• 'We Will Have Her Back': Jewish Constituents Rally Behind Rashida Tlaib Amid Trump Attacks
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/17/we-will-have-her-back-jewish-constituents-rally-behind-rashida-tlaib-amid-trump
    Jake Johnson, staff writer

    Dozens of Rep. Rashida Tlaib's Jewish constituents rallied in Detroit Friday evening during Shabbat to show solidarity with their congresswoman as she faces attacks from President Donald Trump over her refusal to visit Israel under the Netanyahu government's restrictive conditions.

    Beth Miller, government affairs manager for Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, which organized the event, applauded Tlaib's courage and said it is "heartbreaking that Rashida had to spend this evening with us instead of her beloved family."

    "And it's enraging that the Israeli government would hold a member of Congress's family hostage unless she agrees to censor herself," said Miller. "For as long as it's existed, the Israeli government has forced these kinds of heart wrenching and impossible choices on Palestinians. It's time for all of us to insist our elected officials hold Israel accountable."

    Tlaib, who attended the rally Friday night, fought back tears as she thanked her constituents for their support.

    "I can't wait to show my grandmother how I was supported by all of you—it would bring her so much joy," said Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman ever elected to Congress. "Thank you for hearing me, thank you for seeing me, thank you for loving me. And thank you for allowing me to be not just your congresswoman, but also a granddaughter of a grandmother living under occupation."

    Jewish Voice for Peace ✔ @jvplive
    We are so honored to support this hero for justice. ⁦@RashidaTlaib⁩ #DignityFromDetroitToPalestine
    ⁦@JvpAction⁩
    Embedded video [https://twitter.com/jvplive/status/1162491171752439808]
    5:27 PM - Aug 16, 2019

    The rally came as Trump launched a dehumanizing Twitter attack against Tlaib and her 90-year-old grandmother and accused the Michigan congresswoman of orchestrating a "setup" by refusing to visit Israel.

    The Israeli government, with the enthusiastic support of Trump, initially barred both Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from entering the country. After backlash, Israel decided to grant Tlaib permission to visit her grandmother, but the Michigan Democrat ultimately refused to accept the condition that she refrain from expressing support for boycott activities.

    "Being silent and not condemning the human rights violations of the Israeli government is a disservice to all who live there, including my incredibly strong and loving grandmother," Tlaib said in a statement. "This type of oppression is painful for all humanity, but it is especially painful for me personally every time I hear my loving family members cry out for the freedom to live and the right to feel human."

    Tlaib's Jewish constituents on Friday vowed to continue supporting their congresswoman as she speaks out against the oppression of Palestinians.

    reutweeted @telushk
    Not bad for a few hours notice. A pleasure to share Shabbat dinner in the park with Congresswoman Tlaib. From Detroit to Palestine, she has our love and support! ✊🏽✌🏽
    6:41 PM - Aug 16, 2019

    "We know what Rashida's values are, because she has served our community so well for years—during her three terms in the Michigan legislature and now in Congress," said JVP supporter Barbara Harvey. "This community remembers her love for all of us and her passionate commitment to us and to justice for all. We will have her back as long as she is willing to serve."
    'We Will Have Her Back': Jewish Constituents Rally Behind Rashida Tlaib Amid Trump Attacks https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/17/we-will-have-her-back-jewish-constituents-rally-behind-rashida-tlaib-amid-trump Jake Johnson, staff writer Dozens of Rep. Rashida Tlaib's Jewish constituents rallied in Detroit Friday evening during Shabbat to show solidarity with their congresswoman as she faces attacks from President Donald Trump over her refusal to visit Israel under the Netanyahu government's restrictive conditions. Beth Miller, government affairs manager for Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, which organized the event, applauded Tlaib's courage and said it is "heartbreaking that Rashida had to spend this evening with us instead of her beloved family." "And it's enraging that the Israeli government would hold a member of Congress's family hostage unless she agrees to censor herself," said Miller. "For as long as it's existed, the Israeli government has forced these kinds of heart wrenching and impossible choices on Palestinians. It's time for all of us to insist our elected officials hold Israel accountable." Tlaib, who attended the rally Friday night, fought back tears as she thanked her constituents for their support. "I can't wait to show my grandmother how I was supported by all of you—it would bring her so much joy," said Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman ever elected to Congress. "Thank you for hearing me, thank you for seeing me, thank you for loving me. And thank you for allowing me to be not just your congresswoman, but also a granddaughter of a grandmother living under occupation." Jewish Voice for Peace ✔ @jvplive We are so honored to support this hero for justice. ⁦@RashidaTlaib⁩ #DignityFromDetroitToPalestine ⁦@JvpAction⁩ Embedded video [https://twitter.com/jvplive/status/1162491171752439808] 5:27 PM - Aug 16, 2019 The rally came as Trump launched a dehumanizing Twitter attack against Tlaib and her 90-year-old grandmother and accused the Michigan congresswoman of orchestrating a "setup" by refusing to visit Israel. The Israeli government, with the enthusiastic support of Trump, initially barred both Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from entering the country. After backlash, Israel decided to grant Tlaib permission to visit her grandmother, but the Michigan Democrat ultimately refused to accept the condition that she refrain from expressing support for boycott activities. "Being silent and not condemning the human rights violations of the Israeli government is a disservice to all who live there, including my incredibly strong and loving grandmother," Tlaib said in a statement. "This type of oppression is painful for all humanity, but it is especially painful for me personally every time I hear my loving family members cry out for the freedom to live and the right to feel human." Tlaib's Jewish constituents on Friday vowed to continue supporting their congresswoman as she speaks out against the oppression of Palestinians. reutweeted @telushk Not bad for a few hours notice. A pleasure to share Shabbat dinner in the park with Congresswoman Tlaib. From Detroit to Palestine, she has our love and support! ✊🏽✌🏽 6:41 PM - Aug 16, 2019 "We know what Rashida's values are, because she has served our community so well for years—during her three terms in the Michigan legislature and now in Congress," said JVP supporter Barbara Harvey. "This community remembers her love for all of us and her passionate commitment to us and to justice for all. We will have her back as long as she is willing to serve."
    'We Will Have Her Back': Jewish Constituents Rally Behind Rashida Tlaib Amid Trump Attacks
    "I can't wait to show my grandmother how I was supported by all of you—it would bring her so much joy," said Tlaib, who attended a rally organized by Jewish activists Friday night
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    2
    1 Comments 0 Shares
  • Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard ─ Build, Don't Bomb: A New American Foreign Policy
    As a veteran, Congresswoman Gabbard’s experience has profoundly shaped her as a person and her approach to American foreign policy.

