declines to blindly submit to their scientifically unproven man-made climate change religious dogma.</strong> ("I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me." Schneiderman and his co-collaborators have clearly forgotten this divine admonition.)<br/> <br/> This undisguised attempt to stifle core political speech and vigorous SCIENTIFIC debate should be roundly condemned by all Americans! AG Schneiderman, among other inquisitors, should not only apologize for his loathsome thuggery; he should either resign or be removed from office.<br/> <br/> Is it any wonder the citizens of this deeply divided country are in the throes of despair, uncertainty and anger? Is it any wonder that desperate Americans are turning to "outsiders" like Donald Trump? Is it any wonder that secessionist movements, most notably the Texas Nationalist Movement, are gaining in strength, support and determination?<br/> <br/> <span class="font-size-4"><strong>Make no mistake, folks. Our Founders would NEVER EVER have tolerated the tyranny which now assails us at every turn and from every direction. To a man, they would have full-throatedly counseled civil disobedience, State nullification and, if all else fails, either secession or outright rebellion.</strong></span><br/> <br/> And this: NOTHING--absolutely NOTHING--the British did to Americans in the 18th century which convinced American colonists to secede from England can in any way compare to the awful intensity of today's Progressive assault on our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in this terrible light, is it really a stretch to reasonably suggest that this union of sovereign States (as originally conceived anyway) has, in fact, finally outlived its usefulness. <em><strong>(Personally, I believe that our societal, political and economic problems are now so severe and so embedded as to be effectively irremediable. No Pollyanna I.)</strong></em><br/> <br/> So, we can either continue to submit to or otherwise accommodate the intolerable, or we can exercise our unalienable rights to appropriately resist. In any event, I urge all patriots to look solemnly to our Founders for wisdom and direction in these extremely troubling times.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-6" style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;"><strong>And remember this: unalienable rights</strong></span></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-6" style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;"><strong>are unalienable only to the extent</strong></span></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;" class="font-size-6"><strong>we are </strong></span><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;"><strong style="font-size: 14pt;">determined to defend them.</strong></span></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4gwOwpq1R_Q/VZaOijk3wVI/AAAAAAABP0w/fKdMV-wDXrs/s1600/flying-eagle-usa-flag-animated-gif-clr.gif" width="157" height="157"/><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4gwOwpq1R_Q/VZaOijk3wVI/AAAAAAABP0w/fKdMV-wDXrs/s1600/flying-eagle-usa-flag-animated-gif-clr.gif"/><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4gwOwpq1R_Q/VZaOijk3wVI/AAAAAAABP0w/fKdMV-wDXrs/s1600/flying-eagle-usa-flag-animated-gif-clr.gif" width="172" height="172"/></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;">.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://metalsofhonor.estoreadvanced.biz/images/custom/36220853.gif"/></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;">.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7" style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'arial black', 'avant garde';"><strong>~~~~~<span style="color: #000080;">~~~~~</span></strong></span></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"><p><strong>SUPPORT</strong></p>
<p><strong>REAL CONSERVATIVES</strong> </p>
<p><strong>Order our book!</strong></p>
<p><strong><img width="173" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/52793028?profile=RESIZE_180x180" width="121" height="156"/></strong></p>
<p><strong>$ 9.95</strong></p>
<p><strong>INSTANT DOWNLOAD</strong></p>
<p><strong>TO ORDER</strong></p>
<p><strong>CLICK HERE:</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/raymond-athens/right-side-up/ebook/product-17358205.html">http://www.lulu.com/shop/raymond-athens/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/raymond-athens/right-side-up/ebook/product-17358205.html">right-side-up/ebook/product-17358205.html</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-7" style="font-family: 'arial black', 'avant garde'; color: #ff0000;"><strong><span style="color: #000080;">~~~~~</span>~~~~~</strong></span></p>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>A Plea for Sanity and National Survivaltag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2016-03-02:3180617:BlogPost:2470252016-03-02T21:26:46.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"><a name="5838251798314345785" style="font-size: 13px; background-color: #ffffff;"></a></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-5838251798314345785"><b>TO THOSE OF YOU WHO SAY WE SHOULDNT SUPPORT CRUZ BECAUSE HE IS INELIGIBLE</b>, this:<br></br><br></br>I am fully aware of the thoughtful and…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"><a name="5838251798314345785" style="font-size: 13px; background-color: #ffffff;"></a></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-5838251798314345785"><b>TO THOSE OF YOU WHO SAY WE SHOULDNT SUPPORT CRUZ BECAUSE HE IS INELIGIBLE</b>, this:<br/><br/>I am fully aware of the thoughtful and well-meaning constitutional arguments on both sides of this issue, and I personally and objectively believe that, like Rubio, Chester A. Arthur and Jindal, Ted Cruz is very likely constitutionally ineligible.<br/><br/>That said, however, and faced with the awful prospect of either a felonious Alinskyite (Hillary) or a totally ideologically unknown loose cannon usurping the White House next January, I’ve taken the desperate position that <i>“extremism in defense of liberty is no vice”</i>(Goldwater); thus, with that justification in mind, I am necessarily supporting Cruz who, except for his arguably being on the wrong side of the eligibility issue, is a demonstrably constitution-first patriot we can clearly count on to restore constitutional order. And since the entrenched political class, nearly to a man, loathes Cruz, does that not demonstrate his credibility as an "outsider" and a fearless defender of our republic. And isn’t that precisely what our greater patriotic purpose should be?<br/><br/>Therefore, I URGE all patriots who champion a return to constitutional order and first principles to support Cruz both financially and on the ground as volunteers.<br/><br/>Think about it: nothing less than the survival of what precious little remains of our constitutional republic is at stake. In that light, waxing philosophically over the issue of eligibility seems a tad inappropriate and misdirected.<br/><br/>Dare we permit the election of either Donald or Hillary? Hillary is the devil we know; Donald is the potential devil we don't really know at all.<br/><br/>Please jettison the blinders and temper your justifiable anger long enough to successfully get this nation through these primaries and the general election in November. Get behind Ted Cruz!!! I beg you!!! See beyond your anger and disillusionment. This could well be our last chance to get it right.We simply cannot risk blowing it again.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Our Surreal 2016 Presidential Campaigntag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2016-02-10:3180617:BlogPost:2452712016-02-10T19:14:50.