Talk Straight

Posts tagged Constitution

28 notes

Pentagon Threatens To Court Martial Troops Who Share Their Christian Faith…

What the???

From Breitbart:

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians–including chaplains–sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.

What kind of crap is this?

I mean, it’s one thing if military members are going door to door in uniform and trying to convert people-that is not a role of the military nor would it be representative of the military as a whole- but ‘sharing’ their faith??  What the hell does that mean?

So can Christian servicemen and women be court martialed for having a prayer meeting? For wearing a crucifix or how about being a military pastor? There is an actual MOS for military pastors so are they going to disband that, shutter the doors of all the churches on base, relieve all pastors serving in a combat zone of duty and court martial them if they continue to provide services?

Also, how the hell can Christians be considered enemies of the Constitution??  They take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution which includes Freedom of Religion! 

For Christ’s sake! The First Amendment of the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now I understand that many of you may say, “But TS! Congress is not prohibiting religious freedom-the Pentagon is!”

True enough but again, the military has a duty and has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution…which would include religious freedom. While the Pentagon may be able to restrict some forms of freedom of speech. such as making political statements publicly while in uniform, but they cannot classify a Constitutional right as a crime…which they would have to do in order for someone to be court martialed.

And why is it only Christians that are being targeted for these new “Religious Crimes?”

For example, in 2002, a female fighter pilot stationed in Saudi Arabia reported that the Pentagon made it mandatory off-base dress for military women to wear a Muslim head-to-toe garment called an abaya..Isn’t this promoting a religious belief?

In 2010, a Jewish rabbi sued the Army for refusing to allow him to wear a beard, as dictated by his religious beliefs, yet they allowed Sikh and Muslim clerics to grow beards in accord to their religious faiths. Wouldn’t wearing a beard for religious reasons in uniform be ‘promoting and sharing’ a religion?

Another incident involved U.S. commanders in Afghanistan which allowed and, in some instances, encourages United States military women to remove their helmet while on official military missions and don the Muslim hijab and/or wear the hijab as a uniform item under their helmets or around their necks.Wouldn’t this be promoting and supporting a particular religion as well?

Then in 2011, CAIR (of course) wrote a letter to the Department of Defense demanding that the Army allow Muslim and Sikh students participating in Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) be allowed wear headscarves and turbans while in uniform. In response, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Larry Stubblefield wrote:

“Based on your concerns, the Army has reviewed its JROTC uniform policy and will develop appropriate procedures to provide Cadets the opportunity to request the wear of religious head dress, such as the turban and hijab,” Stubblefield wrote in the letter, made public by CAIR.

Yet it is only Christians who are being labeled ‘spiritual rapists’, “Enemies of the Constitution” and are guilty of treason and having their religious freedom threatened.
This is not only ridiculous but it’s shameful and disgusting. 
If you had any doubt that the Constitution was under attack, consider this your wake up call.

Filed under politics religion military constitution treason 1st amendment department of defense dod pentagon liberal liberals progressive democrat conservative republican christian

11 notes

Hey man. Your folk never used all this sheit [sic] to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed [sic], imported criminal-minded kin folk

Joseph Mitchell, a Democratic black member of the Alabama legislature, in a written response to one of his constituents who wrote him and simply requested he, and the other members of the Alabama legislature, keep state gun laws in step with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

What a classy guy.  Oh right, he’s a leftist Democrat.  That’s what he probably considers an articulate debate.

Filed under politics guns gun control constitution alabama liberal liberals progressive democrat asshat

14 notes

The Second Amendment States:…..

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now as everyone knows, there has recently been talk of a so-called “assault weapons” ban, a ban on certain ammunition magazines and the limitation of either other firearms and/or firearm accessories.

The anti-gun Flying Monkeys insist the government has the right to limit the people’s access to these items since, to use their argument, they aren’t needed for ‘hunting’ and they are not taking away all firearms.

But does that go in line with the 2nd Amendment?

As stated above, the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

Now I already made a post explaining what ‘arms’ are so I’m not going to go into that.  You can read that here if you want.

What I am going to address is the last part. What does “infringed” even mean?

Let’s look at that.

