Latest Entries »

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM

The Fix

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South

By Amber Phillips December 30 at 10:20 AM

Kentucky Democrats have a problem. They just lost the governor’s mansion last month and now there’s a very real chance that their control of the state House is slipping away. That’s significant not just in Kentucky but nationally too; if Democrats lose control of the Kentucky state House, they will control a total of zero legislative chamber in the entire south.

The latest bad news for Kentucky Democrats came this week when Democratic state Rep. Jim Gooch switched parties, the second Democrat to turn Republican since the GOP’s gains in November. Gooch follows his colleague, Rep. Denny Butler as party switchers; two Democratic state representatives have resigned to accept appointments from Kentucky’s new Republican governor, Matt Bevin.

That means when the state legislature convenes in January, there will be 50 Democrats and 46 Republicans in the House — with four vacancies to fill in special elections that could well go to Republicans.

In short, Kentucky is no longer Democrats’ last stronghold of electoral hope in the south. It’s now better described as one of the last states to realign with America’s decades-old north-south political reality: Republicans rule down South; Democrats up North.

The signs this was coming have been around for a while now, notes University of Louisville political science professor Jasmine Farrier. Even though Bill Clinton won the state twice, Mitt Romney won the state in the 2012 presidential election, and GOP candidates triumphed in the 2014 Senate election and the 2015 governor races — often by wide margins. Kentucky’s balance of power finally shifted in November’s statewide elections. Statewide offices, which until November were mostly held by Democrats, are now mostly held by Republicans. The GOP wave was led by Bevin, a businessman whose outside appeal and flare has been likened to GOP front-runner Donald Trump, came from behind to become only the second Republican to lead the state in four decades.

Kentucky’s House is now the lone holdout in a state that you could argue is no longer a holdout from the post- Civil Rights era political realignment. And it didn’t take long after November to watch Democrats’ control of the

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM

House start to crumble as well.
“We used to be more of an outlier,” Farrier said. “Now we’re more normal.”

Inevitable realignment or not, there’s probably some blame for Democrats to go around. Farrier says she thinks all this should be a wake up call for the Democratic Party, which has struggled to bridge the urban-rural divide in heavily rural states like Kentucky and hasn’t really found a way to reach across the cultural divides that
separate former Southern Democrats with today’s Northern ones.

“What has the Democratic Party done for poor, conservative Evangelical white people?” Farrier said. “And the answer is not much. On God, guns and gays, poor, white Evangelical conservatives would say the Democratic Party walked away from them, and not the other way around.”

Democrats’ fading grip on Kentucky politics may be unique, but it probably didn’t help that Democrats are having trouble holding onto state offices across the country.

During President Obama’s tenure, Republicans clinched more and more control of statehouse and governor’s mansions to the point where The Fix’s Chris Cillizza writes they “an absolute stranglehold” on governor’s seats (64 percent).

After the November 2014 midterms, Republicans have control of an all-time high 68 of 98 state chambers.

Republicans say their dominance at the state level is a result of hard work. They’ve invested heavily in state legislative races this past decade as part of a strategy to control state chambers that will take on congressional redistricting in 2020. It certainly worked for them in 2010.

As a result of much of this, America is increasingly divided into two different countries that rarely touch each other, politically or geographically.

Yet another factor in Democrats’ struggles in the south: Obama’s unpopularity outside those East Coast Democratic enclaves. A Kentucky Democrat is no Massachusetts Democrat, and Obama isn’t particularly liked in some Kentucky Democratic circles.

In announcing his switch to the Republican Party, Rep. Gooch cited the president’s “radical agenda” on

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM

environmental regulations and gun control as reason to leave.
The president is arguably in line with the rest of the Democratic Party on these issues, but for more conservative

Kentucky Democrats, it may have been a step too far.
“There is this hatred of the president,” Farrier said. “It is very real, and it’s hard to imagine that it will be easily

recoverable.”
One thing’s for certain: Democratic control of Kentucky won’t be easily recoverable, at least not until the next

major political realignment.

Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan.

What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery

David Azerrad / December 28, 2015

One hundred and fifty years ago this month, the 13th Amendment officially was ratified, and with it, slavery finally was abolished in America. The New York World hailed it as “one of the most important reforms ever accomplished by voluntary human agency.”

The newspaper said the amendment “takes out of politics, and consigns to history, an institution incongruous to our political system, inconsistent with justice and repugnant to the humane sentiments fostered by Christian civilization.”

With the passage of the 13th Amendment—which states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”—the central contradiction at the heart of the Founding was resolved.

Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States.

While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.

Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.

Such arguments have unsettling implications for the health of our republic. They teach citizens to despise their founding charter and to be ashamed of their country’s origins. They make the Constitution an object of contempt rather than reverence. And they foster alienation and resentment among African-American citizens by excluding them from our Constitution.

The received wisdom in this case is wrong. If we turn to the actual text of the Constitution and the debates that gave rise to it, a different picture emerges. The case for a racist, pro-slavery Constitution collapses under closer scrutiny.

Race and the Constitution

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.

A newly freed African American group of men and a few children posing by a canal against the ruins of Richmond, Va. Photo made after Richmond was taken by Union troops on April 3, 1865. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
A newly freed group of black men and a few children pose by a canal against the ruins of Richmond, Va., after Union troops took the city on April 3, 1865. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)

The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).

Slavery and the Constitution

Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).

Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.

Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:

Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.

One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.

Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.

Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”

One can readily imagine any number of clauses that could have been added to our Constitution to enshrine slavery. The manumission of slaves could have been prohibited. A national right to bring one’s slaves to any state could have been recognized. Congress could have been barred from interfering in any way with the transatlantic slave trade.

It is true that the Constitution of 1787 failed to abolish slavery. The constitutional convention was convened not to free the slaves, but to amend the Articles of Confederation. The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.

