On This Day: Shays’ rebellion was thwarted

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

I do not recall hearing about this rebellion.


On this day in 1787, Shays’ rebellion effectively ended in Springfield, Mass., when its forces failed to capture a federal armory. The uprising was one of the major influences in the calling of a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.


Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck

The tax protest showed the federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, couldn’t put down an internal rebellion. It had to rely on a state militia sponsored by private Boston business people. With no money, the central government couldn’t act to protect a “perpetual union” guaranteed by the Articles.

The events leading to and including Shays’ rebellion alarmed Founders like George Washington, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to the point where delegates from five states met at Annapolis, Maryland in September 1786 to discuss changing the Articles of Confederation.

The group in Maryland  included Madison, Hamilton and John Dickinson, and it recommended that a meeting of all 13 states be held the following May in Philadelphia. The Confederation Congress agreed and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 effectively ended the era of the Articles of Confederation.

Daniel Shays, a former Continental Army captain, led a group of upset western Massachusetts residents that clashed with the state government over the forgiveness of wartime debt and high taxes. In some cases, Army veterans who had never received pay for their service saw their property seized.

In August 1786, the protesters mobilized and seized several local courts after the state government refused to consider debt-relief provisions. Shays led a force of about 1,500 men in an attempted raid of the Springfield armory on January 26. The group was intercepted on the day before its planned attack; four protestors died in a brief conflict with the militia and the group dispersed.

When learning of the conflict, Washington remarked that it threatened “the tranquility of the Union.”

“If three years ago any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws & constitutions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite – a fit subject for a mad house,” he wrote to Henry Knox.

At that time, Washington was leaning against attending the constitutional convention, but the impact of Shays’ rebellion and the influence of his friends led Washington to change his mind.


The Navy Just Announced The Name For Its New Ship, And NAACP Pres. Is Furious

1 Comment

This is from Western Journalism. 

I can not think of a better warrior to name a war ship after than Old Hickory Andy “By God” Jackson.

Screw the NAACP and this whining Cherokee that are suffering from a bad case of butt hurt.


The recent commissioning of the USS Jackson, a littoral combat ship, has stirred the ire of the NAACP and a leader for the Cherokee Nation.

The ship is named in honor of Mississippi’s capital of Jackson, which in turn was named for the nation’s 7th president, Andrew Jackson. Jackson, like several of the early American presidents including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, was a slave owner.

“This is totally appalling,” Connecticut NAACP President Scot X. Esdaile told CNN, who described Jackson as “a big-time slavemaster, pro slavery, the whole nine yards.”

Esdaile continued, “Amazing how we have an African-American president and the U.S. Navy slipped this thing through. I think it should be reconsidered.”

Chuck Hoskin Jr., secretary of state for the Cherokee Nation, found the name choice equally offensive.

“For our government to hold Andrew Jackson up to some reverence today, given our nation’s better appreciation of American history today than generations ago, is very troubling,” he said. “For the Cherokee people, Andrew Jackson represents the period of Indian removal,” a legacy of “trauma” and the “brutal act” of evicting people from their lands.

Jackson supported passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. His administration ordered the relocation of Cherokee Indians (along with other tribes) from their land in Georgia to Oklahoma. Thousands died during the journey due to exposure, disease and starvation on what became known as The Trail of Tears. Jackson was no longer in office, when the actual removal of the Cherokee took place, though he was when tens of thousands of other Native Americans were forced west of the Mississippi.

Hoskin said Saturday’s ship commissioning “feels like a step backward,” and wished the government had consulted with Cherokee Nation first, “I think we would have perhaps steered the government to name that ship differently.”

He said, “We’re going to look at this as an opportunity for the federal government to step up in the future.”

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who is a Mississippi native, has the responsibility for naming new ships that enter the fleet.

Andrew Jackson’s life spanned the founding of the United States to its emergence as one of the most powerful nations in the world, stretching from coast-to-coast. As a young teenager, he fought in the American Revolution, then became the hero of the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. He served two terms as president from 1829 to 1837.

The once popular Democrat president has fallen out of favor in recent years, along with Thomas Jefferson, because of their slave-holding history. In response to complaints from within the party, Democrats around the nation have begun renaming their annual Jefferson-Jackson dinners, which is the counterpart of the GOP’s annual Lincoln Day events.

10 essential online resources for Constitution Day

1 Comment

This is from the National Constitution Center. 

I took the quiz about  “Which Founding Fathers Are You” I am like James Madison.

More people along with politicians need to read and understand the Constitution.

With Constitution Day quickly approaching on September 17, here’s a look at 10 essential constitutional resources we use in our quest to explain and understand our founding document.

constitutiondayConstitution Day was established by federal law in 2004 to mandate the teaching of the Constitution in schools that receive federal funds, as well as federal agencies. But the day has grown into much more, as a week-long celebration of the Constitution in towns and at universities and schools.

Here are 10 key Constitution Day online resources you can use in various ways to learn more about the Constitution, and to help others celebrate.

1. See the actual law that established Constitution Day. It is part of Public Law 108-447, an appropriations bill.

Link: Read the bill

The exact wording: “Each educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.”

2. Read a copy of the Constitution. We use our Interactive Constitution at the National Constitution Center’s website. Here is the link:

Of course, there are other online versions of the Constitution that come in handy, too. The official U.S. Archives page has text – and photos of the original documents.  And it has a very good review of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Another handy version is at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute website. This is clear and informative, and it has links to Supreme Court decisions.

3. Look at a list of the signers of the Constitution. This question comes up all the time at the Center, especially since we have a whole room full of statues dedicated to the signers – and a few dissenters.

You can read bios of the 39 Founders who signed the Constitution and the three who refused, at this link on our website.

4. Try a cool interactive tool about the Constitution. Personalize the experience by taking our “Which Founding Fathers Are You” interactive quiz. Just answer 11 short questions and find out if you’re more like James Madison or Benjamin Franklin.