    She will discuss the need for a military that is ready and capable of protecting our nation’s security, but should not be supporting counterproductive, interventionist wars that cost countless lives and trillions of American taxpayer dollars.

    Congresswoman Gabbard will discuss how these savings can be used to reinvest in our country’s future.

    Congresswoman Gabbard will be joined by Watson Senior Fellow Stephen Kinzer for further discussion. A Q&A session will follow.

    Tulsi Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii State Legislature in 2002 when she was just 21 years old, becoming the youngest person ever elected in the state. A year later, she joined the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.

    Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East, and she continues her service as a Major in the Army National Guard.

    Tulsi’s 2005 deployment was a 12-month tour at Logistical Support Area Anaconda in Iraq, where she served in a field medical unit as a specialist with a 29th Support Battalion medical company.

    She was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal at the end of this tour.

    In between her two tours, Tulsi served in the U.S. Senate as a legislative aide to Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), and graduated from the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy, where she was the first woman to finish as the distinguished honor graduate in the Academy's 50-year history.

    Tulsi was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant and continued to work for Senator Akaka until 2009, when she again voluntarily deployed with her unit to the Middle East.

    In 2010, Tulsi was elected to the Honolulu City Council.

    Tulsi was elected in 2012 to the United States House of Representatives, serving Hawaii’s 2nd District. She is one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and also its first Hindu member.

    Now in her fourth term in Congress, Tulsi serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Financial Services Committee.
    https://youtu.be/dKDuLdPFyto
    Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs 4/23/19
    Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard ─ Build, Don't Bomb: A New American Foreign Policy As a veteran, Congresswoman Gabbard’s experience has profoundly shaped her as a person and her approach to American foreign policy. She will discuss the need for a military that is ready and capable of protecting our nation’s security, but should not be supporting counterproductive, interventionist wars that cost countless lives and trillions of American taxpayer dollars. Congresswoman Gabbard will discuss how these savings can be used to reinvest in our country’s future. Congresswoman Gabbard will be joined by Watson Senior Fellow Stephen Kinzer for further discussion. A Q&A session will follow. Tulsi Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii State Legislature in 2002 when she was just 21 years old, becoming the youngest person ever elected in the state. A year later, she joined the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East, and she continues her service as a Major in the Army National Guard. Tulsi’s 2005 deployment was a 12-month tour at Logistical Support Area Anaconda in Iraq, where she served in a field medical unit as a specialist with a 29th Support Battalion medical company. She was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal at the end of this tour. In between her two tours, Tulsi served in the U.S. Senate as a legislative aide to Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), and graduated from the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy, where she was the first woman to finish as the distinguished honor graduate in the Academy's 50-year history. Tulsi was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant and continued to work for Senator Akaka until 2009, when she again voluntarily deployed with her unit to the Middle East. In 2010, Tulsi was elected to the Honolulu City Council. Tulsi was elected in 2012 to the United States House of Representatives, serving Hawaii’s 2nd District. She is one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and also its first Hindu member. Now in her fourth term in Congress, Tulsi serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Financial Services Committee. https://youtu.be/dKDuLdPFyto Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs 4/23/19
    Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard ─ Build, Don't Bomb: A New American Foreign Policy
    As a veteran, Congresswoman Gabbard’s experience has profoundly shaped her as a person and her approach to American foreign policy. She will discuss the need...
    YouTube
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • *Happy Independence Day*

    IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

    New Hampshire:
    Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

    Massachusetts:
    John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

    Rhode Island:
    Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

    Connecticut:
    Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

    New York:
    William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

    New Jersey:
    Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

    Pennsylvania:
    Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

    Delaware:
    Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

    Maryland:
    Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

    Virginia:
    George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

    North Carolina:
    William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

    South Carolina:
    Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

    Georgia:
    Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
    *Happy Independence Day* IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • FELLOW TRUSTEES TARGET OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS TRUSTEE KELI`I AKINA FOR SUPPORTING FORENSIC AUDIT - http://FreeHawaii.Info

    #OfficeOfHawaiianAffairs #Truth #Transparency #FreeHawaii #HawaiianKingdom

    Hereʻs What Just A Few OHA Beneficiaries & Other Star-Advertiser Readers Have To Say -

    "Bravo to trustee Akina. His voice is badly needed and much appreciated ... except by fellow OHA trustees."

    "I voted for him.......I hope he continues fighting the good fight....Imua"

    "It would be nice if more Akinas were on the board."

    "Akina has bravely stood up to the thugs and thieves. The Entire community owes him our thanks and appreciation."

    "Transparency, transparency, transparency !!! It's about time a trustee stepped forward and took the initiative to let us, the public, know what's happening. OHA has been acting like its conceiver, the state legislature, in the way they do business...BEHIND CLOSED DOORS !!"

    "Akina is the most honest trustee of them all. The others have something to hide by not wanting completion of the audit."

