Importing a new electorate by the millions

Under the guise of "fixing our broken immigration system," Barack Obama is importing and bribing a new electorate with government largesse in order to fundamentally transform the United States.

From: One News Now
              

by - Robert Knight - Tuesday, September 29, 2015

 

 

The White House has doubled down on its efforts to use massive immigration for political advantage.

On September 17, traditionally known as Constitution Day, the White House chose to highlight it as Citizenship Day, announcing a national campaign by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to naturalize legal immigrants and turn them into millions of new voters by 2016.

That's right. Tax dollars allotted to the agency responsible for safeguarding our borders and ensuring national security are being spent to facilitate a permanent political sea change next year. At the same time, liberals are pushing to extend amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

Reporting on the campaign, The New York Times noted that "about 60 percent of immigrants eligible to naturalize are Latino and about 20 percent are Asian, both groups that voted overwhelmingly for President Obama. Nearly a third of legal permanent residents eligible to naturalize are Mexican."

Since 1980, the Hispanic vote differential for Democratic presidential candidates has never been less than 18 percent (Democrat John Kerry v. President George W. Bush in 2004) and has averaged 33 percent.  With Hispanics making up more than 10 percent of the electorate and growing fast, this is no small advantage.

Asian voters, who once were typically anti-communist, Southeast Asian refugees who voted overwhelmingly Republican, now heavily favor Democrats. In 2012, nearly three-quarters of Asian-American voters, who represent three percent of the electorate, voted for President Obama.

These demographic trends bode well for Democrats – but for a White House looking to establish permanent, one-party rule, it is never enough. Hence, Homeland Security's campaign to naturalize 8.8-million green card holders as fast as possible.

Last November, President Obama created the White House Task Force on New Americans "as part of a series of executive actions to fix our broken immigration system."

J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department Voting Section attorney and a policy board member of the American Civil Rights Union, wrote on April 23 in PJMedia.com that, "DHS sources report that racial interest groups such as La Raza (translated to "The Race") and the American Immigration Lawyers Association have been playing a central and influential role in rewriting the administration's immigration policies – both the public policies as well as internal and largely unseen guidelines."

The National Council of La Raza's former senior vice president for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation, Cecilia Muñoz, an assistant to the president and director of the Domestic Policy Council, co-chairs the Task Force on New Americans.

"Her particular area of expertise is immigration policy, which she covered at NCLR [La Raza] for 20 years," says her White House web page. Her co-chair is Leon Rodriguez, who Mr. Adams said was "a central player in the radicalization of Eric Holder's Civil Rights Division."

With the country divided almost equally between the two major parties, a massive voter infusion of newly coined citizens could easily tip the balance, which is why Democrats relentlessly press for immigration amnesty while their media allies label any resistance to unlimited immigration as "hate," "bigotry" and "xenophobia."

DHS is funneling millions of tax dollars to groups that back amnesty and naturalization. The agency's Citizenship and Integration Grant Program has awarded $53 million through 262 competitive grants since 2009 to organizations in 35 states and the District of Columbia, according to its website.

Major grant recipients include Catholic Charities in several cities as well as various ethnic pressure groups in major urban areas all over the country. One perennial $250,000 grantee, Make the Road New York, recently sponsored the Fourth Annual TransLatina March to protest "Homotransphobia."

Over the past week, DHS's United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) offered practice tests on cellphones for citizenship tests, 70 workshops and 200 naturalization ceremonies.

America is a land of immigrants. Even Native Americans probably emigrated from Asia. And America has benefited from millions of legal immigrants who play by the rules and seek better lives.

Obama is importing and bribing a new electorate with government largesse in order to fundamentally transform the United States.

Immigration per se is not the issue. The combination of lawless immigration with ruthless political calculation, is.


God bless,
JohnnyD

 

 

 

 

 

America’s Forgotten (On Purpose) Christian History

From: Godfather Politics

September 24, 2015 by Gary DeMar

 

Islam is antithetical to Christianity and the founding of the United States. Anyone who is curious about America’s history should know this. But because of our government schools and the claim of religious neutrality (atheism), most public (government) school students have never been introduced to America’s Christian history. What follows is a small slice of that history.

The first order of business of the newly formed first United States Congress was to appoint chaplains. The Right Reverend Bishop Samuel Provost and the Reverend William Linn became publicly paid chaplains of the Senate and House respectively. Since then, both the Senate and the House have continued regularly to open their sessions with prayer. Nearly all of the fifty states make some provision in their meetings for opening prayers or devotions from guest chaplains. Few if any saw this as a violation of the First Amendment.

On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the oath of office with his hand on an open Bible. After taking the oath, he added, "I swear, so help me God." Following Washington's example, presidents still invoke God's name in their swearing-in ceremony.1

The inauguration was followed by "divine services" held in St. Paul's Chapel, "performed by the Chaplain of Congress."2 The first Congress that convened after the adoption of the Constitution requested of the President that the people of the United States observe a day of thanksgiving and prayer:

“That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.”