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><br></br><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-697122287866073175"><a href="https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mc542b461e7c733aba8050c4892abda59o0&pid=15.1&H=105&W=160"><img border="0" src="https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mc542b461e7c733aba8050c4892abda59o0&pid=15.1&H=105&W=160"></img></a> The internet is awash with justifiably indignant commentary regarding the dangerous direction…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template"><br/><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-697122287866073175"><a href="https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mc542b461e7c733aba8050c4892abda59o0&pid=15.1&H=105&W=160"><img border="0" src="https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mc542b461e7c733aba8050c4892abda59o0&pid=15.1&H=105&W=160"/></a>The internet is awash with justifiably indignant commentary regarding the dangerous direction of the country. Clearly, these internet commentators are extremely angry about a smothering, corrupt, overreaching and increasingly self-serving federal government run by political party hacks who have precious little interest in reigning in the cancerous growth of unbridled government.<br/><br/>But, what I don't understand is how some of us can be so fired up about returning the country to constitutional order and the rule of law, but can so cavalierly ignore the very real ineligibility cloud hanging over two of the current GOP candidates. Political loyalty is fine, but blind loyalty is simply reckless.<br/><br/>If we are willing to easily discount the real possibility that two of the top four GOP contenders are ineligible, then we have effectively subverted our own high-minded efforts to return to first principles.<br/><br/>What a terribly ironic--even surreal--state of affairs: a notorious felon and self-avowed socialist running for president on the Democrat ticket, and a swaggering empty vessel (Trump) and two most likely ineligible, albeit patriotic, guys (Cruz, Rubio) among the leaders on the right, the latter whom clearly appear no less eligible to be president than is the current White House usurper, a transformational neo-Marxist.<br/><br/>One thing seems certain, that being that the left will not caterwaul about Cruz's and Rubio's likely ineligibility as that would expose Obama for the fraud he is. So, maybe either Cruz or Rubio will end up winning the GOP nomination and go on to be elected to the highest office in the land on the strength of his being <i>elected</i> but not because he is <i>constitutionally eligible.</i> For me, this unseemly scenario underscores the obvious: the Constitution has become truly irrelevant and faithlessness to same is, at best, tenuous on both the left and the right.<br/><br/>Talk about uncharted waters. What a mess we've created for ourselves. Like it or not, in a democracy candidates DO, in fact, accurately reflect who we are as a people. As such, our leaders mirror our character flaws as well as our level of virtue and faithfulness to first principles.<br/><br/><b><i>"It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. . . . degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution." </i>Thomas Jefferson</b></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Retired Refugee Administrator Calls for Syrian Refugee Moratoriumtag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2015-11-19:3180617:BlogPost:2437442015-11-19T00:00:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content">For most of my adult life, I have worked with refugees both overseas and in the US. So, I DO understand the plight of refugees and the challenges of successfully resettling them in their new American homeland.<br></br> <br></br> That said, I just read a lengthy article in the local newspaper in which the mayor and the local refugee resettlement director discounted…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content">For most of my adult life, I have worked with refugees both overseas and in the US. So, I DO understand the plight of refugees and the challenges of successfully resettling them in their new American homeland.<br/> <br/> That said, I just read a lengthy article in the local newspaper in which the mayor and the local refugee resettlement director discounted the Syrian refugee threat by sweepingly equating the reaction of those of us with legitimate concerns about the flawed vetting process of Syrian refugees with "knee-jerk reactions of politicians". I was understandably irked. The very idea of my being a politician is offensive. But, at least my colleagues and I weren't characterized as bigots, racists, xenophobes or Islamophobes. Very surprising, indeed.<br/> <br/> In the article, the local director was quoted as saying that "all refugees go through a rigorous review process before being allowed to come to the U.S." He went on to say that "we shouldn't allow terrorists and criminals to dictate changes to our great tradition of welcoming the stranger", pointing out that local resettlement agencies "can't pick and choose whom to accept."<br/> <br/> That last string of quotes smacked of talking points--not reasoned arguments--for permitting the influx of inadequately vetted Syrian refugees into our community. I immediately questioned that if the threat of "terrorists and criminals" should not dictate how we tackle the question of welcoming potential terrorists and criminals into our midst, then what exactly should dictate whom we permit to resettle next door to us.<br/> <br/> His also stating that local agencies "can't pick and choose whom to accept" is, for the most part, false. In the case of refugees entering to join family members already here, then, yes, the agency is expected to accept them into our community; however, so-called "free cases", or those refugees without anchor relatives already in place in the community, may be rejected for resettlement by the local agency. Bear that mind.<br/> <br/> He went on by asserting that "Syrians coming to the US will <b>likely</b> come through an orderly process from refugee camps," again adding that "it is a very secure process." Likely? Not reassuring.<br/> <br/> Obviously he has ignored or entirely discounted the remarks of our security agency heads who have consistently and unambiguously warned about the flawed vetting process of Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees.<br/> <br/> Since I'm sure the local resettlement program has come under considerable pressure of late, and not wanting to pile on, I contacted an old colleague and friend at the national refugee resettlement agency with which the local agency is affiliated.<br/> <br/> I explained that local community groups with whom I am closely affiliated have understandable concerns about the resettlement of Syrian refugees in our community, and went on to cite the quotes of the local director which appeared in the newspaper.<br/> <br/> His first reaction was that it was not true that the local agency cannot reject refugees. Those who are not arriving to join family members already resettled in the community may be rejected by the local agency. This would certainly describe all the Syrian refugees earmarked for resettlement in this community. <br/> <br/> Throughout the cordial conversation--we hadn't spoken for years--I sensed a inclination on his part to adroitly skirt the potential threat posed by the resettlement of Syrian refugees. When queried about the inadequate vetting process for Syrian refugees in particular, he seemed unaware of the DIA's, FBI's and DOD's warnings about the absence of an adequate database to properly vet these refugees. Has there been a news blackout?