    "OHA is a state agency. Is there such a thing as "code of conduct policy" for any state agency? There should always be check and balances especially when tax payers money are used. Every board member should have the right to speak out to avoid the level of transparency and accountability that is required by any state agency. Do they (the rest of the OHA board) have something to hide? Go for it Akina and weed out the crooked members."
    FELLOW TRUSTEES TARGET OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS TRUSTEE KELI`I AKINA FOR SUPPORTING FORENSIC AUDIT - http://FreeHawaii.Info #OfficeOfHawaiianAffairs #Truth #Transparency #FreeHawaii #HawaiianKingdom Hereʻs What Just A Few OHA Beneficiaries & Other Star-Advertiser Readers Have To Say - "Bravo to trustee Akina. His voice is badly needed and much appreciated ... except by fellow OHA trustees." "I voted for him.......I hope he continues fighting the good fight....Imua" "It would be nice if more Akinas were on the board." "Akina has bravely stood up to the thugs and thieves. The Entire community owes him our thanks and appreciation." "Transparency, transparency, transparency !!! It's about time a trustee stepped forward and took the initiative to let us, the public, know what's happening. OHA has been acting like its conceiver, the state legislature, in the way they do business...BEHIND CLOSED DOORS !!" "Akina is the most honest trustee of them all. The others have something to hide by not wanting completion of the audit." "OHA is a state agency. Is there such a thing as "code of conduct policy" for any state agency? There should always be check and balances especially when tax payers money are used. Every board member should have the right to speak out to avoid the level of transparency and accountability that is required by any state agency. Do they (the rest of the OHA board) have something to hide? Go for it Akina and weed out the crooked members."
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Vaccines are not traffic lights: new explosive CA lawsuit by Jon Rappaport -
    Let me boil this down.

    ONE: California MD writes exemptions from vaccines for children who are his patients.

    TWO: The city attorney for San Francisco issues an illegal subpoena to the MD, demanding to see all the medical records (including genetic information) of these patients. Obviously, the city attorney plans to use this medical information as a way to punish the MD for writing "unnecessary exemptions."

    THREE: The MD obtains a lawyer and sues the city attorney of San Francisco.

    Attorney Richard Jaffe is representing Kenneth Stoller, MD, who is under the gun from the San Francisco City Attorney, Dennis Herrera. Here are explosive quotes from Mr. Jaffe's press release:

    "June 4, 2019: Today, Dr. Kenneth Stoller filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera for abuse of power and abuse of process due to the City Attorney's illegal attempt to obtain the medical records and genetic information of Dr. Stoller's vaccine exemption patients."

    "The City Attorney's subpoena is illegal under state and federal law and represents an attempt to circumvent federal and state constitutional privacy and other protective laws that prevent 'government snooping' regarding protected genetic information. There are currently no
    protections in place that would prevent the city attorney from sharing patient records with other state agencies or departments or to allow for the triangulation of medical and genetic data."

    "'The City Attorney and other state officials are essentially suggesting politicians should practice medicine without a license,' said Dr. Stoller's attorney Richard Jaffe...."

    "The law suit links the City Attorney's subpoena for medical records to a politically-motivated action designed to support proposed legislation SB 276, authored by State Senator Richard Pan. SB 276 would remove medical vaccine exemption decision making from physicians and place it in the hands of state or local public health officials. Under this bill, an important medical decision would be made by state or local government employees who have never met or spoken to the patient or family."

    "The Stoller lawsuit alleges that City Attorney's attempt to get the medical records of Dr. Stoller's patients is arbitrary, given that recent measles outbreaks did not originate in bulk from unvaccinated school age children. Of the 38 reported measles cases reported in the San Francisco Bay area so far in 2019, 28 were in adults who contracted the disease while traveling abroad. Of the 10 children, it is likely that a significant percentage may have contracted measles symptoms from the vaccine, or got it despite being vaccinated..."

    Note: Every time I write an article like this, people ask what they can do to help. For starters, send this piece out all over the world and get people to contact San Francisco city government and demand justice in the lawsuit.

    Understand that vaccination is not comparable to traffic lights, which are posted at intersections to prevent crashes. Vaccination is a practice that has many detractors who have presented, over the years, evidence that vaccines can and do cause great harm. During the past several years, governments and media companies have stepped up their efforts (including overt censorship) to stop rational discussion of vaccination, as if the issue is not only settled, but the persons who question vaccines are "dangers to the community."

    This is always the strategy of fascists.

    Their attitude is: "We want X. We demand X. To get X, the public will have to comply. So let's put out wave after wave of propaganda and silence people who oppose X. Let's say no argument against our position is possible. Let's use our subpoena power and other powers to get our way. Let's say that X is wonderful and helps people. Let's say we're kind and good. Let's say whatever we need to say, and do whatever we need to do, to SHUT OUR OPPONENTS UP."

    That last part is the key. If you think censoring free and rational discussion on a vital issue is kind and good, I have condos for sale on the dark side of the moon.

    If you think issuing illegal subpoenas to obtain private information of innocent persons is right and good, I have no idea why you've read this far.