 

After the resolution's adoption, Washington then issued a proclamation setting aside November 26, 1789, as a national day of thanksgiving, calling everyone to "unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions."3

Prayers in Congress, the appointment of chaplains, and the call for days of prayers and thanksgiving do not stand alone in the historical record. The evidence is overwhelming that America has in the past always linked good government to religion – and, in particular, to Christianity. Constitutional scholars Anson Stokes and Leo Pfeffer summarize the role that the Christian religion played in the founding of this nation and the lofty position it has retained:

“Throughout its history our governments, national and state, have co-operated with religion and shown friendliness to it. God is invoked in the Declaration of Independence and in practically every state constitution. Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is universally observed as a day of rest. The sessions of Congress and of the state legislatures are invariably opened with prayer, in Congress by chaplains who are employed by the Federal government. We have chaplains in our armed forces and in our penal institutions. Oaths in courts of law are administered through use of the Bible. Public officials take an oath of office ending with ‘so help me God.’ Religious institutions are tax exempt throughout the nation. Our pledge of allegiance declares that we are a nation ‘under God.’ Our national motto is ‘In God We Trust’ and is inscribed on our currency and on some of our postage stamps.”4

After only a cursory study of the years leading up to and including the drafting of the Constitution and the inauguration of the first president, it becomes obvious that Christianity played a foundational role in shaping our nation.

It is not surprising that when courts had to define religion, they did so in terms of the Christian religion. In 1930 the Supreme Court declared, "We are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God."5 Further evidence of the role that Christianity played in the maintenance of our nation can be found in national pronouncements and inscriptions in our nation's capital.

 

Government Buildings and Inscriptions 

1. The words "In God We Trust" are inscribed in the House and Senate chambers.
2. The Jefferson Memorial includes these words from Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
3. Near the Rotunda of the Capitol there is a room set apart for prayer with passages from the Bible. A Bible, usually opened to Psalm 23, sits on the altar underneath the window.
   
4. "The Baptism of Pocahontas at Jamestown" (1613) hangs in the Capitol Rotunda.
5. The "Embarkation of the Pilgrims" (1620), which hangs in the Rotunda of the Capitol, shows Elder William Brewster holding a Bible opened to the title page which reads "The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." The words "God With Us" are inscribed on the sail of the ship.
   image: http://cdn3.godfatherpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Embarkation-of-the-pilgrims.png
   

   "Embarkation of the Pilgrims"
6. Engraved on the metal cap on the top of the Washington Monument are the words: "Praise be to God." Lining the walls of the stairwell are numerous Bible verses: "Search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), "Holiness to the Lord," and "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prov. 22:6).
7. The Latin phrase Annuit Coeptis, "[God] has smiled on our undertaking," is inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States.
8. The Liberty Bell has Leviticus 25:10 prominently displayed in a band around its top: "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto the inhabitants thereof."
   image: http://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/liberty-Bell.png
   

   Leviticus 25:10: "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto the inhabitants thereof."
9. President Eliot of Harvard chose Micah 6:8 for the walls of the Library of Congress: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth God require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God."
10. image: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/libn/visit/tours/online-tours/images/jefferson/main-reading-room/symbolic-statues/02081v_religion_pedantive_standard_300.Jpeg
    
11. The lawmaker's library quotes the Psalmist's acknowledgment of the beauty and order of creation: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
12. A relief of Moses hangs in the House Chamber. Moses is surrounded by twenty-two other lawgivers.
13. The crier who opens each session of the Supreme Court closes with the words, "God save the United States and the Honorable Court."
14. At the opposite end of the Lincoln memorial, words and phrases from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address allude to "God," the "Bible," "providence," "the Almighty," and "divine attributes."
15. A plaque in the Dirksen Office Building has the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" in bronze relief.image: http://cdn2.godfatherpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/In-God-we-trust.png
    
16. On the walls of the Capitol dome, these words appear: "The New Testament according to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
17. Each president takes his oath of office with his left hand placed on an open Bible and concludes the oath with these words: "So help me God." The Senate Doors (bronze) show George Washington taking the presidential oath with his hands on a Bible.image: http://cdn1.godfatherpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Washington-Oath_Bronze.jpg
    

It makes a difference that our coins are stamped with "In God We Trust" instead of "In Allah We Trust." It's important to note that the Library of Congress has a quotation from a Psalm, instead of a line from the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon.

1. Richard G. Hutcheson, Jr., God in the White House: How Religion Has Changed the Modern Presidency (New York: Macmillan, 1988), 37. image: http://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/72x72/21a9.png
2. Anson Phelps Stokes and Leo Pfeffer, Church and State in the United States (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 87. image: http://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/72x72/21a9.png
3. Quoted in Stokes and Pfeffer, Church and State in the United States, 87. image: http://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/72x72/21a9.png
4. Stokes and Pfeffer, Church and State in the United States, 102-103. image: http://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/72x72/21a9.png
5. United States vs. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 625 (1930).image: http://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/72x72/21a9.png

 

 

God bless,

JohnnyD

Does Moderate Islamic Ideology Exist?

From: Newsmax

by - Tawfik Hamid


One of the guiding principles of the Islamic State is that Muslims must fight non-Muslims all over the world and offer them the following choices: Join, pay a humiliating tax called “jijya,” or to be killed. This violent principle was the basic doctrine that justified the Islamic conquests by the early Muslims.

After recent savagery by ISIS and other militant groups around the world, the following question inevitably is raised: Is it possible to be a follower and not adhere to that mandate?

In other words, if a young Muslim became very religious, is there an approved Islamic theological source or interpretation that clearly contradicts such a principle or at least teaches it in a different way, for example, contextualizing it in time and place?