According to the Free Dictionary, ‘infringe’ means:

To encroach on someone or something

Great. So what the hell does ‘encroach’ mean?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, to ‘encroach’ means:

to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

Huh. “To enter by gradual steps or stealth into the possessions or rights of another.”

Call me crazy but that sounds an awful lot like what Dianne “Hunger Games” Feinstein is proposing.

By limiting Americans access to semi-automatic weapons (and that’s what they are-they aren’t “assault weapons”), she is encroaching on our rights to own that type of property and the other property/accessories associated with them. In fact, she is ‘infringing” on our rights through gradual steps.

Furthermore, while states have the authority to ‘regulate’ firearms, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that the Federal Government does not.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Supreme Court ruled on several occasions that the 2nd Amendment did not bar state regulation of firearms, considering the amendment to be “a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government and not upon that of the States”.

But even the state’s ability to regulate weapons is limited since the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments, as well.

So the steps taken by fear-mongerers, like Dianne Feinstein, do infringe upon our rights and upon the property we have the right as Americans to possess.

As Americans we have the right to defend ourselves, whether from the criminal down the street or from an overbearing government, and we are ensured that the ability to do so shall not be taken away from the same overbearing government that we need to be vigilant of.

These new weapon proposals are not only wrong but they are unconstitutional.

Molon Labe!

Filed under guns politics gun control 2nd amendment constitution democrat liberal liberals progressive conservative rights firearms

18 notes

This is not a fair fight because Ted Cruz is not going to beat Dianne Feinstein on a question of constitutionality.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Let’s see here, we have Ted Cruz, a brilliant Harvard educated Constitutional lawyer who has authored more than 80 Supreme Court briefs and presented more than 40 oral arguments, including nine before the Supreme Court itself, and also served as law clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist.

Then we have Dianne “It’s legal to hunt humans” Feinstein, who has been in the Senate for decades and could fit her knowledge of the Constitution on the tip of a pin.

I think I’ll put my money on Cruz.

Filed under gun control politics constitution law ted cruz cruz dianne feinstein feinstein liberal liberals guns progressive conservative democrat

12 notes

Lefties Keep Telling Me Part 2…

…that the 2nd Amendment is ‘outdated’ and needs to be either changed or ignored because the Founders were either referring to muskets when they wrote it and/or unable to imagine the type of weapon we use today.

Well, let’s take a look at that.

The Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

I’m not going to go into the militia thing because the arguments I hear have nothing to do with that.

So, according to the 2nd Amendment, people have the right to bear arms. What are arms then?

According to the Free Dictionary, the definition of ‘Arms”, as used in this context, is:

A weapon, especially a firearm.

Okay. So what’s a firearm?

According to, a firearm is:

A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

So, it seems that the people have a right to have a weapon that is capable of firing a projectile using an explosive charge as a propellant.

Huh.  It didn’t say “musket”.  It just says “a weapon”.

And that’s where it comes together.

Leftists are right in one regard.  The Founders probably weren’t able to imagine the type of weapons we would have today….which is why they used the generic term “arms” to describe what Americans have a right to own.

See, the Founders weren’t idiots.  They knew that, through invention and technological advancement, weapons would evolve and change from the arms they had when they wrote this-otherwise the 2nd Amendment would have read “The right of the people to keep and bear muskets, flintlocks and swords”.

By using the generic term “arms” they included the weapons, the ‘arms’, that were not yet invented but would still be a right for Americans to own.  They realized that future generations of Americans would need the new weapons, the updated arms, that this government and others would possess in order to protect themselves and prevent tyranny from arriving on our shores.

Just like the 1st Amendment continues to protect free speech, while the Founders had no concept of the internet or mass media, the 2nd Amendment conforms to the tools of the day-not just the tools of the day it was written.

So next time some anti-gun pansy tries pulling out the “muskets” argument, just laugh and point because it’s obvious they’re talking out their asses.

Filed under gun control guns 2nd amendment politics constitution liberal liberals democrat progressive conservative

6 notes

Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan: Americans “Common Values” Trump Second Amendment Rights…

Americans value their children, their safety, and the right to pursue their dreams without fear — and those “common values” trump the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said last Friday in a speech at a Washington, D.C., elementary school.

