Untold Heroes Of The Home—Our Good Mothers

by Jim Valenti

January 29, 2014

This is my response to a recent article by feminist Amy Glass, dated January 25, 2014 titled “I Look Down On Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry”.

In this article Ms. Glass espouses that the worth of actual work outside the home is of greater value than work done within the walls of one’s residence.

While some women may, out of necessity, need to work outside the home, there is no judgment here.

My response is simply to Ms. Glass and her mocking of motherhood and her unwise choice to degrade mothers and children in this article. Her respect for the family certainly has one wondering. To deride children and the women who choose to properly raise them, in my view, is a grave mistake.

I wholeheartedly disagree with her “societal diagnosis”.  Motherhood and children and the vital role of women who choose to stay home and raise their own should be celebrated with eagerness.

Proper motherhood is the most important role women have while on this earth.

The proper nurturing of children has untold benefits for the family and the world. Proper motherhood helps children become healthy interactors in society so that those children may contribute to the benefit of mankind as well as themselves.

They learn the difference between right and wrong, have a clear sense of their purpose in life and recognize the good in others. All this and more through this wonderful thing called MOTHERHOOD.

To help children grow in these ways and many more, is a godly attribute.

Proper motherhood should be deemed angelic, for it requires patience, perseverance, a steady hand, a teachable mind and, most importantly, a moral compass.

One must be a nurse, cook, and housekeeper. One must properly school their children, be the home transportation director, help manage individual stress levels, help children with homework and do all this, and more, as godly love shines through them. This is proper motherhood.

Good mothers may sometimes feel overwhelmed with such responsibility. When such times come, pull back a little, take a breath, reassess, then, move forward. No one is asking perfection, just to do your best.

Proper motherhood is selflessness. You still take care of yourself but you keep that selfless frame of reference. Selflessness ironically makes you happy because you remain in the service of others, in this case your family.

Properly raising children helps rid one of selfish desires because children come first. The natural nurturing instincts of good women take over. In the process of putting the family first, over time, these good women become more refined in the ways which matter most.

The next time some feminist wishes to attack the family, she needs think twice. She could very well be pointing the finger at herself.


Barack Obama and his Hatred for the Constitution


Jan 26, 2014

Barack Obama has done nearly all any good Marxist, Socialist, or Communist could do. From his chief advisor Valerie Jarrett to his Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, to his Marxist leanings in college to his discipleship at the feet of Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama is a mixture of these ideologies. This is really what the “sheeple” of the United States elected without really looking at who this man. Now, many wish they had never voted for him.

Our intent is to show what the Declaration of Independence stated and why it was written. Then, we’ll tie it to what Barack Obama has, and is currently doing. We are sure that many people have read the Declaration of Independence, but then again, that is if one makes the assumption that people really care anymore about the Constitution or what it meant to our nation! Let us first look at why this document was written as explained in the second paragraph of this document.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

This has been corrupted in so many ways today. To witness what is going on today does not reflect upon what was written back in 1776.

First and foremost, here it is understood that all men are created equal, no one can deny this since every man, and woman was “created” in the same way, through inception in the womb. There is no mention of everyone, in their equality, are all entitled to what everyone else has, nor is there a claim that everyone is equal in their abilities.

Instead, “…they are endowed by their Creator with Certain and unalienable Rights…” We have to realize that in 1776 our nation was under the thumb of a King that forced people to live by his rules. These Rights, so described in the Declaration, were not free and did not include everything, as they seem to do today.

If you read the next few lines, you will see that it is clearly stated, “…that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is the last one that rings a bell with us in that it is very clear that it is the “pursuit” of happiness, and not the “giving” of happiness! To many, this will not matter. They would feel that the first two show the last to be just a brief statement showing what “may” be accomplished.

Let us dissect the very first part of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. It is our right to Life, no one should deny this right. Yet, in the United States today, over 3,000 babies are murdered every day and their Right to Life is ignored.

Next comes Liberty. Yes, we can make a huge statement that the slaves were denied this right, but we have to go back and take a very deep look at why this was not considered in the writing of our Constitution. We can state here that had Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves, had his way, he would have included “everyone” and left no one out. To that end, it was the decision of those from the New England States to not include slaves into this document. After all, they were making vast amounts of money on the slave trade through their ports in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and other North ports of call. However, that is an entirely different story, although closely linked to this one.