5. Get  Frequently Asked Questions list of constitutional questions. We’ve compiled these answers based on several years of taking thousands of questions from students in our live Constitution Day chat room. Once you’ve mastered this list, you can impress your friends and family members.

Here is a link to the list:

Typical questions include: how many bathrooms are in the White House, and why don’t we have constitutional conventions all the time?

6. Learn even more Constitution Day fun facts. You can also impress folks with your knowledge to 10 important numbers related to the Constitution. Print out our Fun Facts infographic at the following link:

Here’s one of the 10 important numbers: 4,543. (It’s the number of words in the original Constitution, which makes it one of the shortest in the world).

7. Test your basic constitutional knowledge with a pop quiz. We’ve developed a simple, 10-question quiz you can take as a refresher on Constitution basics: You never know who may quiz you about the Bill or Rights or where the Constitution was signed!

Link: Our Constitution Pop Quiz

8. Share lesson plans with your teacher friends.  Most of us who aren’t educators have friends, relatives or acquaintances who are teachers. Make their day with the gift that keeps on giving: lesson plans!

Our Constitution Day website has lesson plans, videos, games and instructional materials at three different learning levels. The link

9. Take a sample naturalization test. Citizenship is a great gift and honing your skills at taking a naturalization test is a great reminder of why our county is important.

We’ve compiled some sample questions on our Constitution Day site at the following link:

10. Don’t forget we had another Constitution. Our current Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the document used by the United States in various ways between 1777 and 1789, when our current Constitution was ratified.

The Articles created a loose confederation of states in 1781 with a weak central government. The need for a stronger Federal government quickly became obvious as the Founders decided to convene a Constitutional Convention in 1787.

The Library of Congress has an excellent overview of the Articles at  And you can read the Articles of Confederation at Yale’s Avalon project.

8 Things to Know About the Founding Fathers

Leave a comment

This is from Warrior Scout.

Some interesting bits of information.

Stories like Benjamin Franklin advocating a method for “improving the odor of human flatulence” have surrounded the Founding Fathers throughout the centuries. Some have proved true, others not so much. Here’s a list of legends and facts surrounding some of America’s finest statesmen.

8. RUMOR: Although they were some of the most prestigious and prudent men in American history, the Founding Fathers are said to have loved their booze. Evidence indicates that during the long, hot Constitutional Convention summer of 1787, delegates drank like Mel Gibson Shia Labeouf at a New Year’s Eve bash. According to a bar tab from one local tavern–racked up days before the document was signed–delegates drank enough to clean out a small liquor store: 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, 8 bottles of whiskey, 22 bottles of porter, 8 bottles of hard cider, 12 bottles of beer, and 7 bowls of alcoholic punch.

All that debating apparently made them thirsty.

7. RUMOR: At first blush, Benjamin Franklin would seem the most likely man to write the Declaration of Independence. However, legend has it that he wasn’t given the honor because his peers feared he would insert a joke. This rumor might actually have some truth to it, as Franklin was widely known for his rapier wit. Unfortunately, his wittiness quite possibly led to him missing out on a historic opportunity. The honor instead was given to a young Thomas Jefferson.

6. RUMOR: Benjamin Franklin probably would’ve been today’s avid texter, as he was a fan of using short-hand writing. In fact, it was suggested that Franklin loved short-hand so much that he advocated the simplification of all English words! Now, next time you hear someone associate the denigration of the English language with texting or Tweeting, just mention that one of America’s most eloquent and brilliant writers probably would’ve been a huge fan.

5. FACT: Although one of the most influential American patriots, James Madison was the country’s smallest president. He weighed just 100 pounds and measured a meager five foot four. We’re hoping that Madison was not responsible for a large portion of that bar bill (see above).

4. FACT: George Washington reportedly had a fear of being buried alive. This still remains a rumor as there’s no written evidence to support it. However, what is a fact is that in his will he stipulated that he was not to be buried for three days after his death – presumably to make sure he was actually dead.

3. FACT: Samuel Adams beer is one of the most popular beers in America. But the face on the patriotically-themed beer is that of Paul Revere (left in picture below), not Sam Adams (right in picture below). Who knew?

2. RUMOR: Reportedly, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were such fans of William Shakespeare that they clipped off a piece of his chair as a souvenir when visiting his house in Europe. The story is feasible since Jefferson and Adams were two of the most eloquent and brilliant English-speaking writers and studied Shakespeare’s style in depth. But there is no direct evidence to support the claim.

1. FACT: The Declaration of Independence was actually approved by the Continental Congress on July 2, 1776. Most of the Founding Fathers thought that this day would be the day remembered and celebrated throughout American history instead of the day we currently celebrate as Independence Day. Even John Adams believed July 2 was most appropriate as he wrote a letter to his wife saying, “the Second of July, 1776, will be the most memorable in the history of America.”



10 Deadly Mistakes Made By US Presidents


This is from ListVerse.


Throughout American history, presidents have done things both good and bad. They have made mistakes which have cost lives, and many times they have gotten away with it. This is a list of some of the things that presidents have done which caused casualties and fatalities.

10 Bill Clinton
Not Killing Bin Laden

9- clinton

Photo credit: USAF


In 2001, just hours before the attacks on the World Trade Center, former President Bill Clinton told an audience in Australia that he once nearly killed Osama bin Laden. The recording, which neither Clinton nor the audience would have known the significance of at the time, serves as one of the most sadly ironic footnotes in history.

In 1998, bin Laden was not considered the danger that he later became, but he was still on the government’s radar. He had been wanted for bombing the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya but had never committed significant attacks toward the United States. The government, though, suspected that the terrorist leader was capable of far more dangerous attacks. Finally, after years of attempting to find him, he was tracked to a small town in Afghanistan called Kandahar, where he was suspected of being held in the governor’s residence.

