FLASE ALARM - HAWAII MISSILE THREAT
Dec 29, 2017
What's Next Aileen?
Wallace S. Bruschweiler & William Palumbo
Interview on Counter Terrorism - Middle East
Dinesh D'Souza On
"Education In America"
FEBRUARY 5, 2018 IN NAPLES, FL
Conservative political commentator, scholar, author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza makes his first Naples, Florida appearance on February 5, 2018!
Mr. D’Souza will provide insight into today’s challenges in education and how those challenges impact America’s culture.
Date: Monday, February 5, 2018
Location: The Ritz-Carlton Beach Resort in Naples, FL
Join the 45th Annual March for Life Next Week
Next Friday, tens of thousands, including NRB president & CEO Dr. Jerry A. Johnson and several other members of the NRB staff, are gathering in the nation’s capital to rally in celebration of the sanctity of life. Together we will march down from the National Mall to Capitol Hill to urge respect for human life and the end of abortion in America.
Every year since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, 1973, masses of pro-life marchers have come to Washington to protest that ruling and to promote a culture that properly values prenatal life.
This year, the March for Life theme will be “Love Saves Lives,” which organizers say embodies “the true spirit and mission of the pro-life movement by enlisting the power of love to empower others to choose life.” NRB is a “White Rose” sponsor of the event.
Johnson said, “We are called by our Lord to love our neighbor, and that includes women and children in the most vulnerable of situations. Let us stand and march together on their behalf!”
Ahead of the march itself, pro-lifers will gather on the National Mall for a rally featuring speakers including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.); U.S. Representatives Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) and Chris Smith (R-N.J.); Heritage Foundation president Kay Coles James; Pam Tebow, mother of celebrated athlete Tim Tebow; former NFL player Matt Birk and his wife, Adrianna; and Sisters of Life’s Sr. Bethany Madonna. Best-selling musical artist Plumb will be performing.
Those who cannot make it to the nation’s capital next week but would like to add their voice that day are encouraged to join pro-lifers on social media using the hashtag #WhyWeMarch.
The March for Life Rally will take place at noon. Following the rally, the March will begin on Constitution Avenue between 12th and 14th Streets at approximately 1:00 p.m.
Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech
12:01AM GMT 06 Nov 2007
This is the full text of Enoch Powell's so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968.
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."
I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.
I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.
There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.
The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.
Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.
I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.
I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.
Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.
The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.
The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.
This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.
Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.
But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.
I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.
“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.
Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.
We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'
All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
Convention Of States Project’s “Simulated Convention” A Dog And Pony Show
Jan 09, 2018
Read More Articles by Publius HuldahFoundational Knowledge
Our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government. But 100 years ago, we started electing Progressives (Fabian socialists) to State and federal office. With the enthusiastic approval of the American People, the Progressives set up the socialist regulatory welfare governments (state and federal) we now have. It’s unconstitutional; but Americans didn’t care because they were being taken care of by the governments, and their children were getting “free” public school educations.
So for the past 100 years, the federal and state governments and the American People have ignored our Constitution.
Now that our socialist system is collapsing, along comes the “Convention of States” Project (COS), blames all our problems on the federal government, and claims we can fix the federal government’s violations of our Constitution by amending the Constitution.
And they say amendments which will “rein in the abuse of power by the federal government” when it “violate[s] its constitutional limitations”, can be obtained only at a convention called by Congress pursuant to Article V of our Constitution.
Article V provides that if two thirds of the States apply for it, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. 3 However, Delegates would have the right, as recognized in the 2ndparagraph of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the Constitution we have and write a new Constitution which creates a new government. This has happened before!
Our first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation. It had defects, so on February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution, with an easier mode of ratification,  which created a new government. In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison invoked the Delegates’ right to abolish our form of government, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, to justify ignoring their instructions and drafting a new Constitution which created a new government.
So! Ever since the federal convention of 1787, it has been known that any convention called to address our Constitution under Article V provides the opportunity to impose a new Constitution.  That’s why the enemies of our Constitution periodically push for an Article V convention.
In response to the current push, constitutionalists are warning Americans that if Congress calls an Article V convention, a new constitution with a new mode of ratification is likely to be imposed – probably a new constitution which moves us into the North American Union.