<br/> <br/> He emailed me an updated version of the 13-step vetting process currently in use, and seemed convinced that the process was adequate. I pointed out that the vetting process is fine as it applies to non-Middle Eastern refugee groups, but that we're talking about Islamic refugees, some of whom could well be ISIS or Al Quaida infiltrators; that it only took 8 radical Islamists to slaughter 129 people in Paris. He gingerly acknowledged this threat, but quickly went on to point out the obvious: these refugees have been in camps for up to 4 years and are badly in need of help; that after such a prolonged period of time "one would think" that [even without a database with which to work] that the wheat could be effectively separated from the chaff. <br/> <br/> I opined that merely hoping that such is the case is one thing, but asked if on that hope alone were we willing to risk a terrorist attack which might otherwise have been averted. He again gently agreed, but kept returning to the genuine suffering of the bulk of Syrian refugees. That was his fallback position throughout the conversation. He could never really bring himself to fully grapple with the real threat of improperly vetted Syrian refugees. For him, compassion alone trumped caution.<br/> <br/> We both worked in refugee camps in Southeast Asia and were both involved in interviewing and otherwise screening SEA refugees before they were finally approved for entry into the US. Clearly, these were entirely different refugee groups--no terrorist inclinations among them at all. Thus, the vetting process for SEA refugees proved to be adequate and no warnings from our security agencies about the vetting process were necessarily forthcoming.<br/> <br/> We agreed that the suffering Syrian refugees needed help, but we couldn't agree that a moratorium on the resettlement of Syrian refugees was the responsible course of action to take.<br/> <br/> We then spoke about the difficulty we all had with smoothly resettling Somalian refugees in the past, but he couldn't recall but two Somalians being arrested for terrorist related activities after arrival. I reminded him of a substantial number of Somalian refugees who had been resettled in Minnesota who had linked up with ISIS; that although they are likely under close surveillance by the U.S. government they are still free and their legal status here unchanged. In short, I reminded him that they remained a serious potential terrorist threat to the homeland. Again he agreed, but was indisposed to grasp the true nature of the threat. Like so many companies and organizations, it is difficult for resettlement agencies, local or national, to see things as they really are, in this case to clearly see the threat attending a flawed vetting process. As always, agency and organization culture and those inevitable talking points pretty much dictates an employee's outlook and opinions. So, while his stance was unsurprising, when weighing the validity of refugee program commentary, from the start we must all bear carefully in mind this ingrained myopia.<br/> <br/> Possible remedy: if a refugee is a "Free Case" (with no familial US ties), the local resettlement agency CAN, in fact, say no. Thus, the remedy for those of us who are pushing for a moratorium on the resettlement of Syrian refugees may be to pressure the local resettlement agency to reject Free Syrian cases. In most communities without Syrian refugees already in place, such an effort would most certainly stop the influx. A moratorium can be accomplished locally.<br/> <br/> With this in mind, I drafted the following editorial for local consumption. The newspaper's being a seriously liberal newspaper, who can say if it will be published:<br/> <br/> "Dear Editor:<br/> <br/><div>Though ISIS has dubbed the Islamist terrorist attack on Paris as but the</div>
<div>“first of the storm”, Pres. Obama continues to mystifyingly describe “global</div>
<div>warming”, coal and CO2 as THE most profound threats we face as a nation; worse,</div>
<div>he continues to vigorously push for the entrance of thousands of inadequately</div>
<div>vetted Syrian “refugees” into our homeland.</div>
<div>Despite the existential threat of Islamic terrorism, and warnings against such a</div>
<div>Syrian influx by our own security agencies, the Administration remains</div>
<div>recklessly determined to resettle these refugees in our communities.</div>
<div>I've worked with refugees both here and abroad for most of my adult life, so no</div>
<div>one can honestly discount my compassion when it comes to helping suffering</div>
<div>refugees; however, until our security agencies verify that an adequate vetting</div>
<div>process is in place a moratorium on the resettlement of Syrian “refugees” is a</div>
<div>no-brainer. Anything less would be terribly irresponsible.</div>
<div>Moving past empty-headed political correctness, delusional ideology and faux</div>
<div>compassion, let’s properly safeguard our homeland and families from the menace</div>
<br/>
<div>of radical Islamic terrorism." </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bullying Migrants or Bonafide Refugees?tag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2015-09-26:3180617:BlogPost:2421372015-09-26T18:00:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header" style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-1"><strong>.</strong></span></h2>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Embedded image permalink" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPsGeBKWUAAIp4f.jpg"></img></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">.</p>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-6734794224142196302">By now, it must be painfully obvious to all but the willfully ignorant or ideologically…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header" style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-1"><strong>.</strong></span></h2>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPsGeBKWUAAIp4f.jpg" alt="Embedded image permalink"/></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">.</p>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-6734794224142196302">By now, it must be painfully obvious to all but the willfully ignorant or ideologically disabled that the flood of Muslim <i>migrants</i> into Europe is the result of a terribly flawed US foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 6-7 years. That said, per international agreements what are we in the West supposed to do?</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"><br/><div><b>First and foremost</b>, since these migrants haven't been properly interviewed by the UNHCR to determine if they meet the internationally accepted definition of "refugee", it is unclear if these people are, in fact, refugees at all.</div>
<div><b>Second</b>, if, owing to a "well-founded fear of persecution", a person flees his country of origin into a neighboring country, the UNHCR is, per international agreements, tasked with the responsibility of interviewing, vetting, housing, feeding and providing for their medical needs until a third country offers them a firm resettlement opportunity. (Note: not even a UN-approved refugee has the option to choose to which country s/he will emigrate. In fact, should a refugee refuse a legitimate resettlement offer from a third country--whether it be the refugee's first choice or not--s/he is automatically disqualified from resettlement anywhere.) </div>
<div><b>Third</b>, prior to a third country's offering a resettlement opportunity, the refugees in question must be interviewed yet again by that country, and prior to final approval each refugee must undergo a thorough medical and security screening as well. </div>
<div><b>Fourth</b>, so long as the conditions in the first country of asylum to which the refugee has fled remains safe and accepting of the refugee's temporary presence, or until it is determined that they are not refugees, they may remain there (under UN auspices) until such time that a firm offer of resettlement is forthcoming or until conditions in their country of origin permit them to safely and voluntarily repatriate to their home. The first asylum county may also offer the inducement of local integration, though that is not all that common. (Note: in no case can a UNHCR-approved refugee be forcibly repatriated to his country of origin if doing so jeopardizes the refugee's safety.)<br/> <br/> Thus, before trying to sensibly deal with this current flood of displaced persons from the ME and the Subcontinent, it must FIRST be determined IF the persons in question are, in fact, and per international protocols, refugees! Tragically, for this wave of migrants, this simply hasn't been done by either the UN or the West! In short, we have no idea with whom we are dealing. None!</div>