The sad answer is: No.

Typically, there are five sources for Islamic law. These are: the Koran — the Hadith of Prophet Muhammad (such as Sahih Al-Buchakry), the actions of the disciples of Mohamed (Sahaba), the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and the Tafseer or Interpretations of the Koran.

If a young Muslim whether the Islamic State is adhering to doctrine, the following shocking results would arise.

The literal understanding of the Koran 9:29 can easily be used to justify what extremists are doing.  "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humiliated."

The following Sahih (authentic) Hadith in Al-Buchakry also supports violent ideology.
"Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said No God other than, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

If the same young Sunni Muslim felt uncomfortable with the literal interpretations of such text a search for an answer in the actions of the Sahaba might ensue. Sadly, the Sahaba or Disciples of Muhammad were the ones who used such a principle to justify the Islamic conquests and subjugating non-Muslims to Islam.

The fourth source for Islamic law is the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence namely, Al-Shafeii, Al-Hanbali, Al-Hanafi, and Al- Maleki. These schools, without a single exception, support the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims and offer them the dire choices.

The fifth, and final hope for one searching for a different understanding of Koran 9:29 is to find an interpretation (or commentary) that interprets it differently.

A basic research on almost all approved interpretation for the Quran support the same violent understanding. More than leading 25 different approved Koran Interpretations that are usually used by Muslims to understand the Koran unambiguously support the violent understanding of the verse.

Saying that “Islam is the religion of peace” or condemning radicals as being “un-Islamic” without condemning the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam, is not just hypocritical, it is counterproductive as it hides the true cause of the problem and impedes the efforts to solve it.

It also dangerously ignores the seriousness of the problem. Similarly, not calling the “Islamic State” the Islamic State (to avoid using the word Islamic) as suggested by some Islamic scholars is not going to change the painful fact that ISIS is using an approved and unchallenged principle of the Islamic theology. Such scholars need to work on providing peaceful alternatives to the current violent theology instead of asking the world not use the label Islamic State.

There are many moderate Muslims; however, until the leading Islamic scholars provide peaceful theology that clearly contradicts the violent views of the Islamic State, the existence of moderate “Islam” must be questioned. 


God bless,
JohnnyD
 

Carson Doesn't Violate Constitution by Not Wanting a Muslim President

From: GOPUSA
 
By Bryan Fischer, OneNewsNow.com September 23, 2015
 
 
 
If Americans decide not to vote for a Muslim for president because of the obvious incompatibility of Islam with the Constitution, they have every right to do so. They can apply whatever religious test they want to.

Ben Carson has taken an enormous amount of heat from the low-information media and low-information Republicans regarding his assertion that he would not under any circumstances support the idea of a Muslim serving as president of the United States. He told Chuck Todd of NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday: "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

Carson compounded his problem in the eyes of the self-appointed cultural elites by doubling down when pressed. He told Fox News' Sean Hannity: "We don't put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the Constitution."

And of course, Dr. Carson is right. Islamic law flatly rejects every unalienable right enshrined in the First Amendment. Under Sharia law, there is no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly, and no right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. A Muslim president who was devout in his faith would represent a threat to every fundamental civil liberty that we cherish.

A pro-jihadist group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), was predictably outraged. "Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which clearly states that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,'" CAIR national executive director Nihad Awad said in a statement. "We call on our nation's political leaders – across the political spectrum – to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race."

The hypocrisy here makes your eyes water and your head hurt. CAIR first slams Carson for imposing a religious test for public office and then immediately imposes one on him and wants him tossed out of public life. They get to have their religious test but nobody else can have theirs. Double standard much?

The complaint that somehow Dr. Carson has violated the prohibition in Article VI of the Constitution against the imposition of a religious test is the silliest and most unconstitutional complaint of them all.

Here's how Article VI reads: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The first thing to observe here is that this is only a restriction on the federal government. It bans the federal government and the federal government only from requiring a candidate for public office to pass a religious test. In other words, only the federal government can violate Article VI. A candidate for public office couldn't violate Article VI even if he tried. It's not a restraint on candidates, it's a restraint on the federal government.

More to the point, it should be observed that the ban on a religious test is a ban on government, not on voters. While the federal government cannot apply a religious test, voters can use any religious test they want to.

If citizens decide not to vote for a Muslim for president because of the obvious incompatibility of Islam with the Constitution, they have every right to do so. Each voter is still entitled to think for himself and to place whatever value he wishes on the spiritual convictions of the various candidates.

It must also be observed that the Article VI restriction applies only to positions in the federal government. It was never intended to ban the use of religious tests at the state level. The phrase "the United States" is an explicit reference to the federal government - the United States - as opposed to the individual States in their individual sovereignty. States are free under the Founders' Constitution to impose any kind of religious test they want to.

At the time of the Founding, every single one of the individual states had a religious test for public office, and eight states still do today. This is perfectly constitutional, if we're using the Constitution as crafted by the Founders and not as mangled by the courts.

For instance, in the Pennsylvania constitution drafted by Benjamin Franklin, we find this section:

"And each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: 'I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governour of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration."

In other words, in early Pennsylvania an elected representative was not even allowed to vote on legislation without first affirming his faith in God and his belief in the inspiration of the entire Bible. This kind of religious test is entirely permissible under the Founders' Constitution.