COS’s “simulated” Article V convention
So during September 2016, COS held an “invitation only” “simulated convention” in Williamsburg, Virginia attended by State Legislators handpicked by COS, to show us that Delegates to a real Article V convention called by Congress will do nothing more than propose amendments.
And lo! At the “simulated convention”, all the handpicked invitees did was propose six amendments to our Constitution – they didn’t “run away” and propose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification!
COS would like us to believe that their “simulated convention” proves that a real Article V convention called by Congress also won’t run away when, in fact, it proves nothing except that handpicked COS invitees fall in line with the COS agenda.
Now let’s look at the proposed amendments: COS posted them HERE; an archived copy is HERE.
COS’s six amendments
Like Newspeak in George Orwell’s “1984”, the amendments would do the opposite of what COS claims.
“Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1”:
“SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year.
SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money.
So! Congress can’t increase the debt unless they decide to increase the debt. Wow. This is “fiscal restraints”?
If you read through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to the federal government, you will get a list of the objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money.
The reason we have a huge debt is because for 100 years, Congress has been spending on objects which aren’t on the list of delegated powers. The States go along with it because they get federal funds for implementing unconstitutional federal programs in their States. 31.9% of the States’ annual revenues is from federal funds. All this federal money is borrowed and added to the public debt!
To say that State Legislators display hypocrisy when they decry “out of control federal spending” when they have their hand out for all the federal money they can get, is an understatement. The amendment authorizes such spending to continue for as long as Congress continues to approve increases in the debt! The amendment legalizes – makes constitutional – all such spending and debt increases!
Section 2 gives us nothing. Our existing Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to require States or local governments to spend money.
“Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1”:
“SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states. [boldface added]
SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of waror violent insurrection against the United States. [boldface added]
SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this article. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person.
Section 1: The original intent of the interstate commerce clause (Art. I, §3) is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on merchandize as it is transported through the States for purposes of buying & selling; and to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports & exports, both inland & abroad.
With Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the federal government began to pervert the original intent so as to exert power over whatever they wanted to regulate.
The amendment legalizes the perversions! It delegates to the federal government powers it has already usurpedto regulate the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods and articles.
Furthermore: the amendment delegates to the federal government a sweeping new power over the movement or transportation of persons across state lines! It would, e.g., authorize the federal government to prohibit use of privately owned vehicles to cross state lines, and to require prior written permission to cross state lines. I saw in communist East Europe & the Soviet Union a system where governments control movement of persons. Will “Papers, please” be heard at checkpoints in America? This malignant amendment would be constitutional authority to impose such a system here.
Section 2: The federal government has no existing constitutional authority to regulate intra state commerce, so the first clause of this section adds nothing our Constitution doesn’t already prohibit.
But the second clause delegates to the federal government another significant new power over persons: it comes verbatim from Randy Barnett’s so-called “bill of federalism”:
“…Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.”
Why does Barnett, who attended the “simulated convention” as “Committee Advisor”, want the federal government to have this new power? What’s an “act of war against the United States” – doing what the Bundys and their supporters did? The amendment delegates to Congress the power to define “acts of war against the United States” – and to re-define it from time to time – to encompass whatever they want!
We need to understand the implications of delegating such power to Congress. As with “treason” under the Tudors in England, anyone can be accused of “acts of war against the United States”. Does Randy Barnett, law professor, understand the implications? James Madison understood them and thus said that “treason” must be defined in the Constitution;  obviously, no one of Madison’s caliber was at the “simulated convention”.
Section 3: Our Framers didn’t advise the States to file lawsuits against the federal government when it violates the Constitution! Our Framers told the States to nullify such violations.
“Federal Term Limits & Judicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1”:
“No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article.”
This amendment is a feel-good palliative which caters to Americans’ pervasive desire for a quick “fix” which permits them to avoid dealing with the real causes of their problems. See Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure.
“Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2”:
“SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form. [boldface added]
SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified.
Section 1: Article I, §1, US Constitution, provides that all legislative powers granted by the Constitution shall be vested in Congress. Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution].
Accordingly, executive orders and federal agency rules and orders are not “law”.
The amendment would supersede Art. I, §1. It would elevate to the status of “federal law” every order or regulation burped out by bureaucrats in the executive branch; every executive order signed by every President; and every order barked out by jack-booted thugs working for federal agencies. And unless three fifths of States agree that you don’t have to obey – you must obey or bear the consequences of violating what would be – thanks to this amendment – “federal law”.