<div>What we see today are thousands of people (overwhelmingly young males, by the way) forcibly entering neighboring countries and aggressively gate-crashing their way to those countries which most appeal to them as choice resettlement sites, e.g. Germany. Kinda' like a disorderly "black Friday" swarm of shoppers at the local shopping center. Folks, this is completely at odds with the way refugee resettlement is--per international agreements--intended to work. The behavior of this unruly influx of unvetted migrants into Europe today smacks of bullying, a far cry from those "huddled masses yearning to be free" for whom we should all have compassion.</div>
<div><br/> <br/> Finally, there is absolutely no reason why these migrants--temporary sojourners, displaced persons, asylum seekers, whatever--should be resettled in Europe or the United States. There's really no need for such a massive and essentially unregulated resettlement undertaking by the West. Why? From a <u>financial, geographical and cultural </u>standpoint, the Gulf States, admittedly not known for their compassion and generosity toward their fellow Sunni and Shiite Muslims, are more than fully capable of housing, feeding, clothing, educating and medically caring for these displaced persons until they are able to safely return to their homelands in the ME and the Subcontinent. The problem is no one in the Administration or in Congress is convincingly advocating for this much more sensible solution. Why? Because Obama has ZERO influence, trust and leverage with these, our fallen away and disenchanted Arab "allies".</div>
<div><br/> <br/> So, should the US of A go ahead and resettle improperly interviewed or hastily screened Muslim refugees from the ME or from any other corner of the world? Duh. NO! More precisely, for national security and economic reasons, I strongly recommend an emergency moratorium on the resettlement of Muslim refugees/migrants/displaced persons in the United States. We can continue to generously help them while they are safely housed in perfectly habitable refugee camps in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States.</div>
<div><br/> <br/> Finally, the way the American government as well as the Europeans have dealt with this "crisis" is so bone-headed, insane and knee-jerk as to be downright mind-boggling. So much for enlightened leadership.</div>
<div><br/> <br/> I've worked directly with refugees nearly all of my adult life both here and abroad, so I'm NOT saying don't help needy refugees. I'm all for that. But, what I AM saying is to help legitimate refugees in an orderly, thoughtful manner so that our own security and economic interests are properly safeguarded as well. </div>
<div>.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>"Birthright Citizenship": Politics vs Rule of Lawtag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2015-08-20:3180617:BlogPost:2407502015-08-20T17:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"><img alt="Embedded image permalink" class="align-center" height="361" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM7fF-CUkAIEduw.jpg" width="282"></img></h2>
<h2 class="date-header"><img alt="Embedded image permalink" class="align-center" height="342" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM-mDeCUYAAiXHn.jpg" width="425"></img></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2645433998616164227">We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM7fF-CUkAIEduw.jpg" alt="Embedded image permalink" width="282" height="361" class="align-center"/></h2>
<h2 class="date-header"><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM-mDeCUYAAiXHn.jpg" alt="Embedded image permalink" width="425" height="342" class="align-center"/></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2645433998616164227">We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.<br/> <br/> Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.<br/> <br/> By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better-- have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.<br/> <br/> During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O'Reilly's characteristically bombastic--and wholly erroneous--claim that "the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period". Poppycock! He couldn't have read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and scary. But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.<br/> <br/> That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.<br/> <br/> Here are my findings and conclusions:<br/> <br/> First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.<br/> <br/> It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite Lindsey Graham’s initial assertion that a constitutional amendment is needed to outlaw anchor babies, aka birthright (<em>jus soli</em>) citizenship, I was unable to find convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of congress--and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—in order to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.<br/> <br/> To wit, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, <strong>HR 1868 </strong>(Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) amends section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there is absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill's language. In any event, the bill failed.<br/> <br/> Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, <i>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof</i>, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”<br/> <br/> And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.<br/> <br/> To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, <u>aliens</u>, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!<br/> .<br/> Under <strong>Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes</strong>, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that<u> “all persons born in the United States <i>who are not aliens</i>, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”</u><br/> <br/> In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean <u>“<i>the absolute and complete jurisdiction</i>. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”</u><br/> <br/> <u>Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US <i>who owe allegiance to the US</i>,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”</u><br/> <u><br/></u> On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that <u>every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, <b><i>except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners</i></b> or representatives of foreign governments.”</u> This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.<br/> <br/> John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant <u>“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US <i>of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty</i> is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”</u><br/> <br/> And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said <u>“Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”</u><br/> <br/> To a man, among the framers the premise behind <b>“within the jurisdiction thereof”</b> was that <i>all children born</i> <i>to parents who owed no foreign allegiance </i>were to be citizens of the US; <u>thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (<em>jus soli</em>) but born of parents whose complete allegiance was to the US.