Why do these idiots keep beating around the bush and chipping away at the Constitution?  Why don’t they just admit that their intention is to trash the Constitution completely and establish an all-seeing, all-knowing government Nanny State with everyone but them under the brutal “but caring” thumb of The Man?

Common values? Where have I hear something like that before? Any idea, Comrade?

Filed under politics 2nd amendment liberals gun control obama arne duncan constitution progressive democrat conservative

82 notes

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News


1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution. (good)

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote. (Not too hot on this one)

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. (I get to keep more of the money I earn? Awesome!)

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. (I never heard of this one and doubt it’s even possible)

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year. (good)

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.(Government should not be involved in marriage period.  But does this mean only one man and one woman, in all 50 states, can get married? That’s kinda nutty)

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.(perfect)

Filed under Rick Perry Republicans Constitution Politics Government Legislation Election 2012 2012 President

3 notes

Under Pressure From ACLU, Hawaii Senate Ends Daily Prayer…or religious persecution is cool if it’s against Christians

Fearing a possible court challenge, Hawaii’s state Senate has voted to silence the daily prayer offered before each session began — making it the first state legislative body in the nation to halt the practice.

A citizen’s complaint had prompted the American Civil Liberties Union last summer to send the Senate a letter noting that its invocations often referenced Jesus Christ, contravening the separation of church and state.

That prompted the state attorney general’s office to advise the Senate that their handling of prayers — by inviting speakers from various religions to preach before every session — wouldn’t survive a likely court challenge, said Democratic Majority Leader Brickwood Galuteria.

“Above all, our responsibility is to adhere to the Constitution,” Galuteria said after Thursday’s vote to halt the daily blessings.

A three-member Senate committee formed to evaluate the issue recommended allowing nonsectarian, nonpolitical invocations that avoided references to deities, but the legislative body decided to do away with prayers altogether rather than constrain them.

“They (the ACLU) continue to threaten governments with lawsuits to try to force them into capitulating to their view of society,” said Brett Harvey, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, made up of Christian lawyers to defend free faith speech. “Governments should take a stand for this cherished historical practice.”

More here

Filed under ACLU Christianity lawsuit Constitution progressives discrimination

2 notes

Great news: Elected officials know less about the Constitution than the public…or who cares? It’s just an outdated rag written by greedy white guys

By Ed Morrisey

So claims the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which just concluded a five-year study on the American public’s knowledge of its foundational legal document.  The bad news: the general public gets an F, with just a 54% average on the 33-question civics test.  The worse news: those who identified themselves as public officeholders scored an average of five points worse than the general public:

The survey asks 33 basic civics questions, many taken from other nationally recognized instruments like the U.S. Citizenship Exam. It also asks 10 questions related to the U.S. Constitution.

So what did we find? Well, to put it simply, the results are not pretty.

Elected officials at many levels of government, not just the federal government, swear an oath to “uphold and protect” the U.S. Constitution.

But those elected officials who took the test scored an average 5 percentage points lower than the national average (49 percent vs. 54 percent), with ordinary citizens outscoring these elected officials on each constitutional question. Examples:

  • Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.
  • Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war — 54 percent of the general public knows that.
  • Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase “wall of separation” appears in Thomas Jefferson’s letters — not in the U.S. Constitution — compared with 19 percent of the general public.
  • And only 57 percent of those who’ve held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for “training those aspiring for higher political office.”)

There are a couple of caveats about this test. First, the sample for the general public was a robust 30,000 respondents, but the subsample of elected officials only comprised 165 of those. That is a pretty small group from which to extrapolate conclusions about the entire population of elected officials.

Still, these results are less than confidence-building, aren’t they? Of the 165, 33 apparently thought the Electoral College was a school.  Over 80 of the elected officials couldn’t name the three branches of federal government.  The “wall of separation” quote causes quite a few errors in public discourse, most recently in the gotcha question asked of Christine O’Donnell, and to be fair, some Presidents have had some trouble understanding that the power to declare war belongs in the legislature and not the executive branch.

