Can America Survive

Foreign Influence was predicted from the start to be a problem for the Union.

Can America remain the United States?

In the years between the drafting and adoption of the Constitution of the United States, there took place the public arguments. The States had banned together to an extent that there had been formed a single military power (the Continental Army) to defeat the British and thereby establish the Union of the States. They had successfully thrown off the abusive rule of the monarchy. But in the years following the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation, lacking a defined authority, had proven to be leading the States toward more rivalry and separation than unity. Thus recognizing the need for improving a central government, the Constitutional Convention was convened in May of 1787. The convention would complete its work with the draft of the Constitution in September and thus began the public debate for the acceptance of this new form of government. 

One of the most compelling arguments for acceptance of the Constitution and the never before seen organization of a government it defined was made by John Jay, author of Federalist No 2, when he writes: 

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of governmentvery similar in their manners and customs…”

Of those commonalities perhaps the most important with respect to the formation of the United States are manners and customs which themselves are most assuredly associated with religion as well as the basis for most of the world’s nations. If this had not been the case in 1787, there is little doubt the Constitution would have been ratified by all the States. The argument can be made that the largely geographical causes for differences in manners and customs between the deep south and the northeast could have resulted in a much different federal government if one could have continued at all. 

Which brings us forward to the growing and divisive cultures of the United States in 2021. Fueled by decades long intentional destruction of religion, indeed Christianity, as a source for common manners and customs coupled with decades of divisive policies by which the federal government gives advantages to one defined group over others, the professional politicians which now define the federal government, have successfully empowered themselves as a ruling class. A class so engaged in maintaining their positions of power – regardless of political party affiliation – that they have set themselves above most laws and exempt from others. These protections nearly insure their continuation in power while allowing a diminished accountability to constituents. 

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law…

While the 14th Amendment was the logical extension of the Civil Rights Act of 2 years previous, it has nonetheless been weakened by subsequent laws and precedent court cases until today the clause is virtually considered to be archaic. And in the political climate today, the special protection from prosecution by those loyal to the majority party and vise versa for those opposed is considered to be the new normal. Instead of being the standard for protection, the 14th Amendment and the subsequent “civil rights” legislation that have followed have been used to undermine the Bill of Rights and divide the population through special applications which are punitive to one group while granting special favor to another. The effect then has been to further divide the population into smaller and smaller competitive groups striving to demonstrate their customs and manners are unique and deserve all sorts of special privileges under an ever expanding federal government. 

As the rights of one group gains more influence over the rights of other groups, the role of the federal government to be the arbitrator of disputes serves only to create more animosity between groups and strengthen the controlling powers of the federal government. Two conditions the founding founders argued could become destructive to the new form of government so dependent on the power of that government be derived from the governed, not vise versa. 

Led by the politicians seeking ever more power who have realized the value of social turbulence, violent protesters have gained favor and protection in many of America’s major cities. Property destruction, looting and disruption of services has not only been tolerated, ambitious politicians have seized the opportunity to gain the financial support of those who back these protesters by publicly excusing the violence as necessary to draw attention to “their” cause. Meanwhile, a protest against these same politicians is attacked as intolerable, and political opponents are blamed for ‘endangering” the public and called names typically reserved for the worst of mankind. Today, boarded windows on state capitols and massive fences around government buildings are rapidly becoming the new normal in America. Freedom of the design the founders had intended isn’t even on the horizon behind us today. 

But as John Jay believed the common manners and customs would help establish the proposed Union, he also believed that foreign force and influence would be dangerous and divisive. Jay considered the danger of foreign influence a greater threat than interstate rivalry as evidenced by the fact that after the introduction, the first 4 essays of the Federalist Papers addressed this issue exclusively. 

The reality of foreign influence has come into full view recently and repeatedly. The forensic examination of thousands of voting machines proved that not only were votes changed from Trump to Biden but that the overwhelming majority of the hacks came directly out of  China. Foreign influence thus was wholly responsible for the election of the President, total destruction of the voting system in America and a further deepening of the social divide that is certainly on course to destroy the Union itself. 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Time to Decertify ‘stupid’ (and Underhanded) Universities

If not for federal money how many of these jackwagons could earn a living?