</u><br/> <br/> Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that <u>“only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—<i>and certainly not by any act of birth alone</i>—could an alien become a citizen.”</u> This, of course, would mean that <u>the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.</u><br/> <br/> Sen. Howard also stated the following: <u>“…the word 'jurisdiction', as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply<b> a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US</b>, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.”</u> In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the <u>protection</u> of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien's physical presence in the US would not render him/her under the "complete jurisdiction" of the US. Simple enough.<br/> <br/> The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship is based upon the fact that Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension,<u> aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship--when sojourning in those countries.</u> Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted that privilege of US citizenship?<br/> <br/> In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)<br/> <br/> To wit, P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that <i>“since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child.</i> Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.<br/> <br/> Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a <i>de-facto</i> right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.<br/> <br/> Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.<br/> <br/> In the <em>Slaughterhouse Cases</em>(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out <i>“that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro”</i> and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, <i>AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States"</i>, thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignities and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.<br/> <br/> Then, in <em>Elk v Wilkins </em>(1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that <i>the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child</i>, <i><strong>and not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil</strong>.</i> (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)<br/> <br/> In <em>US v Wong Kim Ark </em>(1889), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but <strong>who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US </strong>and <strong>are carrying on business in the US</strong>, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. <u>As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment.</u> But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child's birth on US soil? I suspect precious few. But note that in this case the parents were, unlike illegal entrants, legally present.<br/> <br/> In <em>Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment </em>(1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a definition by declaring that <u>“the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”</u> And this from the framers' themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can't trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)<br/> <br/> Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th's framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in <em>US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy </em>(1982), which some bloggers have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost in passing, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the passing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—was woven into this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I'd say.<br/> <br/> Then, true to activist form, in <em>Plyler v Doe </em>(1982) the court, apparently without access to the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning divergence from the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.<br/> <br/> To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.<br/> <br/> When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with <em>your</em> interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledegook, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”<br/> <br/> Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many activists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of "birthright citizenship", Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that's precisely what it should do.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>States Yield Sovereign Authority to Federal Judiciarytag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2015-08-19:3180617:BlogPost:2407342015-08-19T17:53:11.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-4695551851208657681">To protest yet another round of invasive, heavy-handed "climate warming" regulations, fifteen States are suing the feds in FEDERAL court. Huh? Does anyone see something terribly flawed with that approach? Anyone?…<br></br><br></br></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-4695551851208657681">To protest yet another round of invasive, heavy-handed "climate warming" regulations, fifteen States are suing the feds in FEDERAL court. Huh? Does anyone see something terribly flawed with that approach? Anyone?<br/><br/><a href="https://tsee2.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.tvYcIohMF9DferpgK2WY%2fg&pid=15.1&H=154&W=160"><img border="0" src="https://tsee2.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.tvYcIohMF9DferpgK2WY%2fg&pid=15.1&H=154&W=160"/></a>WHY OH WHY OH WHY do States routinely appeal to the FEDERAL judiciary when a FEDERAL entity violates their sovereignty and constitutional authority? Why do States still cling to the self-destructive, delusional belief that the FEDERAL judicial oligarchy will somehow equitably defend State interests from FEDERAL excess and lawlessness? WHY?<br/><br/>Think about it: if you had a property dispute with your neighbor, would you rely on your neighbor's attorney to represent your interests? Not if you have one operational brain cell left in your head!<br/><br/>EPA's latest round of draconian and unscientific "global warming" regulations is yet another clear case of FEDERAL overreach on steroids. If leaders in these States possessed even a modicum of principle and mettle, they would summarily invoke their 10th Amendment authority by NULLIFYING these damnably unconstitutional EPA rulings. After all is said and done, a State's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens' liberty and well-being.<br/><br/>What the hell is wrong with these guys? Are they so accustomed to enslavement and federal hand-outs they are afraid to defend their sovereign interests from FEDERAL encroachment? Of course, that question is rhetorical. The unsettling truth is their needless obsequiousness has become habitual. (It appears that the awful effects of the so-called "civil war" which, among other things, reduced States to mere appendages of an unbridled central authority in DC, are still plaguing us.)<br/><br/>The short of it is that this spineless State reaction is symptomatic of a constitutional system in total foundational collapse. To believe we now live in a constitutional republic is utterly delusional.<br/><br/>What State dares to stand up to Leviathan and help restore constitutional? Who among us will finally stand up and stop this insanity and tyranny?!?!?!?!?