The military wanted to launch a strike against the town which would have killed bin Laden, but to do so would have put hundreds of civilian lives at risk. To avoid the deaths of the 300 or so townspeople, President Clinton called off the strike. It was also believed that the strike wouldn’t be successful because bin Laden left the room which the missile was aimed at. A second strike was proposed in May 1999, but a recent mishap involving a CIA bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade made the military wary of another possible misstep. Another chance would never come their way, and two years later, bin Laden committed the deadliest attack on US soil in American history. We may never know what difference it may have made had bin Laden been killed when we had the chance.

9 Richard Nixon

Pakistani Genocide Of Bangladesh

2- nixon

Photo credit: Jack E. Kightlinger


In 1971, tensions were flaring between the military government of Pakistan and the government of India. India and Pakistan have had issues for centuries, but due to increasing problems between the countries, there seemed to be war on the horizon. Pakistan at the time was a close economic and political ally of the United States, while India held a lesser position. Despite the Muslim dictatorship of the country, President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger decided to provide economic and military support for Pakistan in the event of a war (which there was later that year).

However, the weapons which were secretly given to the Pakistani government were used for a much more sinister purpose—the genocide of the Bengali people. It’s estimated that nearly 200,000 people were killed by Pakistan, and according to documents by the State Department, neither Nixon nor Kissinger seemed to care. The slaughtering did nothing to stop the United States from continuing its support. The private US investments (many of the companies which were in Pakistan donated money to the Nixon campaign) seemed to be more important than the lives of the Bengali people.

At the time, the Indian government was receiving support from the Soviet Union, and the White House Tapes revealed the feelings of the president: Nixon once said that India needed “a mass famine.” When Kenneth Keating, a Republican serving as ambassador to India, confronted Nixon about the suffering of the Bengali people, Nixon called him “a traitor.” Finally, this all came to a head when India and Pakistan went to war. The cost of Nixon’s support for Pakistan was the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the region, for which he showed a callousness which displayed his lack of remorse for his lethal actions.

8 Herbert Hoover
The Election Of General Jorge Ubico

3- hoover

Photo credit: Harris & Ewing


In 1930, President Lazaro Chacon suffered a stroke and resigned, which set about a series of events through which General Jorge Ubico would be elected. After several leaders were removed by either the Guatemalan army or the United States government, Ubico finally proved himself to be a worthy leader in the eyes of the United States.

His most appealing quality to the United States was his undying devotion to the United Fruit Company. He offered them vast tracts of land in the country along with complete access to the labor force. He knew that by portraying himself as a servant to the United States, he would remain the sole leader of Guatemala. In fact, Ubico made such an impression on American ambassador Sheldon Whitehouse that Whitehouse said he was “the best friend the Untied States has in Latin America.”

After a rigged election in 1931 which was sanctioned by Herbert Hoover, Ubico started a campaign to create a highly efficient military dictatorship in Guatemala. He became an ostentatious man who wore extravagant military uniforms wherever he went in an effort to emulate his hero, Napoleon Bonaparte. He started to systematically kill off all opposition and democratic activity. His abuse of the labor force soon bubbled over, though, and after more than 20 years of a bloody, repressive regime, Ubico was removed from power in 1944.

7  Franklin D. Roosevelt

SS St. Louis

7- roosevelt

Photo via Wikimedia


Photo via Wikimedia

In 1939, The SS St. Louis set sail from Hamburg, Germany, to Havana, Cuba, with 937 Jewish refugees seeking to escape Nazi Germany. At the time, the United States had immigration quotas which allowed for only a certain number of immigrants to stay in the United States at any given time. The refugees went to Cuba ostensibly as tourists but planned to remain there until they could fill the quota numbers. However, when the Cuban government received word that they planned to stay there, they refused to allow the Jewish refugees to leave the ship. The non-Jewish passengers, though, were allowed to leave the ship.

Knowing what would happen if he took them back to Germany, the captain of the ship, Gustav Schroder, refused to allow the Jewish refugees to return across the Atlantic. The Jewish passengers were treated well onboard the ship: Captain Schroder tried to treat the passengers with respect, giving them kosher foods which were being rationed in Germany at the time, along with Jewish religious services. He even provided a cinema for the passengers. He next tried to dock the ship in Florida, but the Roosevelt administration would not allow the passengers on US soil due to immigration laws. When the ship neared the Florida coast, warning shots were fired.

Captain Schroder was so desperate to save the Jewish passengers that he tried to wreck the ship and force the American government to take them, but the Coast Guard, hearing of his plan, was ordered to follow the ship. Despite knowing full well the fates of the Jewish people aboard the ship, Roosevelt told them to leave.

Roosevelt, who was considering an unprecedented third run for president, did not want to engage in the plight of the passengers of the ship because public opinion leaned toward strict immigration laws. Eventually, the British government coordinated efforts to place the passengers into countries in Europe, but Nazi Germany eventually conquered many of the countries where the refugees were placed. It’s been estimated that a quarter of those aboard the SS St. Louis were exterminated in Nazi concentration camps.

6 Abraham Lincoln
Dakota War Of 1862

5- lincoln

Photo via Wikimedia


Abraham Lincoln is certainly one of the most beloved presidents of all time. His handling of the country during the Civil War counts as one of the greatest achievements of any American president before or since. However, one of the most overlooked aspects of his presidency was his treatment of the Sioux tribe. It is certainly one of the darkest spots on Lincoln’s record and taints his reputation as an American saint.

In 1851, the Sioux ceded massive tracts of their land in exchange for cash payments. By 1862, the federal government owed the Sioux nearly $1.4 million. Chief Little Crow attempted to go before the government, but the president refused to acknowledge him. A series of skirmishes started by the Sioux led to Lincoln giving permission for General John Pope to fight back. This led to the Dakota War of 1862, in which the Union government went on the warpath against the Sioux, who were only fighting for payment they’d been promised.

Of course, the American government crushed the Sioux uprising almost as soon as it began. On December 26, 1862, 300 Sioux were to be executed; while Lincoln pardoned most of them, 38 were still executed in the largest mass execution in American history. Over the years, the Dakota War disappeared from history. While the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves have been used to uplift Lincoln to a spot higher than many other presidents, his war with the Sioux over their rightful payment has not been forgotten.