    Addendum: In the quotes from defense attorney Jaffe above, you saw mention of a bill pending in the California State legislature, SB 276. It would establish politicians/bureaucrats as the arbiters in deciding whether to grant children exemptions from vaccines. The implication? At the whim and fancy of these pols, the private medical records of every such child could be demanded, pored over, exposed, and then "disappeared" into the state bureaucracy of agencies. How do you like THAT?
    Vaccines are not traffic lights: new explosive CA lawsuit by Jon Rappaport - Let me boil this down. ONE: California MD writes exemptions from vaccines for children who are his patients. TWO: The city attorney for San Francisco issues an illegal subpoena to the MD, demanding to see all the medical records (including genetic information) of these patients. Obviously, the city attorney plans to use this medical information as a way to punish the MD for writing "unnecessary exemptions." THREE: The MD obtains a lawyer and sues the city attorney of San Francisco. Attorney Richard Jaffe is representing Kenneth Stoller, MD, who is under the gun from the San Francisco City Attorney, Dennis Herrera. Here are explosive quotes from Mr. Jaffe's press release: "June 4, 2019: Today, Dr. Kenneth Stoller filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera for abuse of power and abuse of process due to the City Attorney's illegal attempt to obtain the medical records and genetic information of Dr. Stoller's vaccine exemption patients." "The City Attorney's subpoena is illegal under state and federal law and represents an attempt to circumvent federal and state constitutional privacy and other protective laws that prevent 'government snooping' regarding protected genetic information. There are currently no protections in place that would prevent the city attorney from sharing patient records with other state agencies or departments or to allow for the triangulation of medical and genetic data." "'The City Attorney and other state officials are essentially suggesting politicians should practice medicine without a license,' said Dr. Stoller's attorney Richard Jaffe...." "The law suit links the City Attorney's subpoena for medical records to a politically-motivated action designed to support proposed legislation SB 276, authored by State Senator Richard Pan. SB 276 would remove medical vaccine exemption decision making from physicians and place it in the hands of state or local public health officials. Under this bill, an important medical decision would be made by state or local government employees who have never met or spoken to the patient or family." "The Stoller lawsuit alleges that City Attorney's attempt to get the medical records of Dr. Stoller's patients is arbitrary, given that recent measles outbreaks did not originate in bulk from unvaccinated school age children. Of the 38 reported measles cases reported in the San Francisco Bay area so far in 2019, 28 were in adults who contracted the disease while traveling abroad. Of the 10 children, it is likely that a significant percentage may have contracted measles symptoms from the vaccine, or got it despite being vaccinated..." Note: Every time I write an article like this, people ask what they can do to help. For starters, send this piece out all over the world and get people to contact San Francisco city government and demand justice in the lawsuit. Understand that vaccination is not comparable to traffic lights, which are posted at intersections to prevent crashes. Vaccination is a practice that has many detractors who have presented, over the years, evidence that vaccines can and do cause great harm. During the past several years, governments and media companies have stepped up their efforts (including overt censorship) to stop rational discussion of vaccination, as if the issue is not only settled, but the persons who question vaccines are "dangers to the community." This is always the strategy of fascists. Their attitude is: "We want X. We demand X. To get X, the public will have to comply. So let's put out wave after wave of propaganda and silence people who oppose X. Let's say no argument against our position is possible. Let's use our subpoena power and other powers to get our way. Let's say that X is wonderful and helps people. Let's say we're kind and good. Let's say whatever we need to say, and do whatever we need to do, to SHUT OUR OPPONENTS UP." That last part is the key. If you think censoring free and rational discussion on a vital issue is kind and good, I have condos for sale on the dark side of the moon. If you think issuing illegal subpoenas to obtain private information of innocent persons is right and good, I have no idea why you've read this far. Addendum: In the quotes from defense attorney Jaffe above, you saw mention of a bill pending in the California State legislature, SB 276. It would establish politicians/bureaucrats as the arbiters in deciding whether to grant children exemptions from vaccines. The implication? At the whim and fancy of these pols, the private medical records of every such child could be demanded, pored over, exposed, and then "disappeared" into the state bureaucracy of agencies. How do you like THAT?
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Bills criminalizing abortion as murder and rejecting the authority of the courts to say otherwise have been introduced in the state legislatures of Oklahoma, Indiana, Texas, Idaho, and Washington.

    Due to errant Constitutional understanding, most Republican and pro-life leaders oppose such bills, calling them unconstitutional. They claim that Roe v Wade is the law of the land and, while they want to stop the killing, unconditional submission to whatever the Supreme Court says is required of them.

    This sentiment is terribly mistaken. We’ll address it quickly before moving on to the primary concern; namely, what would happen if a bill abolishing abortion were passed and signed into law? Would Oklahoma or Texas be able to successfully enforce it?

    Can We Lawfully Resist the Courts?

    First, let’s examine the Constitutional question. Is the Supreme Court infallible in its opinions? Must they always be obeyed? Earlier this month, Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Reviewposed the question to conservatives: “If a judge ordered Trump to resign, would that be the law?” He detailed the many ways in which the lower courts are, in effect, giving Barack Obama a third term by treating his executive actions as if they were the Constitution itself. He proceeded to ask conservatives whether there was a bridge too far that the courts could possibly cross at which point conservatives would take action.

    If the last half-century is an indicator, the answer is no. Conservatives have been willing to tolerate any opinion from the the courts, up to and including rulings that have directly caused more than 61 million killings.

    How about the Dred Scott ruling, where the Court stated that black men and women are not people but are property? How about the Buck decision in 1927 in which our (in)justices declared that the Federal government could sterilize Americans against their consent? As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opined, “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”

    Such rulings as these are wrong, and further, they are evil. Are the states and the people bound by them? Writing to early judicial supremacist Charles Jarvis, Thomas Jefferson addressed this exact question.

    “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

    The courts are often wrong. They are often absurdly wrong. Fortunately, they’ve not been given the authority of a single tribunal with ultimate power over constitutional interpretation. When they abuse their office, it is both the right and duty of the other branches of government, as well as state and local governments, to check them. This has not been happening for over 100 years, thus the secular progressives have effectively used the rogue courts as their vehicle to circumvent our democratic processes and impose their ideology upon the states. As Pastor and author Matt Trewhella has said, the courts have created “social transformation without representation.” Appointing conservative justices has done little to reign in these abuses as generations have been taught a false understanding of judicial supremacy, ingraining the idea even in most conservatives.

    There have been and presently are many examples of state and local governments applying proper checks and balances to the abuses of the Federal government. Many northern Statesdefied both Federal court opinion (Dred Scott) and Federal Law (the Fugitive Slave Act) 150 years ago. We celebrate them as heroes for their courage. In fact, this was the soil from which the Republican party sprung into being.

    Today, over 20 states are now defying Federal law over recreational marijuana usage. The Federal government under both Trump and Obama has stood down and not enforced those federal prohibitions. Other federal action on issues ranging from immigration, to health care, to environmental regulations, to gun control have already been nullified in numerous states with very little push back from D.C. Would the feds do the same if a state defied Roe and asserted their state sovereignty to protect innocent human beings in the womb? We don’t know.

    We do know that pro-life Republicans currently have total control of 22 States – total control meaning they have majorities in both the State House and Senate as well as the Governor’s mansion. What if every pro-life politician and every pro-life leader in these states were to act like babies are being murdered, would reject this false notion of Judicial Supremacy, and would end abortion in their states? The Feds wouldn’t be able to do a thing in the face of 22 States defying them. This would be the end of Roe and might usher in the end of judicial supremacy altogether.