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Judicial Tyranny MUST be Resistedtag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2015-07-02:3180617:BlogPost:2389592015-07-02T15:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-860304976685391114"><a href="https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.ErIPYJpx4Kbs7o4H3f48qw&pid=15.1&H=51&W=160"><img border="0" class="align-center" height="118" src="https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.ErIPYJpx4Kbs7o4H3f48qw&pid=15.1&H=51&W=160" width="370"></img></a></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Embedded image permalink" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIiVbxlWUAAOrud.jpg"></img></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">Our Founders shaped a remedy for judicial…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-860304976685391114"><a href="https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.ErIPYJpx4Kbs7o4H3f48qw&pid=15.1&H=51&W=160"><img border="0" src="https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.ErIPYJpx4Kbs7o4H3f48qw&pid=15.1&H=51&W=160" class="align-center" width="370" height="118"/></a></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="text-align: center;"><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIiVbxlWUAAOrud.jpg" alt="Embedded image permalink"/></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">Our Founders shaped a remedy for judicial tyranny, and we ignore it at our peril.<br/> <br/><div class="post-message" dir="auto"><strong>Entirely justified by the 9th and 10th Amendments</strong>, a surefire and sensible solution to judicial overreach is <strong>STATE NULLIFICATION</strong>, an action which constitutionally renders a judicial ruling "null, void and of no legal effect" within the sovereign territory of a nullifying State. <strong>However, the efficacy of this perfectly legitimate remedy relies upon the existence of State leaders with spine and principle.</strong><br/> <br/> In the longer term, expedited passage of a constitutional amendment which would enable a majority of State legislatures to overrule ANY supreme court ruling within 6 months of issuance must be initiated either by Congress or, <strong>per Article V of the Constitution, by the States themselves</strong>. This, of course, would constitute a permanent means of checkmating a runaway judicial oligarchy.<br/> <br/> But, alas, will either of these prudential actions be taken? No. Why? Most Americans and nearly all their political "leaders", both at the State and federal level, <em><strong>are spineless, unprincipled, disengaged and ignorant of their constitutional rights and duties.</strong></em><br/> <br/> So, what shall clear-eyed Patriots do to remedy this tyranny in order to restore constitutional order? Both Natural Law and our Founders are crystal-clear on this point: it is our Right and Duty to appropriately resist. <strong>Vested in the People themselves and condoned by our Founders, Civil Disobedience, Rebellion and Secession are perfectly legitimate and sacrosanct remedies to tyranny.</strong><br/> <br/> <span class="font-size-5"><strong>I believe we have breached that tipping point. </strong></span></div>
<div class="post-message" dir="auto" style="text-align: center;"></div>
<div class="post-message" dir="auto" style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7" style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>CLICK HERE:</strong></span></div>
<div class="post-message" dir="auto" style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-2" style="color: #0000ff;"><strong><a href="http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/forum/topics/scotus-screwed-us-fight-back">http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/forum/topics/scotus-screwed-us-fight-back</a></strong></span></div>
<div class="post-message" dir="auto" style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-5"><strong>.</strong></span></div>
<div class="post-message" dir="auto" style="text-align: center;"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>TYRANNY ON A ROLL: SCOTUS AGAIN SUBVERTS THE CONSTITUTIONtag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2015-06-26:3180617:BlogPost:2388262015-06-26T15:34:32.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p>Looks like our invincibly arrogant Supreme Court is on a Progressive roll--a veritable steamroller of errant and overreaching Delphic rulings quite at odds with our Constitution. </p>
<p>On the heels of the Court's outrageous ruling yesterday on Obamacare, here it goes again by "ruling" that same-sex marriage is a "constitutional right". Huh? Constitutional right? This ruling is much more than mystifying; it is subversive.</p>
<p>While the same-sex ruling was entirely predictable--no less so…</p>
<p>Looks like our invincibly arrogant Supreme Court is on a Progressive roll--a veritable steamroller of errant and overreaching Delphic rulings quite at odds with our Constitution. </p>
<p>On the heels of the Court's outrageous ruling yesterday on Obamacare, here it goes again by "ruling" that same-sex marriage is a "constitutional right". Huh? Constitutional right? This ruling is much more than mystifying; it is subversive.</p>
<p>While the same-sex ruling was entirely predictable--no less so than the Obamacare, aka SCOTUScare, ruling yesterday--I am no less stunned by this judicial quackery and lawlessness.</p>
<p>Thinking I may have missed something along the way, this morning I carefully re-read my copy of the Constitution, and for the life of me I couldn't find <em>marriage</em> of any kind defined as a "constitutional right". Nowhere! In fact, marriage isn't even mentioned in the text.</p>
<p>Per the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, any power not specifically/expressly delegated by the States to the federal government remains with the States and the People. Thus, defining marriage is a State power and same-sex marriage is constitutional ONLY if the individual State and its citizenry says it is. This isn't rocket science, folks. It's the law. And the obscene misapplication of the 14th Amendment's ""equal protection" clause yet again cannot nullify the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.</p>
<p>Just what Constitution are these Progressive judicial oligarchs reading? Have they even read the Constitution? And, if so, do they at all regard the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land? Obviously not. Clearly, Judicial Supremacy has virtually supplanted Constitutional Supremacy. And therein lies the seed of our self-destruction.</p>
<p>Wouldn't it be splendid--indeed, principled and courageous--were the States to exercise their lawful authority by NULLIFYING this outrageous judicial usurpation of State sovereignty? Without spine and political courage at the State level, the US Constitution is, without question, D-E-A-D and this "constitutional republic" but an illusion.</p>
<p>Until this judicial tyranny is stopped, what precious remains of this tattered constitutional republic will be relegated to the dustbin of history.</p>
<p>I do not see a good end to this lawlessness. As to a remedy, let our Founders be our guide ...</p>Charleston: A Beacon of Civilitytag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2015-06-22:3180617:BlogPost:2390092015-06-22T15:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-4111935360489085237">When the awful news of the Charleston massacre was televised, I immediately contacted my nephew, a fellow New Yorker, who has a winter home in the heart of Charleston.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"><br></br><div>Having visited Charleston, the…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-4111935360489085237">When the awful news of the Charleston massacre was televised, I immediately contacted my nephew, a fellow New Yorker, who has a winter home in the heart of Charleston.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"><br/><div>Having visited Charleston, the "holy city", for the first time last year, I was extremely impressed by the charm and placidity of the city and the grace, amiability and propriety of the Charlestonians themselves. Frankly, I lamented my return to New York State following that most pleasant of visits. Charleston is a very special place, indeed. </div>
<div><br/> When the awful news of the Charleston church massacre was televised, I immediately sent the following text to my nephew who was at his summer home in upstate New York:</div>