In one sense, this demonstrates that elections don’t always promote our best and brightest — but then again, most of us already knew that much.  But it does call into question how we can expect elected representatives to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States” when many of them appear not to comprehend it — and when many of us don’t comprehend it, either.  The biggest lesson here is that we need to do a much better job of teaching the Constitution in primary education … and that maybe a reading of the Constitution at the beginning of the session of Congress ought to be a regular event, with mandatory attendance.

Via Hot Air

Filed under Constitution elected officials government

3 notes

Liberals Mock Conservatives’ Constitutional “Fetish”…or if we didn’t write it, and it’s under 2,000 pages, it has to be flawed

On Thursday, the House of Representatives will open with a new procedure: the reading of the U.S. Constitution. The founding document doesn’t seem controversial, but the mere action of reading it aloud is already drawing ire from liberals.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein recently weighed in on the debate, telling MSNBC‘s Norah O’Donnell that reading the document aloud “a gimmick” and that “the issue of the Constitution is not that people don‘t read the text and think they’re following; the issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.”

Also with the Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne lamented that the tea party movement has treated the Constitution as “the equivalent of sacred scripture” and offered “widely admired Revolutionary historian” Gordon Wood’s testimony that the founding document is little more than a “collection of shrewd political compromises” from men whose thinking was full of “passion, ignorance, and foolishness.”

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., echoed Dionne’s assessment, condemning the “ritualistic reading” as “total nonsense” and “propaganda.“ The Founders were not ”demigods,” Nadler sneered, calling the Constitution “highly imperfect.”

“You are not supposed to worship your constitution. You are supposed to govern your government by it,” he said.

More here


That’s right, Congressman Nadler, we are supposed to govern our government by the Constitution. 

Unfortunately, the 111th Congress, and many before it, have done everything they could to make the Constitution, and the principles this country was founded on, irrelevent in order to grow the government into an insatiable monster.  I, for one, more than believe it’s time we return to our nation’s original principles and ideals.

Filed under Constitution Congress Founding Fathers democrats liberals progressives

1 note

The Transportation Security Administration Has Gone Too Far - Citizens Have Recourse…or how to keep other people’s hands off your junk

I am sure many Americans preparing to travel on Thanksgiving are having second thoughts about flying, because of the well publicized new so called security procedures implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).  Clearly, the groping of babies and grandmothers for explosives is a waste of resources.  The question citizens should be asking is what can I do about it.  There are a few things…

…First, the Constitution provides all Americans with protection against unreasonable searches.  A lawsuit may be one appropriate means to attack the TSA groping and full body scan policy.  The United States Code provides a statute to enable Americans to sue the federal government for the TSA’s activities at 42 U.S.C. 1983:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

…The new “pat-downs” and full body scans go to far and Americans have expressed outrage about these new procedures.  Groping and full body scans are being done under the color of law by Secretary Napolitano.  There seems to be no probable cause or any other reasonable standard met before travellers are threatened with full body searches.  Maybe it is time for those who have been groped to sue.  An element that has to be proven is ”the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”  Is an invasive search of an individual reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  An individual does not tacitly consent to a strip search or groping by virtue of buying a ticket to fly on a plane.  If so, why would people be so mad about these searches over the past few weeks?…

…Secretary Napolitano argues this in her  USA Today piece that people need to shut their mouths about these invasive searches:

And we ask the American people to play an important part of our layered defense. We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.

This is a demand for cooperation and an implicit rejection of any and all criticism of the invasive procedures being used by the TSA.  The first act of civil disobedience would be to find some lawyers and sue President Obama, Secretary Napolitano and Administrator Pistole for violating the Constitution….

…Step two is to take a look at Representative Ron Paul’s (R-TX) proposal to provide new rights to travellers.  According to the Daily Caller:

Some outraged members of Congress aren’t settling for merely criticizing TSA’s new airport security measures. Yesterday, Texas Rep. Ron Paul introduced The American Traveler Dignity Act.  Only one paragraph in length, the bill would remove TSA employees’ immunity from prosecution for implementing the new screening procedures, which offer passengers a choice between either a full-body X-ray scan or an invasive pat down.

This legislation provides another means to attack the new procedures through the use of lawyers.  But there are a few other ways.