    Almost one million babies have been killed in those 22 pro-life states just during Trump’s tenure thus far, but, alas, our pro-life leaders do not think killing babies is a big enough deal to warrant standing up to the court.

    Or maybe many of them simply think it is wrong to only “save some” and would rather do nothing until they can “save them all” by overturning Roe or passing a Constitutional amendment at the national level? I think it makes more sense to try to save those we can at the state level.

    If Roe is overturned, great. The court has an obligation to right its wrongs, but we needn’t wait for the court’s permission to make murder illegal. God’s word and the Constitution command us to uphold the right to life, regardless of the opinion of any earthly judge. “I was just following orders” was no excuse for mass murder enablers of the past and it’s no excuse now.

    What Will Happen?

    A state ignoring Roe and abolishing abortion would have both legislative chambers and the governor committed to the cause, and they would be unable to pass such a bill if a large and active portion of the population weren’t on their side. With these things in place, a state could very much succeed in ending abortion.

    Almost 80% of the citizenry in Oklahoma profess to be pro-life. Even most Democrats are afraid to support abortion. Only two of 29 State House Democrats voted against Oklahoma’s dismemberment abortion ban in 2015. 15 excused themselves from the vote and 12 voted for it. The people would be behind an effort to end abortion in the state. It would be extremely difficult for the federal government to squash the will of nearly an entire state standing unified against it for a just cause.

    That doesn’t mean the feds under the leadership of a Democrat wouldn’t try. A Democrat President would likely withdraw federal funds. States like Oklahoma or Texas which pay more in than they get from the Feds should not be intimidated by such a threat.

    It’s conceivable that a Democrat President would put boots on the ground to physically keep the killing centers running, but unlikely. To defy the will of the people of Oklahoma, Indiana, or Texas in order to keep a murder legal would be a serious black eye for the federal government.

    A potentially more significant threat would come from corporate America. Many companies would threaten to boycott, music artists would cancel shows, late night comedy (the word “comedy” being used loosely) would ridicule and lampoon and foam at the mouth. This kind of pressure has caused conservative leaders in the past to fold on lesser matters.

    The ability of big business and celebrities to blackmail states is waning, however. In the face of massive Hollywood boycotts,Georgia passed a pro-life bill. Consequently, Governor Brian Kemp’s favorability ratings surged. Not only do Republicans benefit politically from standing up to the elites, Newsweek‘s Peter Roff pointed out, in a well-done piece, how much leverage states actually have against Hollywood if celebrities continues to pick fights.

    Two things would be imperative for success in defeating the feds and boycotts. First, strong, courageous leadership from people capable of articulating the moral and legal issues effectively and unflinchingly in the face of threats. Abortion is murder. In a state that’s 79% Christian, it’s not difficult to rally people behind the cause of abolishing murder. All that’s needed is someone to rally the troops. As 2016 Oklahoma abolitionist gubernatorial candidate Dan Fisher put it, “I believe that a state must stand squarely and firmly on its principles [of abolition] and let the chips fall where they may, and I would like to believe that reason and right would simply prevail.”

    Secondly, if one state were to take this bold action its success would to some degree depend on whether other states joined them. If five or six states immediately followed Oklahoma or Texas, this coalition would make targeted boycotts and financial sanctions or even physical force by the Federal government impossible to effectively execute.

    The question, then, is would other states follow? The biggest impediment to a state abolishing abortion is that the courage needed is not possessed by most politicians. But once they see someone else lead the way, many conservative politicians and states will be likely to follow. Not only that, but Christians across the country will see the action taken by the politicians of the first state to abolish abortion and demand the same from their own legislators.

    Admittedly, enforcement could be messy. The small number of radical pro-abortion folks in these states will gnash their teeth. This will be the case no matter how abortion ends, however. Their blathering shouldn’t be countenanced. Their primary accomplishment will be showcasing to the sane Americans how nasty they are. The majority of the citizenry in these states would go on with their lives unaffected.

    There might be tension between city and state officials if district attorney’s or mayors refuse to protect the right to life. A battle for authority is sure to follow. Fortunately, we have the law of the Constitution and the Supreme law of God on our side. As Fisher said, our responsibility is to do what’s right, letting the chips fall as they may.

    That implementation mightn’t be seamless in some cases is no reason not to abolish abortion. Many laws are difficult to enforce and just about all laws fail to completely eliminate the occurrence of the crime they outlaw, yet these laws remain a great deterrent to these behaviors and bring justice to many.

    The law is a also powerful teacher. Abolishing abortion would send an instructive statement to young and old that little lives matter – that killing an image-bearer of God is murder and should be treated as such. Thousands of babies would be saved. After 46 years of unmitigated bloodshed, justice will finally be established.

    Women would not be dying in the streets. They were not pre-Roe when many clinics and hospitals performed illegal abortions. The coat-hanger abortions were largely pro-abortion propaganda, lies which NARAL’s co-founder later admitted to.

    Women would not fall into a health care crisis. Just as in Ireland, where women arehealthier than in America even while abortion was illegal there for decades, women’s health care would be just fine without legalized abortion in these states.

    Clearly, there remains much educational work to be done to garner enough support and understanding of these ideas. But we will never effectively educate or mobilize people if we do not begin talking about these things and forcing the discussion. That is precisely what these bills are doing.

    As long as we are content to introduce bills instructing doctors on how to perform abortions safely or only up to a certain arbitrary point and call that winning, we will never get to where we all claim we want to be – a culture grounded in the idea that human life has inherent value and that provides equal justice for every image-bearer of God.