<div>"When I visit you again in Charleston this winter, let's be sure to check out the church where the massacre occurred. By the way, because Charleston folks have class and dignity I am not worried about Ferguson or Baltimore-like insanity and turmoil in the wake of this monstrous shooting no matter how much inciting by the likes of racist dividers Sharpton and Obama. For the first time in a very long time, the country will vividly see how a civilized American city behaves in a disaster. Charleston will prove to be a beacon of civility and Christianity." My nephew promptly agreed.</div>
<div>And so it has been. </div>
<div>And, by the way, this dopey caterwauling about taking down the Confederate Flag in Charleston is obscenely stupid, insulting and short-sighted. If we are to rid ourselves of flags which remind us of the evils of slavery, then EVERY flag flown in the United States since 1776 must be eliminated as well. Under those banners, and under the protection of union law, slavery flourished.<br/> <br/> Let's hope Charlestonians do not succumb to this insipid and mindless demand to take down their state flag. For me, the Confederate Flag is an honorable reminder of the pre-eminence of federalism and the inherent right of a State to break from any union which would abridge its constitutional sovereignty. It is also a tribute to those hundreds of thousands of Southern patriots--which include blacks as well--who selflessly and heroically gave their lives in defense of their nation. These patriots' sacrifices should never be forgotten or impugned. They are no less heroic than those thousands of Union soldiers who gave their lives to maintain an "indivisible union" and to end slavery in the Confederate States of America.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Hillary: As Ruthless and Lawless as Obamatag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2015-03-29:3180617:BlogPost:2359392015-03-29T02:00:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1">Oh, the webs we weave and the innocents we scar, maim and kill.</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-5838752113379488422"><br></br> And Black Widow Hillary has constructed one helluva web of deceit, lies and perfidy--probably no less odious and intricate than the forest of webs weaved by most other entitled elites…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="date-header"></h2>
<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1">Oh, the webs we weave and the innocents we scar, maim and kill.</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-5838752113379488422"><br/> And Black Widow Hillary has constructed one helluva web of deceit, lies and perfidy--probably no less odious and intricate than the forest of webs weaved by most other entitled elites on the left. But Hillary is a tad different in this regard. Why? Her shameless deceit and cold, calculated, self-serving heartlessness as Secretary of State directly contributed to the needless death of five stellar Americans in Benghazi.<br/> <a href="https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607999011196568085&pid=15.1&H=115&W=160"><img src="https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607999011196568085&pid=15.1&H=115&W=160" border="0"/></a><br/> But, gee. That's "old news". I mean, what difference does it make anyway. Right , Hillary? You have more important matters to consider, like deleting your thousands of official emails--<i>after</i> the State Dept. asked you to return them--and, of course, running for President of the United States of America, surely a challenging task requiring your undivided attention. I mean, gee. What's the big deal anyway? It's your turn at the helm of state. No need for folks to read your emails which may shed some light on what <i>actually</i> happened in Benghazi. I mean, how nosey can some folks be. The gall!<br/> <br/> My question is this: like toady Holder, Comrade Obama and a seemingly endless array of other criminals on the left, will Hillary get away with her cavalierly thumbing her nose at America? In a word, probably. Why? <u>Because she's a poor helpless woman whose character is being brutally and unfairly sullied by a vicious cadre of women-haters on the right</u>. Oh, she'll get away with it because, well, she's a Progressive Democrat and, again and above all else, she's a woman. And somehow, being either a woman, a homosexual, a transsexual, or a minority today--but only if you are of the Democratic Progressive persuasion, of course--is the only acceptable qualification to hold the title of Commander-in-Chief and President. But, really, wouldn't any fair-minded, clear-thinking American want Hillary on the receiving end of that 3AM call? Oops! Silly me. Did I forget that "3 AM" life-or-death call from our guys in Benghazi which she so adroitly and honorably handled? I'm just so forgetful these days.<br/> <br/> Sarcasm aside, one needs to be willfully ignorant and utterly devoid of integrity and objectivity not to see that Hillary's ascendancy to the Presidency would be the final nail in this tattered republic's coffin. (Of course, Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocohantas, another congenital liar, would also accomplish the same end. Which leaves me to wonder who on the far left <i>would be</i> a tolerable pick for President. Easy answer: None!)<br/> <br/> I leave you with this for your thoughtful consideration. Today, the <u>American Conservative 2<i> </i>Conservative</u> blog reported the following: <i>As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was </i><b><i>fired</i></b><i> by her supervisor, </i><u>lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman</u><i>. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "</i><i>Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality."</i>A paragon of virtue, that Ms. Rodham; definitely presidential timber.<br/> <br/> So, this pretty much sums up my position on this terribly flawed woman with fundamental and long-standing character flaws. In short, she's just what Americans DON'T need in a President.<br/> <br/> In time, I sincerely hope Mrs.Clinton can tame her demons, restore her dignity, regain the respect of her fellow countrymen, find peace, and live a happy life with her family--FAR FAR from the White House.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Birthright Citizenship: Politics vs Rule of Lawtag:tpartyus2010.ning.com,2015-03-14:3180617:BlogPost:2355712015-03-14T03:30:00.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profile/JimDelaney
<p>In 2010, and after much research, I wrote two posts regarding birthright citizenship, a subject which has again taken on considerable importance in the Senate. GIven Sen. Vitter's introduction of the "Birthright Citizenship Act" which would end the practice, I honestly believe this post would be especially useful to clear-eyed readers among us. (Caution: If you're an open-border and birthright citizenship advocate, you'd best keep your blinders on. The facts may be too painful for you to…</p>
<p>In 2010, and after much research, I wrote two posts regarding birthright citizenship, a subject which has again taken on considerable importance in the Senate. GIven Sen. Vitter's introduction of the "Birthright Citizenship Act" which would end the practice, I honestly believe this post would be especially useful to clear-eyed readers among us. (Caution: If you're an open-border and birthright citizenship advocate, you'd best keep your blinders on. The facts may be too painful for you to bear.) Here is the post:</p>
<p></p>