One is to have a conversation with your Senator and Representative.  Most of these politicians spend an inordinate amount of time on commercial aircraft and they have witnessed this outrage.  Members of Congress are a very sympathetic ear for air travel concerns, because fly so much.  Also, try to avoid flying.  If you can drive or take a train, then do so and let the airlines know that you are boycotting flying until the invasive procedures are removed.  This is going to cause the massive lobbying teams for the airlines to meet with Members of Congress and the Administration to remove these invasive procedures.

The federal government has gone too far with the new search procedures.  These new procedures give TSA bureaucrats the right to grope and subject a traveller to a full body scan with little or no evidence of a problem.  Our government has resorted to treating every citizen as a potential terrorist.  They do this because they have proven grossly incompetent in stopping real terrorists from getting explosive devices on planes. 

More here

Filed under TSA airport screening Constitution Obama Janet Napolitano Big Brother

1 note

Democrat ‘08: Communist Manifesto…or how to wage a bullet free war

On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” These principles are well worth revisiting today in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so-called liberal elite.

1. U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

These encapsulate the Kennan Doctrine, which advocated for the “containment” of communism. Establishment figures supporting the amoral containment policy at least implicitly worked with the communists in scaring the wits out of the American people concerning atomic war.
President Ronald Reagan undid the doctrine when he took an aggressive stand against the Evil Empire by backing freedom fighters from around the world that were struggling against the left-wing communist jackboot. As a result, the Soviet Union and its satellites imploded, a considerable and unexpected setback to the international communist edifice.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of “moral strength.”
The nuclear freeze advocates supported a freeze on American nuclear development only. Rarely were Soviet nukes or those of other nations mentioned in their self-righteous tirades. The same advocates now call for reducing American military might, claiming that there is something immoral about America preserving its military pre-eminence in the world.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

Today, there are calls to end the embargo on the slave island of Cuba, there were complaints about the embargo against Iraq, and the U.S., not Saddam Hussein, was blamed for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Would they have advocated for free trade with Hitler and his National Socialist regime?

5. Extend long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

Such aid and trade over decades contributed greatly to the left-wing communist liquidation of over 100 million people worldwide, according to the well-documented “Black Book of Communism.”
This aid and trade marks a shameful chapter in American history. Without the aid and trade, the left-wing international communist behemoth would have imploded on its own rot a lot sooner and umpteen millions would have been saved from poverty, misery, starvation and death.
7. Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N.

Not only did President Jimmy Carter fulfill this goal but he also betrayed America’s allies in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Afghanistan, Angola and elsewhere.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

There are still American intellectuals, and elected members of Congress, who dream of an eventual one world government and who view the U.N., founded by communists such as Alger Hiss, the first secretary-general, as the instrument to bring this about.
World government was also the dream of Adolf Hitler and J.V. Stalin. World government was the dream of Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers.

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

While the idea of banning any political party runs contrary to notions of American freedom and liberty, notions that are the exact opposite of those held by the left-wing communists themselves, nevertheless these goals sought to undermine the constitutional obligation of Congress to investigate subversion. The weakening of our government’s ability to conduct such investigations led to the attack of 9/11.
It is entirely proper and appropriate for our government to expect employees, paid by the American taxpayer, to take an oath of loyalty.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.

In his book “Reagan’s War,” Peter Schweizer demonstrates the astonishing degree to which communists and communist sympathizers have penetrated the Democratic Party. In his book, Schweizer writes about the presidential election of 1979.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

This strategy goes back to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union by Fabian Socialists Roger Baldwin and John Dewey and Communists William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn among others.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.

The success of these goals, from a communist perspective, is obvious. Is there any doubt this is so?

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings,” substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. ” Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy.”

This is the Gramscian agenda of the “long march through the institutions” spelled out explicitly: gradual takeover of the “means of communication” and then using those vehicles to debauch the culture and weaken the will of the individual to resist. Today those few who still have the courage to advocate public morality are denounced and viciously attacked. Most Americans are entirely unwitting regarding the motives behind this agenda.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

This has been largely accomplished through the communist infiltration of the National Council of Churches, Conservative and Reform Judaism, and the Catholic seminaries.