5  Andrew Jackson

Treaty Of New Echota

6- jackson

Photo credit: Lmaotru


In 1835, five years after the Indian Removal Act had been signed by Andrew Jackson, a small group of Cherokee tribal members signed the Treaty of New Echota, which forced the Cherokee to leave their tribal lands in Tennessee and move west of the Mississippi River to the Oklahoma territory. The signing of the document itself was already illegal since the entire Cherokee tribal leadership had not agreed to the removal of their lands, but it soon came out that speculators had pushed for the signing of the treaty so they could purchase the newly available land for profit.

In 1838, the Cherokee tribe was forced to relocate in what has been called the Trail of Tears. The brutal march led to the deaths of 4,000 Cherokee who had been forced out of their ancestral land. Andrew Jackson showed no remorse for his actions, and the treaty, while technically illegal, was upheld by the entirety of the Cherokee nation out of honor.

Through abuses by officials which were sanctioned by Jackson, many more Native Americans were killed or cheated out of their land. Many of the other treaties signed during Jackson’s presidency only led to further wars with the Native Americans and more bloodshed. While the Treaty of New Echota was just one of many treaties used against the Native Americans, it led to the most pain for people who were forced out of their land by a president who was led by cruel convictions.

4 Franklin Pierce
Bleeding Kansas

8- bleeding kansas

Photo credit: Utopies


In 1854, with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the decision of whether or not slavery was to be legal in Kansas was left to the settlers of the state rather than to Congress. Franklin Pierce thought that this would be a good resolution to the slavery issue without involving the government. He believed that, with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the whole headache of deciding a state’s slavery status was behind him. His assumption proved wrong.

As anti-slavery forces heard about the rise in pro-slavery settlers, they began to arrive en masse to sway the pro-slavery vote in Kansas. The abolitionists began to arm the settlers in an effort to keep them from being forced out of the state. This eventually erupted into bloody conflict as fighting broke out between the pro- and anti-slave forces. This was dubbed “Bleeding Kansas” by Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune.

In 1856, all hell broke loose with the Sacking of Laurence, in which Missourians invaded the city and destroyed homes, businesses, and other properties. The Missourians were pro-slavery, and the city of Laurence had been built by anti-slavery forces. The fighting continued throughout the state, all due to Franklin Pierce’s insistence that the federal government stay out of the slavery issue.

3 George W. Bush
Niger Uranium Forgeries

4- bush

Photo via Wikimedia


In 2001, the Italian military supposedly presented the CIA with evidence that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from the government of Niger. This occurred in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks, and the United Nations was gathering evidence of whether or not Hussein was attempting to create and store weapons of mass destruction. Yellowcake uranium is one of the main ingredients in the creation of nuclear weapons—which the Iraqi government had been doing, according to the United States—and the documents only seemed to prove this accusation.

However, for their entire existence, the documents were suspected of being forgeries. Despite the questions of their authenticity, the Bush administration used them in the case for war with Iraq with the infamous words, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Even before President Bush gave the speech in which he put forward the evidence that Iraq had been attempting to get uranium, French intelligence had said that the documents were not hard evidence. Despite this, the American coalitionwent to war with Iraq.

The controversy behind the documents and the justification for war would not die down. In 2002, American generals and CIA agents had attempted to verify the documents, but their efforts came to nothing. In 2004, an Italian source claimed that he had helped forge the documents, and both British and French forces found that the documents had indeed been forged. In 2003, word broke that an investigation by the Atomic Energy Agency had also found the documents to be forged. None of these findings affected the war. Many lives were lost, but there were no prosecutions despite the key foundation of the War in Iraq being entirely fake.

2 Barack Obama
ATF Gun-Walking

1- obama

Photo credit: Pete Souza


While gun-walking has been in use by the ATF since 2006 with some success, it wasn’t until 2009 that President Obama authorized then–Attorney General Eric Holder to use the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to tag several deadly assault rifles so they could be sold by gun dealers near the border to “straw buyers” who would then sell the weapons to the Mexican cartels. This was all done under the code name “Operation Gunrunner.” Not only was this all highly illegal, but when the guns did manage to get into cartel hands, they were used to execute Mexican citizens and ceremoniously dumped so there could be no trace. While many of the straw buyers were caught and prosecuted, none of the cartel targets were actually caught, leaving them in the clear.

After the failure of the operation, the order was for all documents to be buried. According to a Department of Justice report, of the 2,000 guns being tracked, only 710 of them had been recovered by 2012. This means that over 1,000 assault rifles may still be in the hands of the Mexican cartels. The operation would have remained secret if it weren’t for the murder of United States border patrol agent Brian Terry, who was killed by a Mexican cartel in 2010. After his death, investigations discovered that the tagged guns were related to 150 murders in Mexico.

In 2011, members of Congress began to investigate the operation and started to wonder: Who gave the order for it? Former Attorney General Holder denied giving the order. He refused to give any related documents to Congress, and he was placed in contempt of court. When President Obama was asked about his part in the operation, he invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency. The investigation, while never formally closed, eventually came to nothing, and there has been no further word about who was at fault.

1 James Madison
War Of 1812

10- war of 1812

Photo credit: Thomas Birch


During the Napoleonic Wars, many British war vessels patrolled the Atlantic Ocean for French trading vessels. This often led to altercations with American ships that did business with both Britain and France. The frequent provocative acts by the British eventually angered President Madison too much, and he declared war in 1812. This proved to be a great mistake.

The British government was angered by their defeat during the War for Independence and were out for blood. They unleashed the most vicious assault that the United States has ever known. After crushing the American naval fleet, they launched the first and only invasion of the United States. They overwhelmed the American armies, and it seemed that they were going to retake the lands they had lost. They marched to Washington, DC, where they proceeded to sack and burn the city. Madison began to realize that by declaring war, he may have sowed the seeds of destruction for America.