<div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1">We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution. </div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-6103053295810948806"><br/> Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well. <br/> <br/> By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better-- have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.<br/> <br/> That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter. <br/> <br/> Here, in choppy-brief form, are my findings and conclusions:<br/> <br/> First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.<br/> <br/> It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite Lindsey Graham’s initial assertion that a constitutional amendment is needed to outlaw anchor babies, aka birthright (<em>jus soli</em>) citizenship, I was unable to find convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of congress--and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—in order to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed. <br/> <br/> To wit, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, <strong>HR 1868 </strong>(Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) amends section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there is absolutely nothing at all earth-shattering, divergent or revolutionary in that language. <br/> <br/> Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”<br/> <br/> And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored. <br/> <br/> To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is this rough grammatical construction which, to birthright proponents, provides convenient ambiguity and cover. Did Howard mean foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, or did he mean foreigners AND aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers? A fair question which was soon clarified by him and other co-framers.<br/> .<br/> Under <strong>Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes</strong>, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that<u> “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”</u><br/> <br/> In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean <u>“the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.” </u><br/> <br/> <u>Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the Amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”</u><br/> <u><br/></u> <br/> On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that <u>every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, <b>except that of children born on our soil (<em>jus soli</em>) to temporary sojourners</b> or representatives of foreign governments.”</u> This seems to have nicely clarified Sen. Howard’s somewhat ambiguous construction above.<br/> <br/> John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant <u>“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”</u><br/> <br/> And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said <u>“Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” </u><br/> <br/> To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; <u>thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (<em>jus soli</em>) but born within the complete allegiance of the US politically and not merely under its laws.</u><br/> <br/> Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that <u>“only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.”</u> This, of course, would mean that <u>the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US. </u><br/> <br/> Sen. Howard also stated the following: <u>“…the word 'jurisdiction', as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply<b> a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US</b>, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.”</u> In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection.<br/> <br/> The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship is based upon the fact that Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension,<u> aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship--when sojourning in those countries.</u> Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, by what stretch can children of illegals be automatically granted that privilege? <br/> <br/> In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers seemed to have great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)<br/> <br/> To wit, P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say. <br/> <br/> Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a <i>de-facto</i> right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries raised any objection, or otherwise disputed that assertion. <br/> <br/> Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.<br/> <br/> In the <em>Slaughterhouse Cases</em>(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.” Thus, another clarification of Sen. Howard’s somewhat ambiguous construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignties and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.<br/> <br/> Then, in <em>Elk v Wilkins </em>(1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child, <strong>and not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil</strong>. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.<br/> <br/> In <em>US v Wong Kim Ark </em>(1889), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but <strong>who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US </strong>and <strong>are carrying on business in the US</strong>, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, the decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US? (A lawful business, that is.) I suspect precious few. But note that in this case the parents were, unlike illegal entrants, legally present.<br/> <br/> In <em>Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment </em>(1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment authors, had long before provided a definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. <u>What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”</u> From the horses’ mouths. Clearly, jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ intent and meaning.<br/> <br/> But, despite the foregoing, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in <em>US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy </em>(1982), which some bloggers have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost in passing, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the passing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—was woven into this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely cite this case to substantiate the incontestable legality of birthright citizenship. Don’t ask.<br/> <br/> Then, true to activist form, in <em>Plyler v Doe </em>(1982) the court, somehow without ready access to the framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wow. Again, don’t ask. Clearly a yawning divergence from the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.<br/> <br/> To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best. <br/> <br/> When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birth right citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with <em>your</em> interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”<br/> <br/> Finally, in my humble opinion, and based upon what I understand to have been the 14th framers’ clear intent and meaning, passage of Louisiana Senator Vitter's "Birthright Citizenship Act" which would virtually eliminate this unlawful practice, would finally restore clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment—surely a tall order with so many activists and social engineers infesting our courts these days.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"><span class="font-size-7" style="font-family: 'arial black', 'avant garde'; color: #ff0000;"><strong>CLICK HERE:</strong></span></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"><a href="http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/america-on-the-brink-of-losing-constitutional-form-of-government-">http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/america-on-the-brink-of-losing-constitutional-form-of-government-</a></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>