In Delaware, at the very same time the federal constitution was adopted, things were even worse for our secular fundamentalist friends:

"Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: 'I ______ do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."

So in Delaware, a man was only allowed to vote on legislation after he first declared under oath that he was a Bible-believing Christian.

Thus Article VI did not prohibit all governments from using a religious test; it only prohibited the federal government from using one. Whatever spiritual and religious vetting of public servants was to be done was entrusted to the states and the states alone.

An additional test at the federal level was unnecessary, and would intrude on the right of states to decide, each one for itself, what its standards in this area should be.

Since it was customary for elected officials to begin their run for office at the state level, by the time they were in a position to run for federal office, they would already have been vetted for appropriate religious conviction.

Further, there was the practical matter of finding a religious test on which every state could agree, since each state had its own test and each one was different, even if only slightly, from the tests in other states.

Bottom line: voters can apply whatever religious test they want to. And when it comes to putting a Muslim in the White House, they should.


God bless,
JohnnyD
 

Don't Let Hillary Shift Blame for Obamacare's Failures

From: American Commitment

By Phil Kerpen - September 22, 2015


Health insurance premiums are rising because of Obamacare.  And there is still one year left of the assorted reinsurance programs designed to mask premium increases, suggesting next year’s jumps will be even more eye-popping.  That’s a political and logistical disaster for the Democrats who wrote the law and tied their political fortunes to its success.  But rather than admit their law is too restrictive and come to the table to negotiate bipartisan reforms, Democrats and their insurance industry allies have decided on a cynical strategy: scapegoating drug companies.

A clearly orchestrated roll-out telegraphed how central this strategy will be to everything Democrats and the insurance industry do through the 2016 election.  There are ballot measures being pursued in multiple key states by John Rother, a former AARP top lobbyist.  A top administration official, Marilyn Tavenner, has moved to the health insurance industry’s lobbying group to pilot the coordinated campaign, while a top insurance industry executive, Andy Slavitt, has been nominated to replace her as the Obamacare boss at CMS.  The liberal Kaiser Family Foundation has already released polling backing up the key themes. And Hillary Clinton has especially deep ties to the health insurance industry through a shared PR firm, the Dewey Square Group.

As Mrs. Clinton joined the health care fray, a coordinated media effort attacking drug companies materialized, led by both a news story bemoaning drug prices and an editorial calling for price controls in the New York Times among other liberal media outlets.

Mrs. Clinton promptly tweeted the conveniently timed Times article, adding: “Price gouging like this in the specialty drug market is outrageous. Tomorrow I'll lay out a plan to take it on.”  Of course, the plan is to call for price controls, while ignoring and downplaying the real Obamacare-created causes of rising insurance costs.

In short: the big health insurance companies have fully joined forces with the federal government, the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign to protect their massive taxpayer-funded subsidies and the government mandate to purchase their unpopular products.

With costs rising, this alliance fully intends to scapegoat drug companies and expand the reach of government control through a massive political and media effort.  Their goal is to avoid responsibility for Obamacare’s failures, score a presidential campaign victory, and keep the mandates and subsidies gravy train running.

As the Wall Street Journal observed last year: “The White House is thrilled that the industry has decided to misdirect the blame for rising health costs to the medicines that make up about nine cents of every U.S. health dollar, a share that is falling over time, rather than to ObamaCare.”

The damage done by applying price controls to prescription drugs will be catastrophic.  Developing new life-saving treatments is astronomically expensive.  The total cost of bringing a new drug to market is now $2.6 billion according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, in large part due to regulatory compliance expenses.  And for biotech drugs the costs can be even higher. 

When innovators are on the cusp of major advances in cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C cures, among others, regulations and government programs that arbitrarily limit the economic rewards for a major breakthrough will make it more difficult to raise capital, stunt innovation, and hurt patients who rely on new advances.

Proponents of genuine health care reform must take this challenge head on and defend the vital need to not only maintain but significantly improve incentives for developing new cures. Stronger international protections for intellectual property, a streamlined FDA approval process, and a commitment to stop any new domestic price control scheme, as well as efforts to fight to loosen foreign schemes so other countries pay a greater share of the cost of developing new drugs are just some of the solutions that must be pursued.

Unfortunately, the media is actively collaborating with the scapegoating scheme, designed by the insurance industry and its Democratic allies, which is already receiving favorable coverage.

Therefore, the eventual Republican presidential nominee needs to explain precisely how the corrupt alliance between the insurance industry and the Democrats works and why it so desperately wants to keep Obamacare with its mandate and subsidies.  He or she must also make clear that the way to improve health care is not to spread the tentacles of government control even further through price controls but precisely the opposite, to open up what Dr. Robert Graboyes has called the frontier of creativity and innovation that will allow us to escape from a corrupt, politicized, bureaucratized health care system into a much better, healthier, happier future.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Democrats to the White Working Class: We Hate You, Please Vote for Us

From: Patriot Update

by -Benny Huang - Friday, September 18, 2015

MSNBC host Chris Matthews and a panel of guests sneered at Appalachian whites last week on Matthews’s Hardball show. Speaking to Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Matthews said, “You had a piece in your paper the other day, about the Scots-Irish down in Southwestern Virginia. They’re white. Weren’t they kind of the people that went to the mountains? When they immigrated to the United States they went right to the rural areas. And they got an attitude!”