Consider the last part of this very profound document, “..the pursuit of Happiness.” Once again, it is very clear that the word “pursuit of” which show a clear and concise definition of what the founding fathers were out to do. They made sure that everyone could “pursue” their dreams of happiness. It did not mean that happiness was an automatic gift or right would could claim.

Many will try to take this part of the article apart with all the changes over the years and how the Supreme Court decided many cases which now seem to be opposite of what was written in the Declaration of Independence. We must look back every now and then to see what was intended for “WE THE PEOPLE” in order to make sure those ideas are never destroyed. We began with the Declaration of Independence to consider what Barack Obama is doing now and how it compares to what King George did during the the time leading to the American War for Independence. The following words of this document make our explanation of what we state here simple.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Here we can finally make a huge comparison of what Obama is doing now that does not adhere or reflect the words of our founding fathers. Since 2010, we have seen what clearly seems to be wrong doing by Government officials that should never be allowed to happen without the “consent of the governed”! We are talking about the supposedly “phony” scandals of Obama, including Fast and Furious, Obamacare, Benghazi, IRS targeting, News reporter abuse, and NSA retrieving nearly all the information “WE THE PEOPLE” send out without a warrant. We could go on and on with these, but this demonstrates that maybe we should reflect back on the first document that declared our freedom from tyrants; a freedom we are now watching vanish before our eyes.

Today we have what is called the “Tea Party,” and these people just wish to bring to remembrance this part of our history. Yet, King George, sorry, Barack Obama does not wish to even listen to them. He calls them racists, terrorists and whatever he, and his minions wish to call them.

Tea Party people are nothing less than being Patriots of the Constitution and the history that has been laid down before us. Remember that statement from King George, sorry, Obama? “I have this thing called the Constitution that keeps getting in the way of what I want to do.”

That is a very true statement by a man whom took the Oath of office twice to, “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That oath is directly quoted from Article 2 Section 1, Paragraph 8 of the US Constitution.

Yet, for Barrack Hussein Obama, the Constitution is something that is seen as an obstacle; something in his way! This means that what Obama has planned for the United States is against the very Constitution he swore to “preserve, protect and defend.” Why would any president ever wish to violate the bounds of the Constitution if he did not have evil plans for the United States? This president is a known liar. He is a president whom can outtalk anyone, yet knows nothing about what the Constitution is, even though he lays claim that he is a “Constitutional” layer, of which brings forth even more questions since none of his college transcripts or most of his history is out there for anyone to read, only what very few of his classmates are willing to state.

If we delve into Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 2, we see that President Obama has violated the very meaning of this part of our Constitution just by his actions alone with his healthcare rollout (fallout might be a more appropriate term). Whatever one may wish to call the failure, what Obama has done is not and never was intended to be allowed under the Constitution. Remember, it’s that Constitution that keeps him from doing what he wants to do, until now! This section of the Constitution shows just what Obama has single-handedly done to violate the very law he swore to defend!

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”

It goes on from here to describe 17 items that Congress, and only Congress, can do. Yet, with Obama, it seems that this part of the Constitution does not apply to him!

Let us delve into where Obama has violated just this part of the Constitution

Obama is involved in criminal behavior without even going on to the 17 other parts where he has decided to allow Obamacare to be hashed out among certain groups like the Unions and many others. How so? Congress voted and he signed into law an act that was supposed to be “uniform” in ideology. Instead, Obama just ignores his own socialist legislation and grants illegal waivers to a variety of people that the law does not allow. But let us go to Item 2 of this Section;

“To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Obama has decided to “regulate Commerce” without Congress at all when he excluded the Unions and others from Obamacare.

Here’s the next direct violation of the Constitution under this section:

“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and to make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

All we have to do is go back to the way he assisted the rebels in Libya and Egypt to see how he “bypassed” Congress. Obama also, through his own negligence, allowed the IRS to target Tea Party and other conservative groups that opposed him. He did this in much the same way King George retaliated against his subjects that opposed him. Now how about the way that Obama is “abusing” the Environmental Protection Agency because he could not get Congress to go along with his climate control agenda? Or how about the way Obama now plans to totally circumvent Congress to do as he pleases?