By 1814, however, after much fighting in which the United States managed to push back the British invasion, Madison decided to press for a truce with the British government. Both governments came to realize that prolonged war would be unprofitable on both sides of the Atlantic and agreed to peace. They signed the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814, which put an end to the War of 1812, although fighting would continue for some time. By the end of the violence, an estimated 20,000 Americans had lost their lives.

10 surprising birthday facts about President James Monroe

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

This is a nice break from the insanity going on in America now.


James Monroe was the only president, aside from George Washington, to run unopposed for re-election. But that may not be the most surprising fact about the last Founding Father to occupy the White House.

James_Monroe400Monroe was born on April 28, 1758, in Virginia, and his public career started from humble roots. He was an eyewitness to many of the events that led to the creation of the United States and the U.S. Constitution.

But you won’t hear Monroe’s name used in the same lofty terms as his friends Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and his former commander, George Washington.

Monroe did leave a lasting impression on America’s destiny because of the Monroe Doctrine, a policy he established to keep other nations out of the Western Hemisphere.

Here are 10 interesting facts about an underrated Founding Father who spent more than four decades at the center of American change.

1. Teenage James Monroe was a hero at the Battle of Trenton. The 18-year-old lieutenant was sent across the Delaware River by Washington to scout, and he nearly died after being shot during the fight in Trenton.

2. Monroe was a law apprentice for Thomas Jefferson. Monroe studied under the third president, but he wasn’t an outstanding lawyer. Monroe was more interested in politics in his native Virginia and served in the Continental Congress at the age of 25.

3. Monroe initially opposed the Constitution. Monroe wasn’t at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and opposed it at Virginia’s ratification convention, wanting a strong bill of rights. Monroe eventually supported the document.

4. Madison and Monroe had an unusual friendship. James Madison won the fight in Virginia over ratifying the Constitution in 1789 and then ran against Monroe for a seat in the House of Representatives. Madison and Monroe took part in a series of public debates, and Madison narrowly won the election. But the two opponents became fast friends on the campaign trail, much to the chagrin of Madison’s enemy, Patrick Henry.

5. Monroe was not friendly with George Washington. The men had a falling out after Washington sent Monroe, his former lieutenant, to France as an ambassador. Washington eventually fired Monroe after he criticized the Jay Treaty. Monroe also wasn’t fond of Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s close associate.

6. Monroe was a key player in two presidential administrations. Monroe was a minister to France and England for President Thomas Jefferson, and he served as both secretary of state and secretary of war for President James Madison. He held virtually every key public office before becoming president in 1817.

7. Monroe was one of the most dominant presidential candidates ever.Monroe received 68 percent of the vote when he defeated Rufus King in the 1816 election. He ran unopposed in the 1820 race, getting 81 percent of the vote. Only one cranky elector in New Hampshire kept Monroe from a unanimous win in the Electoral College.

8. Monroe had some help writing the Monroe Doctrine. John Quincy Adams was a driving force behind the policy, which President Monroe introduced with his annual message to Congress in 1823. The doctrine stated that Europe needed to stay out of the affairs of new countries and territories in the Western hemisphere; in exchange, the United States would stay out of European affairs.

9. Monroe was able to buy Florida for $5 million. Monroe had started talks with Spain about Florida while he was James Madison’s secretary of state in 1815. After violence in the region and a flurry of diplomacy, Adams helped negotiate a deal for Monroe where the U.S. would pay off damage claims made by Spain during the violence. The U.S. got Florida and promised that it would recognize Spain’s sovereignty over Texas.

10.  Monroe died on the Fourth of July, too. Three Founding Fathers who were elected president died on July 4. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Monroe died on July 4, 1831. Monroe was also the last president who was never photographed in his lifetime.

8 weird things inspired by U.S. presidents

Leave a comment

This is from

A little presidential trivia.


These world leaders had more contributions to our country than just foreign policy and a great head of hair.

Many things we still use today were invented or inspired by these presidents, including household staples like air conditioning and teddy bears. Others, like jazzed-up walking sticks and steamboat improvements, have sadly fallen out of favor.

So this President’s Day, be thankful for more than just a three-day weekend and legions of President’s Day sales.

prez day colbert


Be thankful that we elected into our highest office men of ingenuity and creativity, even if they weren’t the most egalitarian men for the job (looking at you, Teddy Roosevelt).

Power Wedgie for All Who Call U.S. a Democracy!


This is from Joe For America.



I’m a huge fan of retired radio talk show host, Neal Boortz. I always loved how he fearlessly defended the Constitution and the principles of liberty while unapologetically expressing exactly what was on his mind at any given moment. The “talkmaster”, as he referred to himself, seemed to be an equal opportunity offender and that made his show more edgy and entertaining. I loved iteven on the rare occasions that I was the one he was offending. Boortz still broadcasts a daily rant on his former flagship station, Atlanta’s WSB. So, when his July 3rd rant dealt with the subject of democracy, I thought it was particularly timely considering that it is a term that is constantly thrown around by politicians, pundits and members of the media when referring to the US system of government.

In his rant, Neal Boortz reminds us that “Democracy means majority rule — what the majority wants the majority gets. A constitutional republic operates on the rule of law, not the demands of the mob”. Many would no doubt wonder what is so wrong with a government by majority rule? On the surface, it sounds like a good thing, but as Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” We have a population that is so braindead, (thanks, in part, to the government education system), that many of the average idiots on the street do not even know that Joe Biden is the Vice President. Frankly, that is a fact that I wish I could forget as well, but I digress.

When people are so woefully ignorant, do we really want them in charge of creating policy that affects all of us? Although many consider democracy to be an American ideal, the founding fathers were very clear in their opposition to it, which is why they constructed a system that would protect us from ourselves.

John Adams: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

John Marshall: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

Boortz also poses a hypothetical scenario in which the government seizes all bank accounts over $50,000, and how easy it would be to gain public support for such an act, despite the illegality of it. We have already seen a degree of this example play out. I think we all know this guy:

Immediately after this exchange, Barack Obama’s sycophants sicced all kinds of scrutiny upon this average American Joe who dared to question the anointed one. Not only do we have a right to practice dissent, we have an obligation. Even Hillary Clinton in all of her shrillnesssaid “We are Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.” That is probably the only thing that she and I agree upon. The problem is, we have a population that is too lazy and stupid to hold the our leaders accountable for their lawlessness, and the ruling class knows it. We had better start exercising dissent or that is going to be the end of the ballgame.