No one on Matthew’s panel betrayed the slightest self-consciousness when speaking in condescending tones about the white working class. It’s hard to imagine any of them speaking the same way about blacks with “attitude” living in urban areas.

“There is part of that white community that—they missed—they didn’t get to go to good colleges or college,” Matthews continued. “They feel like the Democrats have been focused on the elites and the minorities and they’ve been missed somehow.”

That’s because they have. Those working class whites Matthews speaks of, commonly known as “bitter clingers,” are making a slow but justifiable exit from the Democratic Party. When Democrats take a stand against coal, when they bring in boatloads of legal and illegal immigrants, when they make it difficult to exercise second amendment rights, when they support racial discrimination against whites (“affirmative action”), the message that the white working class hears is “not welcome.” And for good reason.

Liberals, who dominate the party and the media—two institutions that are often difficult to distinguish—have employed an effective pincer maneuver against the American majority. They launch their attack from above and below, appealing to the rich, but also to perpetual wards of the state, or what I call “the non-working class.” Liberals will never admit that such a class exists. Perpetual wards of the state are, in their estimation, still part of the working class…even though they don’t work.

It should be noted here that the white working class is not exclusively rural, Appalachian, or even southern. There are white working class people in all fifty states as well as in urban areas. The dwindling Irish Catholic population of South Boston is a good example of working class whites who are neither rural nor southern, though they have traditionally voted Democratic just the same.

This tight-knight, church-going community, whose sons went off to Vietnam in proportions far exceeding their numbers, were shocked to learn, in 1974, that their community would be torn apart by federally-mandated busing. This intra-Democratic fight pitted working class whites against wealthy liberals. The architects of the plan, if they had any kids at all, sent them to private or suburban schools, thus shielding them from busing. Many of those Southie-born Irish have since fled the city and changed party affiliation. South Boston has never been the same.

The relationship between the Democrats and the white working class is nuanced, to say the least. The Democratic Party is their traditional home and some working class whites continue to vote the ticket, if only because they’re descended from a long line of Democrats. Many liberals, particularly white male liberals, like to brag of their working class background, even if they jettisoned it long ago or it never really existed in the first place. See Bruce Springsteen and Michael Moore.

Even Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses after the Supreme Court invented a right to same-sex marriage, was elected as a Democrat. Davis was falsely tagged as a Republican in a recent New York Times story. The reporters in this instance assumed that she was a Republican because New Yorkers can’t imagine a person like Davis voting Democrat. It’s weird, I know. In Kim Davis’s neck of the woods, “Democrat” is not synonymous with moonbat leftist.

The party apparatus still wants the white working class’s support because a vote’s a vote and a win’s a win. Unfortunately, these working class whites tend to be more moderate which poses a problem for the urban elite who dominate the modern liberal establishment. They don’t want to tolerate a contingent within the party that might temper its platform.

The Democratic Party is consequently roiled by a quiet civil war that no one wants to acknowledge. Don’t be fooled for a moment, however, into thinking that the war is fought between the liberal elite and the white working class. The white working class doesn’t have enough clout in the party to stand as a belligerent in this conflict. It’s a war between those who still want to make a bid for the white working class vote and those who find them so embarrassing that they’d prefer to send them packing.

Hillary Clinton made a bid for the white working class vote in 2008 and she’s been paying for it ever since. The media are actually quite critical of Mrs. Clinton, treating her almost like a Republican. The Clinton email server saga has not been dismissed as a “phony scandal” as most Democratic scandals are. Why might that be? My theory is that Hillary made the fourth estate very angry in 2008 when she campaigned against their preferred candidate, Barack Obama, and she has not yet earned her way back into their good graces.

The Clinton campaign made an effort to appeal to more traditional Democrats—a category which includes, but is not limited to, the white working class—while the Obama campaign courted the youth vote, minorities, and unabashed progressives. It was a big gamble on Hillary’s part and she lost. There just weren’t enough traditional Democrats in the party in 2008 and there are even fewer today. The party of the Kennedy brothers and Daniel Patrick Moynihan is now the party of Valerie Jarrett and Terrence Bean.

Perhaps Hillary thought she could replicate her husband’s successful campaigns of ’92 and ’96. Now there was a man who could speak to white working class audiences, probably because that’s where his roots lay. Hillary, however, is a Chicago girl from an upper middle class background.

In 2008, Hillary found out that she couldn’t ride to victory with Clintonian overtures to the white working class, either because they weren’t that enthused about her, or because the demographics of the party had shifted. Both factors were probably in play.

Hillary lost more than just the nomination. She lost the adoration of the liberal elite which she still hasn’t won back. They won’t forgive her for pandering to what they perceive to be the worst elements of the party—the Kim Davis wing, the Southie Irish wing, the bitter clingers.

The Democratic Party is suffering from something of an identity crisis. A vestigial constituency group truly embarrasses them to the point that they often can’t hide their disdain when speaking of them, yet they still need their vote. The party is sharply divided as to whether this demographic group, which is already halfway out the door, is worth keeping.

God bless,

JohnnyD

 

Our Teacher, the Constitution

From: TownHall

by - Adam Carrington | Sep 17, 2015


Each semester, I teach a course on the U.S. Constitution. In it, my students and I spend 15 weeks discussing the Constitution’s underlying principles and the meaning of its various clauses and amendments.