Reports January 2, covered Florida governor Ron Desantis proposing new legislation to curb the ever increasing threat to free speech from unaccountable and often anonymous self-declared ‘guardians’ of morality on the internet. The censorship policing by the monopolies of the internet has become a dangerously powerful weapon of the left to silence criticism of almost any issue the left doesn’t support. As Desantis stated, a serious threat to voices in the modern day ‘public square.’

January 3, the headlines from Virginia report Facebook has permanently removed the account of a Virginia 2nd Amendment organization which keeps its followers informed about legislative threats to the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Constitution. Facebook confirmed the removal, stated it was permanent and offered no justification beyond their usual explanation that the account violated their user policy.

Earlier this month the YouTube broadcast of the inauguration speech of President-elect Biden was receiving so many thousands of ‘dislikes’ that the platform removed most of the dislikes – to create a balanced response – before finally removing the official White House YouTube channel from search engines entirely. The action effectively removed Biden’s speech from the internet and cloaked the overwhelming disapprove responses to the radical left points in the speech.

Tens of thousands of reports of groups and individuals are having their internet accounts ranging from emails to twitter and web sites censored in one form or another. Almost any political site or personal account in opposition to leftist agenda is targeted. In an especially bold censorship move, Facebook removed the ads of the Reform California organization gathering signatures for the recall of Governor Newsome. The Twitter account of the President of the United States himself was removed because someone at the internet platform decided Trump was spreading ‘misinformation’ in violation of the platform’s policy. A GOP newsletter based in Colorado was suspended from mailchimp email after a link to a dedication to Saint Thomas Aquinas by President Trump was included in a weekly newsletter. While the totally fabricated information associated with the attempted coups by Hillary Clinton and her supporters in congress was never once considered “misinformation” by the same platform monitors.

The New York Times urges President Biden to appoint a “reality czar” to help combat “disinformation and domestic extremism.” Such a role would entail a panel of experts led by the Czar to decide what information is classed as “fake news.” If this sounds familiar, it is because it was precisely the job of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s prescient novel, 1984.

But the real threat to the already perilous future of freedom in America remains the institutions that train the young people who become these arbiters of free speech. Students are taught from early grades to believe whatever their ‘teachers’ teach. By the time these students reach university age they are so indoctrinated into this misguided thinking that even the most blatant statements that fly in the face of common sense are considered authoritative.

BREAKING NEWS: The University of Michigan has been exposed as having developed a procedure to deprive the public from learning of the university’s activities. While UM is a public institution and therefore subject to be required to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, the university has chosen to hide it’s financial ties to the Chinese Communist Party by imposing excessive “fees” connected to answering FOIA requests. These excessive “fees” are intended to prevent citizens from asking for information to which they are entitled by law to know and that the university does not want to be public. Judicial Watch exposed this situation this week on One America News television.

Just one more reason to pull the funding out from “underhanded” and “stupid” universities.

This week a Pennsylvania university, responding to the recent calls for investigating the social media platforms’ censorship algorithms slanted totally toward conservatives, released a statement that the accusations are unfounded. The “scholars” of the university state that since no large scale institutional study has been conducted, therefore the charges and investigations are not warranted. In other words, if a university hasn’t said it, it can’t be true!

Pennel Bird writes on the Liberty Nation website (libertynation.com) : In the most alarming week for censorship and cancel culture since at least the advent of the internet, unprecedented crackdowns on free speech have metabolized in the days after the Capitol riots – which were roundly denounced by those from both the left and right. Dispite this seeming accord, authoritarian-like retributions have been meted out to conservatives only – as punishment for support of President Trump.

Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, has made it clear that dropping the President is just the beginning. Project Veritas released a video in which Dorsey says, “ We are fixed on one account (President Trump) right now, but this is going to be much more immensely colossal than just one account, and it’s going to go for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and go beyond the inauguration.”