    Here’s the blueprint for ending abortion in a pro-life state: Draw a line in the sand. Declare abortion to be what it is – the murder of an innocent human being made in God’s image. Only support legislative efforts that will lawfully criminalize all abortion in defiance of the lawless Roe opinion. If such a bill does not exist, begin meeting with legislators and like-minded folks in your city to get one drafted and introduced. Accept nothing less from your political leaders, give them no opportunity to do less than their lawful duty. Educate pro-life people in the cause of abolition and interposition, persuade hearts and minds, and mobilize support for the total criminalization of abortion in your state. For the sake of the nearly one million preborn humans who will be murdered this year, let’s get to work.

    https://theresurgent.com/2019/04/26/what-would-happen-if-a-state-nullified-roe-and-abolished-abortion/?fbclid=IwAR1Qh79rhkTLgSebHBzi2htmArRZSZS2Zk9Ds7cO9qQ_Ggdv5kRMcQYvj-M
    Bills criminalizing abortion as murder and rejecting the authority of the courts to say otherwise have been introduced in the state legislatures of Oklahoma, Indiana, Texas, Idaho, and Washington. Due to errant Constitutional understanding, most Republican and pro-life leaders oppose such bills, calling them unconstitutional. They claim that Roe v Wade is the law of the land and, while they want to stop the killing, unconditional submission to whatever the Supreme Court says is required of them. This sentiment is terribly mistaken. We’ll address it quickly before moving on to the primary concern; namely, what would happen if a bill abolishing abortion were passed and signed into law? Would Oklahoma or Texas be able to successfully enforce it? Can We Lawfully Resist the Courts? First, let’s examine the Constitutional question. Is the Supreme Court infallible in its opinions? Must they always be obeyed? Earlier this month, Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Reviewposed the question to conservatives: “If a judge ordered Trump to resign, would that be the law?” He detailed the many ways in which the lower courts are, in effect, giving Barack Obama a third term by treating his executive actions as if they were the Constitution itself. He proceeded to ask conservatives whether there was a bridge too far that the courts could possibly cross at which point conservatives would take action. If the last half-century is an indicator, the answer is no. Conservatives have been willing to tolerate any opinion from the the courts, up to and including rulings that have directly caused more than 61 million killings. How about the Dred Scott ruling, where the Court stated that black men and women are not people but are property? How about the Buck decision in 1927 in which our (in)justices declared that the Federal government could sterilize Americans against their consent? As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opined, “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.” Such rulings as these are wrong, and further, they are evil. Are the states and the people bound by them? Writing to early judicial supremacist Charles Jarvis, Thomas Jefferson addressed this exact question. “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” The courts are often wrong. They are often absurdly wrong. Fortunately, they’ve not been given the authority of a single tribunal with ultimate power over constitutional interpretation. When they abuse their office, it is both the right and duty of the other branches of government, as well as state and local governments, to check them. This has not been happening for over 100 years, thus the secular progressives have effectively used the rogue courts as their vehicle to circumvent our democratic processes and impose their ideology upon the states. As Pastor and author Matt Trewhella has said, the courts have created “social transformation without representation.” Appointing conservative justices has done little to reign in these abuses as generations have been taught a false understanding of judicial supremacy, ingraining the idea even in most conservatives. There have been and presently are many examples of state and local governments applying proper checks and balances to the abuses of the Federal government. Many northern Statesdefied both Federal court opinion (Dred Scott) and Federal Law (the Fugitive Slave Act) 150 years ago. We celebrate them as heroes for their courage. In fact, this was the soil from which the Republican party sprung into being. Today, over 20 states are now defying Federal law over recreational marijuana usage. The Federal government under both Trump and Obama has stood down and not enforced those federal prohibitions. Other federal action on issues ranging from immigration, to health care, to environmental regulations, to gun control have already been nullified in numerous states with very little push back from D.C. Would the feds do the same if a state defied Roe and asserted their state sovereignty to protect innocent human beings in the womb? We don’t know. We do know that pro-life Republicans currently have total control of 22 States – total control meaning they have majorities in both the State House and Senate as well as the Governor’s mansion. What if every pro-life politician and every pro-life leader in these states were to act like babies are being murdered, would reject this false notion of Judicial Supremacy, and would end abortion in their states? The Feds wouldn’t be able to do a thing in the face of 22 States defying them. This would be the end of Roe and might usher in the end of judicial supremacy altogether. Almost one million babies have been killed in those 22 pro-life states just during Trump’s tenure thus far, but, alas, our pro-life leaders do not think killing babies is a big enough deal to warrant standing up to the court. Or maybe many of them simply think it is wrong to only “save some” and would rather do nothing until they can “save them all” by overturning Roe or passing a Constitutional amendment at the national level? I think it makes more sense to try to save those we can at the state level. If Roe is overturned, great. The court has an obligation to right its wrongs, but we needn’t wait for the court’s permission to make murder illegal. God’s word and the Constitution command us to uphold the right to life, regardless of the opinion of any earthly judge. “I was just following orders” was no excuse for mass murder enablers of the past and it’s no excuse now. What Will Happen? A state ignoring Roe and abolishing abortion would have both legislative chambers and the governor committed to the cause, and they would be unable to pass such a bill if a large and active portion of the population weren’t on their side. With these things in place, a state could very much succeed in ending abortion. Almost 80% of the citizenry in Oklahoma profess to be pro-life. Even most Democrats are afraid to support abortion. Only two of 29 State House Democrats voted against Oklahoma’s dismemberment abortion ban in 2015. 15 excused themselves from the vote and 12 voted for it. The people would be behind an effort to end abortion in the state. It would be extremely difficult for the federal government to squash the will of nearly an entire state standing unified against it for a just cause. That doesn’t mean the feds under the leadership of a Democrat wouldn’t try. A Democrat President would likely withdraw federal funds. States like Oklahoma or Texas which pay more in than they get from the Feds should not be intimidated by such a threat. It’s conceivable that a Democrat President would put boots on the ground to physically keep the killing centers running, but unlikely. To defy the will of the people of Oklahoma, Indiana, or Texas in order to keep a murder legal would be a serious black eye for the federal government. A potentially more significant threat would come from corporate America. Many companies would threaten to boycott, music artists would cancel shows, late night comedy (the word “comedy” being used loosely) would ridicule and lampoon and foam at the mouth. This kind of pressure has caused conservative leaders in the past to fold on lesser matters. The ability of big business and celebrities to blackmail states is waning, however. In the face of massive Hollywood boycotts,Georgia passed a pro-life bill. Consequently, Governor Brian Kemp’s favorability ratings surged. Not only do Republicans benefit politically from standing up to the elites, Newsweek‘s Peter Roff pointed out, in a well-done piece, how much leverage states actually have against Hollywood if celebrities continues to pick fights. Two things would be imperative for success in defeating the feds and boycotts. First, strong, courageous leadership from people capable of articulating the moral and legal issues effectively and unflinchingly in the face of threats. Abortion is murder. In a state that’s 79% Christian, it’s not difficult to rally people behind the cause of abolishing murder. All that’s needed is someone to rally the troops. As 2016 Oklahoma abolitionist gubernatorial candidate Dan Fisher put it, “I believe that a state must stand squarely and firmly on its principles [of abolition] and let the chips fall where they may, and I would like to believe that reason and right would simply prevail.” Secondly, if one state were to take this bold action its success would to some degree depend on whether other states joined them. If five or six states immediately followed Oklahoma or Texas, this coalition would make targeted boycotts and financial sanctions or even physical force by the Federal government impossible to effectively execute. The question, then, is would other states follow? The biggest impediment to a state abolishing abortion is that the courage needed is not possessed by most politicians. But once they see someone else lead the way, many conservative politicians and states will be likely to follow. Not only that, but Christians across the country will see the action taken by the politicians of the first state to abolish abortion and demand the same from their own legislators. Admittedly, enforcement could be messy. The small number of radical pro-abortion folks in these states will gnash their teeth. This will be the case no matter how abortion ends, however. Their blathering shouldn’t be countenanced. Their primary accomplishment will be showcasing to the sane Americans how nasty they are. The majority of the citizenry in these states would go on with their lives unaffected. There might be tension between city and state officials if district attorney’s or mayors refuse to protect the right to life. A battle for authority is sure to follow. Fortunately, we have the law of the Constitution and the Supreme law of God on our side. As Fisher said, our responsibility is to do what’s right, letting the chips fall as they may. That implementation mightn’t be seamless in some cases is no reason not to abolish abortion. Many laws are difficult to enforce and just about all laws fail to completely eliminate the occurrence of the crime they outlaw, yet these laws remain a great deterrent to these behaviors and bring justice to many. The law is a also powerful teacher. Abolishing abortion would send an instructive statement to young and old that little lives matter – that killing an image-bearer of God is murder and should be treated as such. Thousands of babies would be saved. After 46 years of unmitigated bloodshed, justice will finally be established. Women would not be dying in the streets. They were not pre-Roe when many clinics and hospitals performed illegal abortions. The coat-hanger abortions were largely pro-abortion propaganda, lies which NARAL’s co-founder later admitted to. Women would not fall into a health care crisis. Just as in Ireland, where women arehealthier than in America even while abortion was illegal there for decades, women’s health care would be just fine without legalized abortion in these states. Clearly, there remains much educational work to be done to garner enough support and understanding of these ideas. But we will never effectively educate or mobilize people if we do not begin talking about these things and forcing the discussion. That is precisely what these bills are doing. As long as we are content to introduce bills instructing doctors on how to perform abortions safely or only up to a certain arbitrary point and call that winning, we will never get to where we all claim we want to be – a culture grounded in the idea that human life has inherent value and that provides equal justice for every image-bearer of God. Here’s the blueprint for ending abortion in a pro-life state: Draw a line in the sand. Declare abortion to be what it is – the murder of an innocent human being made in God’s image. Only support legislative efforts that will lawfully criminalize all abortion in defiance of the lawless Roe opinion. If such a bill does not exist, begin meeting with legislators and like-minded folks in your city to get one drafted and introduced. Accept nothing less from your political leaders, give them no opportunity to do less than their lawful duty. Educate pro-life people in the cause of abolition and interposition, persuade hearts and minds, and mobilize support for the total criminalization of abortion in your state. For the sake of the nearly one million preborn humans who will be murdered this year, let’s get to work. https://theresurgent.com/2019/04/26/what-would-happen-if-a-state-nullified-roe-and-abolished-abortion/?fbclid=IwAR1Qh79rhkTLgSebHBzi2htmArRZSZS2Zk9Ds7cO9qQ_Ggdv5kRMcQYvj-M
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Democratic Party Comes Down Hard On Progressive Challenger
    https://youtu.be/39dM9ycEJ3s
    The Damage Report 6/1/19
    A NEW COURT-MANDATED redistricting in Virginia has put Democrats in a prime position to retake both chambers of the state legislature in November 2019 elections for the first time since 1995.

    But there could still be one major obstacle standing in the way of the party enacting a bottled-up progressive agenda:

    Democratic Senate Minority Leader Dick Saslaw, a 39-year incumbent with a corporate-friendly voting record and close ties to the state’s dominant power company.

    As long as Saslaw remains the party’s Senate boss, little can get done without his acquiescence.

    But for the first time since he was elected senator, he’s facing a primary challenge.

    Saslaw has stymied progressive efforts to push an anti-corporate agenda in the state, voting against bills that would lead to substantive regulation of the state’s two electric monopolies, and speaking out against campaign finance reform and increased ethics and transparency regulations.

    Yasmine Taeb, an American-Muslim human rights lawyer who immigrated to the United States from Iran as a child, launched her primary challenge to Saslaw in September — and she’s going after his ties to Dominion Energy, Virginia’s biggest private-industry political donor.

    The company gives heavily to both Democrats and Republicans, but Saslaw is its top recipient in the General Assembly and one of its biggest advocates in Richmond.

    Taeb, who is the first Muslim woman elected to the Democratic National Committee, moved into the 35th District only last year, and her first foray into politics was in 2014, when she made a failed bid for the Virginia House of Delegates.

    She’s running on a platform that includes a $15 minimum wage, no corporate PAC donations, and “Medicare for All.”

