To Drain the Swamp, Here’s Where To Start

To Drain the Swamp, Here’s Where To Start

Bryan Fischer

Thursday, November 17, 2016

The starting point isn’t muddled at all: taxpayers want smaller, leaner, more efficient government – but federal government bureaucrats want a bigger and more bloated government.

 

    According to an exposé published in The Hill, federal bureaucrats donate to Democrats at a 90%-100% clip. The problem here is these federal bureaucrats are entirely dependent on taxpayers for their salaries, which creates a massive conflict of interest.

    Their donations to Hillary Clinton represented, if nothing else, a vote for their own job security. These employees, every dollar of whose salaries comes out of the wallets of working Americans, have a vested interest in supporting candidates who are actively working against the interests of those same taxpaying Americans.

David Schultz, a Hamline University professor of political science, said “self-preservation” likely motivates their campaign giving. “This means support for their jobs,” because federal employees are likely “more willing to give to somebody who would be more predictable in terms of supporting their livelihood, their jobs, as opposed to somebody who might be less predictable.”

Taxpayers want smaller, leaner, more efficient government. Federal government bureaucrats, on the other hand, want a bigger and more bloated government which already pays them more than the average American worker and makes it virtually impossible for them to get fired, regardless of job performance (you can ask veterans who try to use the VA about that).

According to The Hill (emphasis mine),

Of the roughly $2 million that federal workers from 14 agencies spent on presidential politics by the end of September, about $1.9 million, or 95 percent, went to the Democratic nominee’s campaign, according to an analysis by The Hill.

Employees at all the agencies analyzed, without exception, are sending their campaign contributions overwhelmingly to Clinton over her Republican counterpart. Several agencies, such as the State Department, which Clinton once led, saw more than 99 percent of contributions going to Clinton.

Employees of the Department of Justice, which investigated Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State, gave Clinton 97 percent of their donations. Trump received $8,756 from DOJ employees compared with $286,797 for Clinton. From IRS employees, Clinton received 94 percent of donations.

    This is quite obviously a pernicious and unacceptable state of affairs. The bias in what should be the utterly impartial Department of Justice is particularly odious (this is the outfit that let Hillary off the hook completely), as is the bias in the IRS. It is no wonder that the political efforts of ordinary Americans to get tax-exempt status for their Tea Party groups was spiked and frustrated at every turn.

The American people have a quite evident interest in seeing that government functionaries are limited in their ability to game the system against the fundamental interests of the American people.

When I served as chaplain of the Idaho Senate, one of the rules I voluntarily agreed to observe was that employees of the state government, even part-time ones, were not allowed to lobby for legislation. Period. This was something I had been accustomed to doing, and the left was ecstatic that I would be on ice for an entire legislative session (some of them wanted me to get a lifetime appointment for that reason).

The point is, the exercise of my freedom of speech and my freedom to petition the government for the redress of grievances was temporarily suspended during my term of service as a government worker.

Why? Because it was considered unseemly for someone being paid by taxpayers to directly influence legislation that would affect their own employ. The conflict of interest was obvious.

I was fine with that policy. My role changed from lobbyist to pastor for that session of the legislature, and I understood the privileges I would relinquish during that time. When my service as chaplain was completed, I put my lobbyist hat back on and went to work to help get a marriage amendment through that same legislature.

So what should be done at the federal level to curb this unseemly and unwise tilting of the political scales by bureaucrats? I floated the idea on my radio program this week – an idea I immediately shot down the next day – that we ask federal bureaucrats to temporarily yield the franchise as long as they are on the taxpayer dole, just as I yielded my constitutional right to freedom of speech and petition while drawing an income from taxpayers.

The right to vote is not absolute. It is reserved for those who are citizens, meet the age requirements, and aren’t convicted felons. But that possible solution is unworkable and unenforceable and would face legitimate constitutional challenges, which is why I scrapped it.

There are perhaps two other possibilities. The Hatch Act was passed to limit the ability of government employees to put their thumb on the political scale. It prohibits government workers from engaging in political activities, including making campaign contributions, while on the taxpayers’ clock.

Perhaps the Hatch Act could be amended in another way, to limit the size of the contributions federal bureaucrats are permitted make to candidates for federal office.

Limiting the size of donations to candidates is an already well-established principle, to keep the uber-wealthy from buying elections. Individuals are limited to contributing no more than $2,700 to one candidate in any election cycle, and even political action committees (PACs) are not allowed to directly donate more than $5,000 to any one candidate. There is no logical reason why that number cannot be reduced for federal bureaucrats, even to zero.

And it would have the advantage of being enforceable. You can ask conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza all about that. He pled guilty to violating federal campaign limits by using a straw donor, and was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house, five years’ probation, and a hefty $30,000 fine.

The other long-term alternative is to reduce the size of the federal behemoth by putting it in the hands of elected officials who truly believe in smaller government. They will be inclined to hire public servants who, if they donate to political campaigns at all, will be inclined to donate to candidates who will work on behalf of ordinary taxpayers rather than against them.

It’s worth noting again that the workers in 14 federal agencies gave 95% of their donations to a candidate committed to an ever larger and more bloated federal government. Donald Trump was elected to drain the swamp. It looks like the federal bureaucracy is the place to start.

Bryan Fischer hosts “Focal Point with Bryan Fischer” every weekday on AFR Talk (American Family Radio) from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Central).

The Electoral College

Take a Seat — History Class Is In Session

Darrell Huckaby    dhuck008@gmail.com

Nov 15, 2016

 

    Never in the past four years have I wanted so badly to have a class of people to teach. Teenagers or adults or senior citizens — it wouldn’t have mattered. I have seen so much appalling ignorance about our country, its history and its Constitution that I have just wanted to grab the populace and shake them until they understood.

    For starters, I am tired of hearing about our democracy and the popular vote. We are not a democracy, and a whole lot of people should be really glad about that, too, because in a democracy, mob rule applies. The majority is the boss of everybody, and if we had been a democracy in 1865 slavery would have never been abolished. If we had been a democracy in 1920, the women would have never gotten the vote. If we had been a democracy in 1964 and 1965, those historic pieces of civil rights legislation would never have been approved. In fact, if we had been a democracy in 1776, the Declaration of Independence would never have been adopted because the majority of the colonists were afraid to pursue independence, just like a majority of Americans opposed women’s suffrage and abolition and sweeping civil rights reform.

For the record, Abraham Lincoln did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996.

Most means plurality, y’all. A majority is 50 percent plus one. And while we are on the subject, we are not a democratic republic, either, no matter what the revisionist history books might claim. That’s just a term Andrew Jackson coined for political purposes in the 1820s and it stuck with some people. We are a republic. We have a federalist form of government where the power is supposed to be divided between the states and the central government and neither is subservient to the other. Both are supposed to get their powers directly from the people.