Regrettably, early Congresses did not pursue a consistent anti-slavery policy. This, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution itself. As Frederick Douglass explained: “A chart is one thing, the course of a vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the government wrong.”

Congress and the Slave Trade

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the African slave trade an “execrable commerce” and an affront “against human nature itself.” Because of a concession to slave-holding interests, the Constitution stipulates that it may not be abolished “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).

(Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
Before the Civil War, Frederick Douglass said that nothing in the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)

In the meantime, Congress could discourage the importation of slaves from abroad by imposing a duty “not exceeding 10 dollars on each person” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although early Congresses considered such measures, they were never enacted.

Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.

Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.

The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.

Congress and the Expansion of Slavery

Banning the importation of slaves would not by itself put an end to slavery in the United States. Slavery would grow naturally even if no new slaves were brought into the country.

Although Congress could not prevent this, it could prevent slavery from spreading geographically to the territories from which new states would eventually be created.

Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), to forbid the migration of slaves into the new territories (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and to stipulate conditions for statehood (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).

Regrettably, early Congresses did not prevent the spread of slavery. Between 1798 and 1822, Congress enacted 10 territorial acts. Only half excluded slavery.

As a result, seven slaveholding states and five free states were admitted into the union. The seeds of what Abraham Lincoln would later call the crisis of the house divided were sown.

Slavery in the Existing States

As for the existing slaveholding states that had ratified the Constitution, what could Congress do to restrict the growth of slavery within their borders? Here Congress had more limited options. After 1808, “the migration” of slaves across state lines could have been prohibited (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). This was never done.

In principle, slavery could have been taxed out of existence. However, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states made it impossible to exclusively target slaveholders. A capitation or head tax, for example, even though it would have been more costly for Southerners, would also impose a heavy burden on Northerners.

While one could perhaps have circumvented the apportionment requirement by calling for an indirect tax on slaves—as Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., would later do during the Civil War—such arguments were not made in the early republic.

There was one clause in the original Constitution that required cooperation with slaveholders and protected the institution of slavery. Slaves who escaped to freedom were to “be delivered up” to their masters (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The motion to include a fugitive slave clause at the constitutional convention passed unanimously and without debate. This would seem to indicate that all knew it would be futile to try to oppose such a measure.

The debate instead focused on the wording. Whereas the original draft had referred to a “person legally held to service or labor in one state,” the final version instead refers to a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof.” This change, Madison explains in his notes, was to comply “with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal,” as it gave the impression “that slavery was legal in a moral view,” rather than merely permissible under the law.

This remark by Madison captures the Constitution’s stance vis-à-vis slavery: permissible, but not moral. Legal, but not legitimate.

In no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. And it contains within it several provisions that could have been and were at times used to prevent the spread of slavery.

This may not make it an anti-slavery Constitution. But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.

 

THE UNBELIEVABLE STATEMENTS BY PUPLIC OFFICIALS
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
December 28, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

In this century, it seems that the number of unbelievable things said by high profile people has increased. First, after American forces quickly sped from Kuwait to Baghdad in the 2003 Iraq war, President George W. Bush said “Mission Accomplished.” I could not believe he did not realize that is what Saddam Hussein wanted us to do, because only then would we change from battle formation to smaller patrols more easily hit by RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and IEDs (improvised explosive devices). A few years later, I could not believe Congress passed Obamacare after Democratis House leader Nancy Pelosi said members of Congress should pass the legislation before seeing all that was in it!

During the current political campaign when Dr. Ben arson was rising in the polls, he spoke at radical Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network’s convention and said “Al Sharpton and I have the same goal, just different ideas on how to get there,” and in Dr. Carson’s book AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL on page 102 he said it is “the moral low road” to “deport many individuals (illegal aliens) who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families.” Csarly Fiorina, who also temporarily rose in the polls, had touted President Obama’s “Race to the Top” education program, and last August said “I’ve been very clear I don’t support deportation (of illegal aliens).” Conservative talk show gurus Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others have extolled the virtues of Sen. Ted Cruz, even though he has spoken positively about his Council on Foreign Relations member wife, Heidi, in her globalist book BUILDING A NORTH AMERICAN UNION.

The unbelievable statements of President Obama are too numerous to mention here, but the morning of the recent ISIS-inspired attack in San Bernardino, he declared: “ISIL is not going to pose an existential threat to us….Our homeland has never been more protected….” How could he say that shortly after the Russian airline was brought down by an ISIS improvised explosive device only perhaps the size of a soda can on board the plane? Can he guarantee that ISIS-inspired sleeper cells (like the couple in San Bernardino) cannot put soda cans filled with C-4 or other explosives on drones and from far away fly them into large crowds of people, perhaps during cities’ New Year’s Eve celebrations (e.g., at New York City’s Times Square)?

Perhaps the most egregious examples of unbelievable statements come from (Queen) Hillary Clinton herself. Remember when she claimed she was running from sniper fire when landing in Bosnia in 1996? This turned out to be completely false. Also remember when she repeatedly publicly said the Benghazi attack were spontaneously caused by an anti-Muslim video, even though she was privately telling others it was a previously planned terrorist attack. Well, her latest unbelievable claim is that ISIS is using a video of Donald Trump, saying he would temporarily ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States, as a recruitment tool. The problem is that when the media questioned the veracity of her claim, she could not produce any such video. Think about it. Hillary and her political twin President Obama have been claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and that jihad is simply an individual’s pursuit of spiritual betterment. They claim ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, even though they refer to ISIS as ISIL, the first letter of which stands for “Islamic.” They say ISIL is simply a group of thugs who are misrepresenting Islam.

All right, let’s see how this works. We are supposed to believe brutal ISIS members have recruited new members by bribing or threatening them or their families, perhaps saying something like “Join us or we will behead your mother and rape your sisters.” We are then supposed to believe that these peaceful prospective recruits reject these threats regardless of what ISIL does to their mothers and sisters, but then decide to join the ISIL thugs just because Donald Trump said he temporarily wants to halt Muslim immigration to the United States! Really?

But Trump does not get a pass on unbelievable statements either. One has to be careful when making blanket statements such as he wants to ban “all” Muslim immigrants. That would even include banning a one-year-old Muslim child from joining his grandparents in the United States after his Shiite parents were killed by ISIL Sunnis in Syria.
And religious leaders are not immune from making unbelievable remarks as well. According to a NATIONAL REPORT article posted about 6 months ago, Pope Francis in an hour-long speech told Vatican guests that the Koran, and the spiritual teachings therein, are just as valid as THE HOLY BIBLE. He also told them: “We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths.” He has even kissed the Koran, just as Pope John Paul II did, even though in Islamic teaching, Jesus is secondary to Mohamed!
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS’s Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available
Home

Heidi Cruz wants to build a North American Community – what does that mean, exactly?
Posted on August 21, 2015 by austrogirl
ted cruz
Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, with his Spanish name, Canadian birth and US citizenship, would actually be a natural candidate to be the First President of the North American Union! (n/t The Next News Network)

In today’s video preview of tomorrow’s show, I refer to a document, Building a North American Community, written by a Council on Foreign Relations task force which included Heidi Cruz (i.e., Mrs. Ted Cruz), who expressly agreed with the recommendations in the report. What are those recommendations? Here’s a sampling, but I highly recommend you read the whole text (it’s large print and only 32 pages of actual report, the rest you can skip):

To lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America with the ultimate goal of full mobility of labor and goods across Canada, Mexico and the United States. To facilitate this, rules and regulations on labor and the environment among other things should conform across the “trinational” region. “[T]he three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence…including harmonization at the highest prevailing standard…and unilateral adoption of another country’s rules.”
“Make a North American standard the default approach to new regulation….The new trinational mechanism also should be charged with identifying joint means of ensuring consistent enforcement of new rules as they are developed.”
Increase information and intelligence-sharing at the local and national levels in both law enforcement and military organizations.
Conduct annual training exercise to develop interoperability among and between law enforcement agencies and militaries of the US, Canada & Mexico.
Create a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers.
Establish a North American energy and emissions regime that could offer tradable voucher systems for emissions trading.
Creation of a North American Advisory Council with a complementary private body “that would meet regularly or annually to buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde conferences, organized to support transaltantic relations.”
Creation of a North American Inter-Parliamentary Group that will include US Congress along with Canadian and Mexican Parliamentary representation, who play key roles in policy toward each other. The newly created North American Advisory Council (likened to the Bilderberg Group) “could provide an agenda and support for these meetings.”
L

SOCIETYNEWS
Why Franklin Graham Is Leaving the GOP
Kelsey Harkness

Angry at Republicans for failing to defund Planned Parenthood in 2015, Franklin Graham announces he’s cutting ties with the GOP. (Photo: EPA/Nell Redmond/Newscom)
Less than one week after Congress passed a massive year-end spending bill that failed to strip Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars, evangelist Franklin Graham announced he is leaving the Republican Party.

“Shame on the Republicans and the Democrats for passing such a wasteful spending bill last week,” Graham wrote Monday on Facebook. “And to top it off, funding Planned Parenthood!”

Graham, CEO of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said Republicans’ failure to defund Planned Parenthood is an “example” of why he is declaring himself an independent.

“This is an example of why I have resigned from the Republican Party and declared myself independent,” Graham wrote. “I have no hope in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or Tea Party to do what is best for America.”

In declaring his separation from the Republican party, Graham referenced a string of undercover videos that came out this year showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies. Graham compared the actions in those videos—which some claim were highly manipulated—to Nazi concentration camps.

“Seeing and hearing Planned Parenthood talk nonchalantly about selling baby parts from aborted fetuses with utter disregard for human life is reminiscent of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi concentration camps!” he said.

The undercover videos, produced by the Center for Medical Progress, sparked calls by conservatives to defund Planned Parenthood of the more than $528 million it receives in taxpayer dollars. The majority of that money comes from federal reimbursements it receives through Medicaid contracts.

Planned Parenthood has denied any wrongdoing, calling the videos “heavily edited” and “secretly recorded.”

Conservatives made stripping Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars a top priority this congressional year yet failed to include any defund provisions in the year-end spending bill.

>>> Read More: How Your Senators Voted on the Government Spending Bill

Democrats praised the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending as a “good compromise,” highlighting the more than 150 conservative policy riders that they were able to “nix” from the final agreement.

“In addition to nixing more than 150 GOP riders, the final agreement will secure major progressive policy successes,” wrote Adam Jentleson, Minority Leader Harry Reid’s deputy chief of staff, on Twitter.

After the spending bill passed, Planned Parenthood touted in a press release that the budget deal included “no new harmful policy riders on women’s health.”

At the end of his post declaring his separation from the Republican party, Graham called on Christians “across the country to pray about running for office where they can have an impact.”

Read Graham’s full Facebook post here:

‘If an abortion [provider] is complaining, the easiest thing to do is get the pro-life people to shut up,’ Matt Bowman, a lawyer defending carolers, says.