    But she’s also focused on stemming Dominion’s influence in the state, fighting to stop the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines.
    Democratic Party Comes Down Hard On Progressive Challenger https://youtu.be/39dM9ycEJ3s The Damage Report 6/1/19 A NEW COURT-MANDATED redistricting in Virginia has put Democrats in a prime position to retake both chambers of the state legislature in November 2019 elections for the first time since 1995. But there could still be one major obstacle standing in the way of the party enacting a bottled-up progressive agenda: Democratic Senate Minority Leader Dick Saslaw, a 39-year incumbent with a corporate-friendly voting record and close ties to the state’s dominant power company. As long as Saslaw remains the party’s Senate boss, little can get done without his acquiescence. But for the first time since he was elected senator, he’s facing a primary challenge. Saslaw has stymied progressive efforts to push an anti-corporate agenda in the state, voting against bills that would lead to substantive regulation of the state’s two electric monopolies, and speaking out against campaign finance reform and increased ethics and transparency regulations. Yasmine Taeb, an American-Muslim human rights lawyer who immigrated to the United States from Iran as a child, launched her primary challenge to Saslaw in September — and she’s going after his ties to Dominion Energy, Virginia’s biggest private-industry political donor. The company gives heavily to both Democrats and Republicans, but Saslaw is its top recipient in the General Assembly and one of its biggest advocates in Richmond. Taeb, who is the first Muslim woman elected to the Democratic National Committee, moved into the 35th District only last year, and her first foray into politics was in 2014, when she made a failed bid for the Virginia House of Delegates. She’s running on a platform that includes a $15 minimum wage, no corporate PAC donations, and “Medicare for All.” But she’s also focused on stemming Dominion’s influence in the state, fighting to stop the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines.
    Democratic Party Comes Down Hard On Progressive Challenger
    The Democratic Party in Virginia is playing hardball against one of their own. John Iadarola and Yasmine Taeb break it down on The Damage Report. Follow The ...
    YouTube
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://ijr.com/ny-state-legislature-votes-to-make-trump-tax-returns-available/
    https://ijr.com/ny-state-legislature-votes-to-make-trump-tax-returns-available/
    2
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Venezuela’s Maduro proposes early elections for opposition-held National Assembly
    https://www.rt.com/news/459842-maduro-election-national-assembly/
    RT 5/20/19

    Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has proposed holding early elections to restock the National Assembly, currently headed by opposition leader and self-declared interim president Juan Guaido backed by US.

    Maduro made this call in a speech in Caracas on Monday. He also talked about an early election in February of this year.

    If elections are not held before then, Venezuelans will vote on the makeup of the National Assembly next year.

    In 2017 the body saw its powers somewhat limited after the establishment of the Constituent Assembly, entirely staffed with Maduro loyalists, in 2017.

    The two legislatures have functioned in parallel since.

    Maduro’s announcement comes on the anniversary of his reelection to the Latin American country’s presidency last year.

    Guaido, along with the United States, has called the election “illegitimate.”

    If defeated at the ballot box, Guaido would lose his claim to legitimate power. Despite Washington’s backing, Guaido’s efforts to mobilize popular anger and oust Maduro have thus far failed, and the Venezuelan president still commands the support of the country’s military and remains safely in power.
    Venezuela’s Maduro proposes early elections for opposition-held National Assembly https://www.rt.com/news/459842-maduro-election-national-assembly/ RT 5/20/19 Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has proposed holding early elections to restock the National Assembly, currently headed by opposition leader and self-declared interim president Juan Guaido backed by US. Maduro made this call in a speech in Caracas on Monday. He also talked about an early election in February of this year. If elections are not held before then, Venezuelans will vote on the makeup of the National Assembly next year. In 2017 the body saw its powers somewhat limited after the establishment of the Constituent Assembly, entirely staffed with Maduro loyalists, in 2017. The two legislatures have functioned in parallel since. Maduro’s announcement comes on the anniversary of his reelection to the Latin American country’s presidency last year. Guaido, along with the United States, has called the election “illegitimate.” If defeated at the ballot box, Guaido would lose his claim to legitimate power. Despite Washington’s backing, Guaido’s efforts to mobilize popular anger and oust Maduro have thus far failed, and the Venezuelan president still commands the support of the country’s military and remains safely in power.
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • The government in Canada before December of 1931 was not de jure, it was a dictatorship, the dictator was Queen Victoria’s emissary (an agent sent on a mission to represent or advance the interests of another.), the Governor General, he created and controlled the Central Legislature of the United Colony (see BNA act, 1867). When this ended on December 11, 1931, via the Statute of Westminster a void was created, no federal authority, the provinces were no longer united as a colony, they became
    10 sovereign nations and were given the ability to create their own de jure Federal Government, to this day that has not happened. No de jure government was ever overtaken by a de facto government, we were in a form of stasis (a condition of balance among various forces;
    motionlessness) until 1982 when the Liberal regime led by P. E. Trudeau decided to incorporate and commit treason upon the sovereign people with a Maritime incorporation, the “Government of Canada” Inc., this is the de facto government we have today, completely unlawful and illegal. It never took over from a de jure government, so how can it be replaced by a de jure government created through law, i.e. Grand Jury, when no de jure government ever existed? We were either a dictatorship or as we are today a dictatorship (see the Littlechild case if you think voting somehow changes anything), never de jure.
    The government in Canada before December of 1931 was not de jure, it was a dictatorship, the dictator was Queen Victoria’s emissary (an agent sent on a mission to represent or advance the interests of another.), the Governor General, he created and controlled the Central Legislature of the United Colony (see BNA act, 1867). When this ended on December 11, 1931, via the Statute of Westminster a void was created, no federal authority, the provinces were no longer united as a colony, they became 10 sovereign nations and were given the ability to create their own de jure Federal Government, to this day that has not happened. No de jure government was ever overtaken by a de facto government, we were in a form of stasis (a condition of balance among various forces; motionlessness) until 1982 when the Liberal regime led by P. E. Trudeau decided to incorporate and commit treason upon the sovereign people with a Maritime incorporation, the “Government of Canada” Inc., this is the de facto government we have today, completely unlawful and illegal. It never took over from a de jure government, so how can it be replaced by a de jure government created through law, i.e. Grand Jury, when no de jure government ever existed? We were either a dictatorship or as we are today a dictatorship (see the Littlechild case if you think voting somehow changes anything), never de jure.
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show