The difference between a democracy and a republic is not just a matter of semantics. This constitutional republic gives us the right to engage in speech that allows us to offend and to be offended, as speech that is innocuous needs no protection. Although, in this current thinskinned, chip-on-shoulder society, it would seem that even the most benign speech is now considered offensive. Imagine what would have happened to Neal Boortz’s career if the majority had the ability to silence speech that they found outrageous. This constitutional republic gives us the right to assemble in places like Murrieta, California, (where the tyranny of this government is currently on full display), to the point that federal riot police may be released on American citizens in the illegal immigration showdown. Imagine what our country would look like as a democracy with millions of illegals allowed to tip the scales. This constitutional republic gives us the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domesticincluding our own government. I hope it does not come to that. These are only a few of the rights that we are guaranteed. Rights are like muscle…use them or lose them. To retain them is going to require much vigilance, but most things that are worth having require effort.

The rule of law is the framework that keeps our freedoms in place. If we start allowing that framework to be torn down beam by beam, even those who have not been paying attention will some day wonder how they ended up buried under the rubble of tyranny. If we allow this great American experiment in liberty to set into the horizon like the sun, the night that follows may be very long and very dark. Are you really prepared for that?


On Pot Nullification, AG Holder Admits Limits to Federal Power

Leave a comment

This is from The New American.

Eric “The Lawless” says states and ignore federal laws about pot.

So the states need to ban together and tell Eric and Barack screw you we will no longer enforce federal gun laws or Obamacare.



Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee this week on the recentnullification of federal marijuana prohibition in Colorado and Washington State, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder found himself stuck in a tough spot. On one hand, Holder and the Obama administration have beenbrazenly threatening governors of states that have nullified unconstitutional federal usurpations on everything from gun rights to ObamaCare. On the other, however, Holder admitted to U.S. lawmakers this week the fact that federal law does not always trump state law.

It is undeniable that states have the authority to nullify unconstitutional acts of pretended federal “law.” According to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of the key framers of the U.S. Constitution, in fact, states actually have a duty to protect the rights of citizens from federal usurpations by interposing themselves between the people and lawless U.S. government schemes. The Constitution itself also makes clear that federal laws are superior to state law only if they are “made in pursuance” of the Supreme Law of the Land — not in defiance thereof.

The 10th Amendment makes those facts even more explicit, saying that all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the states and the people. Prohibition of substances, of course, is not among the limited number of powers ceded by the sovereign states to the national government in the Constitution. That is why, for example, the federal ban on alcohol required a properly ratified constitutional amendment rather than a mere unconstitutional statute purporting to criminalize intoxicating drinks.

As such, Colorado and Washington — along with the approximately two dozen states so far that have ended prohibition on marijuana for medical purposes — are well within their rights to nullify unconstitutional federal statutes and United Nations mandates claiming to criminalize the controversial plant. When asked by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) whether federal statutes override state law when there is a conflict between the two, however, Holder waffled. He said that while U.S. statutes are “generally” supreme in many cases, that is “not always true” on all matters.

Whether Washington, D.C., can force state governments to criminalize a particular behavior with a federal statute is “an interesting question,” Holder continued. “There is at least an argument that could be made that the federal government could bring a supremacy-clause suit against the state,” the attorney general said. “But there is an argument that could be made that a state cannot be forced to criminalize something, so it’s actually an interesting question.” In fact, even the federal supremacists on the Supreme Court have already ruled that the federal government may not commandeer state and local governments.

While it may be an “interesting question,” it is also an easy one to answer. If the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government a particular power, it may not lawfully, legitimately, or constitutionally exercise that power. In this case, the people and the states never granted the U.S. government any power to ban possession, consumption, or sale of any substance. Therefore, the simple answer is that no, the federal government cannot lawfully ban plants, or coerce any state government to do so. States, on the other hand, do have those powers.

“I am hopeful that as public opinion continues to shift in favor of marijuana reform, the White House will one day have the courage to take a larger role in the push to legalization,” said Executive Director Major Neill Franklin (Ret.) of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a group of lawmen that advocates an end to drug prohibition, following the Judiciary Committee hearing. “Until then, states remain the innovators, exercising their constitutionally protected police powers to lead the charge toward sensible change that at least the administration has the good sense to follow.”

Indeed, as The New American reported in August of last year, the Obama administration has in fact decided to respect state sovereignty on marijuana prohibition, albeit in a very limited way. In a quiet move, Holder informed state leaders that the U.S. government would not challenge the successful nullification of pot prohibition in Colorado or Washington, as long as those state governments adhered to a series of decrees on the issue promulgated by the Justice Department. It was not clear where the Obama administration thought it found the supposed authority to issue those regulations, but it did.

Analysts cited different possible reasons for the uncharacteristic decision to respect state sovereignty on at least the issue of marijuana while trampling it in other cases. Among the possibilities: The Obama-allied George Soros-funded movement to legalize and normalize marijuana; or perhaps a fear that the U.S. government would lose in court, thereby setting another precedent that would encourage even more states to nullify unconstitutional federal statutes.

At the very least, though, it is clear that the respect for nullification and state sovereignty in these instances was not motivated by proper constitutional understanding or principled opposition to unconstitutional federal machinations. Instead, Holder promised lawmakers that the DOJ would be “good stewards of the Controlled Substances Act,” the unconstitutional prohibition statute, with the caveat that the federal government does not have the resources to prosecute all violations of supposed federal “law.”