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state”
Replacing belief in the creator with belief in the earthly man-controlled State.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
And replace our nation of “laws, not men” with royal decree emanating from appointed judges and executive orders. Replace elected officials with bureaucrats.

30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of “the big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Public ownership of the means of production, the core principle of totalitarianism.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

Turn America into a socialist police state.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

The Soviets used to send “social misfits” and those deemed “politically incorrect” to massive mental institutions called gulags. The Red Chinese call them lao gai. Hitler called them concentration camps.

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals.
Psychiatry remains a bulwark of the communist agenda of fostering self-criticism and docility.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Done! The sovereign family is the single most powerful obstacle to authoritarian control.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Outcome-based education, values clarification or whatever they’re calling it this year. (Hillary’s book - “It Takes a Village”)

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.

This describes the dialectical fostering of group consciousness and conflict, which furthers the interests of authoritarianism.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
The results of this successful campaign are increasingly obvious in the world today.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

This would mark a complete subversion of our Constitution and an end to representative sovereign government as we know it, which is the whole idea.

Via Atlas Shrugs

Filed under Liberals progressives communism Constitution George Soros

1 note

Bad Driver? In Debt? Proposed NYC Law Would Ban You From Owning a Gun…or the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to litterbugs

New York City residents who want to own a gun may soon be denied permits if they are litterbugs, if they are bad drivers, or if they have fallen behind on a few bills.

Under proposed revisions to the police department’s handgun, rifle and shotgun permit procedures, the NYPD can reject gun license applicants for a number of reasons, including: 

If they have been arrested or convicted of almost any “violation,” in any state; having a “poor driving history”; having been fired for “circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment”; having “failed to pay legally required debts”; being deemed to lack “good moral character”; or if any other information demonstrates “other good cause for the denial of the permit.”

Critics say many of the restrictions are vague, have nothing to do with one’s fitness to own a gun and are unconstitutional.

More here

Filed under 2nd Amendment guns progressives liberals constitution Big Brother

1 note

Tea Partiers denied the right to vote in Texas…or don’t tread on my polling place unless you vote Democrat

A Texas woman was denied the right to vote on Monday because she was wearing a button bearing a Gadsden flag — the rattlesnake under the words “Don’t Tread on Me” that has become the unofficial image of the Tea Party.

Katrina Pierson, who sits on the steering committee of the Dallas Tea Party and is also involved with the Garland Tea Party, told The Daily Caller that “around 11 o’clock yesterday,” a Garland Tea Party member, reported that she was told by an election official that she could not vote unless she removed her button. A second election official, Pierson said, did not recognize the button and did not understand why the other official was not permitting the woman to vote.

According to Pierson, the woman refused to remove her button, saying it was a violation of her first amendment rights, and called the sheriff’s office. The sheriff passed the matter on to the Dallas County Election Department, which failed to act.

The woman opted not to vote until she had done more research and figured out whether or not the election official was allowed to do that. The Garland Tea Party is currently conducting that investigation on her behalf.

Read more: 

Filed under Tea Party Gadsden Flag votes election constitution 1st Amendment

0 notes

'Liberty' on the Line as Judge Weighs Virginia Health Care Suit…or it's better if they do what we tell them to anyway

Virginia’s top-ranking attorney warned Monday that the federal government will be able to order Americans to “buy anything” if the state’s lawsuit against the health care overhaul goes down, after a federal judge in Richmond heard arguments in the landmark case. 

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson said he will rule by the end of the year on the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health care law. The case is proceeding separately from one in Florida, where a federal judge last week allowed a multistate challenge to go forward. 

The Virginia challenge is led by state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who claims Congress lacks the constitutional authority to require Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. He described the so-called individual mandate as “unprecedented” and warned Monday that personal “liberty” is on the line as the judge considers the case. 

"If Virginia loses this fight and the federal government is allowed to cross this line, Congress will be granted virtually an unlimited power to order you to buy anything," he said. "That’s not rhetoric. That’s reality of the circumstances of this case."

More here

Filed under liberals Obamacare progressives law suit virginia Constitution Big BRother