Just when did the Constitution grant the president the right to make laws and regulations without the consent of the People via Congress? That never happened.

Alas, we also have to pose the very same question to members of Congress that seem to be humbled by this would be King. They just seem to sit on their butts while Obama just does what he wants without impunity! Maybe Congress should give up 1, no make that 10 months, of pay each time Obama decides to violate existing law or implement one on his own without the consent of the People.

We could go on with the list, but we feel that we have shown enough here to place President Obama not on the pedestal of freedom, but on the pedestal of tyranny. That is not where we need to have him, especially since he just cannot live by the Constitution he swore under oath to defend. It seems we have gone way over our allotted 140 characters, but if anyone would pay attention to more than that, maybe our nation would not be on the brink of total failure!

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/barack-obama-hatred-constitution/#bV1wTKyoZIL8BT1z.99

Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?

Ponder this letter from billionaire venture capitalist, Tom Perkins. An interesting comment came from the company he founded, regarding this letter, and, it wasn’t exactly an endorsement.

TheBlaze has an explanation of KRISTALLNACHT before we read the Perkins letter:

“Kristallnacht” refers to the Nazi’s state-sanctioned, anti-Jewish riots against the Jewish communities of Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland in November 1938. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, these events became known as Kristallnacht (commonly translated as “Night of Broken Glass”), a reference to the “broken windows of synagogues, Jewish-owned stores, community centers, and homes plundered and destroyed that night.”

Jan. 24, 2014 4:49 p.m. ET

Regarding your editorial “Censors on Campus” (Jan. 18): Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its “one percent,” namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the “rich.”

From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent.

There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these “techno geeks” can pay. We have, for example, libelous and cruel attacks in the Chronicle on our number-one celebrity, the author Danielle Steele, alleging that she is a “snob” despite the millions she has spent on our city’s homeless and mentally ill over the past decades.

This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant “progressive” radicalism unthinkable now?

Tom Perkins

Truths That Need To Be Told About Hillary Clinton from Dick Morris

A preface to this article:

For those who may not know, DICK MORRIS, is a former Clintonian. He worked for Bill Clinton for several years. You be the judge.     jim

Posted by  of freedomoutpost.com

Jan 24, 2014 

Don't Vote for Hillary in 2016 Button

A very good and dear friend of mine, owner of Executives Service Agency in Phoenix, Arizona, contacted me with some information regarding Hillary Clinton. He suggested that I do some research to verify it for myself, and so I did. What I found was almost unbelievable. Hillary didn’t really have a great past before she entered politics. One could say it was quite radical. In fact, we could say it was extremely radical.

Now, I pride myself on writing my own material and only use other sources for verification of facts, but I am going to share some information from Dick Morris.com, written by Mr. Morris about Hillary back in May of 2007.

Mr. Morris writes:

Bill Clinton’s syrupy five minute ad for Hillary… he introduces the commercial by saying that (he) wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background. His version of her biography is about as reliable as if it appeared in Pravda!

So, I wanted to make a few corrections.

Bill says: Hillary never wanted to run for public office, but she did want to work at public service.

The facts are: When Clinton was considering not running for another term as Governor of Arkansas in 1990, Hillary said she would run if he didn’t. She and Bill even had me take two surveys to assess her chances of winning. The conclusion was that she couldn’t win because people would just see her as a seat warmer for when Bill came back licking his wounds after losing for president. So she didn’t run. Bill did and won. But there is no question she had her eye on public office, as opposed to service, long ago.

Bill says: In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.

The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.

The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.

The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill became Attorney General and made partner only after he was elected governor.

Bill says: President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says: She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.

The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Walmart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says: Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.

The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: Hillary was the face of America all over the world

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

Bill says: Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 9-11 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation.

Don't Vote for Hillary in 2016 Button

Don’t Vote for Hillary in 2016 Button

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton: She has done everything possible to weaken our country (that’s you and me!) when it comes to dealing with the enemies of the United States.

  1. She wanted to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
  2. She wanted to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.
  3. She wanted to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
  4. She wanted to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.
  5. She wanted to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.

One cannot think of a single bill Hillary Clinton has introduced, or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in order to deal with our enemies. However, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens the United States and makes it a more dangerous place for all of us.