Section 2: James Madison, Father of our Constitution, showed how individual States or several States could carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. But the amendment would require 30 States to agree before any one State or person could defend itself!
“Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2”:
“SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates.
SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President. [boldface added]
SECTION 3. This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.”
This amendment doesn’t impose “fiscal restraints” – it authorizes Congress to impose new and different taxes on us!
The words in boldface authorize Congress to impose “any tax” if three fifths of both Houses agree. “Any tax” includes a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT). Statists love the VAT because it raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments”. This is what will replace the income, gift, and estate tax.
“Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3”:
“Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.”
As shown in The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster, rulemaking by federal agencies is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1 of our Constitution.
The proposed amendment would supersede Art. I, §1 and legalize such rulemaking! And the existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional!
The solution to the burden created by unconstitutional federal agencies is to do away with the agencies! Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers!
The “simulated convention” was a dog and pony show put on to produce amendments to con us into believing that a real Article V convention called by Congress won’t “run away”.
But it’s impossible to fix federal usurpations of non-delegated powers with amendments, because amendments can’t take away powers the Constitution didn’t delegate in the first place. Thus, the amendments the hand-picked attendees approved legalize powers already usurped or delegate sweeping new powers to the federal government over States and individual persons!
Statecraft is serious business which requires systematic study to master. The “simulated convention” shows we live in a time of constitutional illiteracy where people of good intent can be misled by persons of “insidious views”. Heed the words of Daniel Webster in his 4th of July Oration, 1802:
“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.”
 If your spouse commits adultery, will your marriage be saved if you amend the vows to permit adultery? When People violate the Ten Commandments, will morality be restored if we amend the Ten Commandments to permit sin?
 Michael Farris’ words in “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V” or HERE.
 None of the Delegates to the convention of 1787 said the purpose of amendments is to rein in the fed. gov’t when it usurps power. They said the purpose is to fix defects in the Constitution. See The George Mason Fabrication at subheading 4.
 Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation (AOC) required Amendments to the AOC to be ratified by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But Article VII of the new Constitution (the one we now have) provided that it would be ratified by 9 States.
 The enemies of our Constitution knew from day one that they could get rid of our Constitution at an Art. V convention! Our present Constitution was ratified by the 9th State on June 21, 1788. In Federalist No. 85 (mid-August 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of the anti-federalists who were agitating for another convention in order to get rid of our new Constitution.
On Oct. 27, 1788, anti-federalist Patrick Henry introduced into the Virginia Assembly a Resolution asking Congress to call an Art. V convention. In Madison’s letter to Randolph of Nov 2, 1788 (pages 294-297), he speaks of Henry’s “enmity” “agst [against] the whole system” [the new Constitution]; and “the destruction of the whole system I take to be still the secret wish of his heart, and the real object of his pursuit.”
 New Constitutions are already prepared or being drafted: e.g., the Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1). Globalists [e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations] who want to move us into the North American Union (NAU) need a new Constitution to transform us from a sovereign nation toa member state in the NAU.
 COS’s page is archived HERE. See “who attended the simulation” in right column. [Archived list of attendees is HERE or HERE.]
 Proof of the original intent of the interstate commerce clause & how it was abused is HERE.
 Yet, Legislators from 44 of the States at the “simulated convention” approved this!
 See Barnett’s Amendment 2 – Limits of Commerce Power”. It’s archived HERE.
“Treason” is defined at Art. III, §3. In Federalist No. 43 (at 3.) Madison warns that the definition must be locked into the Constitution. Otherwise, malignant people fabricate definitions as needed in order to condemn their enemies.
Compare Art. I, §8, cl. 10 which delegates to Congress the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”. In Federalist No. 42 (1st & 4th paras), Madison points out that this class of powers is among those which “regulate the intercourse with foreign nations” and so must be handled by the general [fed.] gov’t. And since everyone’s definition of the terms is different, the fed gov’t should define them. This class of powers wouldn’t affect private Citizens. For more on the limited criminal jurisdiction of the fed gov’t over private Citizens, see What Criminal Laws are Congress Authorized To Make?
 See Nullification made Easy. And remember: State officials are required by the Oath at Art. VI to “support” the federal Constitution – not to obey the federal government!
© 2018 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved
E-Mail Publius Huldah: firstname.lastname@example.org
Report: Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad arrested for anti-regime remarks January 7, 2018
Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly been arrested after criticizing the government and supporting the anti-regime unrest in the country.
By: World Israel News Staff
Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly been arrested after criticizing the government in remarks that were deemed as “inciting unrest.”
The Al Quds Al Arabi daily reported Saturday that it learned from “reliable sources in Tehran” that the authorities ordered Ahmadinejad’s arrest during his visit to the city of Shiraz, and that the arrest was made with the approval of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
The arrest was ordered after Ahmadinejad’s recent remarks in Bushehr, where he told a crowd just as the widespread unrest in Iran began that the nation’s leadership is detached “from the problems of the people and their concerns, and [does] not know anything about the reality of society.”
“What Iran is suffering from today is mismanagement and not lack of economic resources,” he charged.
“The government of Hassan Rouhani believes that they own the land and that the people are an ignorant society,” Ahmadinejad said. “The people are angry at this government because of its monopoly on public wealth.”
Authorities have reportedly placed him under house arrest.
The Iranian people have taken to the streets in the past week to protest Iran’s dictatorial regime and the repressive financial state in which the Iranian citizens live.
The protests began because of the weak economy, unemployment and a jump in food prices. They have expanded to cities and towns in nearly every province.
Hundreds have been arrested, and a prominent judge warned that some could face the death penalty.
At least 21 people are believed to have been killed in the anti-regime protests.
This is the country’s largest wave of anti-government protests since the “Green Revolution” erupted in 2009 following a controversial presidential election.
The protesters are demanding that the regime invest in the country and its economy, and not in its foreign terrorism network and belligerent regional expansionism.
Ahmadinejad’s remarks reportedly came in response to an attack by Rouhani, who described Ahmadinejad as “walking in the path of confrontation with the regime.”
Ahmadinejad was president from 2005 to 2013, and was best known abroad for his incendiary rhetoric toward Israel, his questioning of the scale of the Holocaust and his efforts to ramp up Iran’s nuclear program.
Can Breitbart Be Separated From Bannon? Andrew’s Friends And Former Employees Weigh In
9:23 PM 01/06/2018
As the war of words between the President of the United States and Steve Bannon rages over comments in a new book, one question remains on the minds of those who were friends of the man whose website Bannon now runs: Can it survive without him?
Breitbart News was founded by the late Andrew Breitbart and his childhood friend Larry Solov as several separate sites, the “Bigs,” they were called. Big Hollywood, Big Government, Big Journalism, etc. The names were a play on the liberal penchant for demonizing entire industries by labeling them as “big” and using it against liberal sacred cows – think big oil, big tobacco, big pharma.
Around the time of Breitbart’s death, the individual sites were rolled into one: Breitbart News.
After Andrew’s death in March 2012, Steve Bannon became the effective head of the company, though Solov and Breitbart’s widow retained ownership control.
I was friends with Andrew and used to write on a volunteer basis for his sites because of that friendship. It’s unclear how Steve came into the picture, he wasn’t around at the start, I just remember him suddenly being around when Andrew came to town. I never asked, he never said, and it doesn’t really matter.
To say things changed when Steve took over is to say the sun is bright. Matt Drudge, a close friend of Breitbart’s and former supporter called Bannon “schizophrenic.”
Bannon is “a blot on the conservative movement and a detriment to Breitbart News more broadly, as he always was,” says Ben Shapiro, a good friend of Andrew’s and editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire.
Dana Loesch, nationally syndicated radio host and author who served as editor-in-chief of Big Journalism was equally as blunt. “He should have never been in this position in the first place. Bannon has turned that website into the Media Matters of the right,” Loesch said.
A former editor-in-chief of Breitbart TV sees Bannon as an obvious liability. Larry O’Connor, now a radio host in Washington, DC, told the Daily Caller, “It’s hard not to see how he’s a liability for the Brand for the company at this point. Not to mention the reputation of the investors. He’s the face and voice and identifying figure that represents the website and you’ve got the president of the United States publicly humiliating and ridiculing him almost a daily now.”
“He’s a total piece of shit,” said another friend of Andrew’s who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Meredith Dake-O’Connor, one of the original editors at Breitbart video, was not happy with the choice of Bannon to succeed Andrew but tried to give him a chance. She quickly soured on him. “From the day that Bannon was announced I have been against his leadership at Breitbart.com. In reality, I tried to give him a chance right after Andrew’s death, but his treatment of people and his editorial vision is and always has been unacceptable,” she told the Daily Caller.
I’ve only known Steve socially, I’ve never worked with him – and socially he was perfectly fine – but several former Breitbart employees, many of whom are friends of mine, have painted a picture of abuse, bullying and threats that completely changed both the tone and direction of the company once he took over.
Make no mistake, Andrew Breitbart was a partisan; he was upfront about it, proud of it. But the work was not about pushing any person or party.
“It’s impossible to say how the site would have evolved under Andrew’s leadership,” Dake-O’Connor said. “In my observation, Andrew was far less interested in Washington tick-tock than Steve’s editorial vision. Andrew despised the incestuous relationship that media organizations had with politicians. Steve recreated that incestuous relationship but on the other side of the aisle. I cannot imagine Andrew doing the same thing.”
Larry O’Connor agrees with his wife, “Although the site was obviously focused on national politics quite a bit with the big government web page, and he was intent on keeping the main operation in Los Angeles. He had no interest in moving to DC and he had no interest in having the central focus of the site be Washington politics. So to that end, I think that there’s been a pretty major departure.”
“But beyond that, there’s a question of tone,” O’Connor continued, blaming Bannon for that change in tone. “Under Andrew we were sharp and pointed and we would criticize and attack our political foes, but it was never mean, it was never vicious. It was fun. Think of Andrew on Rollerblades, that was the spirit of Andrew and it was the spirit of what the sites represented. Since those days, I believe the content on the site now is mean and angry and vicious and vengeful and destructive.”
Loesch, too, believes the Bannon-run Breitbart is far from Andrew’s original vision. “I don’t think Andrew Breitbart ever meant for his site to be a “weapon” for Steve Bannon’s personal vendettas,” she told the Daily Caller. Continuing, “I will not speak for Andrew, but if you listen to his last CPAC speech wherein he clearly defined the battle lines, I doubt Andrew would define ‘enacting the President’s agenda’ as power-jockeying while opposing the President’s primary endorsements (and stripping the GOP down to a now one seat majority), fighting his historic tax reform, bashing his family publicly, and undermining his overall agenda by blabbing and leaking to progressive media outlets.”
“The site bears little to no resemblance to what Andrew built,” Shapiro told the Daily Caller. “Andrew’s vision was of a fighting machine directed against false media narratives and involved in the culture war, not a personal political tool for a two-bit grifter.”
Many people share Shapiro’s opinion. “Steve is kind of dumb,” said a source prevented from speaking on the record, “That’s the great unreported story here. He’s so aggressive and self-assured, so eager to tell you about the latest book he’s skimmed, that you can miss it at first, but if you press him even a little it’s obvious he has no idea what he’s talking about.”
Under Bannon, Breitbart became more of an activist site, particularly for Donald Trump during the 2016 Republican primary. That’s how Steve made it into the Trump inner circle, and now that the relationship has soured, the question of what comes next for Breitbart News remains an open one.
There are reports that Bannon could be on his way out, having fallen out of favor not only with the White House, but with Rebekah Mercer, the daughter of billionaire hedge fund manager Robert Mercer and a major investor in the company and benefactor for Bannon’s political activities.
So what becomes of Breitbart if Bannon leaves? Can the ship sail without its captain? Should it?
Loesch says the answer depends on whether Bannon remains in control. “Andrew’s legacy is more influential than Bannon’s quest for personal power and vengeance. Whether it can be saved or not depends on if Bannon stays and the editorial direction it takes in his absence,” she said. “Using the site as a tool of petty vengeance to kneecap the president and those who would challenge your borrowed authority isn’t journalism.”
“As long as Bannon directs every editorial decision in the editorial spirit and tone of the site and he continues to be the face and voice and singular figure representing the brand, it’s going to have some problems,” O’Connor said. “Especially in one fundamental business aspect … You saw Matt Drudge basically coming out this week and calling for Larry Solov and Susie Breitbart to take back control of the site. He publicly ridiculed Steve Bannon. I don’t see how Andrew Breitbart’s vision for a news and opinion website sustains itself when the Drudge Report is at odds with it.”
“The only way Breitbart News could be saved,” Shapiro said, “is for the original vision of Breitbart to rise above Bannon once again: stop investing in DC politics, and start investing in the wars Andrew found valuable. Bannon has certainly toxified it for the foreseeable future.”
That’s the problem the website faces: it’s now more Steve Bannon than Andrew Breitbart. How can it survive without him?
“There are people there whom I consider family,” Dake-O’Connor added. “There is a deep bond for what the editorial staff went through that will, for me, always endure. I believe the early day editors, hired when Andrew was alive who are still there (and a few others), can make smart editorial decisions and produce great journalism that covers news and culture that the mainstream ignores. I’ve seen them do it. It all depends on the website that they want to be.”
Shapiro thinks the staff would welcome the prospect of giving it a go without Bannon. “Not everyone there is a Steve loyalist. In fact, I’d think most people there dislike Steve intensely, but they work for him, so there’s not much they can say,” he said.
On the other hand, Loesch thinks wholesale changes, not just at the top, are needed to save the site. “In my opinion, yes. I believe those who best kept the fighting, happy warrior spirit of Andrew Breitbart alive all jumped ship long ago,” she said.
Dake-O’Connor would like to see a major culture-shift and focus for the site. “The only way the site is successful in my mind is if they go back to the LA-culture-centric scene and vibe not only editorially, but staff-wise. Anyone not on board with that, or who is more interested in being considered a power broker, will not help that cause,” she said.
Larry added, “Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh were friends, mentors, and heroes of Andrew’s. And this week you saw both of those New Media icons publicly distance themselves from Steve Bannon. How could any of us thrive in the right-of-center new media landscape by being on the wrong side of those two?”
So would these former employees return to help right the ship, even temporarily? “I run my own ship now,” Shapiro said. However, he did add, “I’d always be more than happy to help out any outlet bearing Andrew’s name that wanted to reflect Andrew’s vision, because I believe in that original vision, and Andrew was a great man and a terrific friend.”
Dake-O’Connor has a similar desire to see the site thrive under new management, but would she return? “It would depend on their editorial direction going forward and how much editorial influence I would have,” she said.
“I have definitely, over the years, had some real disagreements and some disappointments with what they published on the site. I’ve learned some amazing lessons about journalism, the industry and the relationship of media to our culture and country since leaving there and going into the beltway media world,” she continued. “Sometimes I find myself nostalgically thinking what it would be like to take those lessons back there. So under some very specific conditions, yeah. I think every person who worked there in the early days has committed time to thinking how they would return and right the ship if the conditions were right.”
She concluded, “We loved Andrew and we cared about that brand and that little collection of blogs that constantly punched way above their weight, and won.”
The sentiment is shared by her husband, Larry. “I’ve always left open the possibility of being part of what Andrew wanted to accomplish. And I still have great love and affection for many people who are still there. And certainly if it would help Susie and Andrew’s children, I would seriously consider it,” he said.
Larry thinks there will have to be significant staff changes as well. “I don’t know about wholesale but a good chunk of the DC hires would need to be reexamined in a very serious way,” he said.
As far as returning goes, Loesch is “happy where I am and am preparing for a new endeavor later this year. I don’t like going backwards.”
She thinks the problems at Breitbart now run deeper than just Bannon. “I also don’t think any of the original editors, myself included, would consider assisting the site with anything unless those who facilitated Bannon’s rise and failures were stripped of any and all editorial authority,” she concluded.
As for me? Do I think it can continue? Breitbart News has found an audience with their current Bannon-led business model, so the site without him would undoubtedly go through some growing pains. But at this point, they may be worth it for the long-term prospects. So much of the site’s identity is tied up with Bannon, but it is anchored to his relationship with President Trump. That relationship appears to be over, and it’s clear something has to change. What that change is depends on whether or not Bannon stays.
I’d prefer to see him step aside, maybe start his own website. I haven’t been comfortable with what Breitbart has become in the last few years. I’d like to see the spirit of Andrew return to it and that can’t happen under current management, if it can happen at all.
‘Electrification’: The Road to Higher Energy Prices
By Steve Goreham -- January 3, 2018
“Electrification calls for a massive societal transformation from gasoline to electric vehicles, from traditional power plants to wind and solar generators, and from gas heating to electric and heat pump systems. There is no evidence that this transition will have any measurable effect on global temperatures. But electrification will produce substantially higher energy prices.”
“Electrification” is the new buzz word touted by climate fighters and environmental groups. Where electrification once meant providing electricity to people, today it often means elimination of traditional fuels. But the only tangible result of green electrification policies will be higher energy prices.
Proponents of electrification intend to force transportation and heating and cooling systems to run on electricity, and eliminate the use of hydrocarbon fuels. Electric cars, electric furnaces and water heaters, and heat pumps must replace gasoline-powered vehicles and gas-fueled appliances. In addition, wind or solar systems must supply the electricity, not power plants using coal or natural gas, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan calls for a 40-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and an 80-percent reduction by 2050. Goals call for 4.2 million plug-in electric and plug-in hybrid cars on California roads by 2030, up from about 300,000 today. The plan also calls for electrification of space and water heating.
Utility Southern California Edison (SCE) recommends an even more aggressive plan. The SCE “Clean Power and Electrification Pathway” plan calls for 7 million electric cars on California roads by 2030 and for one-third of state residents to replace their gas-fired furnaces and appliances by 2030.
Nine other states promote adoption of electric cars as part of a broad electrification program. New England states are exploring “strategic electrification” in order to meet tough emissions reduction goals. In most of these efforts, cost to consumers is rarely discussed.
Electrification has become a global quest. Germany, Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom propose to ban sales of internal combustion engine cars by 2040. The Dutch government proposes to eliminate gas as a source of heating and cooking from all homes by 2050. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Utrecht announced intentions to become “gas-less neighborhoods.”
Electrification will be expensive. Most Americans don’t want electric cars. Large subsidies from taxpayers and mandates on auto companies and consumers will be required to force adoption. Furnaces and appliances powered by heat pumps, solar, and electricity are almost always more expensive than using natural gas or propane models.
A 2017 study by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority found that only four percent of the state’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning load could cost-effectively switch to heat pumps. The study recommended mandates to place an obligation on businesses and consumers to “source a certain portion of their heating and cooling load from renewable sources.”
According to proponents of electrification, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the sourced electricity must come from renewables. Therefore, all electrification programs promote wind and solar generation systems, backed up by battery storage.
Today, the US is blessed with very low electricity costs. In 2016, the average wholesale electrical price, which is the price paid to generating facilities, ranged from only 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour in the Pacific Northwest to 3.6 cents per kW-hr in New England. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric, our traditional sources of power,deliveredmore than 90 percent of this low-cost electricity. Only 6.4 percent of our 2016 electricity came from wind and solar.
Actual costs of wind and solar systems tend to be hidden from the public, but when disclosed, can be hideously expensive. The California Solar Ranch, which began operation in the Mojave Desert north of Los Angeles in 2014, delivers electricity at over 15─18 cents per kW-hr, more than four times the market price. The 2013 Massachusetts solar build-out was the result of a 25 cents per kW-hr subsidy paid to commercial solar generators, boosting the total solar price to almost 30 cents per kW-hr.
But the Deepwater Wind Block Island project of Rhode Island takes first prize for outrageous renewable electricity cost. The five-turbine offshore system went into operation in 2016 at a contracted price of 23.6 cents per kW-hr, with an annual increase of 3.5 cents, placing the future price at over 40 cents per kW-hr. Who wants to pay ten times the market price for any product?
According to the Energy Information Administration, on average US electricity prices increased less than five percent during the eight years from 2008 to 2016. But over the same period, prices in nine of the twelve top wind states climbed between 13 and 37 percent, significantly higher than the national average increase. Commercial wind and solar systems are typically built far from cities, requiring new transmission lines, with costs passed on to electric rate payers. If electrification is adopted across our nation, look for escalating electricity prices.
Electrification calls for a massive societal transformation from gasoline to electric vehicles, from traditional power plants to wind and solar generators, and from gas heating to electric and heat pump systems. There is no evidence that this transition will have any measurable effect on global temperatures. But electrification will produce substantially higher energy prices.————--
Steve Goreham is an active speaker and writer on environment, business, and public policy. He is author, most recently, of the critically acclaimed primer, Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.
Photo(s) of the Week
A Significant Crisis
FBI & DOJ?
Quote of the Week
THANK YOU to everyone who joined me at the @WhiteHouse yesterday. Together, we are MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
- Donald J Trump
“No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.” --General James Mattis