I love teaching the class. However, as we remember Constitution Day this Sept. 17, I wonder: Are we wasting our time? After all, what can words from 1787 really say to us in 2015? How can their time of horses and quill pens be relevant to our era of jets and iPads? 

In other words, why should we teach the Constitution? Because, despite the differences in time and circumstance, we have so much to learn from it. For when we teach the Constitution, we don’t really teach it so much as it teaches us. 

That the Constitution teaches the American people at first sounds strange. After all, wasn’t it “We the People” who “ordained and established” it? Isn’t it “We the People” whose will it enacts? 

Yes on both accounts. But the Constitution’s role as teacher comes in understanding why “We the People” approved of it and how “We the People” pursue our will through it. 

Simply put: the Constitution does more than serve as our means for self-government; the Constitution teaches us how to govern ourselves well.

The Constitution teaches self-government in numerous ways. First, the Constitution reminds us that we do ultimately govern ourselves. The Preamble does begin “We the People,” not “We the Government,” “We the Aristocrats,” or, most thankfully, “We the Politicians.” That fact, which begins the entire document, declares self-government to be our permanent right as equal human beings, not the revocable gift of royalty, academics, or any other supposed elite. 

Second, the Constitution reminds us that this great right is also a great responsibility. As we possess the right to self-government, so we possess the duty to govern ourselves well. Thus, the Constitution reminds us of the proper goals a well-governed, self-governed people pursue. The Preamble goes on to declare that we establish the Constitution for certain ends. Among these ends are “to … establish justice” and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Good self-government does not seek any end whatsoever; it seeks goals like justice and liberty. These comprise objective goods that a self-governed people should contemplate and pursue.

Notice, too, that the Constitution does not claim to create justice or to bestow liberty. Justice exists apart from human invention, part of the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” as the Declaration of Independence says. Liberty, as the Declaration continues, is one of our “inalienable rights” stemming from that law. The Constitution, then, does not create but instead seeks to establish and secure these great purposes for human life. 

Third, the Constitution teaches us how to pursue these goals in ways that make their attainment more likely. It does so by requiring us to rule ourselves through law. Rule by law means our government does not act upon the capricious whims of anyone, including ourselves. Instead, laws establish consistent rules, known to everyone and applicable to everyone, even those we elect to the highest offices. 

Moreover, in the Constitution we do not rule by law directly but through the means of institutions such as Congress, the presidency, and the judiciary. Each institution exercises a particular power (legislative, executive, and judicial) with its own relationship to rule by law. Each institution, in its relationship to the law, can teach by example some facet of proper self-government. Congress, through lawmaking, can show us how deliberating well leads to just, free laws. The presidency, in law enforcement, reminds us that action is necessary for justice to be established and liberty preserved; for law, like talk, is cheap if not defended. Finally, the judiciary can exemplify the careful reasoning we all should employ to guard law’s rule — and thus the justice and liberty it seeks — from violation.

Fourth and finally, in the Bill of the Rights the Constitution reminds us of liberty and justice’s content. The First Amendment, for example, reminds us that secured liberty includes the ability to speak and worship as we see fit. The Eighth, for another, reinforces established justice by demanding that punishments fit the crime. Together, these and the rest of the first ten amendments comprise a primer of justice and liberty, one which we consult to our gain and ignore to our loss. 

For these reasons and more I will continue to teach the Constitution. Or, more accurately, the Constitution will continue to instruct me and my students in the principle and practice of self-government. This Sept. 17, as we celebrate this great document, I hope you will let the Constitution teach you as well. 


God bless,
JohnnyD
 

The Establishment Birthed Trump

From: GOP USA

By David Limbaugh September 15, 2015


Much of the establishment's criticism of Donald Trump comes from its failure to comprehend the reasons for his soaring popularity.

Establishment types seem untroubled by the problems facing America, so they can't understand the urgency that fathered Trump's rise. Minor adjustments to the Hindenburg's dining room menu just aren't going to get it.

Their overwrought analysis, their hand-wringing and their contemptuousness for Trump betray a disdain not only for Trump but for Americans who recognize the gravity of America's predicament -- and who, in desperation, have turned to Trump for bold action.

It's hard to overstate Americans' concern for the state of the nation. Horrified by President Obama's Sherman-esque march through America, they are tired of hearing that nothing can be done. They are through with empty promises from establishment politicians.

People are tired of Obama's pitting blacks against whites, women against men, gays against heterosexuals, rich against poor, non-taxpayers against taxpayers, citizens against cops and non-Christians against Christians. They can no longer stomach Obama's apologizing for America and excusing terrorists while rushing to attack Christians at every turn.
People are sick of being called racists for things that happened in this country before they were born or before they could vote, for opposing Obama's destructive agenda, or for simply being Republicans. They abhor the war on cops orchestrated by racial hucksters and pandering politicians. They are incredulous that any president would deliberately engineer America's decline and degrade our military. They are tired of the nation's chief executive officer's flouting laws and thwarting the people's will.

Americans are sick of Obama's trashing America's founding, assaulting capitalism, and bellowing about man-made global warming as a pretense to impose more liberty-smothering regulations. They are nauseated by politicians who are more interested in bipartisanship with scofflaws than with saving the nation.

People are mortified by the nation's fiscal instability, its unbridled national debt, its spiraling entitlements and Washington's refusal to address them. They are sick of the fraudulent spending "cuts." They have had their fill of the lies, especially about Obamacare, whose costs dwarf Obama's promised projections and are getting worse. They've reached their limit with this administration's rewarding unemployment and punishing work, its honoring socialism and demonizing capitalism.

People are sick of politically correct bullies. They are exhausted by lectures about not paying their fair share when half the income earners don't pay income taxes. They are fed up with lies about decreasing unemployment rates when tens of millions have dropped out of the workforce.

Every other week, we face a new existential threat to the nation -- threats perpetrated or enabled by Obama and the Washington establishment. But the establishment meets these perils with barely disguised indifference. Islamic terrorism is overrunning the Middle East and has reached our mainland, and Obama doesn't dare whisper its name. Obama refuses to enforce the borders; he orders his administration not to enforce immigration laws; he lawlessly grants amnesty to millions of immigrants who are here illegally; and he and his party set up sanctuary cities that harbor criminal immigrants.

Last year, we faced an invasion from Central America; now, in the name of compassion, we are inviting in Syrian refugees -- some 72 percent of whom are curiously men. Are we afraid to wonder aloud whether those who sidestep the legal immigration process will embrace the American idea? Whether they will end up on the welfare rolls?

With Congress' help, Obama bypassed the Constitution's treaty clause and entered into a reckless, non-verifiable nuke deal with Iran and will give the Iranians a $150 billion signing bonus to fund terrorism and build ballistic missiles.

So where does that leave us?

People have heard one too many times that the Republican Party, if it regains control, will turn things around. Republicans have been so timid in opposing Obama's agenda that many have quit believing they'll reverse this madness if they acquire full control.

Along comes Trump, who gives voice to these legitimate grievances instead of calling people racist, selfish or hysterical. He emphasizes the urgency of these problems, and he denounces the status quo, the establishment, Washington inertia and political correctness without an ounce of apology. People are dehydrated, and he's their Gatorade.

Whether Trump could or would deliver on his promises is one thing, but the establishment's arrogant failure to acknowledge, let alone decry the horror of, the status quo is his lifeblood. If Trump is a monster, the establishment is Dr. Frankenstein, so please spare us the lectures.

I happen to prefer other candidates, and certain things about Trump make me nervous; but I appreciate that he is shaking things up, and I refuse to belittle Trump's supporters for believing he would be more effective than many of his establishment rivals. Our forefathers' precious gift of liberty to us is not self-sustaining, and if we don't quit kicking it to the curb, it will leave us, never to return.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Democracy or Republic? What Difference Does It Make?

From: Freedom Outpost

by -Karen Lees September 6, 2015

We learned it in school. America is a democracy, right? It's stated as a fact in third grade social studies textbooks. Politicians give speeches about our great democracy. We hear it on TV, radio, in political debates, and from the White House. We even aspire to spread democracy around the world. 

But is it true? Is our form of government a democracy? Say the pledge of allegiance. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic…" There's that pesky word Republic. How did that word get in there? 

 

Democracy or republic - what's the difference? The two words mean the same thing, right? No. There's a big difference between a democracy and a republic. The framers of our U.S. Constitution knew the difference very well. 

Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
As James Madison stated, "Democracies are…as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Or John Adams, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
 
Throughout history, democracies have never lasted long. Once the people learned they could vote themselves money from the public treasury – or from their neighbor's pocketbook - democracies ultimately created their own demise by establishing an incentive for the people to divide against one another. 

Does this sound familiar? We find ourselves in America today, on the road to mass democracy. This was not the founder's original intent. 

Democracy, or rule by majority, eventually devolves into "tyranny of the masses" or "mob rule." Historically, ancient Greece and Rome provided plenty of evidence of this violent tyranny. America's founders wisely took note and avoided a direct democracy when contemplating what form of government they would establish. 

So exactly what is a republic? It is a type government with two very important distinctions.

1. In our republic, it is recognized that power is inherent in the people, but is carried out by our elected representatives. The election process is the part of our government that is referred to as democratic in nature, or "rule by majority."
2. Individuals are protected by fixed laws, or a social contract. Our social contract is the Constitution, which established the rule of law, based on the principles of liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence. These two founding documents define the parameters of our social contract – the standard by which all laws should be written.

So, our republic is majority rule by the people through their chosen representatives, with adherence to the social contract, which protects the individual by recognizing and securing natural or inherent rights. It could be summed up by modifying Franklin's description: "A republic is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch, but with the stipulation that none of the three can be on the menu." 

This form of government has been duplicated in other countries, but failed because it lacked one important ingredient. America's unprecedented success has depended entirely upon the moral character and the active involvement of the people to maintain our republic. 

John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
 
In September of 1787, Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall in Philadelphia after signing the Constitution. Mrs. Elizabeth Powel greeted him and asked, "Dr. Franklin, what have you given us? A monarchy or a republic?" Franklin replied, "A republic madam, if you can keep it."
 
So why do we continually hear that we live in a democracy? Why didn't Mrs. Powel ask Franklin if the signers had given us a "democracy or a republic"? 