Refugees Grateful For Chance To See Europe While Being Bounced From Country To Country
September 8, 2015

BUDAPEST, HUNGARY—Saying they never dreamed they’d have the opportunity to do so much traveling and sightseeing, tens of thousands of refugees across Europe confirmed Tuesday that they were grateful for the chance to take in so many of the continent’s natural and historical treasures while being bounced from country to country. “I thought the Serbian countryside was so beautiful when we were marching through it, but, wow, Budapest is truly breathtaking—it’s a real architectural gem—and hopefully once our papers expire in 48 hours we’ll be off to somewhere new!” said Syrian refugee Majd Ahsan, who added that his European trip got off to a great start on the island of Lesbos in Greece, where he said he was really able to soak in the Mediterranean landscape by spending his every waking and sleeping moment outdoors. “We actually got to spend a couple extra days in Athens while the Macedonian borders were closed, which was a real treat—there’s just so much rich history right there! At this point, who knows which country we’ll see tomorrow or the next day. Germany? France? Ooh, maybe we’ll go to Prague, get turned away at a processing center, and be sent to Poland! I hear it’s really lovely.” Ahsan added that he was just sad that two of his four children and both of his brothers were no longer around to enjoy the tour of Europe with him.

OUR ANNUAL YEAR
Year In Review
BEST OF 2015

Chicago Introduces New Citywide Gun-Sharing Stations
January 19, 2015

Chicago’s new QuikShot gun-share system is modeled on a similar program successfully introduced overseas in Caracas, Venezuela.
CHICAGO—Touting the program’s convenience and affordability, Chicago officials unveiled Monday the city’s new gun-sharing service, “QuikShot,” which allows individuals to check out a loaded firearm for short periods of time.

The municipal initiative, through which users can rent semiautomatic pistols, shotguns, rifles, and submachine guns at more than 250 self-service kiosks, has reportedly been designed to make firepower easily available to residents and tourists alike nearly everywhere within the city limits.

“QuikShot lets anyone with a credit card walk up to one of our street-side firearm stations, select a gun, and head out into the Windy City fully armed in just a few seconds,” program director Arvind Reynolds told reporters, noting that borrowers can either rent their weapon for increments of 30 minutes or withdraw it for a full 24 hours if they plan on using it throughout the day. “With QuikShot, you and your friends can each take a Beretta up to Wrigley Field, or you can head to an outdoor concert in Millennium Park with a concealed 9mm revolver, or you can simply take in the great view of the Magnificent Mile from the roof deck of the Hancock tower through a scoped sniper rifle. The possibilities are truly endless with QuikShot.”

“And if the guns at one station are all checked out, users only have to walk a block or two to the next one in order to find a loaded firearm,” he added. “So whether you’ve been planning an outing for a while or simply decided to head out in the spur of the moment, QuikShot has you covered.”

According to sources, after paying a small registration fee, QuikShot users may rent a firearm as often as they wish in neighborhoods ranging from Edgewater in the north, to the downtown Loop business district, to Hyde Park on the South Side, allowing them to brandish and discharge one or more rounds wherever they choose to in the city. Additionally, due to higher demand, Chicago officials said that multiple QuikShot kiosks would be opened around highly trafficked destinations, such as Navy Pier, the Art Institute, the Water Tower Place shopping center, and the Chicago Lakefront running and cycling paths.

Because the firearms are expected to see heavy use, Reynolds confirmed that repair crews would regularly monitor the city’s reholstering docks in order to clean and reload the weapons, as well as to replace guns that have jammed or misfired during operation, ensuring that borrowers aren’t inconvenienced by their gun malfunctioning at a crucial moment.

“It’s a great addition to the city—nothing beats being able to run out of my apartment and have a gun in my hands whenever I want.”
Users, however, are reportedly expected to provide their own protective Kevlar body armor, with program administrators adding that the city of Chicago is not liable for any injuries incurred due to use of its rentals.

“It’s a great addition to the city—nothing beats being able to run out of my apartment and have a gun in my hands whenever I want,” said Lincoln Park resident Keith Madsen, 32, noting that a QuikShot membership is much more economical than purchasing and maintaining his own extended magazine AR-15 assault rifle. “Even if I’m not necessarily planning on firing a gun on any given day, it’s always nice to know that I have the option if something comes up.”

Sources confirmed that the city is planning to expand the service in the months ahead by purchasing more guns, with the goal of increasing its publicly available arsenal to more than 65,000 weapons in anticipation of the hot summer months, when QuikShot usage is expected to reach its peak.

“QuikShot is so easy that I’m actually shooting a handgun way more often than I normally would,” said local resident Danny Taylor, who participated in a pilot trial of the program, as he deposited an empty .357 Magnum with the QuikShot logo imprinted on its grip at a Rogers Park reholstering station. “Whether I’m going to a house party or just to the liquor store, it’s nice to know that I can grab a piece, use it for as long as I want, and then drop it off without a lot of fuss.”

“In fact, I’m thinking about checking out one tomorrow morning before I head into the office,” he continued.

 

PAY-PER-VIEW PRESIDENTIAL RACE

By Donna Wasson
November 19, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

The race for the presidency is taking on a hilarious, side-show quality worthy of a theatrical pay-per-view professional wrestling match! I’m surprised the networks aren’t charging the general public $29.50 a household to watch the debates. Politics hasn’t been this much fun in years! And it’s all due to Mr. Donald Trump.

I’ve written about the shadow government for years, pointing out that our supposed two-party system of Republicans vs. Democrats is a complete and utter sham. They are simply two sides of the same Globalist elite controlled coin. There is NO difference between them whatsoever, and this has never been more apparent than it is right this very moment.

Let me make it clear that I do not endorse any particular candidate. But I can’t help but make some observations here.

The White House administration and mainstream media, as well as the Republican and Democratic candidates for president are so beside themselves, incredulous and disbelieving of The Donald’s rising poll numbers, that some of them are likely to develop stress related physical manifestations such as eye-twitching, occasional barking or foaming-at-the-mouth.

The establishment players don’t know what to make of this guy. They can’t control him! There’s obviously nothing in his background with which they can blackmail him into silence, or we’d have heard about it by now.

He isn’t beholden to any Super PAC or mysterious foreign campaign donations, as is usually the custom. He doesn’t need their money, which has probably caused some in the political establishment to develop a serious case of chafing due to chronic knicker twisting.