And by the way, the U.S. Constitution does not give any of us the right to have a say so in who becomes president of the United States. Oh, no, it doesn’t. That power is vested entirely in the Electoral College, and under the Constitution states still have the authority to decided how those electors are chosen. It wasn’t until 1842 that the last state started allowing the people to vote for those electors.

If we eliminated the Electoral College people in two-thirds of the states would be virtually disenfranchised when it came to presidential elections. All the time, money and effort would be spent wooing voters in California, New York and Florida.

Now about the transition of power. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution and were thought to be a dangerous thing by our founders. But parties arose almost immediately because people have always had differences of opinions about political issues. The first 12 years under the Constitution found the government in the hands of the Federalist Party. But in the election of 1800 — also called the Revolution of 1800 — Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republican Party, was chosen to be president. When John Adams, his Federalist opponent, stepped down on inauguration day in 1801, it marked the first time in the history of the world that a group in power had relinquished power without violence or threat of violence, simply because the people said that’s what they wanted. It has worked that way ever since.

And now the people have spoken and the message is loud and clear, under the Constitution, that the people want this country to go in a new direction. And no matter how much they hated to do so, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and President Obama did and said all the right things this week to propel us toward that smooth transition.

And yet in many of our nation’s cities, ignorant young people who have no knowledge of how this Republic is supposed to work, paid for by traitors, are dying to get attention by marching in the streets and generally acting the fool — and, no, these are not the peaceful protests guaranteed by the First Amendment. You must have a grievance to protest. These are spoiled brats and attention-seekers and they should be ashamed.

Electoral College and other links added by the CftC

The Rule and Order of Law

The Rule and Order of Law

 

In the Preamble, the Framers spelled out their intentions for or purposes of the Constitution. Two of the several purposes are to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility. Justice is requisite for all successful human relationships of any size and composition. It is defined by immutable Law and applicable to every society and circumstance. Superimposed on, but subservient to, immutable Law are those laws instituted by mankind. Seeking security, humanity relies on the order of law for domestic tranquility.

 

After the presidential election, protesters or rioters, if you will, violated the order of law. Robbing law abiding citizens of the fundamental civil rights associated with freedom in “pursuit of happiness”, they blocked streets and damaged property. Tolerated by failed government, those violating the rule and order of law illegally stole domestic tranquility. Just as occurred in Ferguson, Baltimore, and across our nation beginning over two years ago, the civil rights of law abiding citizens were relegated to the trash heap of unlawful political activism. Ignoring the Constitutional demand to assemble peaceably, the enemies of justice for all repeat the long train of abuses that many patriots’ sacrifices paid the price to remove. This immediately past presidential election authorized and requires that those we elected to represent us restore the rule and order of law.

 

CftC

Term Limits

Washington Should Be More Concerned About the Next Generation Than the Next Election

Sen. David Perdue

October 26, 2016

The Framers never meant elected office to be a career, nor was it meant to be a vessel for the centralization and maintenance of federal power.

Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., who has vowed to serve only two terms, says career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve. (Photo: Gage Skidmore /Zuma Press/Newscom)

    It’s no secret that Americans are fed up with Washington’s lack of results. Less than 20 percent of respondents in a recent Gallup survey said they trust the federal government to do its job.

You know what, they’re right.

Somebody has to be responsible for the mess in Washington. For too long, career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve. The Washington bubble and an unending cycle of gridlock stand in the way of real results at a time when our country is facing both a national debt crisis and a global security crisis.

Now, more than ever, we should usher in the return of the citizen legislator. It is finally time that we impose term limits on members of Congress.

Politicians should go to Washington, do their best, and then come home to live under the laws they’ve passed. It’s just that simple. Our Founding Fathers never imagined the rise of the career politician. They envisioned citizen legislators. Elected office was never meant to be a career, nor was it meant to be a vessel for the centralization and maintenance of federal power.

Yet right now, 60 members of the U.S. Senate have held elected office for more than 20 years and 36 have held office for more than 30 years.

The broken seniority system in Congress rewards years in power, not results produced. Because of that, Washington has no sense of urgency or focus on results. Too little is being done to deal with our national debt, restore our standing in the world, and roll back the regulations crippling our free enterprise system.

    When I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2014, I promised Georgians I would fight to pass term limits for members of Congress. Immediately after being sworn in last year, I co-sponsored a constitutional amendment doing just that: two six-year terms in the Senate and six two-year terms in the House. I personally have pledged to serve no more than two terms in the U.S. Senate.

For too long, career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve.

    Imagine citizen legislators coming to Washington — from all walks of life — fighting for the priorities that truly represent the interests of folks back home. They would bring fresh ideas and a new sense of urgency to finally begin to deal with the crises jeopardizing our country’s future.

    Citizen legislators could work outside the political establishment to bring a fresh perspective to how burdensome government policies negatively affect people’s everyday lives.

They could apply their practical experience to solving our nation’s toughest problems, and because they would only serve a short time, citizen legislators could approach solving problems with a sense of urgency instead of kicking the can down the road for the sake of political security.

Support for term limits is bipartisan. Another Gallup survey showed that 75 percent of voters — Republicans and Democrats alike — back legislation limiting the time people can serve at the highest levels of government. Given the polarizing climate crippling Washington today, there is something to be said about an idea that overwhelmingly unites both parties.

Enacting term limits will be an uphill battle because those currently in power thrive on the status quo. There is growing support in Congress, however, for term limits and many members on both sides are committed to going forward, no matter how long it takes.

Career politicians created this moment of crisis America faces today. They aren’t the ones who are going to solve it.

Term limits will help break this vicious cycle of gridlock that is stopping Congress from getting things done. It’s time to finally make sure Washington is more concerned about the next generation than the next election.

The Constitution Versus Humanism / Existentialism / Relativism

The Constitution Versus Humanism / Existentialism / Relativism

The Continental Divide, Tommy Nelson – Sunday, October 23, 2016

The Continental Divide

Tommy Nelson

It’s October. On 8 November, we will have an election. One of the most defining for our future. One of the most controversial in our history. One in which evangelical leaders are divided who have always been united.

I have never spoken on this in 40 years, but we need to get a Christian perspective on what’s about to happen.

So . . . let’s talk politics, biblically. Is that possible? Yes it is.

One of the leading questions of early Christianity was, “How can one be a citizen of heaven and a citizen of Rome?” The New Testament answers this repeatedly.

• Jesus said “render to Caesar…” Pay your taxes.
• Paul said, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”
• He said to Titus, “Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, ready for every good deed, to malign no one…to be uncontentious…to be gentle” The Christian is to be a model citizen.
AND…
• Peter said, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake” “For the Lord’s sake,” Not because government deserves it but because you revere God.
• Paul wrote to Timothy, “First of all, pray for kings and all who are in authority.”
• Paul took this from Jeremiah 29:7 as to how Israel was to conduct itself in the Babylonian exile. “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will have welfare.”
• Joseph influenced Egypt for the good.
• As Daniel influenced Babylon for the good.
• As Nehemiah, Mordecai and Esther influenced Persia for the good.

The people of God are to be a blessing to their cultures.

Not removed from, nor hostile to their cultures.

So, until the government asks us to do what God forbids, we are to be the best of citizens. But our influence in this country can be greater.

We are historically rare. We can be directly involved. We can “vote.” We have a say. We have what virtually none have had throughout history. Until 1776, no one had a say in their rule.

But . . . From 1776 to 1848, in just 70 years, most monarchies were gone. America had started something! France will follow. We were an idea whose time had come, as throughout the world men had had a gutful of the irresponsible authority of kings. Of authority bestowed through birth not merited through character.

And in the place of monarchies there arose constitutions. Official obligations and restraints set forth in writing through theologically informed reason, an absolute law, outside of man, by which he must be ruled, and to which rulers were accountable. A constitution – the incarnation of just rule in paper and ink

− administered through representative leaders
− placed there through an informed majority
− who voted for those they believed the wisest and best of men, whose job was to follow this law.
− Or as Mr. Lincoln said, “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
− A leadership bestowed through character not conception. Would it work?

No one knew. It had never been done.

It was “The Grand Experiment.”

A government not flawless but CORRECTABLE; through elections and persuasion and amendments, rather than coups and revolts. People putting people in charge. It was called a representative democracy.

And a new vocabulary arose. Politicians, politicking, Political parties, candidates, campaigns, primaries, speeches, debates, voters and mudslinging and corruption.
The system has problems, but I prefer it to monarchies because we don’t have bloodlettings. With the exception of our Civil War where half our country killed the other half over a breach of the Constitution concerning inalienable rights. And I am amazed at our constitution’s invention in Philadelphia in 1787.

A group of 55 men replaced millennia of kings with a constitution in just 112 days and it has lasted for 229 years. And it had never been done before. It is said that as Ben Franklin sat and observed the carving of the sun on the horizon on the headrest of George Washington’s chair, he wondered, “Is that sun rising or setting? Will this be a new day in history or a disaster?” No one was sure. That’s why only 39 of the 55 delegates at Philadelphia signed the Constitution. Sixteen weren’t sure it would work.

The best way to govern? Through Jesus Christ, “righteousness incarnate,” “wisdom incarnate”. He will not be elected. But until He returns a representative democracy is a good way. But two problems present themselves in electing leaders. One is the need of getting elected and staying elected. For this a politician needs “popularity.” The majority must like him. But wise rulers cannot always be popular, thus an “elected official” feels a tension between leadership and job security. Between doing right and preserving a career. This is why some said it would not work, as it would devolve into a popularity contest.

But another problem, just as dangerous, is that proper elected leaders demand an informed and wise voting public.

A proper standard must be present throughout the culture. If not, an ignorant population will get what they deserve. 51% can be as terrible as a tyrant when they are misinformed.

So potentially, “universal suffrage” is dangerous. That is why public mandatory education and universal suffrage emerged at the same time in our country. The Horace Mann Common School movement began just after the Constitution. Every young person – future voters – had to be educated in basic reading and writing, in morals, citizenship and yes, the Bible as only a morally responsible people could select proper leaders. A people and a culture are reflected in their elected leaders.

But, this is the political system, that we have all been born into. And, like it or not, we have the responsibility to be informed and vote. Because the cause of death of a representative democracy is not just ignorance of truth, but also apathy. A-pathos: “don’t care.” An apathy arising from discouragement that says, “I’m just one person,” or “the candidates are flawed,” or “I’ve got other things to worry about.”

But the Book of Proverbs says…

“If you are faint in the day of adversity,
Your strength is small.
Deliver those who are led away to death,
And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, “Surely we did not know this,”
Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it?
He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?” (Prov. 24:10-12 NKJV)

Meaning, it is in the difficult day that you must be strong. When evil has gained control, that is when you must stand. You must be a hero when heroes must be. And you can’t use the excuse of ignorance.

God knows that you know because God watches over you and cares for you. And you will be accountable for your silence.

And this is where we are in 2016. Two candidates. Both flawed. Seriously. Both children of the 60s. My people. One five years older than me. One just three. Both “true nature’s child. They were born, born to be wild.” One an activist. One a capitalist.

Is it a meaningless election? Will we lose either way? An election called “The Clump.”
No. This election will be enormous in our history. As the Republican and Democratic platforms are headed in polar opposite directions. Not just politically, but theologically and morally. Half of our country will be elated on Nov. 8. Half outraged.

Because an enormous disparity of worldviews has finally surfaced in our country. One that has been brewing beneath the surface for 100 years, ever since our move from modernism to post-modernism in the 50s and 60s. “Modernism” is seeking truth, not through the Bible but through man’s reason. Modernism believes there is truth but it’s up to man to find it. Modernism failed. Because of the prevailing question of “Says who?” There was no final, eternal, infinite, outside of man, divine authority.

“Post-modernism” followed. Post modernism is inventing your own truth. You play God. It’s called Moral Relativity or Existentialism. It is the abandonment of final truth and it has dominated the latter half of the 20th century.

Some have resisted and stayed theistic knowing post modernism won’t work. Like us. Conservatives. Holding to the Bible, a standard outside of man; to biblical right and wrong, moral and immoral.

But post-modernism has affected everything: sexuality, the arts, the family, gender, education, the military, sports, entertainment. Post-modernism laundered sin. And political parties have polarized into the two worldviews. Theistic and Post-Modern.

Republican – Democratic Absolute – Relativistic Traditional -Modern biblically informed – humanly reasoned. God centered laws – man centered freedom. Pro Life – Pro Choice
In a broad sense Christian and non-Christian.

Is there final truth? Is there revealed truth? Biblical, divine truth? Or does man get to make the rules? Is “truth” just a word?

This is the elephant in the room. And I don’t mean the Republican elephant. The elephant that all are aware of but no one speaks of. Is abortion wrong? Is same sex wrong? Is ANYTHING wrong? Why? And how do we know? The elephant in the room is God.
Can we say no? In matters of marriage, sexuality, gender, abortion, or the loss of religious freedom? IS it possible to say , “No, that is wrong?”

Can they enforce compliance to their rejection like France did in 1789? As Communism did in 1917 . . . as Nazism did in the 1930s. Is homosexuality a civil right that one cannot resist for fear of retribution? Can a politician or court set aside a Biblical mandate? Can they determine a human in the womb is not a human? Can they take your gun? Can they redefine marriage? Can they redefine gender? Can they play God?

Make no mistake, this did not start with the Democrats. The furnace consuming us, we as a country have stoked for a hundred years. We are being beaten with our own stick. Reaping our bitter sowing. This didn’t just happen. It was cultivated by our own cultural ideas and the silence of the sentries, the Church.

This election will slow the post-modern trajectory if there is a Republican victory, or accelerate the post- modern trajectory if a Democrat victory. A direction that this present administration has promoted zealously and unashamedly for eight years. A direction with no foreseeable stops. No logical stops.

Because whoever is elected will have a number of Supreme Court appointments that will weight Supreme Court decisions one way or the other and affect this country for 30 years. This is the most powerful aspect of the President; Commander in Chief of the military and appointer of the Supreme Court. Most of what the president does moves like a barge, this is a jet ski. This election will put world views in stone. Scalia is gone. Three more are going. The next president is in control as few have been. Three Supreme Court decisions of late went 5-4 in favor of Conservatives: the Hobby Lobby right to religious freedom in business, the Heller Case, the right of the individual to own a firearm, and of government property having the right to exhibit a cross. Again . . . 5-4! Our historic freedoms were one vote from extinction… That balance will tip with this election…one way or the other.

Because, when you vote as an American you vote not just for a candidate but for a party platform. What it believes. And it is no longer merely a political perspective on economics, defense or foreign policy, but a theological one. What is right? Wrong? And why?
Abortion; homosexual marriage treated as traditional marriage; “gender neutral” These have never been considered right until recent.

Why? Because something changed. Because we have changed! We now believe differently. Our lenses have altered. Our worldview shifted from God to man. Theistic to Modern to Post Modern. Our previous assumptions of 200 years have vanished. Will that be good and liberating? The Democrats say, “yes.” The Republicans say, “no.” Will it be wrong and corrupting? The Republican says, “yes.” The Democrat says, “no.”
So you vote for what you believe will be a party’s consequences, direction. A party’s trajectory. You don’t just vote for a candidate.

How will it affect my kids? Grand-kids? Our future as a people? Our future hangs in the balance as never before.

Because there are three points of conscience that this election deals with. By that, I mean points that are not essentially political. Not the economy, foreign policy, the national defense or even health care – but points of the national violation of the Bible’s teaching. They are abortion, the sanctioning of sodomy or gay marriage, and the religious liberty to resist without reprisal or prosecution.

These are the legitimate fears of the Christian concerning the Democratic platform. Things not perceived as bad politics but historically as evils. Things that the Christian believes, that I believe, will corrupt us and will incur God’s wrath. Bad politics are irritants, these are self destructive.

First, the Democratic platform wants abortion on demand. Over the counter. The Republican platform wants the repeal of Roe v. Wade, or at least the continuance of stipulations and restraints that Christians have fought for since 1973: parental consent, sonograms, waiting period and the like.

Also, the Democratic platform wants gay rights treated as civil rights. Meaning the illegality of opposing and of refusing to participate in anything of same sex. Just as one does not have a right to oppose service because of race so one now cannot oppose and refuse a service because of homosexuality. In other words the removal of the Christian freedom to obey God and His Bible. Ben Carson recognized the fallacy of this “apples to apples” equating when he said to the gay community, “Do not regard your sin as my skin.” If I were black, I like Carson would be enraged at such an equating. The Republican platform wants homosexuality to remain as it has always been. A freedom and a personal right but not a law of civil compliance. And the freedom to say, “I will have no part in such actions.” I will not provide flowers for your gay wedding, a cake for your gay wedding or t-shirts or pizza for your same sex rally. Or “You can’t make me facilitate what my faith condemns.”
All of these will make or break upon Supreme Court rulings:

As Roe v. Wade in ’73 concerning abortion.

As Engle v. Vitale in ’62 prayer in schools.

And as of last July concerning same sex marriage regarded as a civil law.

Supreme Court law forms trajectory . . . as 60 million dead since ’73 would agree if they could speak. Or generations of public school kids who have never heard a prayer in school. Or as Christians who have now lost businesses over the loss of religious freedom. Or as the state of North Carolina understands in saying, “No,” to the Supreme Court on gender neutral restrooms and are now being punished by the NCAA. That’s why they’re called “Tarheels.” Or Christian teachers who are now quitting rather than submitting to a requirement to not refer to boys and girls as “he or she” but by a gender neutral term. The Supreme Court has created a world gone mad.

Why do you think Christian and private schooling and home schooling have exploded in the last 40 years? To escape the inferiority, enforcement, and encroachments of secularism.

And I will make a prediction – 2 of them. If Hillary wins and the madness grows and the irrational spreads, private and Christian and charter education and home schools are going to explode… and the government will begin to inhibit.

And mind you the Democratic agenda is not a conspiratorial thing or behind the scenes. The Democrats generally are proud and open concerning their progressiveness, their tolerance and open mindedness. They are proud of their intolerance of Christian morality and of you!

When Michelle Obama speaks as she did at the Democratic National Convention four years ago of woman’s freedom to do what they will with their own bodies and the freedom to “love who you will love and marry whom you will marry” – the response was and is an ovation. They glory in their shame. As Jeremiah said, “They have lost the ability to blush.”
One of our female staff read the Democratic platform and said it was “sin in writing.” That is the Christian perception of the Democratic platform.

The Republican candidate is flawed partly because he has never been a politician so has seen no need to cover things up. He is a 60’s pagan.

He’s had bad marriages

And a bad demeanor . . . like a hard pragmatic businessman. I think that’s why he’s popular.

Because, he’s not a politician and can tend to hold politics in contempt. He’s one of us in that we are tired of politicians, of political correctness, of playing to the media, and weakness in leaders. But he has rough edges. Each week brings new surprises, because he just does not care! Things that make you good in business can make you bad in politics. Ten years ago he was immoral and employed filthy, unguarded and suggestive language. But then bad language did not kill 60 million babies, enforce sodomy, take your firearm or take your religious freedom.

He is as unpopular for his directness and assertiveness as the Democratic hopeful for her liberality.

But if elected, Trump has submitted 11 possibles for Supreme Court nominations that have been called by fundamentalist theologian Wayne Grudem “a conservative dream team”. And he has chosen as a running mate, Michael Pence, the poster boy for conservative Christian values.

He has plans for Islamic immigration and illegal immigration so decisive that they have drawn criticism. And some of his references, his generalizations, have been offensive to the Hispanic community. He does not weigh his words.

He plans to create jobs by freeing up businesses to expand by lessening taxation. Our government punishes successful businessmen . . . to the tune of 40%. We have the highest taxation of business in the world. Government need not create jobs. I know that much. Business does, but they won’t when they are continually punished for succeeding. Like communism, our government stifles ambition. Government should protect business.

He also plans to get the government out of the church’s business and to restore religious freedom and to protect the 2nd amendment.

And to halt the Democratic trajectory on abortion and same-sex marriage which demands Supreme Court decisions.

Pence has been quoted as saying,

1. “Let me assure you, the Trump-Pence administration will stand for sanctity of life and defend the unborn from the first day we take office.”
2. “We will end late term abortions nationwide. As my running mate said not so long ago, ‘We should not be one of the few countries that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks.’”
3. “The days of public funding for Planned Parenthood are over when the Trump-Pence Administration arrives in D.C.”

The issues of abortion and same sex are not political. They are spiritual; revealed in scripture. When violated they summon God’s wrath. And I believe they have done so already in our society full of perversion, racial unrest, and violence within as well as ISIS and terrorism without. We have been, as Paul said, “given over to a depraved mind to do those things which are not proper.”

We are now a reflection of the book of Judges, Israel’s Dark Ages, where “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” Existentialism

Because without a theological base we have no moral base, thus people are either helpless or out of control. Thus government must now not just govern us but parent us . . .
To a Christian, all other political issues must be subservient to these. Meaning no matter how he may disagree on immigration, welfare, the military, or foreign policy, taxes, or the economy, he must not fail to resist infanticide, sodomy, the destruction of traditional marriage, and the loss of Christian freedom.

If Trump is successful . . . for eight years . . . his VP would be the logical follow up. That could possibly be 16 years of halting the direction of an administration that has made the most radical rulings since Roe v. Wade and the Fugitive Slave Law that forbid the resisting of slavery and helped foster the Civil War.

How can this happen? It is easy. The sleeping giant must awake. Twenty five million evangelicals did not vote in the last election. We lost by 4 million. We are the largest demographic in our country. If Christians, our sentries, the conscience of our country, step up, if they vote and vote wisely, not for Utopia but for that candidate that will support through Supreme Court appointments the historic Christian and American values, the rights and wrongs we were built on, we will win and regain a sense of control. We can slow the madness for 30 years. We can’t stop it because the madness is not political.
It’s from man’s rebellion against the Almighty God. A madness of the soul.

A problem arises:

“Both are flawed, so I will not vote.” OR
“ I’m voting for a write-in candidate with no chance of winning as an act of conscience
an expression of Christian indignation – a political sitdown.

You say, “I can’t support Trump.”

Can you endure Hillary and the Democratic platform, and an imbalance in the Supreme Court for 30 years? The loss of your Constitutional freedoms? Can you endure that?
Because, when all three branches, Executive, Judicial and Legislative, swing one way, “it is Vegas.” It is a trifecta. It is total takeover. There is no checks and no balances. Not in just politics but this time in outlawing traditional freedoms, Constitutional freedoms.

One that will curse your children and curse your grandchildren long after you’re gone.

Does that bother your conscience? You don’t fight the enemy by firing into the air.
Francis Schaeffer said 30 years ago, “If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolutes by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes.” George Orwell saw this before his 1984.

In Presidential elections you vote for the better of the two. You vote for a platform; for possibilities. In 2012, I voted for Mitt Romney, a Mormon. We have idolized John and Bobby Kennedy both of whom held marriage in contempt. All leaders are flawed to some extent.

It must be said that probably few of us had Donald Trump as our first choice. He wasn’t mine. I was Cruz, Rubio, then Carson because they were open Christians. Most of us said, “What would you do if it came down to Trump?” Well it did, because the Republicans Party chose Donald Trump and entrusted him with their platform. We all recognize that he’s somewhat unlikeable. We also recognize that it’s somewhat scary to have a fellow as hard-nosed as he is to be in discussions with foreign leaders who can be on the edge. And we recognize that he is untested in politics and we could all have egg on our faces in the coming years. I assure you I will be praying earnestly for Michael Pence to guide him in the civility of politics. But those things “might be”, as indeed in all elections there is a “might be” involved in all leaders. But the Democratic platform is not a “might be”. It’s a “gonna be”. A “will be “. Donald Trump is scary because of the unknown. Hillary is scary because of the fear of the known. Maybe I was just raised different than some current evangelical leaders. I was taught not to lie down. I will vote to oppose the loss of our freedom and the loss of life and the loss of the traditional family.

If the Democratic platform is enacted which their candidate supports with zealous passion, the country we had will be no more. Secularism will have eaten into our viscera. Political analyst, Eric Metaxas, in the Wall Street Journal wrote, “If Hillary Clinton is elected the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution – and the genuine liberty and self- government for which millions have died – is gone. Not for 4 years or eight but forever. Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score but Mrs. Clinton can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?”

Christian . . . Your freedoms are seen by this party as bigotry. Your beliefs are seen as bigotry. Your rights as wrongs, and the Democratic Party wants to legally remove them by unconstitutional judicial activism – to accelerate the erosion that has been creeping onward in our post-modern culture for 50 years. The river has eaten away at the bank and it’s about to collapse. They will not stand your standing. If Hillary wins, this election can be called “The Empire Strikes Back” as 60s radicalism, underground since the 70s, will live again. “I have fought for children all my life,” Hillary says, “and I will fight for them until the end.” Ovation!! “How about, let’s don’t kill them in the womb. How’s about let’s don’t invade their safety in a restroom. Let’s don’t confuse their sense of gender, or allow children to decide what they are, or forbid the 10 Commandments and moral law to be spoken in their classroom, or forbid the name of God and Christ. How’s about let’s insure a normal set of parents, or not assault their souls with perversion on the internet. Then tell me you fight for our children.”

If the Democratic ideology wins, the echoes of Philadelphia will fade to silence to the delight of these people. Who say, “Speak to us no more of the Holy One of Jacob.”

My fear is two-fold: First that we are outnumbered. They may now be too many.

Democrats are easily and naturally produced. Any who wish to cast off the restraints of divine laws can be Democrats and the arts, entertainment, the media, the colleges, and the culture surrounds and nurtures them. I fear we may be as the English at Dunkirk about to be pushed into the sea by sheer numbers. I also fear it may be too late. The blood of a generation of the murdered cries out. The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has reached the ears of heaven and God has come down to see. Winter may have descended upon Narnia. The last 100 years may have come due. And as Habakkuk said, “I must wait quietly for the day of distress. For the people to arise who will invade us.” Thomas Jefferson said, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” God may want Hillary Clinton in the Presidency as the rod of His chastisement, even as Jezebel in the days of Israel’s sin. She is the embodiment of the thinking of the last 70 years.

Basically Christians in this country have found themselves at the Red Sea with no rational way of escape. All we can do is all we can do, and then, as a people, cry out for God’s might from outside our logic and limitations. God must intervene sovereignly in great might and open a way where there is none.

Christian, the barbarians are at the gate. It is an ancient conflict beginning in the Garden of Eden. “I will put enmity”, o devil, “between your children and the seed of the woman.”
Vote. Vote your conscience. And vote your brain. There is one person who I think of and am pressured by when I vote. A little fellow I can’t see. [PUT UP SONOGRAM] A little fellow who just wants a chance. A chance to breathe on his own. Who doesn’t ask for much. Just for tomorrow. And who would appreciate the adults around him to not invade his sanctuary and obliterate his right to life. It was not his doing that put him here.
I think of him. And of standing between him and those who seek his life because he’s inconvenient. To do that I am left with one choice.

And I think of those little guys he will grow up into. [MY GRANDKIDS PICTURE] Like these guys. Do they look familiar? They’re my grandkids. I would like them to have the freedoms and the protection that I had. A semblance of a country that I knew as a boy. This election is a symptom of our nation’s ills. Meaning:

water does not rise higher than its source

effects are not greater than their causes and you do not gather grapes from a thorn bush.

You will not find peace and the right from a theological and moral vacuum. Our fountain has run dry.

Do you know this hymn?

“My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand.”

“disqualified from holding any office under the United States” – U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071

U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record,  proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book,  document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes,  mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroy  the same, shall be fined under  this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Editor’s Note:    A member of the Committee for the Constitution served in the same platoon in the Marine Corps with James Kallstrom in 1966 as they went through OCS as enlisted men and The Basic School as Lieutenants at Quantico MCB. They then overlapped service in federal law enforcement, one in the Secret Service guarding politicians and the other in the FBI. Mr. Kallstrom retired as Assistant Director of the FBI. According to our member, “He [Kallstrom] is one of the finest individuals and patriots you would EVER want to meet. We see eye-to-eye in our opinion of the dangerous direction and assessment of the looming dangers for our country … “

CftC

More On Enemies In Our Midst

More On Enemies In Our Midst

 Joel B. Pollak

19 Oct., 2016

According to a document from the Democracy Alliance conference in Santa Monica in April 2016, the George Soros-backed umbrella group of wealthy left-wing political donors paid activists to disrupt at least one event for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Soros is the primary supporter of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Under the heading “Case Study: Racial Justice,” the Democracy Alliance document says:

Through our rapid response fund Solidaire has remained nimble, providing agile support in moments of uprising, helping ensure activists have the materials, food, supplies, stipends and bail funds to sustain and escalate their disruption of business as usual. In support of the assertion that black lives matter, 2015 saw us lend our backing to:

  • the uprising in Baltimore
  • a transgender delegation to the Movement for Black Lives Convening in Cleveland
  • response to pro-Confederate backlash in Georgia
  • an action to disrupt the International Conference of Police Chiefs in Chicago
  • actions in Ohio on the one-year anniversary of the killings of Tamir Rice and Tanisha Anderson
  • disruption of a Donald Trump fundraiser in New York City
  • occupation of the 4th Police Precinct in Minneapolis

 

In addition, the document lists a line item of $9,200 spent on “SURJ – Disrupting Trump.” SURJ apparently stands for “Showing Up for Racial Justice,” an organization that describes itself as “a national network of groups and individuals organizing White people for racial justice.”

Democracy Alliance document (screen shot)

It is unclear whether the $9,200 was meant to cover one disruption, or several.

The Facebook page for SURJ includes a profile photo exhorting visitors to “SHOW UP AGAINST WHITE TERROR” (original emphasis), and also includes two videos of protest actions in New York.

The first video is a local news story from December 2015 reporting that activists had defaced the statue of Christopher Columbus in Manhattan’s Columbus Circle to protest against Donald Trump.

The second video is a self-produced documentary about a protest against Trump at a Republican event in New York in April 2016. The link for that video is either disabled or has been made inaccessible to the public. Video and photos of the event survive on Twitter, however (language warning).

Millions March NYC@Millions March     Apr 14

hate-march

The people have made it to entrance of Grand Hyatt!!

#ShutDownTrumpNYC    #HateFreeNYC

The revelation about Soros’s link to the disruptions comes after conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas exposed an effort by Democrats to incite violence at Trump rallies and other Republican events for more than a year.

The effort centered around a consulting firm called Democracy Partners, with deep ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign and to the White House. Since the story broke Monday, Democracy Partners consultant Scott Foval has been fired, and the group’s co-founder, Robert Creamer, has been forced to resign.

The Washington Free Beacon, which first exposed the inner workings of the Democracy Alliance, describes it as a “secretive dark money group backed by George Soros and other liberal mega-donors.” In addition to Soros, major participants include mega-donors such as Tom Steyer, the financier-turned-climate activist who is entertaining a run for California governor in 2018.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Our Enemies Are Among Us

Our Enemies Are Among Us

    If there were one issue that should direct your vote in this presidential election, it should be limiting the tyranny of the judicial activism of the Supreme Court. Violating the Constitution by usurping states’ rights under the color of the Fourteenth Amendment, no reasoning person can countenance the violation of common sense and decency. Added to the transgressions of failed science regarding any ability to control global warming, one must also face the horrible atrocity of partial birth abortion.

    More than any other time in our history, every patriot must vote for the candidate who will protect and defend the Constitution. If you have succumbed to some emotional appeal of the candidates while ignoring truth and reality, you should take this quiz, and see which candidate has a platform that will represent what you want for our government for generations to come.

CftC

Truth Versus Politically Correct – A Moment and Our Destiny

Truth Versus Politically Correct

    If the Founders and Framers were politically correct there would have been no Declaration of Independence, and no United States of America. Instead, the generations that gave birth to this “one Nation under God” established the “supreme law of the land” based on immutable Law. Immutable Law, made aware to human understanding through the revelations of valid science and uncorrupted unrevised history, defines truth. Truth is indelible, and beyond any human ability to create or control. Justice is entirely reliant on Truth, and thus, immutable Law also establishes justice. With justice as the absolute requisite for all successful enduring human relationships with others of our kind and the totality of reality, the Framers called to the reality of science and history to draft the Constitution of the United States of America. Giving the world an enduring model for an order of law applicable to any successful government in any culture or society, our Constitution acknowledges and history confirms its truths.

    Taking into account repetitive human failure, they established an order of laws over all other laws, where human laws generated by political action were to be always accountable to Truth. President George Washington in his Farewell Address, p. 20, made that point very clear when he said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports”.

For any political entity to continue to exist, it must contain some element of truth. Ultimately, the crucible of time, reflected in true unbiased unprejudiced history, eliminates the lies and deceptions infecting every political organization. Every amalgamation of individual power of every shape and composition; from the traditional nuclear family – the foundation of every society, to governments large and small; seeks to carry out its own economic agenda. Each one enacts their own laws to pursue their own special interests. With the basic motivation to seek pleasure and avoid pain, political action translates into each entity moving to control and self perpetuate. Ideologically, the Declaration of Independence describes these truths.

Because truth was held and understood to be requisite for any successful political body, every political creation of mankind was subject to the scrutiny of truth. There was no political correctness inhibiting and thwarting relationships and interactions. Only truth and justice were meant to guide and direct the often errant humanity. The Revolution was the consummate rejection of the repetitive injustice of political correctness always sustained by unjust political power or the force of arms.

Every body politic from religious organizations, to businesses, governments, cultural delineations – all political entities were meant by those following the Great Awakening to be subject to the oversight of truth and justice.

On matters of faith or opinion, unproven or not confirmed by history, the First Amendment, particularly, and the Bill of Rights, generally, put in place the Framers’ intention to always safeguard the politically weaker from the tyranny and injustice of the more powerful. Without the assurance that the Bill of Rights was to be first on the agenda of the First Congress, the Constitution would not have been ratified. Because America has replaced Truth with political correctness, we are under attack by enemies, foreign and domestic. To reclaim America, voters must relegate political correctness to the trash heap of human invention.

CftC

 

The Scaffold: A Moment and Our Destiny

Ravi Zacharias

    I recently received a question from a young woman asking if I found obedience and submission to authority easy? My first response was to smile. Then the wheels began to turn. So I penned some thoughts.

    I find it fascinating how the things we mock in life in the end mock us. We mock laws of goodness. Those violated laws come back to prove themselves right. The skeptic mocks the Scriptures. The Scriptures prove themselves to be right repeatedly. No chapters in the Bible are more ridiculed than the first three chapters of Genesis. Yet, we live those very scenes out every day.

“Did God really say?” we ask with a skeptical grin. Evidently, most political leaders don’t think He did. So we change God’s laws that make true freedom possible into our own dictates for everyone. We think right and left and forget there are an up and a down.

America has changed beliefs that have existed for five millennia on virtually every matter of essence. Humanity is redefined, sexuality is redefined, the family is redefined, truth is redefined, absolutes are jettisoned, our chromosomal constitution is redefined. What’s more, we live under the delusion that any rebellion against a transcendent moral order is a personal matter with merely personal implications, because we know better now. We call that progress. Yes, that word is right out of the lexicon of humanism, now made into an ideology of political theory as “progressive.”

It would be fine if such thinking indeed merely affected the one making the choice. But in the end, with moral choices, there is no such thing as isolation. The impact of moral choices is catastrophic, like an earthquake that radically changes existing structures.

When the Prime Minister of Japan committed suicide after the brutal Second World War, he wrote his epitaph: “As terrible as it was what I did to others, nothing was as terrible as what I did to myself.” The fact is that what he did to others was a sequel to what he had done to himself. No man or woman is an island. We draw others into our world of choices. I attended the funeral of a man who had taken his own life. He did not just kill himself. He broke the heart of his widow and trampled underfoot the hearts of his children. His daughter said she felt betrayed because often times in her teens she had wanted to take her own life but had held back because of the pain it would have caused her family. Her obedience to a justifiable fear had spared her family. Selfishness in an adult crushed the heart of his family and many others.

America seems to be on a path to a death wish. Why? We are determined in the academy, in the arts, in politics, and in journalism to go it without God. We simply do not wish to have a moral law over and above us. We’re watching the world skidding out of control. There’s almost a lunacy afloat and it seems to begin with arrogant leadership. The world scene is more complex than ever, with no easy solutions.

We railed against intervention in one country because it bred slaughter. So we did not intervene in another country and the result is an even greater slaughter. It goes to show that the complexities and contexts are not as simple as we make them to be. And just like the garden of old, each blames the other. Whichever position we take, we see the weapons of hatred pile up as our moral resources shrink. We are on the stormy seas of history without chart or compass.

Race relations are brewing to the point of a looming conflagration. How sad to see this. We are supposed to be “one nation under God.” We are now many groups against God. It is heartbreaking. We have forgotten that we are all created in God’s image. We are now scarred with a self-inflicted wound. Our streets see someone’s blood spilled every day.

One person in the State Department told me that in four decades of service she has never seen such a toxic time in government as she now sees. How fearsome is that? We have lost respectful speech. I mourn that loss. We don’t care for our leaders to tell us the truth anymore. How catastrophic is that?

Our methods of reaching the masses are greater than ever. Our ability to touch the hearts of people is less than ever. We spend billions electing a leader all the while decrying riches, while millions starve for want of food or a home.

Where are we headed? I don’t know. But if the present so-called postmodern autonomy continues, each one a law unto himself or herself, we will soon be in total anarchy. Progress must have a defining destination, must it not? That destination should have a measurement from a recognized starting point, should it not? Interestingly, the word autonomy—meaning self-law and anarchy, meaning no ruler—by extension has a similar sound to no beginning. The words are close. Archos means ruler and archay means beginning.

“In the beginning”: in the Greek translation, en arkhay. Anarchy has come to spell “no beginning” for us and hence we have denied the ultimate Rule Giver and his moral order. Making our own rules for living we’re now into a lawless land, “making progress” at the mercy of whoever appoints the judges and makes the laws.

So I write this. This election may determine the next two generations almost irreversibly. What kinds of judges do we want? Those who will go back to the beginning or those who will judge autonomously? Rebellion is in the air. The first temptation was “Did God really say?” The second was an open defiance to what God had decreed: “You will not surely die.” By denying the first we are burying the future and still think we will live because some can wear a plastic smile before the lights of the camera and say, “We’re winning,” the very lights which blind us to a greater context and puts truth in the dark.

I recall a Russian saying to me, “All these years my hope for the world was that America would bring us hope and freedom. I don’t believe that anymore. They don’t think rightly anymore,” he said. Amazing that a man in a communist country under the heel of demagogues, wishing for moral reasoning, now sees the light flickering in America and the darkness looming ahead.

This election, as I see it, is the most defining one for the future of our world. I have no doubt I will receive a lot of negative responses to my even saying these things. I’m in the seventh decade of my life; criticism and personal attacks is the least of my concerns. The love for my family, my offspring and theirs, and the land that I love, eclipses egotistical seductions.

So I must speak my heart. It will all come down to the place and meaning of law, life at its essence, and moral worth. We must vote. Vote if not for the now, at least for the future. I hear many saying, “How strange that we are in a situation where neither candidate represents my values.” I agree. So with what philosophers would call “Hobson’s Choice,” I ask three questions.

First, which of the two candidates is more likely to surround the highest office with those with a hint at moral reasoning? That may at least give a glimmer of hope.

Second, who is more likely to appoint as keepers of the law those who go back to our roots in order to secure the future? That will at least recognize a beginning.

Third, who stands on a platform of values that guards my essence and my existence? That may at least guide our destiny.

One may triumphantly say, “But that is not foolproof.” True! But what is? The only one who is foolproof is God. And even of Him, the Scriptures tell us that fool will deny his existence.

While the primary personalities may seem divisive, the voices in the wings and their moral roots may keep the branches—and our story—alive to give shade to a parched world. In her book The Roads to Modernity, Gertrude Himmelfarb makes an incredibly powerful statement. She says that the difference between the European Enlightenment and the English and American Enlightenments was really one word. For the French philosophes, reasoning was supreme. For the English and the Americans, moral reasoning was supreme. A world of difference, and diverse paths to the present.

I remember having dinner in a European country with a small group of very successful people, one the head of a renowned school of business, supposedly one of the best in Europe. During the conversation he very proudly stated that a class on ethics was not part of their curriculum. As the topic of conversation moved from curriculum to impact, several moments later he said that in the last national election three of the candidates were graduates of their school. “What happened,” I asked? “One lost because he was a womanizer, the second lost because he was an alcoholic, and the third, because he was corrupt” was his answer. My wife whispered in my ear, “Maybe it’s time they started teaching ethics.”

Dare I suggest that our choices are equally fearsome, with one difference. It may well come down to the laws that will be made and that will be interpreted for generations to come. The judges appointed in the next term will ultimately judge us. If we mock the laws, they will mock us. Our silence now will mean their silence on our deepest values when we need them to speak.

The words of the great American James Russell Lowell uttered years ago come to mind:

Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,—

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

    Religious liberty, guaranteed in the scaffolding of the law, may well be heading to the scaffold because it represents a law above our laws. Moral reasoning may be suffocated and so-called “humanistic reason” will then choke the transcendent. We had better speak and make a choice before the torso of our fulfilled death wish is swinging in the wind as the mascot of an autonomous culture that will breed anarchy.

I pray that God will guide this nation. May it be for a better future because we were wise in looking ahead, and not a destructive future because we were foolish and looking only at the now.

 

Hillary Couldn’t Be Proven Guilty of Her eMail Crimes Without Implicating Obama

Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation

Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty a.s well

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

September 26, 2016

 

‘How is this not classified?”

So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system – something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”

She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.”

Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Thanks to Friday’s FBI document dump – 189 more pages of reports from the Bureau’s year-long foray (“investigation” would not be the right word) into the Clinton e-mail scandal – we now know for certain what I predicted some eight months ago here at NRO: Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest.

As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.

To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale. Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton – although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.

Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.

Indeed, imagine what would have happened had Clinton been indicted. The White House would have attempted to maintain the secrecy of the Obama-Clinton e-mails (under Obama’s invocation of a bogus “presidential communications” privilege), but Clinton’s defense lawyers would have demanded the disclosure of the e-mails in order to show that Obama had engaged in the same misconduct, yet only she, not he, was being prosecuted. And as most experienced criminal-law lawyers understand (especially if they’ve read a little Supreme Court case known as United States v. Nixon), it is an argument that Clinton’s lawyers would have won.

In fact, in any other case – i.e., in a case that involved any other unindicted co-conspirator – it would be the Justice Department itself introducing the Obama-Clinton e-mails into evidence.

As noted above, the FBI told Huma Abedin that the name she did not recognize in the e-mail with Clinton was an Obama alias. For the agents to do this ran afoul of investigative protocols. The point of an FBI interview is for the interviewee to provide information to the investigators, not the other way around. If agents give information to potential witnesses, the government gets accused of trumping up the case.

But of course, that’s only a problem if there is actually going to be a case.

In this instance, it was never going to happen. The president’s involvement guaranteed that . . . so why worry about letting Abedin in on the president’s involvement?

Abedin was startled by this revelation. No wonder: People in her lofty position know that direct presidential communications with high-ranking officials who have national-security and foreign-policy responsibilities are presumptively classified.

To convey this, and thus convey the legal significance of Obama’s involvement, I can’t much improve on what I told you back in February. When the Obama Justice Department prosecuted retired general David Petraeus, the former CIA director, for mishandling classified information, government attorneys emphasized that this top-secret intelligence included notes of Petraeus’s “discussions with the president of the United States of America.”

Petraeus pled guilty because he knew the case against him was a slam-dunk. He grasped that trying to defend himself by sputtering, Clinton-style, that “the notes were not marked classified” would not pass the laugh test. As I elaborated in the February column, when you’re a national-security official engaging in and making a written record of policy and strategy conversations with the president, the lack of classified markings on the documents you’ve created

[does] not alter the obvious fact that the information they contain [is] classified – a fact well known to any high government official who routinely handles national-defense secrets, let alone one who directly advises the president.

Moreover, as is the case with Clinton’s e-mails, much of the information in Petraeus’s journals was “born classified” under the terms of President Obama’s own executive order – EO 13526. As I’ve previously noted, in section 1.1(d) of that order, Obama issued this directive: “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” In addition, the order goes on (in section 1.4) to describe other categories of information that officials should deem classified based on the damage to national security that disclosure could cause. Included among these categories: foreign relations, foreign activities of the United States, military plans, and intelligence activities.

Abedin knew, as the FBI agents who were interviewing her surely knew, that at least some of Obama’s pseudonymous exchanges with Clinton had to have crossed into these categories. They were born classified. As I said in February, this fact would profoundly embarrass Obama if the e-mails were publicly disclosed.

Hundreds of times, despite Clinton’s indignant insistence that she never sent or received classified information, the State Department has had to concede that her e-mails must be redacted or withheld from public disclosure because they contain information that is patently classified. But this is not a concession the administration is willing to make regarding Obama’s e-mails.

That is why, as I argued in February, Obama is trying to get away with the vaporous claim that presidential communications must be kept confidential. He does not want to say “executive privilege” because that sounds too much like Nixon. More important, the only other alternative is to designate the e-mails as classified. That would be tantamount to an admission that Obama engaged in the same violation of law as Clinton.

Again, this is why the prosecution of Mrs. Clinton never had a chance of happening. It also explains why, in his public statements about the matter, Obama insisted that Clinton’s e-mailing of classified information did not harm national security. It is why Obama, in stark contrast to his aforementioned executive order, made public statements pooh-poohing the fact that federal law forbids the mishandling of any intelligence secret. (“There’s classified, and then there’s classified,” he said, so cavalierly.) He had to take this position because he had himself effectively endorsed the practice of high-level communications through non-secure channels.

This is also why the Justice Department and the FBI effectively rewrote the relevant criminal statute in order to avoid applying it to Clinton. In his public statements about Clinton, Obama has stressed that she is an exemplary public servant who would never intentionally harm the United States. In rationalizing their decision not to indict Clinton, Justice Department officials (in leaks to the Washington Post) and the FBI director (in his press conference and congressional testimony) similarly stressed the lack of proof that she intended to harm the United States.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, however, the operative criminal statute does not call for proof of intent to harm the United States. It merely requires proof of gross negligence. This is entirely lawful and appropriate, since we’re talking about a law that can apply only to government officials who have a special duty to preserve secrecy and who have been schooled in the proper handling of classified information. Yet the Justice Department frivolously suggested that applying the law exactly the way it is written – something the Justice Department routinely tells judges they must do – would, in Clinton’s case, potentially raise constitutional problems.

Alas, the Justice Department and the FBI have to take that indefensible position here. Otherwise, Clinton would not be the only one in legal jeopardy.

I will end with what I said eight months ago:

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.