It is important to understand that the founders and citizenry in early America used a very different language than the "politically correct" speech we hear today. Each word was chosen carefully and with precision in order to communicate accurately. Because of the unbearable tyranny they were experiencing at the time, it was necessary to be articulate, and deliberately speak the language of liberty. 

In modern day America, we can learn to speak the language of liberty once again. It is a positive language full of promise. Democracies divide, but republics unite. To speak of a republic is speaking the language of liberty. We must learn it in order to keep our republic. Otherwise, we will lose it.


God bless,
JohnnyD

 

10 Great Moments In Government Idiocy: The Obama Years Edition

From: Town Hall Magazine

by - John Hawkins | Sep 08, 2015


When future generations of Americans look back at the Obama years and try to figure out why government was so dysfunctional, they shouldn’t discount the most obvious answer: The Democrat Party is run by idiots who would struggle with managing a child’s lemonade stand. What follows is a teaspoonful of stupid in the ocean full of “Derp” that are the Obama years. 

1) They Bring Illegal Aliens Into The United States: One of the most fundamental jobs of the U.S. government is securing our borders in order to keep foreigners from entering our nation at will. Not only has the Obama Administration completely and utterly failed at that task, it has created “family reunification programs” that fly illegal aliens INTO America so they can be with their relatives who have already broken the law to be here. You’ve heard of the fox guarding the henhouse; well, under the Obama Administration, we have the smugglers guarding the border. 

2) Guam Might Tip Over: During a House Armed Services Committee meeting in 2010, Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson had a somber, serious, dry conversation with an admiral about the danger of Guam becoming overpopulated and CAPSIZING. Despite that rather spectacular and well publicized bit of idiocy, Democrat voters have voted Johnson back into office THREE TIMES since then.

3) Trust, But Don’t Verify With Iran: In a move that seems likely to create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, Barack Obama cut a deal with the Iranians that allows them to inspect their own military sites and declare that they’re not working on nuclear weapons. This is so stupid it sounds like something from a cartoon, but rest assured, real human beings who were put in charge of things actually agreed to this stipulation. 

4) Choose A Tax Cheat For Treasury Secretary: In a nation of 318 million people, the one person Obama wanted to be in charge of our tax code was tax cheat Timothy Geithner. When even the man who’s ultimately in charge of the IRS cheats on his taxes, what message does that send to the rest of the country? When the President chooses a tax cheat to be head of the Treasury, what does it tell Americans about the rule of law? It tells them that laws are for little people while the “elite” can do whatever they want. That’s a message the Obama Administration has repeated so many times that it has become a theme of the Democrat Party. 

5) EPA Facilitates Mine Spill: While examining a gold mine in Colorado, the EPA managed to accidentally dump a million gallons of toxic sludge into the Animas River in Colorado. Essentially, it was like that scene from Ghostbusters where EPA agent Walter Peck releases ghosts all over the city, except with a disgusting yellow death spew. 

6) Pass It To Find Out What’s In It: Nancy Pelosi told the American people that, "We have to pass the (Obamacare) bill so that you can find out what is in it," and bizarrely, that turned out to be true because almost every promise that was made about the Affordable Care Act was a lie. What a way to govern a nation!

7) Offer The Reset Button: Hillary Clinton, who is considered a serious candidate for President despite her unbroken record of ignominy and failure, offered the Russian foreign minister a button that was supposed to say “Reset.” Instead, it actually read “overcharge” in Russian. The State Department couldn’t even manage to translate a single word in Russian correctly under Hillary Clinton’s leadership. So let’s make her President!

8) Enact Cash For Clunkers: In a bizarre move designed to shore up the auto industry and reduce pollution, the government doled out 3 billion dollars in incentives to convince Americans to buy new cars. So, what happened? The taxpayers were out 3 billion, the auto industry LOST MONEY because people bought significantly cheaper cars than expected and in a flourish of legendary stupidity, the government destroyed all the used cars that were turned in. Not only did that keep the cars out of the hands of poor Americans who could have potentially used the vehicles, it caused a huge spike in used car prices. Cash for Clunkers could have just as easily been called Dumb-Dumbs For Disaster.

9) The JV Team Defeats Obama And Takes Over Part Of Iraq: Despite the fact that we’ve had troops in nations like Japan and Germany for 70 years, after Bush’s surge pacified Iraq, Obama engineered a complete pull-out of American troops. As a result, ISIS, which he had previously referred to as the “JV Team” has now taken control of a significant chunk of Iraq and Syria. All the blood, sweat and tears Americans shed over Iraq and it was all thrown away because Obama was too stupid to leave a few thousand soldiers in Iraq to help with intelligence, logistics, leadership and training. 

10) Who Needs To Read The Bills? During the debate over Obamacare, Americans learned Democrats aren’t even reading the bills they’re supporting anymore when John Conyers said,

"I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.' What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

When the same people who tell you that giving more power to government is the solution to every problem admit they aren’t even reading legislation that impacts the lives of every American before they support it, it tells you a lot about why America has become so dysfunctional with Democrats in charge. 


God bless,
JohnnyD

Newsalert White Folks Will Riot Pastor Manning

Turn on your speakers and listen carefully!

God bless,

JohnnyD

Dr Manning Calls Obama a Long Legged Mac Daddy!

 

Turn on your speakers and listen carefully!

God bless,

JohnnyD