One fact was Hillary used taxpayer money to apologize for the “offensive video,” that was used as an excuse by the Obama administration to cover for her and the president’s ridiculous lie about the attack in Benghazi in 2012.

Point of fact, I really can’t think of any good Hillary Clinton has done before or after she married Bill Clinton and especially not as Secretary of State under Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

Hey Hillary I told you, “Do you really think we are going to let you forget that or for that matter- get away with it?”

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/truths-need-told-hillary-clinton-dick-morris/#leMaObja12k3tXos.99


January 24, 2014   8:57am

by Benjamin Weingarten  of THE BLAZE

see  http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/01/24/this-obscure-french-pamphlet-from-1850-perfectly-describes-todays-america/


The following quotes come from French classical liberal, economic journalist and legislator Frédéric Bastiat’s 1850 pamphlet, “The Law.”

This obscure French pamphlet from 1850 predicted todays America

1. It started with “hope and change” ”While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations…

Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period [the late 1780s]:

SAINT-JUST: The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.

ROBESPIERRE: The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.

BILLAUD-VARENNES: A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices…. Citizens, the inflexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.

LE PELLETIER: Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people.”

2. And a social justice agenda ”Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?”

3. That enabled Obamacare ”But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.”

4. And the IRS scandalDOJ malfeasances, etc. ”Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder

5. Where law was used as a weapon ”But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.



Featured Book

Title: The Law

Author: Frederic Bastiat

Purchase this book

 This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.”

6. And condoned in a culture of political corruption ”The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.”

7. Imbued with such a philosophy, Washington was a political free-for-all ”But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.”

8. Public education remained ever powerful “You say: “There are persons who lack education,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.”

9. Leading to Common Core being foisted upon the children ”Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea — the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind.”

10. The media was effectively an organ of the administration “Present-day writers — especially those of the socialist school of thought — base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general — with the exception of the writer himself — form the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most important group. Surely this is the weirdest and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!”

11. …Really ”These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor-corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and school laws.”

12Truly ”It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator’s genius. This idea — the fruit of classical education — has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.”

13. So the welfare state that had once started small… ”But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.”

14. Grew and grew and grew ”Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.”

15. When re-election time came, they spoke of Republicans ”throwing granny off the cliff” and wanting “dirtier air, dirtier water ”Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

16. The community organizers sprung to action “The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority…these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to the power of the law in order to carry out their plans. In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this desire also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is infallible and mankind is incompetent.”

17. Chanting slogans like ”This is what democracy looks like” “The strange phenomenon of our times — one which will probably astound our descendants — is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud.”

18. And speaking of all sorts of previously unknown ”rights” ”The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.”

19. While the President said ”You didn’t built that“ “Thus, according to [a tutor to the Dauphin in the Court of Louis XIV] Bossuet, persons derive nothing from themselves. Patriotism, prosperity, inventions, husbandry, science — all of these are given to the people by the operation of the laws, the rulers. All that the people have to do is to bow to leadership…It cannot be disputed that these classical theories [advanced by these latter-day teachers, writers, legislators, economists, and philosophers] held that everything came to the people from a source outside themselves.”

20. And while the President won re-election, due to efforts of the House and various scandals, he now makes statements like “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone“ “In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: “Resort,” he says, “to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.” This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:

The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.

At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of terror.”

21. While his party pushes an inequality meme ”When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.

Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements — legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?”

22. And dreams of equalization ”You say: “There are persons who have no money,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.”

23. And the conservatives are left with a tall task ”Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.”

24. A very tall task ”Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical — in fact, absurd — to assume otherwise.”

25. And so here we stand today “As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the responsibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and vice — all then depend upon political administration. It is burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible for everything.”

Where does it all end? Here’s what Bastiat says:

“But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to say escaped from the pen of Mr. de Lamartine, “The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people” — and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure — which, alas! is more than probable — there will be an equally inevitable revolution?”


see   http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/01/24/this-obscure-french-pamphlet-from-1850-perfectly-describes-todays-america/

Indiana Makes Move to Nullify Obamacare

Posted By  on Jan 21, 2014

So far we’ve seen several states push forward legislation to nullify the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. Among those are OklahomaGeorgiaSouth Carolina and Tennessee. Following the filing of a lawsuit by Indiana school districts in October, Indiana has introduced legislation to nullify the monstrous healthcare law.

Rep. Timothy Harman, along with two co-authors, introduced HB1406 on January 15, 2014. The bill, if passed and signed into law, would effectively nullify Obamacare in the state of Indiana.

The bill was promptly transferred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

The bill forbids the state and its employees, officers, or officials from “acting on behalf of the state, engage in an activity that aids any person in the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

The legislation would also prevent “the state and political subdivisions of the state, including counties, municipalities, and special purpose districts” from establishing “an exchange for the purchase of a health plan” or participating in or purchasing “a health plan from an exchange established by a nonprofit organization.”

The legislation will need a majority vote in order for it to be considered by the full Indiana House.

Michael Lotfi writes, “The bills legal argument is rooted in anti-commandeering doctrine, which has been established by multiple Supreme Court cases, including Printz vs. United States. This doctrine states that the federal government cannot force or coerce states into carrying out federal law, regulations or programs.”

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, you can have a major impact on this legislation. They recommend the following:

1. Call the Committee Chair, Timothy Brown.  Strongly, but respectfully urge him to move this important bill forward to a vote in his committee.  A phone call has 10x the impact of an email.


2.  Call the rest of the committee members.  Again, be strong, but respectful. Urge each of them to take action to move the bill forward and vote YES on HB1406.  If they do not commit to a YES vote, ask them why.  If they’re undecided, let them know you’ll call back in a few days.

All members of the Ways and Means Committee can be reached at 800-382-9841. Ask to be transferred to their office.

Robert Cherry
Michael Karichkhoff
James Baird
Randy Truitt
Jeffrey Thompson
Daniel Leonard
Steven Braun
Steven Davisson
Todd Huston
Peggy Mayfield
Sharon Negele
David Ober
Harold Slager
P Eric Turner
Matthew Ubelhor
Gregory Porter
Mara Candelaria Reardon
Terry Goodin
Clyde Kersey
Sheila Klinker
David Niezgodski
Cherrish Pryor
Steven Stemier

3.  Call Back – any NO or UNDECIDED – in 3-4 days.  Ask if they’ve had a chance to review the legislation and what their opposition might be. 

4.  on Twitter?  Retweet

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/indiana-makes-move-nullify-obamacare/#uREGSaeZM9X5fYoc.99



Published: January 15
Viewed from Washington, which often is the last to learn about important developments, opposition to the Common Core State Standards Initiative still seems as small as the biblical cloud that ariseth out of the sea, no larger than a man’s hand. Soon, however, this education policy will fill a significant portion of the political sky.

The Common Core represents the ideas of several national organizations (of governors and school officials) about what and how children should learn. It is the thin end of an enormous wedge. It is designed to advance in primary and secondary education the general progressive agenda of centralization and uniformity.

Understandably, proponents of the Common Core want its nature and purpose to remain as cloudy as possible for as long as possible. Hence they say it is a “state-led,” “voluntary” initiative to merely guide education with “standards” that are neither written nor approved nor mandated by Washington, which would never, ever “prescribe” a national curriculum. Proponents talk warily when describing it because a candid characterization would reveal yet another Obama administration indifference to legality.

The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the original federal intrusion into this state and local responsibility, said “nothing in this act” shall authorize any federal official to “mandate, direct, or control” schools’ curriculums. The 1970 General Education Provisions Act stipulates that “no provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any” federal agency or official “to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction” or selection of “instructional materials by any” school system. The 1979 law creating the Education Department forbids it from exercising “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum” or “program of instruction” of any school system. The ESEA as amended says no Education Department funds “may be used . . . to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum designed to be used in” grades K-12.

Nevertheless, what begins with mere national standards must breed ineluctable pressure to standardize educational content. Targets, metrics, guidelines and curriculum models all induce conformity in instructional materials. Washington already is encouraging the alignment of the GED, SAT and ACT tests with the Common Core. By a feedback loop, these tests will beget more curriculum conformity. All of this will take a toll on parental empowerment, and none of this will escape the politicization of learning like that already rampant in higher education.

Leave aside the abundant, fierce, often learned and frequently convincing criticisms of the writing, literature and mathematics standards. Even satisfactory national standards must extinguish federalism’s creativity: At any time, it is more likely there will be half a dozen innovative governors than one creative federal education bureaucracy. And the mistakes made by top-down federal reforms are continental mistakes.

The Obama administration has purchased states’ obedience by partially conditioning waivers from onerous federal regulations (from No Child Left Behind) and receipt of federal largess ($4.35 billion in Race to the Top money from the 2009 stimulus) on the states’ embrace of the Common Core. Although 45 states and the District of Columbia have struck this bargain, most with little debate, some are reconsidering and more will do so as opposition mounts.

Many proponents seem to deem it beneath their dignity to engage opponents’ arguments, preferring to caricature opponents as political primitives and to dismiss them with flippancies such as this from Bill Gates: “It’s ludicrous to think that multiplication in Alabama and multiplication in New York are really different.” What is ludicrous is Common Core proponents disdaining concerns related to this fact: Fifty years of increasing Washington input into K-12 education has coincided with disappointing cognitive outputs from schools. Is it eccentric that it is imprudent to apply to K-12 education the federal touch that has given us HealthCare.gov?

The rise of opposition to the Common Core illustrates three healthy aspects of today’s politics. First, new communication skills and technologies enable energized minorities to force new topics onto the political agenda. Second, this uprising of local communities against state capitals, the nation’s capital and various muscular organizations (e.g., the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, teachers unions, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) demonstrates that although the public agenda is malleable, a sturdy portion of the public is not.

Third, political dishonesty has swift, radiating and condign consequences. Opposition to the Common Core is surging because Washington, hoping to mollify opponents, is saying, in effect: “If you like your local control of education, you can keep it. Period.” To which a burgeoning movement is responding: “No. Period.”

Read more from George F. Will’s archive or follow him on Facebook.


South Carolina Democrats Want Single Payer System

by Joshua Cook  of  freedomoutpost.com

Obamacare’s supporters have always said a single payer (SPS) was the ideal system, but since the program went into effect in October, they have been advocating more and more strongly for a shift to such a system.  At a recent anti-Obamacare rally in South Carolina, counter-protesters pointed to a SPS as the ideal, and even said that Obamacare was enacted because of Republicans.

Colorado Rep. Jared Polis and Senator Harry Reid both said even before Obamacare was implemented that they hoped that the program would lead to a single payer system.  In August 2013, Harry Reid bluntly and enthusiastically told PBS’ Nevada Week in Review that his goal was to move Obamacare to a SPS.  This shocked many and went viral, but even before that, Jared Polis – who helped write the ACA – had presented the same hope years before in speeches, interviews and editorials.

In an article entitled “The Democrats’ version of health insurance would have been cheaper, simpler, and more popular (so why did we enact the Republican version and why are they so upset?), Robert Reich explained that Obamacare’s key provisions were actually Republican ideas.  Because Republicans had opposed the ACA from day one, it was easy to forget that the public option was the Conservative counter to the idea of a single payer system.  Now it is simply time to replace the faulty Republican Obamacare with the true goal, a single-payer system.

In Joshua Cook’s rally interviews this week, Obamacare advocates gave the same talking points.  They pretty much universally said they’d have preferred a single-payer system.  “[Obamacare] has its flaws, but it’s the best we can do given the political realities of our time right now,” said one.  When asked about Obamacare having been supported by the very insurance companies they vilify, multiple interviewees simply reiterated that this was a “Republican plan,” first proposed by the Heritage Foundation, and that that was yet another reason to support a SPS.

see   http://youtu.be/t0sj4I6ZGo4  While Republican establishment types want to “fix” Obamacare in Washington, libertarian leaning state Republicans are trying to pass legislation to eliminate Obamacare, and find free-market solutions for healthcare. One thing is clear, though. Neither Democrats, nor Republicans are happy with the current form of Obamacare.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/sc-democrats-obamacare-flawed-want-single-payer-system/#mAmfeLLjlGviFqSB.99

The “Constitution Free Zone” is unconstitutional!

By  of freedomoutpost.com

Jan 4, 2014 in 4th AmendmentArticle 4ArticlesConstitution 

Constitution Free Zones

A “constitution free zone” is totally unconstitutional. What with Barack Obama’s “constitution free zone” and the Barnett/Levin/Natelson/Farris/Barton gang calling for an Article V convention to gut our Constitution or replace it altogether, our Constitution is under deadly attack.

At Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause, the Constitution delegates general legislative powers over the District of Columbia, Dock-yards, etc. to Congress. So! Congress may lawfully make laws re procedures for border security at dockyards.

Arguably, international airports within these United States should also be subject to this general legislative power re border security – though it needs an amendment to the Constitution to make it lawful.

The Constitution applies wherever the federal government is. It applies in the dock-Yards. It applies in international airports within these United States. The 4th amendment applies in the dock-Yards, at the border, and everywhere in this Land.  Remember!  The federal government is merely the “creature” of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms.

Now let’s turn to this: Art. IV, Sec. 4 requires the federal government to protect the States against invasion. The federal government may lawfully require people entering this Country – even Citizens – to show their passports. It may refuse entry to aliens – and it SHOULD refuse entry to a great many aliens. That is how land and sea borders are protected; by refusing entry to aliens.

However, for a very long time, the federal government has been permitting every alien who wants to to come here, and then it uses the danger thus created as an excuse to crack down on ALL of us in the name of “national security.”

Yet, the American People – loyal to their damned political parties – keep re-electing the same tyrants and weaklings to public office. A POX on the Republican Party. A POX on the Democrat Party.

PEOPLE! Learn our Constitution. It is not difficult. You don’t need degrees to understand it. All you need to do is read it and our Declaration of Independence so many times that you come to know them almost by heart. These are short documents and a heck of a lot more worth your time than TV shows. This chart lays it all out in one simple page:  share it – post it – spread it around – pass it out and flesh it out with your personal readings of our Declaration and Constitution.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/constitution-free-zone-unconstitutional/#ph9GKJVbbJ2UtYU1.99

Another Case For Limited Government

 by Jim Valenti
I am for federal government, but it must be limited, according to its inspired constitutional constraints and no more.
One of the true roles of OUR federal government is to protect this nation. There are other roles specified in the Constitution which the federal government is obligated to perform and which they are very good at, however, the number of proper roles is precisely limited. When the federal government chooses to get into things it is not designed for, failure is certain.
Our federal government has become too big and wants to be the mother of all. Certain past and current societal circumstances prove government should shed herself of all of her misguided, unconstitutional maternal instincts and let her people work out their salvation. The government must not  interfere with individual freedom blossoming. In fact, the more government figuratively attempts to become our mother, the more she smothers; the more her incompetence shines through and hence, the more the individual suffers.
She’ll squash dreams through dependency. She’ll eradicate self-esteem through bondage. She’ll promise and promise and promise and very seldom, if ever, deliver. Thus, trust in and of our government is a very fleeting thing.
The more government plays inappropriate roles in our lives the worse the smothering, unneeded suffering and incompetence becomes. Worse than that, if we allow it, we could lose our freedom to choose. We must reclaim the authority we have under our founding fathers and the constitution.
Authority must come from WE, THE PEOPLE, through our constitution, for OUR government to function with God ordained approbation.
If WE, THE PEOPLE, do not have the authority to grant government its operations, then, by truthful extension, our government cannot take upon itself the authority to grant itself whatever it wants or needs. The decisions of a constitutionally educated, WE, THE PEOPLE, cannot and must not be ignored.
Each state under our REPUBLIC, has the authority to determine its own destiny. We are not a democracy, as many countries of the world are and as many US politicians and average US citizens think so. The United States is purposefully different. It is a republic. The feds do not come first, but last in line. Our republic necessitates power come from the bottom up, not the top down.
Our founding fathers weep from the sadness of our nation going so adrift, particularly after they gave future generations like yours and mine warning upon warning to adhere to these inspired constitutional principles and govern correctly.
One of our founding fathers, NOAH WEBSTER, has stated the following: By the way, his counsel applies to every level of government.

Noah Webster – “History of the United Sates”, 1832

by The Founders, Religion and Government on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 3:47am

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.”

In George Washington’s farewell address on September 17, 1796 he has strongly suggested the following:

However, political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

We are seeing today a potent engine which is cunning, ambitious and unprincipled. We see subversion from Washington, D. C. and from some localities. The power of the people has been temporarily usurped. I am confident we can get our power back through proper education and individual participation in our political process.

Forget not, it has taken over a century for us to get into this position. It won’t be that long if we push back and speak for limited government at all levels of society. We must stand for these right things and act upon them.

see this link as well: