Why the Tea Party Failed
The tea party movement failed – was co-opted by RINOs and lying progressives – because it was never founded on principles.
What they wanted to do was chant slogans and have someone else – a leader – a savior – come along and handle everything. The savior would figure all this out and fix the problems.
At the beginning of the movement, Marco Rubio was one of the tea party people that Ann Coulter and Mark Levin “loved.” Now it’s Ted Cruz. [Both of them are ineligible to be President and are as phony as a $3.00 bill.]
Impeachment: All you need to know (and you do need to know it)
A President may – and should – be impeached & removed for usurpations of power, mismanagement, incompetence, or for any other reason deemed sufficient by Congress.
The lawful methods of getting rid of a sitting President [whether eligible or not to hold the office], in addition to impeachment, are set forth in the 25th Amendment: Natural death, resignation, or inability to do the job.
Do not spin your wheels in fruitless insistence that a person (who may still be an Indonesian national) who occupies the office of President can’t be impeached because he is ineligible to hold that office. The FACT is that he holds the office. Impeachment is a lawful & constitutional method to rid ourselves of this blight.
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress?
November 12, 2014
Stephen Stone, RenewAmerica President
Shortly after communist-mentored Barack Obama was elected to the White House in 2008, I asked a brother at a family gathering, “Who’s going to be president of the United States in 20 years?” Without hesitating, he said, “Barack Obama.”
More informed than most people I’d asked, he instantly got the drift of my question.
As we contemplate the compelling need to impeach and remove the president, consider the following exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy and a witness before Congress in December 2013, as Rep. Gowdy wondered aloud if Obama planned to stay on indefinitely:
- “If the president can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the president likewise fail to enforce election laws?” Gowdy asked of Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, who was giving testimony.
“If you can dispense with immigration laws or marijuana laws or mandatory minimums, can you also dispense with election laws?” Gowdy asked Lazarus.
For his part, Lazarus said that Obama couldn’t do such a thing. But Gowdy pressed on and asked the logical question, “Why not?”
“Because we live in a government of laws, and the president is bound to obey them and apply them,” Lazarus replied.
But Gowdy wasn’t to be so easily pushed off point.
“Well he’s not applying the ACA, and he’s not applying immigration laws, and he’s not applying marijuana laws, and he’s not applying mandatory minimums. What’s the difference with election laws?” Gowdy asked pointedly.
Of course, all Obama’s supporters blithely assure us that Obama wouldn’t be so anti-American, anti-law, and anti-Constitution as to ignore his lawful duties in the way Gowdy suggests. But the fact is he’s already done it dozens of times before. So, why not again?
Prudence requires that we give Obama no further opportunity to weaken or destroy the Constitution, including the prospect of imposing, with his phone and pen, a change in term limits — or otherwise unilaterally altering the rules of governance. The best way to ensure he can’t do so is to remove him post-haste.
Read the entire article http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/stone/141110
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
There ought to be one day — just one — when there is open season on Congressmen.
“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”
~ Samuel Adams, 1781
“If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.”
~ Jay Leno
Propaganda can be words and phrases that collectivize and mold the public mind so that subtle or overt force is made easier or becomes unnecessary.
Carefully chosen words by the establishment are the basis of mass mind control leading to acceptance of force. Until the people accept collectivism under some pretext, they are not docile and completely subdued.
Words are created and repeated, which expands the collective psyche to accept and repeat some more. People who freely use those terms are not in control of their own thinking process.
Following are some examples of establishment words and phrases used as propaganda:
This word is among the greatest deceptions in the English language. The system wants everyone to believe himself a taxpayer or as one who pays his or her “fair share.” Since the government (and banksters) create money (credit), why would they need you to pay taxes?
The answer is they don’t, but they do need a regulatory system and a dossier on everyone to profile your manner of living and, yes, even your thoughts. It’s a thought system and a system of people regulation.
There is no such thing; see “taxpayer” above. Our so-called “tax dollars” don’t exist as money going to pay government expenses. When we “pay tax dollars,” we are not funding the government or anything else. We are reducing our consumption as part of social planning.
Your fair share
This is a collectivist concept that eventually evokes a guilty conscious. Few have any concept of what this means, but it unconsciously produces a herding instinct.
This is a big one and it has sucked in everyone. Democracy is a system of manipulated mob rule by the elite. It is the very opposite of human liberty. Democracy does not mean freedom and freedom does not mean democracy.
Democracy is a front for despotism under the rule of an oligarchy.
Hitler called his Nazi Germany. America is a fascist system with benevolent totalitarianism.
Democrat and Republican
These words show how perfectly the same thing can have two names. Aren’t you glad that you go to the polls and vote? The politicians are laughing at us.
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost
~ John Quincy Adams
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers (Letter from John Jay to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816). Whether our Religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received, either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachments to Ahab affords a salutary lesson… “Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?” 2 Chr xix, 2 (Letter from John Jay to Jedediah Morse, January 1, 1813. Johnston, Correspondence of Jay from The Founders on Religion, James H. Hutson, 2005).
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look to his character as a man of known principle, of tried integrity, and undoubted ability for the office… Scriptures teach… that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness. But if we had no divine instruction on the subject, our own interest would demand of us a strict observance of the principle of these injunctions. And it is to the neglect of this rule of conduct in our citizens, that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, peculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country; which disgrace a republican government…
When a citizen gives his suffrage (vote) to a man of known immorality, he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country. Nor is it of slight importance, that men elected to office should be able men, men of talents equal to their stations, men of mature age, experience, and judgment; men of firmness and impartiality… It may be held as generally true, that respect spontaneously attaches itself to real worth; and the man of respectable virtues, never has occasion to run after respect
Ben Franklin was approached by a grand Philadelphia lady as the Constitutional Convention ended this day in 1787. Have you given us a monarchy or a republic, she asked the oldest of the Founding Fathers. “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it,” he said. And we can see a twinkle in his eye. Wise old Ben Franklin knew that republics were not easy to keep. But he also knew that Americans had sacrificed greatly to achieve their Independence.
Some 25,000 Americans died in the Revolutionary War. We tend to think of it today as all fife and drums playing “Yankee Doodle,” a powdered wig and white stocking affair. It was a bloody and brutal contest. British troops and Hessian mercenaries raped their way across New Jersey. They stabbed a Continental Army chaplain thirteen times and left him dying in the road. General Washington led us in war and he led us in peace. Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention for five long, hot months in that spring and summer of 1787. The debates on the floor grew testy, but never violent. Several times, it seemed the convention would break up. Big states and little states clashed. The delegates wrangled over slavery. It was not a friendly affair.
When the great George Mason of Virginia, Gen. Washington’s neighbor and fellow Episcopal vestryman at Pohick Church refused to sign the Constitution, Washington ended a friendship of thirty years. Ronald Reagan revered the U.S. Constitution. He quoted the Founding Fathers more than any of his four predecessors in the White House (and more than any of his four successors, too.) Reagan often said: Ours is the only Constitution in the world that begins with “We the People.”
President Obama almost never quotes the Founding Fathers. He seems annoyed that anything would question his authority. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi reacted with amazed incredulity when someone asked if the Obama administration bill to seize control of one-sixth of the U.S. economy was constitutional. It was as if the Constitution was the last thing she thought of. (That may be one reason why she is former Speaker of the House.) The Constitution requires that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Many have argued this president has completely ignored the Constitution and the limits it places on him. Remember it was President Obama who openly declared he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act because he disagreed with it. He is threatening to nullify our immigration laws. He has even unilaterally and materially altered his own “signature” achievement: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. By some counts, forty-two times! Ronald Reagan also said that freedom is ever only one generation away from being lost. It is our duty to share with young Americans our deep belief in our U.S. Constitution.
It is only by abiding by the Constitution and by teaching the rising generation to cherish our liberties as we do that we can hope to survive these tumultuous times. As Founder Thomas Jefferson put it: “It is in the manners and spirit of the people that a republic is preserved in vigor.” Let us preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Taken from The Family Research Council http://www.frc.org/
NOTE: Be sure you click on the links to read the proposed constitutions. You will be appalled.
1 The term, “convention of states”, is deliberately deceptive. The only convention for proposing amendments is the one at Article V of our Constitution – and Congress has the power to “call” it. And since Article I, Sec. 8, last clause, vests in Congress all powers “necessary and proper” to carry out its power to “call” the convention, Congress decides all organizational issues, such as, the number and selection process for delegates.
But once the delegates (whoever they turn out to be) are seated, neither Congress nor the States have any control over them. The delegates can do whatever they want. They can propose a new Constitution with a new method of ratification. Here are two Constitutions already waiting in the wings: The “Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America“, which you can read about from their own website HERE and from JBS HERE; or the “Constitution for the Newstates of America“, which you can read HERE. Do you think that any of the delegates (remember, you have no idea who they will be), can be bribed to introduce and vote for one of these proposed constitutions?
Disabuse yourself of the false notion that “the States have to ratify anything the convention does”. That is the second biggest lie ever told: The proposed “Constitution for the Newstates of America” is ratified by a Referendum called by the President. The States, as political bodies, never get the opportunity to reject it – they are dissolved and replaced by regions answerable directly to the new national government.
Click on the link to read the entire article.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/dont-need-article-v-convention-clarify-constitution/#gQHPKSg6u6hCCSaT.99
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.”
~ John Adams
“We must support our rights or lose our character, and with it, perhaps, our liberty.”
“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.”