Obviously the ‘scholars’ in Pennsylvania have never heard of Twitter accounts being removed, the attack on Parler, that was the most downloaded app in the country until it was removed totally from the internet by the ideologues of leftist morality at Amazon, or the never ending lock out activity of Facebook. But we shouldn’t worry, as soon as the tenured geniuses get their heads out of that dark space they might learn something new to ‘share’ with their admiring throngs of followers.

Really, if not for guaranteed millions from the student loan money tree, how many of these jackwagons would be able to earn a living?

Press Dishonesty and the Riots – Past and Future

As the United States has become violently divided by opposing political ideologies, the speech by either side can certainly be offensive to the other.

Today the United States is racing toward riots – everywhere! The “social” media continues to claim protection for their political speech censorship under a clearly abused regulation called section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “Communications Decency,” is a perfect example of misleading language to deceive the public into accepting another flanking attack on the Constitution and our Bill of Rights..

For those readers who may have heard of Section 230 in the recent news but were not really sure what it had to do with censorship, here is a very brief description of this 1996 law.

In the very early stages of social media platforms the idea that the companies that owned the platforms could be held liable for something one of their subscribers posted was argued to be unacceptable. Subscribers claiming 1st Amendment rights argued the platforms should not be allowed to censor their postings. Law enforcement agencies argued the platforms were potentially the venue for everything from sex trafficking to terrorists communications. And in the third corner, lawyers were salivating over the opportunity to reach into the potentially deep pockets of the platform companies. Section 230 was the compromise of considering all of these arguments. The platform owners were given immunity from liable suits for content published by “third parties” while also being charged with regulating the platform sites to avoid publication of what they were allowed to determine was “hate speech,” even though the Constitution protects such speech.

If that seems confusing, you are in some very influential company. President Trump and President elect Joe Biden have both proposed major changes to section 230. Trump has proposed limits on the protections where political speech is involved and Joe Biden has proposed eliminating the protections altogether in favor of broadening the platforms’ authority to regulate their content. But of course no one can explain what that means.

As they exist now, the social media platform companies are completely protected from liable suits resulting from content posted by those of us using the platforms. But these companies have also been protected from law suits resulting from content that they have not allowed to be posted or have removed. This is the where the first amendment clashes with the Communications Decency Act. Speech – in written form – that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment is somehow not protected from censorship by a private company offering a public platform for communication it decides should not be published.

As the United States has become violently divided by opposing political ideologies, the speech by either side can certainly be offensive to the other. Determining how to differentiate between hate speech and the opposition’s political point of view has somehow become the privilege of the media companies; including print, broadcast and the internet platforms. Perhaps such a trust would be acceptable if the media were as balanced as the political party support within the population. But the reality is that the media is dangerously out of balance with the population. The control of the media has become exclusive to those who believe government is the only solution to survival of everyone and everything. Political speech by the opposition can be and is considered hate speech by those in control of information distribution. Censorship of one party has become rampant while the other is given extensive leeway of content. This is the Constitutional crisis we are now facing. The media has become so bias for one ideology that crimes at the highest level are both ignored and called propaganda of the opposition.

BREAKING:

This week spokespersons for CNN have repeatedly called for cable and internet providers to delete Newsmax TV and streaming services from their platforms. CNN justifies these calls claiming Newsmax has distributed “lies” about the election fraud claims by President Trump. The report published by Newsmax.com concludes by reporting that during the years and years of the Russian collusion investigation based on a falsified document – proven to be paid for by political opponents of the President – Newsmax officials never called for the censorship of CNN for their spreading of false information.

Now we will need to wait to learn if the largest media – clearly supporting the various Socialists and Communist and other factions of Dystopian Utopia government – will support CNN and the right of the platform owners to “lock out” Newsmax for violating “their” polices covering hate speech they claim could lead to riots by the readers of such Conservative propaganda. These groups – aka Big Tech – have been given the permission to censor whatever and whoever they decide is publishing hate speech by the now infamous Section 230. Of course we have just lived through nearly 4 years of violence and property destruction by the armed forces of such organizations Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Yet these organizations and their offshoots went uncensored by facebook or twitter or other social media platforms. In fact these purveyors of violence were supported in the press, dignified by many in government and supported with money and action by sports and entertainment celebrities excusing their riots as necessary to effect positive changes in the name of social justice.

Trump called it War

politicians who spent millions of taxpayer dollars trying to destroy the President supported the riots.

To most Americans today the name Nazi describes a comical colonel and a no-nothing sergeant; not the horrific murderers of millions of innocent people considered inferior to their so called Master Race.

There are many descriptions of the purpose of war.

For thousands of years the purpose of war may have been to kill people and destroy things until one side or the other surrendered. The more resolved the opposing forces, the greater the destruction. It would seem the better the execution by the victors the less value of the spoils.

For The United States, the purpose and execution of wars changed when we created the atomic bomb. The destruction was too great a price to pay; even for victory. While the military continues to improve on the potential of its arsenal of atomic weapons, the resolve of the politicians to permit their use has all but disappeared. Wars have become a stage on which politicians perform to demonstrate their compassion for those with an opposing ideology. Compromise has been the ultimate goal of conflict by America since the unofficial end of the the “Korean War.”

But if one side in a war continues to believe victory is possible while the other side is willing to draw a line of compromise, it has proven over the last 70 years that those who believe victory is possible will in fact win the war. Such was the case in Vietnam when the resolve of the communist was to control the country while America was willing to settle for less as they had done in Korea. The communist prevailed and today Vietnam is a united country. They are at peace. Today they are not only a trade partner, much like Japan, they are a popular tourist destination for Americans while the divided Korea remains an adversary. Were these lessons learned?

Seeking compromise with people who have a strong belief in their ideology has led us to an endless conflict in the Middle East. But the reality is America lost the war against Islam on September 11, 2001. Americans lost freedoms and the American lifestyle. Instead of recognizing the massive destruction by an enemy intent on victory under the old rules of war, our politicians refused to acknowledge defeat. And so the losses build while politicians refuse to even acknowledge we were at war. Their arrogance has led to the spending of untold wealth seeking to reach a compromise with Islam. But Mohammed believed in war. His followers believe they can defeat any and all who don’t believe as they do. The conflict continues. One only needs to check the security lines at any public venue these days to understand how completely our freedoms have been destroyed.

President Trump successfully kept the United States from initiating a new conflict overseas during his entire term. But that doesn’t mean America was not drawn further into war. The President correctly reported to the people that America was under siege – we were at war. A war being waged in our homeland. A war being waged on three fronts; in the streets of our cities, in the leftist media in the chambers of government.

While political forces aligned to undermine the President and his election, subversive forces created false narratives about how unjust America is to – everyone who would join them in their cries for “social justice.” But no one can define what “social justice” means or who will benefit if it comes about. These forces gathered followers after each conflict with police was played up as another example of how unjust our laws were to – everyone who wanted “social justice.”

The violence and destruction grew. City after city surrendered to these anarchists demands for lawless zones where equality would reign supreme without fear of police brutality. The same politicians who had spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to destroy the President and the Constitution with falsified documents and perjured testimonies joined the chorus of media and celebrities vocalizing support for the protestors’ riots while strengthening their defenses and boarding up their businesses to reduce their own losses by looters.

When the President called for Americans to recognize that these self proclaimed “social justice warriors” were in fact engaged in an organized war on America, his political enemies seized the moment to decry him as having a phobia against everyone except rich white men like himself.

After a year of violent protests, property destruction and widely recorded looters running unchecked as police stood aside, President Trump was defeated in his bid for reelection. Those who had used his presidency as their excuse for protests should have cried victory. The war should have ended with the democrats taking charge of both houses of congress and the presidency.

But the riots continued in the very cities which voted for the new regime of Joe Biden and the democrats that were so supportive of the social justice warriors. Why?

Could it be those who are financing these riots are resolved to wage this war without compromise? Will the new regime even recognize these protesters as warriors seeking conquest of America?

Trump called it war. Will Joe Biden defend America or join those intent on plundering her riches?