He speaks his mind, and to heck with the consequences. And every time he opens his mouth, he seems to say the very thing the average American on Main Street is feeling and thinking, resulting in a soul crushing rise in his poll numbers. I’m actually beginning to feel slightly sorry for his opponents. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck. It’s fascinating!

Trump sort of presents the same conundrum as your average jihadist; the same way they’re unafraid to die in the quest to spread their religion, Donald Trump has no fear of the political consequences of what he blurts out. He really doesn’t care what the establishment in Washington thinks! It’s like he goes verbal commando every day.

In the early days of Trump’s candidacy, the political players and media thought the whole concept of his running was a farce. No one took him seriously until his poll numbers started defying their expectations. As the talking heads continued to mock him, the dogs were unleashed and directed to find dirt on him. They came up empty. Even his ex-wives stand solidly behind him, stating he would make an excellent president.

His children are all exceptionally well educated, productive young men and women who have a loving, devoted, close relationship with their father. Those in the business world have great respect for him, as his creativity and negotiating skills are legendary. Apparently, he must play fair because NO ONE in the business world has stepped forward to accuse him of ripping them off or betraying a deal. It’s remarkable, really.

Despite the increasingly desperate attempt by his political enemies to spin one of his statements in order to turn the public against him, he takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’. The latest unforgiveable sin was his statement that the United States should temporarily suspend all muslim immigration until the government figures out how to properly vet those who worship allah, and want to enter this country.

By the volume of feigned outrage from the beltway pundits and his fellow presidential candidates, you’d think he suggested Homeland Security set all muslim immigrants on fire! What exactly did he say to engender a response of such hysteria?

On 12/7/15, he released a statement that called for a “total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States.” He cited polling data that he says shows “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the muslim population. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense or reason or respect for human life.”

Allow me to pause for a moment to give you a quote from one of our Founding Fathers. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” -John Adams.

The FACT is folks, islam IS at war with the West. The ideology of islam is diametrically opposed to our way of life and the Judeo/Christian values upon which this nation was founded.

It might not be politically correct to point that out and call for a halt in allowing even more muslims into the country, but we’re down to a matter of life and death now. Quite frankly, screw political correctness!

Let’s look at some of the GOP reactions to Trump’s suggestion. My comments follow in italics.

“Donald Trump always plays on everyone’s worst instincts and fears and saying we’re not going to let a single muslim into this country is a dangerous overreaction.” Carly Fiorina—Hey Carly, our open borders have allowed thousands of muslims to enter, many of which undoubtedly plan to do us harm. It ain’t islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill us!

“This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about. That’s a ridiculous position.” Chris Christie—Yes Chris, I’m sure you have a plethora of experience dealing with homicidal muslims there at the Jersey shore.

“Every candidate for president needs to do the right thing and condemn Trump’s comments.” -Lindsey Graham—If they do so, their poll numbers are gonna tank!

“Everyone visiting our country should register and be monitored during their stay as is done in many countries. We do not and would not advocate being selective on one’s religion.” Ben Carson—Why the heck not? Besides, it isn’t a ‘religion.’ It’s a political ideology with a religious component.

Ted Cruz simply stated “that is not my policy.”—A rather classy way of disagreeing.

On the Democratic side White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, stated “It’s entirely inconsistent with the kinds of values that were central to the founding of this country.”—Shut up, Josh. You’re a putz. Nobody asked your opinion.

“This is reprehensible, prejudiced and divisive. @ReadDonaldTrump, you don’t get it. This makes us less safe.” The Hildabeast—YOU, Madam, are partially responsible for this islamic mess with your lame Secretary of State policies! Why aren’t you in prison yet??

“Demagogues throughout our history have attempted to divide us based on race, gender, sexual orientation or country of origin. Now Donald Trump and others want us to hate all muslims.” Bernie Sanders—Uh no Bernie, you’re confused. We’re not talking about Obama here.

All of these people, with the exception of Cruz, are giving the American people a load of worthless sentimentality which will do little except set us up for more attacks. Many are saying what Trump is proposing is “unconstitutional.” Oh really? Are we now exempt from following the rule of law? Oh yeah…OObamadinajad is still president.

However, one of the most frightening aspects of this whole, manufactured debate is that these people who want to hold the most powerful office on earth; those reputed to be the smartest, best and brightest, don’t even know what our own law and history holds.

Introducing The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, otherwise known as 8 U.S. Code 1182, Inadmissible Aliens, passed by a Democrat controlled House and Senate, and signed into law by a Democrat president. This law states:

“Suspension of entry of imposition or restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Well now. Isn’t THAT special! Read it again if you need to. This is the law of the land, people. Given to us by the Democratic Party back in 1952. All immigration into the United States was shut down from 1924-1965. So why did the government pass such a law?

Because of illegal immigrants sneaking into this country! It was written to allow the president to not only bar but remove undesirables from American soil.

Interestingly, Jimmy Carter, the 2nd most deplorable excuse for a president this country has ever known, invoked and used this law back in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States.

Remember the Iranian hostage nightmare? In November 1979, the U. S. Attorney General gave all Iranian students one month to report to their local immigration office. Seven thousand were found to be in violation of their visas and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States.

Yes, Jimmy Carter proudly stood before the TV cameras and publically announced his plan to ban Iranian immigration into America.

Fast forward 36 years, when the Marxist tool of political correctness has brought this country to her knees in supplication to a wide assortment of the most asinine policies imaginable, and Donald Trump dares suggest the very plan the elder wuss-extraordinaire, Jimmy Carter applied, the hounds of hell are loosed on him.

I’m not sure what bothers me more…The blatant hypocrisy of the political playerss and media, or the fact that those running for the most powerful position on the planet are so ignorant of the laws of the nation they want to rule! God help us.

Once again, I have to hand it to you straight up. If you’re trusting this next presidential election will restore America to what she was before the Bush, Clinton and Obama cartels darkened the doors of the White House then you’re in for a VERY big disappointment! I highly doubt there will even be another election.

 

The ONLY hope we have at this point is Jesus Christ. If you haven’t asked Him to forgive your sins and surrendered your heart to Him, I strongly suggest you not waste another second. What are you waiting for anyway? The evil and violence on this earth will only grow stronger each day. You can’t change it and you can’t fight it, politically, militarily, or otherwise.

Today is the day of salvation, so don’t put it off any longer. Like those unfortunate souls in San Bernardino found out, you never know when your number will be up.

© 2015 Donna Wasson – All Rights Reserved

Donna, a sinner saved by grace, awaiting her Bridegroom. A married mom, Hospice RN and owner of 2 dogs, 1 obese cat and a bearded dragon. Beware! She is unabashedly politically INcorrect and unafraid to speak the truth!

E-Mail: bensmomi99@gmail.com

14TH SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT

By Debra Rae
December 19, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

Global Governance: Step-by-Step, Inch-by-Inch[1]

Step-by-step, inch-by-inch, “national identities and individual religions appear to be morphing into nondescript and indistinguishable arrangements to some unidentified whole.”[2] In the race to global governance, the “inner voice of humanity” purportedly begs for “a pure moment of one” whereby the clear boundary between physics and metaphysics is obliterated; and scientific study of the universe[3] defers to its worship.[4]

Making sense of this twaddle, we’re told, “will call for a World Parliament to continually build the body of world law, modeling the way human problems are properly addressed. It also demands immediate action to establish democratic world government in accordance with the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.”[5] But: Who’s doing this building and modeling? And: “What worldviews inform that work?” Claiming to be wise, the so-called “collective voice” of humanity is advised by cosmic humanists, illuminists, and theosophists who exchange the glory of the immortal God for mere images that resemble creation. In a word, the global mind, thusly debased, devises evil.[6]

When cornered by ear tickling, peace-and-harmony tripe, we wisely take pause. Consider, for example, the Human Rights Council. This inter-governmental body within the United Nations was charged with strengthening and protecting human rights worldwide. However, among the foxes elected to oversee the henhouse of human rights were some of the world’s worst offenders—e.g., Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, and Iran.

Under Chinese occupation, the Tibetan people are denied most rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—namely, rights to self-determination, freedom of speech, assembly, movement, expression, and travel—yet China moderated complaints about foreign occupation. Incredulously, Saudi Arabia was tasked with handling complaints about women’s rights! Yes, violations of human rights warrant timely action, but not by victimizers masquerading as altruists. Unfortunately, come the end of December, we can expect more of the same—this time, in India.

14th Session of the Provisional World Parliament[7]

This month (December 27-29, 2015), Kolkata will host the 14th Session of the Provisional World Parliament. Endorsing aims and objectives of the Provisional World Parliament, sponsors represent a plethora of faith traditions. Many serve (or have served) in key positions at the United Nations, targeted for replacement by the Earth Federation. Over the course of twenty-five years, 145 Honorary Sponsors have come alongside acts, resolutions, and memorials that the Parliament adopts.

Far from a ragtag gaggle of beatnik-hippies, its list of sponsors reads like a “Who’s Who” of distinguished scientists, politicians, justices, journalists, academics, executives, and ministers.[8] Within their ranks are members of the Nobel Peace Committee (not to mention prize recipients), prime ministers, and clergy. To these elitists, “democratic world law” is the targeted expression of “love” envisioned for the planet’s integrated future. Accordingly, an independent governmental body known as the Provisional World Parliament creates authentic world law[9] to prosecute “world criminals who today act as heads of warring nation-states.”[10] (Like member-states of the defunct United Nations?)

Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) is broadly known as headquarters of the Missionaries of Charity, founded by the late Mother Teresa. But don’t let this feel-good location fool you. Not Missionaries of Charity, but the World Constitution and Parliament Association, the Institute on World Problems, and the International Society for Intercultural Study and Research will host the 14th Session of the Provisional World Parliament. Poised at the highest levels, these three legislate, research, and educate at par with the UNESCO Peace Education Model—but to what end?

• World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA)[11]

Founded in 1958, the World Constitution and Parliament Association serves as organizing agent for the Provisional World Parliament. Members from 120 countries work to ratify the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, first adopted at the World Constituent Assembly (1977) as a sort of “mother board” for regionalized global governance.[12]

Having surfaced in the 1940s as a leader in the one-world movement, WCPA’s co-founder Philip Isely eventually became its secretary-general. Isely served as integrative engineer for assembling a total of five planned sessions of its Provisional World Parliament.[13] Borrowing directly from the Club of Rome handbook,[14] the constitution is said to read like an occult manual. It’s no wonder. WCPA’s spiritual liaison and leaders include cosmic humanists, yogis and swamis from the Far East.[15]

• Institute on World Problems (IOWP)

The Institute on World Problems is a non-profit, educational think-tank to identify and solve global problems—i.e., environment, population, military, terrorism, and social justice. Piloted by international lawyer and teacher, Dr. Terence Amerasinghe, IOWP touts the “final solution” of democratic world government under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.[16]

In this effort, the IOWP offers regional seminars worldwide, especially in developing countries.[17] Education features instruction on constitutional world law, parliamentary procedures, global citizenship, public-private partnerships, scientific developments and breakthroughs. To enhance communication among cultures, the Institute encourages multi-linguistic, second-language competency; also, literacy in the international auxiliary language of Esperanto.

The Graduate School of World Problems linked to the first Provisional World Parliament, which met in Brighton, England (1982). For years the Graduate School operated from its Sri Lanka office, but after the IOWP re-incorporated as a 501(c) 3 (2003), it worked out of the state of Virginia. Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Radford University in Virginia, Dr. Glen T. Martin was a delegate at the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Provisional World Parliaments. A prolific writer on behalf of the one-world renaissance, Martin advocates for world revolution, human liberation, and the Constitution for the Federation of Earth—accomplished by summoning humanity, peddling unity in diversity, reasoning to build trust, empathizing, and dialoguing for cooperation.[18]

• International Society for Intercultural Study and Research

A non-profit, non-violent global forum for “universal good” (1983), the International Society for Intercultural Study and Research fingers cultural alienation as root of the global crisis. Patrons, advisors, executives, officers, coordinators, secretariat, and its executive director (Dr. Santi Nath Chattopadhyay) hold impressive credentials from diverse disciplines,[19] and “elevated personalities from different corners of India” lecture on the society’s behalf.

Mankind, it’s believed, must rise from an inherited past to a prospective future of collaborative co-existence distinguished by a new, cultural consciousness that speaks to the “spiritual Universal Man”–that being, the “Superman.” (No joke!) To this end, ISISAR analyzes diverse socio-cultural expressions, cultivates shared values, and applies social services for repressed people in undeveloped communities. Theirs is a global vision of universality in the context of a new, intercultural world order ostensibly characterized by expanded freedom.[20] Symposia, seminars, workshops, and conferences feature themes of integration, values, harmony, peace, and freedom—socio-politically, economically, and spiritually.

Conclusion

John Locke agreed with our founders that fundamental human rights are God-given.[21] Thomas Jefferson characterized the Locke Model as “the People’s Law,” rightly balancing between tyranny, on one hand, and anarchy on the other.[22] In contrast, a body of world law coupled with “demand for immediate action” promises no such balance. The guiding principle of socialist, government-managed development, called sustainable development, calls for revamping the very infrastructure of nations away from sovereignty, rugged individualism, private ownership and control of property to nothing short of collectivist national zoning systems under elitist rule.

In truth, man’s so-called “inner voice” speaks to his own greatness.[23] What resists that greatness must be conquered. In the real world, “power concedes nothing without a demand,”[24] and “we are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.”[25] Unfortunately, what naturally follows is (1) breakdown of traditional values (as defined by biblical ethic); (2) population control (managed death options as abortion; childless homosexuality; eugenics); (3) non-voluntary wealth redistribution; and (4) forced quotas. In short, complete paradigm shift away from the Western archetype informed by biblical ethic.

The Bible is clear. By nature, all are “children of wrath.”[26] Whom the world esteems falls grievously short of the divine model.[27] Friendship with the world is enmity with God.[28] When left to human devices, apart from divine enablement, man naturally succumbs to sexual and spiritual uncleanness, hatred, strife, seditions, envy, and the like.[29] Scripturally, he is said to drink iniquity like water.[30] Try as he might, “There is no one who does good”;[31] and that includes the “spiritual Universal Man”!

 

Despite claims to the contrary, new order multilateral futurists bully, emasculate and, then, exact resources from those rightly described as the world’s “producers.” The late Henry Lamb[32] warned, “An interdependent, one-world state under global leadership will result in the US taking on the lowest common denominator that forced equity demands.” Lamb’s point is well taken, but even more sobering is biblical prophecy: “For when they shall say, ‘peace and safety,’ then sudden destruction comes upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”[33]

Word to the wise: Don’t drink the Kool Aid.

© 2015 Debra Rae – All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. Carl Teichrib. Forcing Change, Volume 8, Issue 12., December 2014. 20. Accessed 13 December 2015.
2. Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center, americanpolicy.org/. Accessed 13 December 2015.
3. According to NASA, the definition of cosmology is “the scientific study of the large scale properties of the universe as a whole.”
4. Cosmolatry is worship of the world (cosmos).
5. Call issued in conformance with Article 19 of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, which recognizes the legal duty of the people of Earth to begin Provisional World Government until such time as the Earth Constitution has been fully ratified under the provisions set forth in Article 17.[Link] Accessed 13 December 2015.
6. Romans 1:22-23; 28ff—“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
7. worldparliament-gov.org. Accessed 13 December 2015.
8. Their titles are equally impressive: “Prime Minister,” “Chief Minister,” “Chancellor,” “Mr. President,” “Mr. Vice President,” “Secretary-general,” “Senator,” “Minister,” “Mr. Ambassador,” “Your Honor,” “Executive-Director,” “Founder-Director,” “Chairman,” “Mayor,” “Sir,” “Dean,” “Professor,” “Doctor,” to name but a few.
9. Called World Legislative Acts.
10. jhttp://www.radford.edu/~gmartin/PWP13.Legisl.pending..htm. Accessed 13 December 2015.
11. http://www.earthfederation.info Accessed 13 December 2015.
12. The WCPA is organizer of sessions of the Provisional World Parliament under the authority of Article 19 of the Earth Constitution and organizer of the Earth Federation Movement (EFM), a global network of organizations and persons who work for ratification of the Earth Constitution.
13. The WCPA was founded in 1958 by visionaries, including Philip & Margaret Isely, who advocated a single, democratic constitution for the Earth. During those initial years, the organization worked tirelessly to organize world citizens from around the globe to write the Constitution for the Federation of Earth. This process moved through four international Constituent Assemblies that took place in 1968, 1977, 1979, and 1991. worldparliament-gov.org/wcpa Accessed 13 December 2015.
14. Founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei, the Club of Rome is an occult-driven spin-off of the Council on Foreign Relations. It has a small membership of about 100 who meet yearly. Most of the planning directives for world government come from the Club of Rome whose 1972 report, the Limits of Growth, serves as blueprint for today’s bold new economic, military, and political union in Europe.
15. Now called the World Constitutional Convention, the World Constituent Assembly revealed plans for global control of all trade, banking, and finance (1977). Authorized by the WCPA, an Earth Financial Credit Corporation oversees development of global trade and commerce on a regional basis.
16. Constitution for the Federation of Earth. Accessed 13 December 2015.
17. A number have convened on the Indian subcontinent and in West Africa.
18. http://www.radford.edu/~gmartin/. Accessed 13 December 2015.
19. http://isisar.weebly.com. Accessed 13 December 2015.
20. Society leaflets feature progressivism, religion, philosophy, and democratic trans-federalism. In addition to poems and journals, ISISAR publishes works that speak to the “spiritual Universal Man” –that being, the “Superman.”
21. Basic to American creed are inherent rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke outlined the law of nature and nature’s God—i.e., rights of “life, liberty, and estate.”
22. debra220.htm. Accessed 13 December 2015.
23. Russian entrepreneur Dmitry Itskov founded the 2045 Initiative (February 2011) along with leading Russian specialists in fields of neural interfaces, robotics, artificial organs and systems in order to develop humanity under optimal conditions for spiritual enlightenment based on 5 principles: high spirituality, high culture, high ethics, high science and high technologies. To create a more productive, fulfilling, and satisfying future, the main science mega-project of the 2045 Initiative aims to create technologies enabling the transfer of an individual’s personality to a more advanced non-biological carrier, and extending life, including to the point of immortality.
24. Frederick Douglass. Accessed 2 March 2013.
25, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the CFR journal, Foreign Affairs, August 1975.
26, Ephesians 2:3—“Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”
27, Jonathan Edwards, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Volume I, pp. 143–233; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, chapter 24, “Sin.”
28, James 4:4—“Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.”
29, Galatians 5:19-21—“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envying, murders, drunkenness, reveling, and such like.”
30, Job 15:15-16—“Behold, he puts no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinks iniquity like water?”
31, Psalm 14:2-3—“The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
32, Publisher Eco-Logic, truth-teller, and freedom fighter, Henry Lamb died May 23, 2012.
33, 1 Thessalonians 5:3—”For when they shall say, ‘Peace and safety’; then sudden destruction comes upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZOJULY 23, 2015
Photo

Hillary Rodham Clinton at an event in West Columbia, S.C., on Thursday. Her email use while secretary of state has been an issue in the early part of her presidential run. Credit Travis Dove for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

Hillary Rodham Clinton visiting Greenville Technical College in South Carolina on Thursday.Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified DataJULY 24, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington in January 2009, before she took office. In emails, aides asked if they could share her address with members of the Obama administration.New Trove of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Highlights Workaday Tasks at the State DepartmentJUNE 30, 2015
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the State Department in Washington on Sept. 12, 2012, discussing the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.A Closer Look at Hillary Clinton’s Emails on BenghaziMAY 21, 2015
Who Is Running for President?JAN. 30, 2015
The initial revelation has been an issue in the early stages of her presidential campaign.
Hillary Rodham Clinton responded to new accusations involving the private email account she used when she was secretary of state. By Reuters on Publish Date July 24, 2015. Photo by Michael Appleton for The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »
The Justice Department has not decided if it will open an investigation, senior officials said. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign released a statement on Twitter on Friday morning. “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted,” it read.

At issue are thousands of pages of State Department emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. Mrs. Clinton has said she used the account because it was more convenient, but it also shielded her correspondence from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests.

She faced sharp criticism after her use of the account became public, and subsequently said she would ask the State Department to release her emails.

The department is now reviewing some 55,000 pages of emails. A first batch of 3,000 pages was made public on June 30.

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.

The memos were provided to The New York Times by a senior government official.

The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.

In March, Mrs. Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of information on her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

Continue reading the main story
First Draft Newsletter
Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday – Friday.
In May, the F.B.I. asked the State Department to classify a section of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that related to suspects who may have been arrested in connection with the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The information was not classified at the time Mrs. Clinton received it.

The revelations about how Mrs. Clinton handled her email have been an embarrassment for the State Department, which has been repeatedly criticized over its handling of documents related to Mrs. Clinton and her advisers.
On Monday, a federal judge sharply questioned State Department lawyers at a hearing in Washington about why they had not responded to Freedom of Information Act requests from The Associated Press, some of which were four years old.

“I want to find out what’s been going on over there — I should say, what’s not been going on over there,” said Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court, according to a transcript obtained by Politico. The judge said that “for reasons known only to itself,” the State Department “has been, to say the least, recalcitrant in responding.”

Two days later, lawmakers on the Republican-led House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks said they planned to summon Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff to Capitol Hill to answer questions about why the department has not produced documents that the panel subpoenaed. That hearing is set for next Wednesday.

“The State Department has used every excuse to avoid complying with fundamental requests for documents,” said the chairman of the House committee, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina.

Mr. Gowdy said that while the committee has used an array of measures to try to get the State Department to hand over documents, the results have been the same. “Our committee is not in possession of all documents needed to do the work assigned to us,” he said.

The State Department has sought to delay the hearing, citing continuing efforts to brief members of Congress on the details of the nuclear accord with Iran. It is not clear why the State Department has struggled with the classification issues and document production. Republicans have said the department is trying to use those processes to protect Mrs. Clinton.
State Department officials say they simply do not have the resources or infrastructure to properly comply with all the requests. Since March, requests for documents have significantly increased.

Some State Department officials said they believe that many senior officials did not initially take the House committee seriously, which slowed document production and created an appearance of stonewalling.

State Department officials also said that Mr. Kerry is concerned about the toll the criticism has had on the department and has urged his deputies to comply with the requests quickly.

Correction: July 25, 2015
An article and a headline in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state misstated the nature of the request, using information from senior government officials. It addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton. An article about the latest developments is on Page A1.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 180 other followers