Regardless of the reason for its decision, the administration appears to believe that state-level nullification of unconstitutional U.S. statutes is only acceptable in cases where it agrees. On ObamaCare, for instance, Holder and other top administration officials have already made clear that they do not believe states or citizens have the right to reject the unconstitutional federal healthcare takeover. Rep. Smith, who asked about the supremacy clause, also questioned Holder on whether Missouri could refuse to participate in ObamaCare. The attorney general waffled, but admitted that the IRS would still “tax” those who fail to comply — even in states that reject the scheme.

Consider, as yet another example, Attorney General Holder’s outlandish reaction to a state law in Kansas, which nullified anti-constitutional gun-control schemes in the state by making it a felony to enforce any unconstitutional attacks against Kansas guns within state borders. Holder responded to the nullification law by sending a threatening letter to Governor Sam Brownback and claiming, citing reasoning that is entirely at odds with his testimony this week, that the state effort to protect citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed rights would be ignored.

“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, S.B. 102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,” Holder wrote, pretending that unconstitutional U.S. statutes that infringe on the unalienable right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment were somehow “laws” rather than unlawful tyranny. The attorney general, who was held in criminal contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious coverup involving Obama administration transfers of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, also said he would take “all appropriate action” to ensure that unconstitutional gun control is enforced in Kansas.

In a bizarre turn of events at the Judiciary Committee hearing, some Republican lawmakers — many of whom have been rightly hammering the Obama administration and the Justice Department for lawlessness and extreme violations of the Constitution — lashed out at Holder over the decision to not wage more war on the plant and its consumers in jurisdictions that have nullified unconstitutional federal prohibition statutes. Democrats in Congress, on the other hand, traditionally defenders of absolute federal supremacy over just about everything, have been encouraging state-level nullification of marijuana prohibition.

During the same hearing, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) even urged Holder to go further, pressuring him to have the administration reschedule marijuana in a way that would ease federal restrictions on the plant. Apparently the unconstitutional Controlled Substances Act allows the attorney general to take such actions without any congressional involvement. Holder had said very recently that he would be “glad” to work with Congress on re-examining the current federal classification of the plant, which holds that it has no legitimate medical purposes and as such, is purportedly banned under virtually all circumstances.

Instead of pressuring Holder to wage war on states and citizens that have nullified unconstitutional federal statutes, GOP lawmakers ought to be holding him accountable for the wide range of serious crimes he has perpetrated while in office. State governments, meanwhile, should continue using nullification to protect citizens from anti-constitutional federal abuses and usurpations — encouraged by the fact that even top officials in the radical Obama administration have now acknowledged some limits on the U.S. government’s ability to coerce states into becoming administrative units for an all-powerful central regime. Many experts even say nullification may be the last, best hope for preserving freedom and the U.S. Constitution.

Parental Rights Amendment: Congressmen Are Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government


This is from Freedom Outpost.

Wake up America your right’s as a parent are being

taken away.

It is time to fight to live free or die.


If politicians introduced a bill mandating the slaughter of all human babies under the age of two years; but called it, “The Little Babies Protection Act,” establishment conservatives and unthinking people all over the Country would be clamoring for its passage.

We have become a shallow and easily deceived people. If it sounds good on the surface, we are all for it. We assume the proposal will live up to its name. 1 We don’t trouble ourselves to actually read proposals and analyze them before we clamor for passage.

The name, “parental rights amendment” (PRA), sounds so good! But it actually strips parents of their God-delegated authority over their children, and transfers that authority to the federal government.

In order to understand this, you must first learn about “enumerated powers”.

Enumerated Powers

When WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established the Constitution for the United States, We listed, itemized – enumerated – every power WE delegated to each branch of the federal government over the Country at Large. All other powers were retained by The States or The People.

James Madison, Father of our Constitution, says in Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end):

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface mine]

Do you see? We delegated only “few and defined” powers to the federal government over the Country at Large. These are the “enumerated powers” actually listed in the Constitution. 2

These enumerated powers over the Country at Large concern:

  • Military defense, international commerce & relations;
  • Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
  • Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
  • With some Amendments, protect certain civil rights and voting rights.

It is only with respect to the “enumerated powers” that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at Large. All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People. 3

So! Where in the Constitution did WE THE PEOPLE delegate to the federal government power over children and their care and upbringing? We didn’t. Accordingly, it has no lawful authority over these objects.

Thus, any federal law, treaty 4, executive order, agency rule, or court opinion which pretends to exercise such power over children is unconstitutional as outside the scope of enumerated powers delegated to the federal government for the Country at Large5

See? This is all very simple.

So then, how does the federal government go about obtaining lawful authority over the care and upbringing of children? By means of lies, trickery and deceit:

The so-called “Parental Rights” Amendment

Let us now read it. Here it is from the website of the deceptively named,


The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.


The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.


Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.


This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

Look at Section 3! We will go through each section. But first, two general observations:

1. Parents have Responsibilities to their children, not “rights” over them.

The Creator God who – as recognized by the Signers of our Declaration of Independence – endowed us with unalienable Rights; also assigned to parents specific responsibilities to their children. 7 Among these are:

  • Provision for children: 2 Corinthians 12:14; Proverbs 13:22; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.


  • Education and moral instruction of children: Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5 & 3:15-17.


  • Discipline of children: Proverbs 13: 24, 15:5, 19:18, 22:15, 23:12-14, 29:15-17; Hebrews 12:5-11; Colossians 3:21.


Parents are supposed to provide for, care for, teach, protect, and educate their children. NOT civil government!

2. The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts

Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, enumerates the powers of the federal courts:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…”

“Judicial Power” refers to the power of courts to hear and decide cases.

Amendments are part of the Constitution. Thus, federal courts have power to decide issues addressed by Amendments.

The PRA would transform “families” and “children” from matters over which the federal government now has no lawful authority to matters under the total control of the federal government.

The PRA is a delegation of lawmaking power over families and children to the federal government. Congress may make whatever laws it pleases pertaining to YOUR children; the Executive Branch may issue whatever rules or orders it pleases pertaining to YOUR children – and under Section 3 of the PRA, federal judges will decide whether these laws, orders & rules serve the government’s interest. If so, you lose.

Lawsuits involving these matters would become cases “arising under this Constitution”, or “Laws of the United States”, or “Treaties”, which would ultimately be decided by five (5) judges on the supreme Court. The authority of millions and millions of American parents would be transferred to five (5) judges on the supreme Court.

That Court has a long history of perverting every word of our Constitution it touches. 8 It is suicidal to transfer Family Authority to that Court.

Let us now look at each section of the PRA:

Section 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.”

Just as the supreme Court sees the First Amendment as the source of our right to free speech, and they decide what speech is protected by that Amendment and what speech is not, 8 so it will see the PRA as the source of “parental rights”, and they will decide what “rights” parents have and what “rights” they do not have.

Consider also: Do the words “upbringing” or “care” in Section 1 include religious training, discipline, diet, medical treatment, and whether the child may wield a hoe in the family garden? What does it mean that these are not listed? That parents have no “rights” regarding these issues? The supreme Court will decide what it means.

Section 2: The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.”

What is not included in the parental right to direct education? What is a “reasonable” choice? Who decides what is not included and what choices are “reasonable”? Federal judges decide.

“Section 3: Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

Do you understand this Section? Whatever “parental rights” you think you have will be infringed by the federal government or the State governments if they have a good reason for it. Federal judges will decide whether the federal or State governments have a good reason to infringe your “parental rights”.

“Section 4: This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.”

What? Does this mean that parents retained the “right” to make these decisions? Or does it mean that the PRA does not “protect” that right, hence parents no longer have it?

I suggest to you that federal courts will construe this section to mean that parents will no longer be permitted to make decisions about terminating or continuing medical care for their seriously ill, injured , or “defective” (Downs’ syndrome, birth defects, etc.) children.

Do not forget: We elected as President a man who supports the murder of little babies who survive abortions.
9 Is this man going to appoint federal judges who disagree with the killing of children?

“Section 5: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

The PRA does not stop the President and Senate from ratifying the UN Declaration on The Rights of the Child.

NO RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED BY THE PRA! You cannot name one “parental right” which cannot be voided if the federal or state government shows federal judges that the government has an interest in voiding the right.

Further, since the PRA makes federal control of children an enumerated power, it
is the PRA itself which would give the U.S. Senate constitutional authority to ratify the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child!

The PRA is monstrously deceitful.


Here is the PRA which has been introduced in the current Session of Congress: H.J. Res. 50



Here is a list of House sponsors of the PRA in this Session of Congress. Form delegations and go see your Representatives. Instruct them! I bet they never read it before they endorsed it.

Put Not Your Trust in Princes

People! Your blind trust in charlatans and politicians is destroying us. They pretend to be what they are not in order to deceive you. Stop flaunting your blind trust as a mark of virtue. Blind trust in humans is irresponsible – it is not a virtue. PH


1 E.g., we assume the “Balanced Budget” Amendment is about curtailing federal spending. Since we don’t look behind the name, we don’t know that the BBA is really about eliminating the enumerated powers limitation on spending & legalizing what is now unconstitutional spending.

2 See: Congress’ Enumerated Powers, the President’s Enumerated Powers, & the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts.

3 Read the Tenth Amendment!

4 parental has been using the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into believing that only the PRA can save them from the UN Declaration.

You must learn about the treaty making powers of the United States. The President and Senate may not lawfully circumvent the Constitution by international treaties – they may not do by treaty what they are forbidden to do by the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates NO powers over children to the federal government, they may not lawfully circumvent the Constitution by ratifying the UN Declaration.��These 2 papers explain the treaty-making power.

It is the PRA which would give the federal government lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration! So the PRA is a monstrous deception.

5 Accordingly, they are proper objects of nullification.

6 Parental periodically changes the text of their proposed PRA. The version set forth herein was copied from their website during June 2013.

7 To my friends in the Ayn Rand camp: These are historical facts – the Bible says what it says and our Framers believed it. Ayn Rand had no argument with the Natural Law Principle that parents have the responsibility of raising their own children.

8 The supreme
Court looked at the word, “liberty” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and said it means “privacy”; and “privacy” means “women may kill their unborn babies”! A short time later, they looked at the same word and decided that it means, “homosexual sex is a liberty right”! Do you see? That Court treats the 14th Amendment as Marquis de Sade’s play dough.

And look at how that Court has butchered the First Amendment: That Amendment says, in part: “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech…”

Since speech control is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large; and since all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution are vested in Congress (Art. I, Sec. 1); neither the Executive nor Judicial Branches have power over “speech” for the Country at Large.

Regulation of speech is reserved to the States and the People (10th Amendment).
The States exercised this retained power by means of State laws against defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, etc., etc.

Yet the supreme Court treats the First Amendment as the source of our right to free speech, and they decide what speech is “protected” by the First Amendment and what speech is “not protected” by the First Amendment. If the former, you may say it; if the latter, you may not say it. The supreme Court has usurped power to censor our speech!

So! In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Westboro Baptists picketed, with vile and defamatory signs, the funeral of an American Soldier who was killed in action. The bereaved Father filed a lawsuit under various State Laws such as defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.

The Jury found for the Father and held Westboro liable for $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.

But the supreme Court overturned the Jury Verdict and said that the Westboro Baptists had a “right” protected by the First Amendment to spew their malice at this young soldier’s funeral, and it mowed down the State laws which made such defamatory speech actionable.

This is how the supreme Court construes an Amendment which merely prohibits CONGRESS from making laws restricting speech!

The federal government has no lawful authority over speech in the Country at Large! Yet those lawless judges on the supreme Court have also seized power to forbid students from leading Christian prayers in the public schools!

Jill Stanek is an RN who worked in the Labor & Delivery Department in an Illinois hospital where aborted babies born alive were left to die. Read her article where she proves that our President opposed Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama wanted the babies to die. How can you put YOUR children in the hands of judges this man nominates?
UPDATE: Michael Farris has requested the opportunity to speak to Publius Huldah’s critique of his Parental Rights Amendment. You can read his critique here.

Read more:


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: