Those Without Disability Parking in Handicapped Parking

Those Without Disability Parking in Handicapped Parking

     Witnessing a man butt in line at a retail store checkout, and then seeing the same able bodied man get into his shiny new black truck with chromed rotating wheel covers parked in a handicapped parking space incensed a desire to uphold justice. Too far away to intervene, the violator drove off without confrontation. Knowing that the politically correct are more concerned about the use of the word “handicapped” than they are about justice, emphasizes what is terribly wrong in America today.

      Just as a child who has violated some minor rule and gets away with it moves on to bigger and greater transgressions unless they are held accountable, so liberals and progressives obviate truth and justice in our society substituting what they choose to believe. For example, they impart a demeaning and derogatory meaning to a word – handicapped, that was used to show empathy and concern. Regardless of how the word came into use, its meaning was perverted making its use politically incorrect just as those attempting to destroy all that made America great ridicule the commitment to service and sacrifice made by those whose cause is not acceptable them. Those who ignore history, destroy monuments, reject the Holocaust, subvert memories, fail to stand for the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance, and on and on; unjustly feel they are the authorized to determine what is right or wrong, good or evil, true or untrue, fact or fiction, etc. Integrity has become self satisfaction, avarice, greed, and the quest for unjust political power.

      Whether, “domestic tranquility” is shattered by the anarchy of arson and looting caused by politicians not enforcing the 1st Amendment civil right to “peaceably . . . assemble”; respect for authority and the rule of law is rejected by children raised without the socialization benefits of a father; illegal drugs continuing to flow across our unprotected borders feed the addicted;  trust in government is lost by politicians not holding to campaign promises and their oath of office; national security is compromised by a president selling missile guidance secrets to the Chinese; foreign policy becomes distrusted by a president and secretary of state allowing terrorists to assassinate our ambassador and three U.S. citizens in Benghazi; intelligence agents are lost because a political candidate uses internet communication forbidden by law; our foundation of the order of law is eroded by a president not being held accountable for perjury; the fundamental doctrine of justice demanding a presumption of innocence until proven guilty under an equally applied order of law is obliterated by those holding themselves above the law; all the seemingly never ending assaults on the original intention of the Constitution by the various unjust political agendas, “special interests” of unbridled capitalism, the unjust discrimination of socialism, etc., continually mounted are tolerated; freedom and equal justice for all are sacrificed to a Congress and government not protecting and defending the Constitution from its “enemies, foreign and domestic”.

     Contrary to the movement of liberals and progressives to destroy the original intention of the Constitution in their move beyond reason, the Framers studied history in secret for 500 years before Christ before framing it. The Founders, enlightened by the Great Awakening of the 1730s, understood a reality and Truth defined, not by the constant error of human intention and invention, but by the Creator of immutable Law. As the ideologic preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence defines the foundation of unchanging indelible Law upon which the Constitution is based.

      Incorporated into the document that serves as the model for freedom and justice for all governments withstanding the tests in the unyielding crucible of time, our enemies seek to corrupt even the truths of science and history, that it contains. More, simply relying on reason and common sense, the inescapable reality is that any law must be held to the original intention of the maker of that law. Otherwise, situation or statistical ethics, judicial activism, prejudice, desire, public opinion, etc. – all of the constant human failures, would be able to amend the original intention of any law.

      Specifically, the Framers and Founders were expressly fearful of the public majority, and the power of government. The Constitution provides checks and balances, structures and mechanisms to address the unchanging failed erroneous patterns of human behavior revealed by valid history attached to our species as inseparable parasites of freedom and justice for all.

      Looking no further than our enemies desire to eliminate the Electoral College, lower the three fourths requirement to amend the “supreme law of the land”, the cancer of the administrative state, or the attempt to prevent the confirmation of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the attack on America is hot, here, and now!

      The following article by Dr. Kesler repeats the foregoing, but lacks the immediacy of the call to “protect and defend this Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

CftC

Subscribers: You have until 4 December, 2018 to download a discussion by Professor Amy L. Wax, M.D., J.D. at the Heritage Foundation on the attack on the original intention of the Constitution by the Left. Though a large 256MB file, it downloads quickly, and is absolutely relevant to the public and higher education brainwashing of those in their educational charge.

 

America’s Cold Civil War

Imprimis, October 2018 • Volume 47, Number 10

Charles R. Kesler
Editor, Claremont Review of Books

    Six years ago I wrote a book about Barack Obama in which I predicted that modern American liberalism, under pressures both fiscal and philosophical, would either go out of business or be forced to radicalize. If it chose the latter, I predicted, it could radicalize along two lines: towards socialism or towards an increasingly post-modern form of leadership. Today it is doing both. As we saw in Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the youngest generation of liberals is embracing socialism openly—something that would have been unheard of during the Cold War. At the same time, identity politics is on the ascendant, with its quasi-Nietzschean faith in race, sex, and power as the keys to being and meaning. In the #MeToo movement, for example—as we saw recently in Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle—the credo is, “Believe the woman.” In other words, truth will emerge not from an adversarial process weighing evidence and testimony before the bar of reason, but from yielding to the will of the more politically correct. “Her truth” is stronger than any objective or disinterested truth.

    In the Claremont Review of Books, we have described our current political scene as a cold civil war. A cold civil war is better than a hot civil war, but it is not a good situation for a country to be in. Underlying our cold civil war is the fact that America is torn increasingly between two rival constitutions, two cultures, two ways of life.

    Political scientists sometimes distinguish between normal politics and regime politics. Normal politics takes place within a political and constitutional order and concerns means, not ends. In other words, the ends or principles are agreed upon; debate is simply over means. By contrast, regime politics is about who rules and for what ends or principles. It questions the nature of the political system itself. Who has rights? Who gets to vote? What do we honor or revere together as a people? I fear America may be leaving the world of normal politics and entering the dangerous world of regime politics—a politics in which our political loyalties diverge more and more, as they did in the 1850s, between two contrary visions of the country.

    One vision is based on the original Constitution as amended. This is the Constitution grounded in the natural rights of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It has been transmitted to us with significant Amendments—some improvements and some not—but it is recognizable still as the original Constitution. To simplify matters we may call this “the conservative Constitution”—with the caveat that conservatives have never agreed perfectly on its meaning and that many non-conservatives remain loyal to it.

    The other vision is based on what Progressives and liberals, for 100 years now, have called “the living Constitution.” This term implies that the original Constitution is dead—or at least on life support—and that in order to remain relevant to our national life, the original Constitution must be infused with new meaning and new ends and therefore with new duties, rights, and powers. To cite an important example, new administrative agencies must be created to circumvent the structural limitations that the original Constitution imposed on government.

    As a doctrine, the living Constitution originated in America’s new departments of political and social science in the late nineteenth century—but it was soon at the very forefront of Progressive politics. One of the doctrine’s prime formulators, Woodrow Wilson, had contemplated as a young scholar a series of constitutional amendments to reform America’s national government into a kind of parliamentary system—a system able to facilitate faster political change. But he quickly realized that his plan to amend the Constitution was going nowhere. Plan B was the living Constitution. While keeping the outward forms of the old Constitution, the idea of a living Constitution would change utterly the spirit in which the Constitution was understood.

    The resulting Constitution—let us call it “the liberal Constitution”—is not a constitution of natural rights or individual human rights, but of historical or evolutionary right. Wilson called the spirit of the old Constitution Newtonian, after Isaac Newton, and that of the new Constitution Darwinian, after Charles Darwin. By Darwinian, Wilson meant that instead of being difficult to amend, the liberal Constitution would be easily amenable to experimentation and adjustment. To paraphrase the late Walter Berns, the point of the old Constitution was to keep the times in tune with the Constitution; the purpose of the new is to keep the Constitution in tune with the times.

    Until the 1960s, most liberals believed it was inevitable that their living Constitution would replace the conservative Constitution through a kind of slow-motion evolution. But during the sixties, the so-called New Left abandoned evolution for revolution, and partly in reaction to that, defenders of the old Constitution began not merely to fight back, but to call for a return to America’s first principles. By seeking to revolve back to the starting point, conservatives proved to be Newtonians after all—and also, in a way, revolutionaries, since the original meaning of revolution is to return to where you began, as a celestial body revolves in the heavens.

    The conservative campaign against the inevitable victory of the living Constitution gained steam as a campaign against the gradual or sudden disappearance of limited government and of republican virtue in our political life. And when it became clear, by the late 1970s and 1980s, that the conservatives weren’t going away, the cold civil war was on.

    Confronted by sharper, deeper, and more compelling accounts of the conservative Constitution, the liberals had to sharpen—that is, radicalize—their own alternative, following the paths paved by the New Left. As a result, the gap between the liberal and conservative Constitutions became a gulf, to the extent that today we are two countries—or we are fast on the road to becoming two countries—each constituted differently.

    Consider a few of the contrasts. The prevailing liberal doctrine of rights traces individual rights to membership in various groups—racial, ethnic, gender, class-based, etc.—which are undergoing a continual process of consciousness-raising and empowerment. This was already a prominent feature of Progressivism well over a century ago, though the groups have changed since then. Before Woodrow Wilson became a politician, he wrote a political science textbook, and the book opened by asking which races should be studied. Wilson answered: we’ll study the Aryan race, because the Aryan race is the one that has mastered the world. The countries of Europe and the Anglophone countries are the conquerors and colonizers of the other continents. They are the countries with the most advanced armaments, arts, and sciences.

    Wilson was perhaps not a racist in the full sense of the term, because he expected the less advanced races over time to catch up with the Aryan race. But his emphasis was on group identity—an emphasis that liberals today retain, the only difference being that the winning and losing sides have been scrambled. Today the white race and European civilization are the enemy—“dead white males” is a favored pejorative on American campuses—and the races and groups that were oppressed in the past are the ones that today need compensation, privileges, and power.

    Conservatives, by contrast, regard the individual as the quintessential endangered minority. They trace individual rights to human nature, which lacks a race. Human nature also lacks ethnicity, gender, and class. Conservatives trace the idea of rights to the essence of an individual as a human being. We have rights because we’re human beings with souls, with reason, distinct from other animals and from God. We’re not beasts, but we’re not God—we’re the in-between being. Conservatives seek to vindicate human equality and liberty—the basis for majority rule in politics—against the liberal Constitution’s alternative, in which everything is increasingly based on group identity.

    There is also today a vast divergence between the liberal and conservative understandings of the First Amendment. Liberals are interested in transforming free speech into what they call equal speech, ensuring that no one gets more than his fair share. They favor a redistribution of speech rights via limits on campaign contributions, repealing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and narrowing the First Amendment for the sake of redistribution of speech rights from the rich to the poor. Not surprisingly, the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform called for amending the First Amendment!

    There is, of course, also a big difference between the liberal Constitution’s freedom from religion and the conservative Constitution’s freedom of religion. And needless to say, the liberal Constitution has no Second Amendment.

    In terms of government structure, the liberal Constitution is designed to overcome the separation of powers and most other checks and balances. Liberals consistently support the increased ability to coordinate, concentrate, and enhance government power—as opposed to dividing, restricting, or checking it. This is to the detriment of popular control of government. In recent decades, government power has flowed mainly through the hands of unelected administrators and judges—to the point that elected members of Congress find themselves increasingly dispirited and unable to legislate. As the Financial Times put it recently, “Congress is a sausage factory that has forgotten how to make sausages.”

    If one thinks about how America’s cold civil war could be resolved, there seem to be only five possibilities. One would be to change the political subject. Ronald Reagan used to say that when the little green men arrive from outer space, all of our political differences will be transcended and humanity will unite for the first time in human history. Similarly, if some jarring event intervenes—a major war or a huge natural calamity—it might reset our politics.

    A second possibility, if we can’t change the subject, is that we could change our minds. Persuasion, or some combination of persuasion and moderation, might allow us to end or endure our great political division. Perhaps one party or side will persuade a significant majority of the electorate to embrace its Constitution, and thus win at the polling booth and in the legislature. For generations, Republicans have longed for a realigning election that would turn the GOP into America’s majority party. This remains possible, but seems unlikely. Only two presidents in the twentieth century were able to effect enduring changes in American public opinion and voting patterns—Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. FDR inspired a political realignment that lasted for a generation or so and lifted the Democratic Party to majority status. Ronald Reagan inspired a realignment of public policy, but wasn’t able to make the GOP the majority party.

    Since 1968, the norm in America has been divided government: the people have more often preferred to split control of the national government between the Democrats and the Republicans rather than entrust it to one party. This had not previously been the pattern in American politics. Prior to 1968, Americans would almost always (the exceptions proved the rule) entrust the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency to the same party in each election. They would occasionally change the party, but still they would vote for a party to run the government. Not so for the last 50 years. And neither President Obama nor President Trump, so far, has persuaded the American electorate to embrace his party as their national representative, worthy of long-term patriotic allegiance.

    Trump, of course, is new to this, and his party in Congress is basically pre-Trumpian. He did not win the 2016 election by a very large margin, and he was not able to bring many new Republicans into the House or the Senate. Nonetheless, he has the opportunity now to put his mark on the party. In trying to do so, his populism—which is not a word he uses—will not be enough. He will have to reach out to the existing Republican Party as he has done, adopt some of its agenda, adopt its electoral supporters, and gradually bring them around to his “America first” conservatism if he is to have any chance of achieving a political realignment. And the odds remain against him at this point.

    As for moderating our disagreements and learning to live with them more or less permanently, that too seems unlikely given their fundamental nature and the embittered trajectory of our politics over the last two decades.

    So if we won’t change our minds, and if we can’t change the subject, we are left with only three other ways out of the cold civil war. The happiest of the three would be a vastly reinvigorated federalism. One of the original reasons for constitutional federalism was that the states had a variety of interests and views that clashed with one another and could not be pursued in common. If we had a re-flowering of federalism, some of the differences between blue states and red states could be handled discreetly by the states themselves. The most disruptive issues could be denationalized. The problem is, having abandoned so much of traditional federalism, it is hard to see how federalism could be revived at this late juncture.

    That leaves two possibilities. One, alas, is secession, which is a danger to any federal system—something about which James Madison wrote at great length in The Federalist Papers. With any federal system, there is the possibility that some states will try to leave it. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have gone their separate ways peacefully, just within the last generation. But America is much better at expansion than contraction. And George Washington’s admonitions to preserve the Union, I think, still miraculously somehow linger in our ears. So secession would be extremely difficult for many reasons, not the least of which is that it could lead, as we Americans know from experience, to the fifth and worst possibility: hot civil war.

    Under present circumstances, the American constitutional future seems to be approaching some kind of crisis—a crisis of the two Constitutions. Let us pray that we and our countrymen will find a way to reason together and to compromise, allowing us to avoid the worst of these dire scenarios—that we will find, that is, the better angels of our nature.

Charles R. Kesler

    Charles R. Kesler is the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books. He earned his bachelor’s degree in social studies and his A.M. and Ph.D. in government from Harvard University. A senior fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and a recipient of the 2018 Bradley Prize, he is the editor of several books, including Keeping the Tablets: Modern American Conservative Thought (with William F. Buckley Jr.), and the author of I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism.

    The above article is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on September 27, 2018, by Dr. Kesler during a two-week teaching residency as a Eugene C. Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.

 

The First Amendment Lost To the Tolerance of Injustice

The First Amendment Lost To the Tolerance of Injustice

    “Liberty and justice for all” are inviolate standards imposed by the Framers and Founders in “the supreme law of the land” – the Constitution of the United States of America. Our enemies, foreign and domestic, reject those foundational tenets required of all successful governments and human interactions. Always manifest when the order of law is corrupted by discrimination and inequality, anarchy presents when injustice is tolerated in any degree or form.

      The innocent law-abiding citizens of Ferguson had every basic fundamental civil right violated by the anarchists tolerated by politicians soliciting the vote of the undeserving. The policeman attacked by a drug dealing thug became vilified for protecting his life by a liberal media guided by prejudice and injustice. Like the vast majority of crimes perpetrated on the innocent and the rejection of authority impacting law enforcement, the root cause of single parent homes lacking the righteous discipline of a father is never addressed. Sanctuary cities infecting their neighbors with criminals are tolerated by a government shackled by politicians not held accountable to their oath of office by voters ignoring platforms and voting records. A president attempting to fulfill all of his campaign promises is under constant attack by those seeking to sustain their injustice. Whether the administrative state or the judicial activists robbing us of our freedom, our enemies seek to enable their continued contamination of government, because they depend on that very injustice for their own existence.

      Christians are attacked on every front by those espousing their own false religions. Whether humanists, atheists, or other congregants of the the multitude of isms lacking any credential of science or valid history, those rejecting truth and holding to untruth are threatened by reality and truth. Choosing what they want to believe beyond reason, those attacking America seek to deny the First Amendment rights of all citizens and sequester justice into an order of law founded on untruths, lies, and deceptions. 

CftC

Subscribers: You have until 4 December, 2018 to download a discussion by Professor Amy L. Wax, M.D., J.D. at the Heritage Foundation on the attack on the original intention of the Constitution by the Left. Though a large 256MB file, it downloads quickly, and is absolutely relevant to the public and higher education brainwashing of those in their educational charge.

 

The Fruits of College Indoctrination

Walter E. Williams / @WE_Williams / November 21, 2018

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson is one of the numerous recent targets of left-wing harassment. (Photo: Lucas Jackson/Reuters/Newscom)

    Much of today’s incivility and contempt for personal liberty has its roots on college campuses, and most of the uncivil and contemptuous are people with college backgrounds. Let’s look at a few highly publicized recent examples of incivility and attacks on free speech.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his wife, U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, were accosted and harassed by a deranged left-wing mob as they were leaving a dinner at Georgetown University. McConnell was harassed by protesters at Reagan National Airport, as well as at several venues in Kentucky.

    Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife were harassed at a Washington, D.C., restaurant. Afterward, a group called Smash Racism DC wrote: “No—you can’t eat in peace—your politics are an attack on all of us. You’re [sic] votes are a death wish. Your votes are hate crimes.”

    Other members of Congress—such as Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., and Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rand Paul, R-Ky.—have been physically attacked or harassed by leftists.

    Most recent is the case of Fox News political commentator Tucker Carlson. A leftist group showed up at his house at night, damaging his front door and chanting, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night! Racist scumbag, leave town!”

    Mayhem against people with different points of view is excused as just deserts for what is seen as hate speech. American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray discovered this when he was shouted down at Middlebury College; the professor escorting him was sent to the hospital with injuries.

    Students at the University of California, Berkeley, shut down a controversial speaker and caused riot damage estimated at $100,000. Protesters at both UCLA and Claremont McKenna College disrupted scheduled lectures by Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has discovered so-called bias response teams on hundreds of American college campuses. Bias response teams report to campus officials—and sometimes to law enforcement officers—speech that may cause “alarm, anger, or fear” or that might otherwise offend. Drawing pictures or cartoons that belittle people because of their beliefs or political affiliation can be reported as hate speech.

    Universities expressly set their sights on prohibiting constitutionally protected speech. As FIRE reported in 2017, hundreds of universities nationwide now maintain Orwellian systems that ask students to report—often anonymously—their neighbors, friends, and professors for any instances of supposed biased speech and expression.

    A recent Brookings Institution poll found that nearly half of college students believe that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. That’s nonsense; it is.

    Fifty-one percent of college students think they have a right to shout down a speaker with whom they disagree. Nineteen percent of students think that it’s acceptable to use violence to prevent a speaker from speaking. Over 50 percent agree that colleges should prohibit speech and viewpoints that might offend certain people.

    One should not be surprised at all if these visions are taught and held by many of their professors. Colleges once taught and promoted an understanding of Western culture. Today many professors and the college bureaucracy teach students that they are victims of Western culture and values.

    Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech.”

    Much later, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, “Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.”

    From the Nazis to Stalinists to Maoists, tyrants have always started out supporting free speech, just as American leftists did during the 1960s. Their support for free speech is easy to understand. Speech is vital for the realization of their goals of command, control, and confiscation. The right to say what they please is their tool for indoctrination, propagandizing, and proselytization.

    Once the leftists gain control, as they have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed. This is increasingly the case on university campuses.

    Much of the off-campus incivility we see today is the fruit of what a college education has done to our youth.

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Lincoln and Thanksgiving: The Origin of an American Holiday

Lincoln and Thanksgiving: The Origin of an American Holiday
Melanie Kirkpatrick
November 19, 2018

 

    In Plymouth, Massachusetts, in the autumn of 1621, 53 men, women and children celebrated their first harvest in the New World. The great Indian chief, Massasoit, brought 90 of his men to the three-day party. From all reports, a good time was had by all.

    How did this event, which happened almost 400 years ago, become a part of the American story and our oldest national tradition?

    Credit goes to many people, but two stand out. One you know, and one you should know: Abraham Lincoln and Sarah Josepha Hale.

    As a religious people, Americans have always had a keen sense they have been blessed by Providence. The pilgrims certainly felt this, and so did subsequent generations, including George Washington. Washington was the first president to declare a national day of public thanksgiving and praise. But it wasn’t until the Civil War that the idea of a national Day of Thanksgiving fully took hold.

    In the autumn of 1863—at the height of the Civil War, when Americans were bitterly divided—Abraham Lincoln nevertheless called for a day of national thanksgiving.

    Lincoln began his proclamation this way: “The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies.” It was an extraordinary way to characterize 1863—the bloodiest year of the war.

    But even “in the midst of a civil war of unequaled severity and magnitude,” Lincoln continued, the nation had much to be thankful for and much to look forward to. The day was coming when America would again be united and experience, as Lincoln put it, “a large increase of freedom.” It was a profoundly hopeful message, reminding Americans of their nation’s capacity for renewal.

    Lincoln’s decision to call for a national Thanksgiving came at the urging of the far-sighted and persistent magazine editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book who believed such a celebration would have a “deep moral influence” on the American character. Her name was Sarah Josepha Hale. More than any single person, she is the reason we celebrate Thanksgiving today.

    By the 1840s, many states had established an annual day of thanksgiving, but the date varied widely from state to state. Hale saw the value of a day in which the entire nation celebrated as one.

    For two decades, she conducted a campaign to consolidate public support for her idea. As the influential editor of one of the most popular periodicals of the 19th century, year after year she wrote columns making the case for the holiday; she published fiction and poems with a Thanksgiving Day theme; and she offered her readers recipes for traditional Thanksgiving dishes such as roast turkey and pumpkin pie. And, by the way, she also wrote the nursery rhyme, “Mary Had a Little Lamb.”

    Presidents Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and Franklin Pierce, to whom she had written letters, showed little interest in her cause. But Lincoln saw its potential. His proclamation was the first in what became an unbroken string of annual Thanksgiving proclamations by every subsequent president. 

    Congress finally sealed the deal in 1941, when President Franklin Roosevelt signed legislation making Thanksgiving an official national holiday.

    Lincoln and Hale believed the act of expressing gratitude had tremendous healing power. In his Thanksgiving proclamation, Lincoln spoke not as commander-in-chief of the Union forces, but as president of the entire nation—North and South. He made no reference to “rebels” or “enemies.” Rather, the president spoke of “the whole American people.”

    It’s a message that resonates today, when Americans, even within families, are divided over issues of politics and culture. Thanksgiving, our nation’s oldest tradition, brings us together just as it brought the pilgrims and Indians together in 1621. Lincoln said it best when he called on every American to celebrate Thanksgiving “with one heart and one voice.”

    Thanksgiving gives us a moment to focus on the blessings of being Americans, on the prosperity, security and freedom we enjoy. If Lincoln could focus on these blessings in the middle of the Civil War, we should certainly be able to do so today.

    Here’s a suggestion: at this year’s Thanksgiving table, ask everyone to spend a minute to say what they are grateful for. I suspect you’ll find your guests will have a long and eloquent list. And if they don’t, you can help them out: suggest they start with family, friends, and living in the freest country in the world.

    After all, if we don’t give thanks, what’s the point of Thanksgiving?

Melanie Kirkpatrick is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of Thanksgiving: The Holiday at the Heart of the American Experience.

Enslaved By Choice

Enslaved By Choice

    Unlike many societies and cultures in this age whose political organizations still unjustly hold the tolerant and those lacking political power in involuntary servitude, America freed itself from slavery imposed and sustained by force by the end of the great Civil War. Motivated by a Great Awakening in the 1730s to the awareness that “all men are created equal . . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, its citizens’ blood and sacrifices loosed the political bonds forcing others to do the will of those holding the reins of power. In the Revolutionary War, one third of the colonists defeated the tyranny of the mightiest army and navy of their time with no standing army or navy and no united military organization. “Relying on divine Providence”, less than one hundred years later soldiers of a different generation “marching on”, removed the shackles on our brothers and sisters placed by our own government.

    With one third of the Union army consisting of freed slaves, brother fighting brother, approximately 625,000 American lives were lost in a conflict that the Framers envisioned would not occur. As spelled out in the Constitution, by 1808, they expected the states to voluntarily abolish slavery. Arising from the devastation and carnage, though free under the rule of law, Americans began to reject the Law that truly sets mankind free. Experiencing the unconscionable extremes of sacrifice and suffering on both sides, then as now, humanity questioned the immutable Law that is always good and just. Offering an untruth setting the stage for the rejection of ultimate Truth, in November of 1859, forgotten until after the war, the very foundation of Law establishing equality and justice for all was brought into question. A concept negating even “unalienable Rights”, challenging even creation, was put forth by human invention and imagination. Accepting false science and corrupted invalid history, mankind will always be enslaved by untruth when choosing to move beyondreason.

    As always, throughout history, always portraying animate behavior, humanity chooses to satisfy pleasure and avoid pain and sacrifice. Unfortunately, reality requires work or sacrifice in some form or degree to sustain existence in the indelible interactions with the natural order. Individually, we are enslaved by our addictions and lack of discipline. Similarly, human failures are always the cause of failed relationships. Magnified by joining with others in common unjust economic purpose, wars, economic disasters, and political unrest and discord follow us as we move through time and circumstance.

    Now Truth and Justice are embroiled in a great newcivil war. This is a war of ideologies. Only by holding to Truth revealed by the inviolate method of science and uncompromised history can the lies, deceptions, partial truths, and untruths robbing us of true freedom be defeated. True freedom is defined by God – the Creator’s intention.

    For America, this midterm election is a crossroads of freedom. On every front, from energy, to healthcare, to domestic and foreign policy, to immigration, to protecting our borders, to social security, political candidates seeking to rob us of our freedoms spew smokescreens and erect mirrors aided by the false propaganda of a media also deceived by what they want to believe.

    Asking voters to ignore platforms and voting records, our enemies destroy our order of law by perjury, rejecting the foundational premise that all are innocent until proven guilty, and advocating double standards shouting inequality. Economic failures condemned and rejected by history such as socialism are reintroduced to a generation whose worldview is corrupted and perverted by educators given academic authority unconstrained by truth and justice. Those choosing to ignore the lessons of history are bribed for their vote. Three hundred years of energy reserves found in coal are ignored and rejected by politicians in the congregations of false science costing thousands of jobs. Global warming unalterable by human intervention or invention, subjugates American jobs to foreign competition and the economic interests of unbridled capitalism. Character assassination of a president whose miraculous election has resulted only in fulfilled promises made in his campaign is constant. Ridiculous ungrounded unfounded prejudiced diatribes of the rich and famous choosing to believe their own lies and deceptions constantly emanate from the media. Politicians selling national security secrets to our enemies and otherwise compromising our national security, in ways where others committing the same treason are imprisoned, go unprosecuted. Most telling is that this is just a small part of huge list of government failures brought about by we, the people, failing in our responsibility to elect members of Congress loyal to the original intention of the Constitution and hold them accountable to their oath of office. Do not forget the unrestrained tyranny of the administrative state, and the cost the “swamp” extracts from every American’s “pursuit of Happiness”. Do not forget the tyranny of judicial activism advocated by those opposing the confirmation of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Do not forget Benghazi, and all those who died for our freedom now taken fore granted.

America is under attack! Freedom is never free. “[I]t is [our] right, it is [our] duty to” elect only those loyal to the original intention of the Constitution to represent us, and to remove those who do not. In the Framers’ and Founders’ “supreme” order of law, truth and justice are not defined by humanity. They are not a choice.

Subscribers: You have until 4 December, 2018 to download a discussion by Professor Amy L. Wax, M.D., J.D. at the Heritage Foundation on the attack on the original intention of the Constitution by the Left. Though a large 256MB file, it downloads quickly, and is absolutely relevant to the public and higher education brainwashing of those in their educational charge.

The Attack on America 2018

The Attack on America 2018

     Before framing the Constitution, the Framers studied history for 500 years before Christ. Fearful of the public majority, they deliberated in secret with windows closed and the doors locked despite the sweltering summer heat in 1787. Their purpose was to identify the repetitive political failures that lead to the demise of political organizations, particularly governments. Successfully defining those elements required of successful and enduring governments using valid uncorrupted history as their guide, they created an order of law giving structure to the new government. This was a new experiment in freedom and justice for all.

     Critical to all relationships of every size and composition, this “supreme law of the land” was binding on all parties. Further, because the intention of the makers of the law must be upheld for any organization to succeed, they established a due process by which any deviation from that original intention must be accomplished. Amendment of the Constitution required ratification by three fourths of the states. Similarly, always fearful of the public majority and intending to limit government, they instituted checks and balances on the structures of government, and the Electoral College.

The attack on America has been prosecuted by those violating the original intention of the Constitution. Proceeding because voters have not held those they elect to their oath of office to “protect and defend this Constitution” from “enemies, foreign and domestic”, every branch of government has displayed some injustice.

Recently, a doctrine of law that is foundational to the judicial process was violated by the legislative branch. That doctrine demands that all are innocent until proven guilty. Using character assassination, guilt by association, double standards, blatant lies and deceptions, and other means that are so despicable that the Framers and Founders never even considered addressing them, some members of Congress attack the Constitution itself. Without any valid evidence acceptable to any court of law, due process according to the Constitution is trashed.

This attack on America stands beside the failure of the Senate to uphold truth as the prime requisite determining and establishing justice.

CftC

The Presumption of Innocence

     The presumption of innocence has been repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed by this Court as a deeply- held and foundational principle underlying our justice system, long predating the adoption of the Constitution and firmly embedded within the “due process of law” protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This Court has recognized that the presumption of innocence “is stated as unquestioned in textbooks, and has been referred to as a matter of course in the decisions of this court and in the court of the several states.”2 Simply put, “it is not within the province of a legislature to declare an individual guilty or presumptively guilty of a crime.”3

     This principle – that all individuals are presumed innocent until validly convicted in a court of law – is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it was] sacrificed.”4 The origins of the presumption go well beyond our own Anglo-American legal system, stretching back to Roman antiquity and beyond to the Old Testament. Infra pp. 6-7. The presumption was central to the English common law, including the writings of Sir William Blackstone. Infra p. 8. And disregard for the presumption of innocence was one of the motivating factors behind the Declaration of Independence at the time of this nation’s birth. Infra pp. 9-10. Moreover, the presumption of innocence has never been limited to criminal cases but extends through all the law. Infra pp. 11-14. Unsurprisingly, given that pedigree, the presumption of innocence has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this Court. Infra pp. 15-17.

  1. The Presumption of Innocence Is Deeply Rooted in Our Nation’s History and Tradition, Such That It Is Implicit in the Concept of Ordered Liberty.

The presumption of innocence is such a foundational principle – so suffusing every aspect of our legal system – that it is perhaps at risk of being taken for granted. This brief thus begins by tracing the origins of that principle, its extension beyond the requirement that criminal charges be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and its repeated application by the decisions of this Court.

  1. The Presumption of Innocence Has Deep Historical Roots.

The presumption of innocence has been called “a general principle of our political morality,”7 “a guardian angel,”8 the “cornerstone of Anglo-Saxon justice,”9 “a touchstone of American criminal jurisprudence,”10 “the golden thread that runs throughout the criminal law,”11 and the “focal point of any concept of due process.”12 This basic principle traces its roots far past our nation’s Founding, through English common law to writings from antiquity and even the Old Testament.

Several writers have observed the Biblical foundations of the presumption of innocence.13 In the Book of Genesis, after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God did not summarily punish them but instead summoned them to hear their pleas:

    “Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman, whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”14

     Thus, even an omniscient God did not presume Adam and Eve to be guilty, but only inflicted punishment after obtaining proof through confessions (and presumably rejecting Adam’s defense of entrapment and Eve’s defense of fraud). The presumption of innocence found even more concrete expression in the Book of Deuteronomy, which states that “[o]ne witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime” and instructs judges to “make a thorough investigation” before inflicting punishment.15

The presumption of innocence can definitively be traced back to antiquity and the ancient Roman maxim, de quolibet homine presumitur quod sit bonus homo donec probetur in contrarium, meaning, “each person may be presumed to be a good man, until the contrary is proved.”16 A related maxim embodying the presumption of innocence stated, ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat, meaning “the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who asserts it, not on the party who denies it.”17 The Emperor Trajan, mean- while, wrote that a person should not “be condemned on suspicion; for it was preferable that the crime of a guilty man should go unpunished than an innocent man be condemned.”18

The presumption of innocence was once again picked up in the writings of Enlightenment philosophers. Voltaire, for instance, wrote of “that generous Maxim, ‘that “tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho” actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent.’ ”19

From there, the presumption of innocence took firm root in English common law.20 Echoing Voltaire, as well as Emperor Trajan, Sir William Blackstone declared that “the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one person suffer.”21

Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England “not only provided a definitive summary of the common law, but was also a primary legal authority for 18th- and 19th-century American lawyers.”22 Influenced by both Voltaire and Blackstone, Benjamin Franklin, “our founding grandfather,”23 wrote, “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.”24

In fact, one of the motivations leading up to the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain was the Crown’s disregard for this principle of innocent until proven guilty.25 The American colonists had many objections to the infamous Sugar Act of 1764 and its companion, the Stamp Act of 1765. In addition to the core complaint of taxation without representation,26 the colonists strongly objected to the enforcement provisions of the two statutes. Whereas in England actions asserting violations of similar laws were tried before a jury, cases alleging violations of the Sugar and Stamp Acts were to be tried in newly created American vice-admiralty courts where there were no jury trials.27

“The most onerous provisions”28 of the Acts required merchants whose vessels were seized for alleged customs violations to bear the burden of proving that they were not guilty.29 Thus, one grievance leading to the American Revolution was the Crown’s disregard for the presumption of innocence – a feature shared with Colorado’s scheme here.

The Parliament . . . guarding the People of the Realm, and securing to them the Benefit of a Tryal by the Law of the Land, and . . . depriving all Americans of that Privilege – What shall we say to this Distinction? Is there not in this.., a Brand of Infamy, of Degradation and Disgrace fixed upon every American? Is he not degraded below the Rank of an Englishman?’

Id. at 336 (quoting John Adams, Admiralty Notebook, in micro- films of the Papers of John Adams, pt. III, reel 184).

  1. The Presumption of Innocence Is Integral to the Concept of Justice and Due Process of Law.

The presumption of innocence extends well beyond the requirement that the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial and is, in fact, an axiomatic principle that defines the concept of justice and due process throughout our entire legal system. “[N]either liberty nor justice would exist if [it was] sacrificed.”30

The presumption of innocence is more than a simple evidentiary presumption, and instead reflects a long-standing societal judgment about the degree of legal process that is required to strip an individual of liberty and property. The presumption is a “shorthand description of the right of the accused to remain inactive and secure, until the prosecution has taken up its burden.”31 It “takes possession of this fact, innocence, as not now needing evidence, as already established prima facie.”32 In other words, the presumption does not depend on a judgment that an individual is in fact more likely innocent than guilty; indeed, as a factual matter, it might be more reasonable to assume that anyone who has been arrested and indicted is more likely guilty than not.33 Instead, the presumption stands for the basic proposition that a person can be deprived of rights to liberty or property only following a valid conviction by a court of law.

Respect for this presumption of innocence is foundational to the very concept of justice. The presumption emerged in the English common law as part of a profound transformation in the nature and function of legal proceedings, and it can be contrasted to other, medieval approaches to the administration of justice:

An accused did not have to demonstrate innocence by hands unscarred from hot coals, irons, or stones. An accused did not have to bring together twelve peers in a wager of law to swear that his or her oath of innocence was clean and trustworthy. God could no longer reveal the innocent from the murderer, thief, and robber. Proof of factual innocence was replaced by proof of legal guilt or its absence, legal innocence. Legal standards and burdens of proof acknowledged what ancient fact finders and jurists could not: Definitive proof of factual innocence was too much of a burden for mortals to bear.34

In other words, the presumption of innocence is intrinsic to the very idea of a rational and orderly justice system. The presumption marks the divide between a world where individuals can be subjected to arbitrary and irrational deprivations of their liberty and property – forced to win back their rights through an affirmative showing of innocence – and a world where rights can be infringed only following a valid legal judgment of guilt.

This “general rule of policy and sense” – that all persons shall be assumed, in the absence of evidence, to be free from blame – runs “through all the law.”35

It often has been stated in the context of criminal proceedings,36 but it is by no means limited to that context.37 To the contrary, its first appearance in the American colonial courts, an early (1657) decision of the General Court of Massachusetts, emphasized its broader applicability:

Whereas, in all civil cases depending in suit, the plaintiff affirmeth that the defendant hath done him wrong and accordingly presents his case for judgment and satisfaction, it behoveth both court and jury to see that the affirmation be proved by sufficient evidence, else the case must be found for the defendant; and so it is also in a criminal case, for in the eyes of the law every man is honest and innocent unless it be proved legally to the contrary.38

     In other words, the presumption of innocence applies broadly beyond criminal cases and is integral to due process of law.

  1. This Court Has Consistently Recognized That the Presumption of Innocence Is Constitutionally Required.

Unsurprisingly, in light of the pedigree and importance of the presumption of innocence, this Court has long recognized the presumption of innocence as a touchstone of the American justice system. As early as 1827, the Court acknowledged that “the general rule of our jurisprudence is, that the party accused need not establish his innocence, but it is for the government itself to prove his guilt, before it is entitled to a verdict of conviction.”39

In Coffin v. United States, the Court explicitly recognized the presumption of innocence as a fundamental principle of criminal law. The question presented was whether the trial court had violated a defendant’s rights by not instructing the jury on the presumption of innocence. Before embarking on a detailed historical analysis of its origins, the Court characterized the presumption of innocence as “axiomatic and elementary,” affirming that “its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”40

Since then, the Court has repeatedly held that the presumption of innocence is constitutionally required. For example, in In re Winship, the Court held that juveniles, like adults, were entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt when charged with a violation of criminal law.41 The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence, as a “bedrock” principle, was constitutionally required.42 In Estelle v. Williams, the Court declared that, “The presumption of innocence, although not articulated in the Constitution, is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.”43 And in Taylor v. Kentucky, the Court concluded that the presumption of innocence “is an element of Fourteenth Amendment due process, an essential of a civilized system of criminal procedure.”44

The Court has also adhered to this same principle in analyzing the constitutionality of legislation. In Tot v. United States, the Court rejected the idea that “the legislature might validly command that the finding of an indictment, or mere proof of the identity of the accused, should create a presumption of the existence of all the facts essential to guilt.”45 And in McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., the Court stated that “it is not within the province of a legislature to declare an individual guilty or presumptively guilty of a crime.46

2  Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 454 (1895).

3  McFarland v. Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86 (1916) (Holmes, J.), cited with approval by Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S.197, 209 (1977).

4  Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997) (quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325-26 (1937)).

7  William S. Laufer, The Rhetoric of Innocence, 70 Wash. L. Rev. 329, 338 (1995) (quoting William Twining, Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays 208 (1990)).

8  Laufer, supra, at 338 (quoting James Bradley Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law 553 (1898)).

9  Laufer, supra, at 338 (quoting Henry J. Abraham, The Judicial Process 96 (1993)).

10  Laufer, supra, at 338  (quoting People  v. Layhew, 548 N.E..2d 25, 27 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)).

11  Scott  E. Sundby, The  Reasonable Doubt Rule  and  the Meaning of Innocence, 40 Hastings L. J. 457, 457 (1988-1989) (citations omitted) (quoting Rupert Cross, The Golden Thread of the English Criminal Law: The Burden of Proof 2 (1976)).

12  Sundby, supra, at 457 (quoting Sandra Hertzberg & Carmela Zammuto, The Protection of Human Rights in the Criminal Process Under International Instruments and National Constitutions 16 (1981)).

13  See Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 454 (1895) (citing Simon Greenleaf, III, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence § 29, at 31 n.1 (Edmund H. Bennett & Chauncey Smith, eds., 1853) (tracing the presumption to Deuteronomy); see also Alexander Volokh, N. Guilty Men, 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 173, 173, 178 (1997) (identifying biblical passages loosely related to the presumption of innocence).

14  Genesis 3:11-13.

15  Deuteronomy 19:15-20; see also Numbers 35:30.

16  James Bradley Thayer, The Presumption of Innocence in Criminal Cases, 6 Yale L. J. 185, 190 (1897).

17  Laufer, supra, at 332 n.14 (citing George P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law 520 (1978)).

18  Volokh, supra, at 178 (quoting Dig. 48.19.5 (Ulpian, De Officio Proconsulis 7).

19  See Dan Gifford, The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo- American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason, 62 Tenn. L. Rev.759, 761 n.6 (1995) (quoting Respectfully Quoted 183 (Suzy Platt ed., 1992) (quotation from a 1974 translation of the 1749 version of Zadig).

20  In-depth treatments of these developments can be found in Anthony A. Morano, A Reexamination of the Development of the Reasonable Doubt Rule, 55 B.U. L. Rev. 507 (1975); Laufer, supra; Thayer, supra; and Jeff Thaler, Punishing the Innocent: The Need for Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence Prior to Trial, 1978 Wis. L. Rev. 441 (1978).

21  4 William Blackstone, Commentaries, *358 (1765).

22  Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 712 (1997).

23  See Dudley R. Herschbach, Our Founding Grandfather, Harv. Mag., Sept. 2003.

24  Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan (March 14, 1785) in 9 The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 1783-1788, at 293 (Albert H. Smyth ed., 1906).

25  See Declarations and  Resolves of the  First Continental Congress (Oct. 14, 1774), available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp.

26  See Samuel Adams, Report on the Sugar Act (May 1764), in Theodore Draper, A Struggle for Power: The American Revolution 219 (1996) (“If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?”).

27  See Matthew P. Harrington, The Legacy of the Colonial Vice-Admiralty Courts (Part B), 27 J. Mar. L. & Comm. 323, 332 (1996) (noting this was “a constant source of irritation to the American colonists”). For example, John Adams argued that the use of the vice-admiralty courts to try trade cases placed an unfair burden on Americans:

28  Harrington, supra, at 333.

29  For example, Article XLV of the Sugar Act provided: [I]f any ship or goods shall be seized . . . and any dispute shall arise whether the customs and duties for such goods have been paid . . . then, and in such cases, the proof thereof shall lie upon the owner or claimer of such ship or goods, and not upon the officer who shall seize or stop the same; any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Sugar Act (Apr. 5, 1764) in Prologue to the Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis 1764-1766, at 8 (Edmund S. Morgan ed., 2012).

30  Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997).

31  Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S., 478, 483 n.12 (1978); see also id. (explaining that “the so-called ‘presumption’ is not evidence – not even an inference drawn from a fact in evidence – but instead is a way of describing the prosecution’s duty”); Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. 295 (1850), abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Russell, 470 Mass. 464 (2015) (“All the presumptions of law independent of evidence are in favor of innocence, and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.”) (emphasis added).

32  Thayer, supra, at 199; see also id. (explaining that the presumption of innocence means that, even if a person is “under grave suspicion,” “he is not to suffer in your minds from these suspicions or this necessity of holding him confined and trying him”).

33  See Zechariah Chafee, The Progress of the Law, 35 Harv. L. Rev. 302, 314 (1922) (“There is no probability that a man indicted by a grand jury is usually innocent”); Thayer, supra, at 199 (“[I]f the jury were not thus called off from the field of natural inference, if they were allowed to range there wherever mere reason and human experience would carry them, the whole purpose of the presumption of innocence would be balked. For of the men who are actually brought up for trial, probably the large majority are guilty.”); id. at 188 (the presumption in favor of the defendant is a “maxim of policy and practical sense; it is not founded on any notion the defendants generally are [factually] free from blame.”).

34  Laufer, supra, at 331-32 (emphasis added).

35  Thayer, supra, at 189.

36  See Thayer, at 196; George P. Fletcher, Two Kinds of Legal Rules: A Comparative Study of Burden-of-Persuasion Practices in Criminal Cases, 77 Yale L. J. 880 (1967-1968) (arguing that the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” are historically and philosophically distinct).

37  See, e.g., Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526 (1958) (hold- ing, in civil tax-enforcement proceeding, that “[d]ue process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of producing the evidence and convincing the factfinder of his guilt”).

38  Thayer, supra, at 189 (quoting 16 Records of Massachusetts, III., 434). See generally P. Thomas, Revolution in America: Britain and the Colonies, 1763-1776 at 67 (1992); David S. Lovejoy, Rights Imply Equality: The Case Against Admiralty Jurisdiction in America, 1764-1776, 16 Wm. & Mary Q. 459 (1959); C. Ubbelohde, The Vice-Admiralty Courts and the American Revolution 126-42, 154-58 (1960).

39  U.S. v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 460, 471 (1827) (Story, J.). Other decisions suggest that the presumption of innocence has always been part of the American justice system. See, e.g., Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430, 439 (1887) (approving jury instruction adopted by lower court stating that “the law presumes the defendant innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”); Lilienthal’s Tobacco v. United States, 97 U.S. 237, 266 (1877) (“[I]n criminal trials the party accused is entitled to the legal presumption in favor of innocence, which, in doubtful cases, is always sufficient to turn the scale in his favor.”); see also Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S.790, 802-03 (1952) (“[F]rom the time that the law which we have inherited has emerged from dark and barbaric times, the conception of justice which has dominated our criminal law has refused to put an accused at the hazard of punishment if he fails to re- move every reasonable doubt of his innocence”; rather, it is “the duty of the Government to establish his guilt,” a notion “basic in our law and rightly one of the boasts of a free society [and] a requirement and a safeguard of due process of law”) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), cited with approval by In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 362 (1970).

40  156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895).

41  397 U.S. 358 (1970).

42  397 U.S. 358, 363 (1970) (observing that the reasonable doubt standard “provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence”).

43  425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976) (Burger, C.J.).

44  436 U.S. 478, 486 n.13 (1978)

45  319 U.S. 463, 469 (1943)

46  241 U.S. 79, 86 (1916) (Holmes, J.), cited with approval by Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 209 (1977)

The Presumption of Innocence above is extracted from the Brief of Amici Curiae by The Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice in Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U. S.15–1256 (2017).

Christian leaders reject churches’ ‘social justice’ agenda

The Truth Shall Set You Free

    The following article is published in response to thousands of members’ and readers’ requests. Originally, it was not published, because the liberal progressive movement attacking America rejects any argument linked to religion dispelling their flawed false ideologies. They ignore the historical reality, quoting the “father of our country”, our first president, George Washington saying in his Farewell Address, that “Religion and morality are indispensable supports for our form of government.”. Joined by the vast majority of the other Framers and Founders, Washington repeatedly acknowledges “divine Providence”, and an immutable Law giving everything order.

    The importance of this is that, as the primary requisite doctrine of law, the intention of the lawmakers is indelibly controlling in adjudicating political order in our republican democracy. The Framers’ and Founders’ Biblical worldview is the foundation of the Constitution, and it must be interpreted recognizing that fundamental tenet.

CftC

Christian leaders reject churches’ ‘social justice’ agenda

Michael Haverluck

September 8, 2018

    [As of Sunday, 9 September, 2018, over 6,500] Christian pastors, churches, organizations and leaders have signed an online statement affirming evangelicals’ rejection of “social justice” campaigns, which reflect the “values borrowed from secular culture” that are touted by numerous churches across the United States.

    “[T]he project introduced just days ago [was] launched in response to a move by churches – including evangelical churches – into social activism.”

Social ‘injustice’ … according to the Bible

    The declaration takes on “social justice warriors” in the Church who have misled evangelicals to believe that the politically correct movement is backed by the Bible.

    “[The] statement from evangelicals … challenges those who believe ‘social justice’ is compatible with Christian teaching.” “[It] references copious numbers of statements from Scripture as it takes on the inroads it feels secular culture has made into the evangelical Church.”

    The first words of the declaration attack the divisive “social justice” philosophy sweeping the nation and the Church through the mainstream media and education system, which consistently tout groups such as Black Lives Matter and glamorize athletes – including former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for his refusal to kneel for the National Anthem – for bashing police, whites, America and all it stands for … in the name of a so-called “civil rights” movement.

The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel

    In view of questionable sociological, psychological, and political theories presently permeating our culture and making inroads into Christ’s church, we wish to clarify certain key Christian doctrines and ethical principles prescribed in God’s Word. Clarity on these issues will fortify believers and churches to withstand an onslaught of dangerous and false teachings that threaten the gospel, misrepresent Scripture, and lead people away from the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

    Specifically, we are deeply concerned that values borrowed from secular culture are currently undermining Scripture in the areas of race and ethnicity, manhood and womanhood, and human sexuality. The Bible’s teaching on each of these subjects is being challenged under the broad and somewhat nebulous rubric of concern for “social justice.” If the doctrines of God’s Word are not uncompromisingly reasserted and defended at these points, there is every reason to anticipate that these dangerous ideas and corrupted moral values will spread their influence into other realms of biblical doctrines and principles.

We submit these affirmations and denials for public consideration, not with any pretense of ecclesiastical authority, but with an urgency that is mixed with deep joy and sincere sorrow. The rapidity with which these deadly ideas have spread from the culture at large into churches and Christian organizations — including some that are evangelical and Reformed — necessitates the issuing of this statement now.

In the process of considering these matters we have been reminded of the essentials of the faith once for all handed down to the saints, and we are re-committed to contend for it. We have a great Lord and Savior, and it is a privilege to defend his gospel, regardless of cost or consequences. Nevertheless, while we rejoice in that privilege, we grieve that in doing so we know we are taking a stand against the positions of some teachers whom we have long regarded as faithful and trustworthy spiritual guides. It is our earnest prayer that our brothers and sisters will stand firm on the gospel and avoid being blown to and fro by every cultural trend that seeks to move the Church of Christ off course. We must remain steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.

    The Apostle Paul’s warning to the Colossians is greatly needed today: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). The document that follows is an attempt to heed that apostolic command. We invite others who share our concerns and convictions to unite with us in reasserting our unwavering commitment to the teachings of God’s Word articulated in this statement. Therefore, for the glory of God among his Church and throughout society, we offer the following affirmations and denials.

Scripture

    We affirm that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we must believe) and what is right (how we must live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone.

    We deny that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching. We further deny that competency to teach on any biblical issue comes from any qualification for spiritual people other than clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture.

Scripture: Genesis 2:18-25; Psalm 19:7-10; 1 Corinthians 2:14-15; Ephesians 5:22-33; 2 Timothy 3:16-4:5; Hebrews 4:12; 13:4; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21

Imago Dei

    We Affirm that God created every person equally in his own image. As divine image-bearers, all people have inestimable value and dignity before God and deserve honor, respect and protection. Everyone has been created by God and for God.

    We deny that God-given roles, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, sex or physical condition or any other property of a person either negates or contributes to that individual’s worth as an image-bearer of God.

Scripture: Genesis 1:26-30; 2:18-22; 9:6; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 1:21-22

Justice

    We affirm that since he is holy, righteous, and just, God requires those who bear his image to live justly in the world. This includes showing appropriate respect to every person and giving to each one what he or she is due. We affirm that societies must establish laws to correct injustices that have been imposed through cultural prejudice.

    We deny that true justice can be culturally defined or that standards of justice that are merely socially constructed can be imposed with the same authority as those that are derived from Scripture. We further deny that Christians can live justly in the world under any principles other than the biblical standard of righteousness. Relativism, socially-constructed standards of truth or morality, and notions of virtue and vice that are constantly in flux cannot result in authentic justice.

Scripture: Genesis 18:19; Isaiah 61:8; Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:17-19; Romans 3:31

God’s Law

    We affirm that God’s law, as summarized in the ten commandments, more succinctly summarized in the two great commandments, and manifested in Jesus Christ, is the only standard of unchanging righteousness. Violation of that law is what constitutes sin.

    We deny that any obligation that does not arise from God’s commandments can be legitimately imposed on Christians as a prescription for righteous living. We further deny the legitimacy of any charge of sin or call to repentance that does not arise from a violation of God’s commandments.

Scripture: Deuteronomy 10:4; Romans 6:14, 10:5; Galatians 2:16, 3:10, 12; Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 10:1

Sin

    We affirm that all people are connected to Adam both naturally and federally. Therefore, because of original sin everyone is born under the curse of God’s law and all break his commandments through sin. There is no difference in the condition of sinners due to age, ethnicity, or sex. All are depraved in all their faculties and all stand condemned before God’s law. All human relationships, systems, and institutions have been affected by sin.

    We deny that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin. Although families, groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins. Before God each person must repent and confess his or her own sins in order to receive forgiveness. We further deny that one’s ethnicity establishes any necessary connection to any particular sin.

Scripture: Genesis 2:16, 17, 3:12,13-15; Proverbs 29:18; Isaiah 25:7, 60:2-3; Jeremiah 31:27-34; Ezekiel 18:1-9, 14-18; Matthew 23:29-36; Romans 1:16-17, 3:23, 5:12, 10:14-17; 1 Corinthians 15:3-11; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 1:6-9; Titus 1:12, 13; Revelation 13:8

Gospel

    We affirm that the gospel is the divinely-revealed message concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ—especially his virgin birth, righteous life, substitutionary sacrifice, atoning death, and bodily resurrection—revealing who he is and what he has done with the promise that he will save anyone and everyone who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord.

    We deny that anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel. This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel.

Scripture: Genesis 3:15; Proverbs 29:18; Isaiah 25:7, 60:2, 3; Romans 1:16-17, 10:14,15,17; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11; Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 13:8

Salvation

    We affirm  that salvation is granted by God’s grace alone received through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Every believer is united to Christ, justified before God, and adopted into his family. Thus, in God’s eyes there is no difference in spiritual value or worth among those who are in Christ. Further, all who are united to Christ are also united to one another regardless of age, ethnicity, or sex. All believers are being conformed to the image of Christ. By God’s regenerating and sanctifying grace all believers will be brought to a final glorified, sinless state of perfection in the day of Jesus Christ.

    We deny that salvation can be received in any other way. We also deny that salvation renders any Christian free from all remaining sin or immune from even grievous sin in this life. We further deny that ethnicity excludes anyone from understanding the gospel, nor does anyone’s ethnic or cultural heritage mitigate or remove the duty to repent and believe.

Scripture: Genesis 3:15; Acts 20:32; Romans 3-4; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:28-29; 1 John 2:1-2

The Church

    We Affirm that the primary role of the church is to worship God through the preaching of his word, teaching sound doctrine, observing baptism and the Lord’s Supper, refuting those who contradict, equipping the saints, and evangelizing the lost. We affirm that when the primacy of the gospel is maintained that this often has a positive effect on the culture in which various societal ills are mollified. We affirm that, under the lordship of Christ, we are to obey the governing authorities established by God and pray for civil leaders.

    We Deny that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church. Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute a central part of the church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ, her head. We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.

Scripture: Matthew 28:16-20; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9; 1 Peter 2:13-17

Heresy

    We affirm that heresy is a denial of or departure from a doctrine that is essential to the Christian faith. We further affirm that heresy often involves the replacement of key, essential truths with variant concepts, or the elevation of non-essentials to the status of essentials. To embrace heresy is to depart from the faith once delivered to the saints and thus to be on a path toward spiritual destruction. We affirm that the accusation of heresy should be reserved for those departures from Christian truth that destroy the weight-bearing doctrines of the redemptive core of Scripture. We affirm that accusations of heresy should be accompanied with clear evidence of such destructive beliefs.

    We deny that the charge of heresy can be legitimately brought against every failure to achieve perfect conformity to all that is implied in sincere faith in the gospel.

Scripture: John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Galatians 1:6-9; 1 John 4:1-3, 10, 14, 15; 5:1, 6-12

Sexuality and Marriage

    We Affirm that God created mankind male and female and that this divinely determined distinction is good, proper, and to be celebrated. Maleness and femaleness are biologically determined at conception and are not subject to change. The curse of sin results in sinful, disordered affections that manifest in some people as same-sex attraction. Salvation grants sanctifying power to renounce such dishonorable affections as sinful and to mortify them by the Spirit. We further affirm that God’s design for marriage is that one woman and one man live in a one-flesh, covenantal, sexual relationship until separated by death. Those who lack the desire or opportunity for marriage are called to serve God in singleness and chastity. This is as noble a calling as marriage.

    We deny that human sexuality is a socially constructed concept. We also deny that one’s sex can be fluid. We reject “gay Christian” as a legitimate biblical category. We further deny that any kind of partnership or union can properly be called marriage other than one man and one woman in lifelong covenant together. We further deny that people should be identified as “sexual minorities”—which serves as a cultural classification rather than one that honors the image-bearing character of human sexuality as created by God.

Scripture: Genesis 1:26-27, 2:24, 4:1, 19:24-28; Matthew 19:3-6; Romans 8:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 7

Complementarianism

    We affirm that God created mankind both male and female with inherent biological and personal distinctions between them and that these created differences are good, proper, and beautiful. Though there is no difference between men and women before God’s law or as recipients of his saving grace, we affirm that God has designed men and women with distinct traits and to fulfill distinct roles. These differences are most clearly defined in marriage and the church, but are not irrelevant in other spheres of life. In marriage the husband is to lead, love, and safeguard his wife and the wife is to respect and be submissive to her husband in all things lawful. In the church, qualified men alone are to lead as pastors/elders/bishops and preach to and teach the whole congregation. We further affirm that the image of God is expressed most fully and beautifully in human society when men and women walk in obedience to their God-ordained roles and serve according to their God-given gifts.

    We deny that the God-ordained differences in men’s and women’s roles disparage the inherent spiritual worth or value of one over the other, nor do those differences in any way inhibit either men or women from flourishing for the glory of God.

Scripture: Genesis 1:26–28, 2:15-25, 3:1-24; Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Corinthians 11:7-9; 1 Timothy 2:12-14; Titus 2

Race / Ethnicity

    We affirm God made all people from one man. Though people often can be distinguished by different ethnicities and nationalities, they are ontological equals before God in both creation and redemption. “Race” is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority. All that is good, honest, just, and beautiful in various ethnic backgrounds and experiences can be celebrated as the fruit of God’s grace. All sinful actions and their results (including evils perpetrated between and upon ethnic groups by others) are to be confessed as sinful, repented of, and repudiated.

    We deny that Christians should segregate themselves into racial groups or regard racial identity above, or even equal to, their identity in Christ. We deny that any divisions between people groups (from an unstated attitude of superiority to an overt spirit of resentment) have any legitimate place in the fellowship of the redeemed. We reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression. While we are to weep with those who weep, we deny that a person’s feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behaviors, oppression, or prejudice.

Scripture: Genesis 1:26–28; Acts 17:24-26; 1 Corinthians 13:4-7; 2 Corinthians 12:16-18

Culture

    We affirm that some cultures operate on assumptions that are inherently better than those of other cultures because of the biblical truths that inform those worldviews that have produced these distinct assumptions. Those elements of a given culture that reflect divine revelation should be celebrated and promoted. But the various cultures out of which we have been called all have features that are worldly and sinful—and therefore those sinful features should be repudiated for the honor of Christ. We affirm that whatever evil influences to which we have been subjected via our culture can be—and must be—overcome through conversion and the training of both mind and heart through biblical truth.

    We deny that individuals and sub-groups in any culture are unable, by God’s grace, to rise above whatever moral defects or spiritual deficiencies have been engendered or encouraged by their respective cultures.

Scripture: Romans 1:18-32; Ephesians 4:17-24; Colossians 3:5-11

Racism

    We affirm that racism is a sin rooted in pride and malice which must be condemned and renounced by all who would honor the image of God in all people. Such racial sin can subtly or overtly manifest itself as racial animosity or racial vainglory. Such sinful prejudice or partiality falls short of God’s revealed will and violates the royal law of love. We affirm that virtually all cultures, including our own, at times contain laws and systems that foster racist attitudes and policies.

    We deny that treating people with sinful partiality or prejudice is consistent with biblical Christianity. We deny that only those in positions of power are capable of racism, or that individuals of any particular ethnic groups are incapable of racism. We deny that systemic racism is in any way compatible with the core principles of historic evangelical convictions. We deny that the Bible can be legitimately used to foster or justify partiality, prejudice, or contempt toward other ethnicities. We deny that the contemporary evangelical movement has any deliberate agenda to elevate one ethnic group and subjugate another. And we emphatically deny that lectures on social issues (or activism aimed at reshaping the wider culture) are as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel and the exposition of Scripture. Historically, such things tend to become distractions that inevitably lead to departures from the gospel.

Scripture: Genesis 1:26-27; Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Galatians 3:28; James 2:4

Addendum

For more detailed consideration of some of the issues raised in this statement, we recommend the following two documents:

 

Beyond Ridiculous To The Absurd

Beyond Ridiculous To The Absurd

     Obama recently went on the campaign trail attacking President Trump. Common to all the false liberal propaganda are the lies and deceptions that ignore the truth of history and science. In a recent speech at the University of Illinois, ridiculously claiming that he set the stage and enabled the economic recovery that Trump brought about, he also stated the importance that the Oval Office has in determining foreign and domestic policy. Ignoring his own abject failure at both, from the 2008 unconstitutional bank / financial institution bailout and economic collapse to Benghazi, he lauds, without any evidence, the performance of past Democratic administrations.

     William J. Federer in his American Minute looks at history without political bias. Addressing the history of Muslim past and ongoing atrocities in Europe and the Mid East, he looks at how Bill Clinton aided and abetted them. Focusing on domestic policy, he recalls how Mother Theresa addressed the Democratic platform advocating abortion. Whether proclaiming the lie of any human capacity to control global warming wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money and costing thousands of jobs, liberals in the personage of the Democratic Party must ignore the reality of science and history to sustain the attack on America.

     The following article by Mr. Federer in his American Minute, looking only at indisputable recorded history counters liberal Democratic false propaganda.

CftC

Albania’s Two Kinds of Heroes: Mother Teresa & Skanderbeg

William J. Federer

American Minute

    A century after the Kings of Assyria carried away the ten Northern Tribes of Israel into captivity, on the other side of the Mediterranean, Greeks settled the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea in the 7th century BC.

     One of their major cities was Epidamnos ( Dyrrhachium), founded in 625 BC, located in modern-day Albania. It was there in 48 BC, that Caesar defeated Pompey at the Battle of Dyrrhachium. Caesar Augustus began incorporating the area, known as the Balkan Peninsula, into the Roman Empire.

     The Roman road, Via Egnatia, stretched from Dyrrhachium on the Adriatic Sea to Constantinople, Byzantium, on the Aegean Sea. The Balkan Peninsula today includes the countries of: Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Romania, Greece, to the borders of Turkey.

     When the western Roman Empire fell to barbarians in 476 AD, the Balkan Peninsula survived, resisting the siege of Ostrogoth king Theodoric the Great in 481 AD. In 840, the northern Balkan Peninsula became part of the Christian Bulgarian Empire, which included the area of Albania.

    In 1190, Albania became a province in the Christian Byzantine Empire, with its major city of Dyrrhachion on the Adriatic Sea

    In the 1400s, the Ottoman Turkish army crossed the Bosporus and invaded west. They attacked Constantinople, Serbia, Morea, Black Sea, Wallachia, Bosnia, Vienna, Karaman, Akkoyunlu, Moldavia, Crimea, and the Balkan Peninsula. Albania was conquered in 1431, with the local nobility being killed and replaced with Muslim landowners, who imposed exorbitant taxes on the Christian population. This was followed by periodic massacres of Albanians. Ottomans led crusades against the Albanian people, with stories of forced conversions and Christian boys taken and forcibly indoctrinated into being Islamic soldiers, or used for pederasty.

     Eastern European countries had brave leaders who resisted Islamic invasion:   -Hungary’s John Hunyadi (1406-1456); -Poland’s Wladyslaw III (1424-1444); -Moldova’s Stephen the Great (1433-1504); -Romania’s Vlad III (1428-1477); -Bulgaria’s Prince Fruzhin (c.1393-1444). In 1443, the Christian Albanian hero was George Castriot, called “Iskander” or “Scanderbeg,” who led a revolt against the Ottoman Muslims. American Poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow memorialized him in the “Poem of Skanderberg”:

“… Anon (soon) from the castle walls The crescent banner falls, And the crowd beholds instead, Like a portent in the sky, Iskander’s banner fly,

The Black Eagle with double head; And a shout ascends on high, For men’s souls are tired of the Turks, And their wicked ways and works,   “That have made of Ak-Hissar A city of the plague; And the loud, exultant cry That echoes wide and far Is: ‘ Long live Skanderbeg!'”

     For 25 years, Skanderbeg struck fear into the heart of the Ottoman armies. His 10,000 braves soldiers, often outnumbered in battle, consistently won against larger and better supplied Muslim armies. Considered a model of Christian resistance, Skanderbeg fought in the Venetian-Ottoman War.

     When Skanderbeg died in1468, the Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed the Conqueror, exclaimed:   “At last Europe and Asia are mine! Woe to Christendom! It has lost its sword and its shield.”

     For the next five centuries, Albania was under Ottoman rule, till Sultan Abdul Hamid II – the 99th caliph of Islam – was deposed in 1909.

     There was enthusiasm that Turkey would set up a democratic form of government.   Unfortunately, the joy was short-lived as fundamentalist leaders, called the Young Turks, seized control.   They promoted the idea of re-establishing the caliphate through “Ottomanization” – creating a homogeneous Turkey of one race, one language, and one belief. The brotherhood of the Young Turks began a genocidal expulsion and extermination of non-Muslim ethnic minorities, including millions of: Albanians, Armenians, Syrians, Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgarians. In the upheaval of World War I, Albania briefly gained independence in 1912.   It had a few short-lived monarchies, then a republic.

     During World War II, Albania was occupied by Fascist Italy, followed by Germany’s National Socialist Workers Party (Nazi).

     Albania was a communist State, 1944-1992, during which time it became an officially atheist country.

     In 1992, the Republic of Albania was founded. Many ethnic Albanians lived in the nearby area of Kosovo, the historic center of Christian Serbia and Montenegro. As Muslims immigrated and increased in number, they took over neighborhoods, and eventually decided to take over the whole region, erupting into the Kosovo War, 1998-1999.

     At this same time, in the United States, the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal was breaking, and President Bill Clinton decided to support the Muslim Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as it drove out over one million ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, leaving the tiny new country with a 96 percent Muslim population.

     A statue of Clinton was erected on Bill Clinton Boulevard in the capital of Pristina, Kosovo.

     One of the most famous Albanians was the daughter of an Albanian grocer. Born in 1910, she joined a Catholic religious order at age 18 and began working in the slums of Calcutta, India. She founded the Missionaries of Charity, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1979. This was Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

     Malcolm Muggeridge, a British Journalist who had converted to Christianity, wrote in “The Human Holocaust,” (Human Life Review, 1980):

     “Mother Teresa … in Calcutta, goes to great trouble to have brought into her Home for Dying Derelicts, castaways left to die in the streets.

     They may survive for no more than a quarter of an hour, but in that quarter of an hour, instead of feeling themselves rejected and abandoned, they meet with Christian love and care … Mother Teresa’s … love and compassion reach out to the afflicted without any other consideration than their immediate need, just as our Lord does when He tells us to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked.

     She gives all she has to give at once, and then finds she has more to give … Something of God’s love has rubbed off on Mother Teresa.”

     Phyllis Schlafly wrote in The Power of the Positive Woman (NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1978):   “Few women in history have ever known the career fulfillment that Mother Teresa has known.   She is the Albanian nun who has made it her mission to minister to the poor and dying in Calcutta, India …   She has become a living legend, acclaimed throughout the world-a career success and a happy woman by any standard. And Mother Teresa has said that men could never equal women in love and compassion.”

     Mother Teresa explained:   “Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus. God hasn’t called me to be successful. He’s called me to be faithful. If you want to pray better, you must pray more. We can do no great things, only small things with great love.”

     Ronald Reagan wrote in “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” (Human Life Review, 1983):   “The revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that ‘the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children’ …   We can echo the always-practical woman of faith, Mother Teresa, when she says, ‘If you don’t want the little child, that unborn child, give him to me.'”

     On February 3, 1994, frail 83-year-old Mother Teresa addressed the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., before an audience of 3,000, including President and Mrs. Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore:

     “Jesus died on the Cross because that is what it took for Him to do good to us – to save us from our selfishness in sin … The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself,   and if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

     The Old Testament version of abortion was sacrificing innocent children to pagan gods.   Proverbs 6:16-17 “The Lord hates … hands that shed innocent blood.”   God is just, and though patient and long-suffering, He will eventually judge individuals and nations who shed innocent blood, unless they repent.

     2 Kings 21: “King Manasseh did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites … He sacrificed his own son in the fire (to Moloch) …   The Lord said through his servants the prophets:   “Manasseh … has done more evil than the Amorites who preceded him … Therefore this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: I am going to bring such disaster on Jerusalem and Judah that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle …   Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end.”   2 Kings 24:2-4: “The LORD sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders … to destroy Judah … because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive.

     … By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.   And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble.   So abortion just leads to more abortion.”

     Mother Teresa continued:

     “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.   Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on.   Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good.

     … But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers …   We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: ‘Please don’t destroy the child; we will take the child.’   So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: ‘Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child.'”

     Mother Teresa spoke further:

     “And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child …   Jesus said, ‘Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me.’   By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus but by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.   Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child.

     … I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child.   From our children’s home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortion …”

         Mother Teresa concluded:

     “If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world.

     From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak – the unborn child – must go out to the world.

     … If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you!”

     Declaring January 22, 2018, National Sanctity of Human Life Day, President Trump stated:

     “We focus our attention on the love and protection each person, born and unborn, deserves … Reverence for every human life, one of the values for which our Founding Fathers fought, defines the character of our Nation.   Today, it moves us to promote the health of pregnant mothers and their unborn children … It dispels the notion that our worth depends on the extent to which we are planned for or wanted.

     … Science continues to support and build the case for life. Medical technologies allow us to see images of the unborn children moving their newly formed fingers and toes, yawning, and even smiling.   Those images present us with irrefutable evidence that babies are growing within their mothers’ wombs – precious, unique lives, each deserving a future filled with promise and hope.”

         On September 5, 1997, just five days after Princess Diana was killed, Mother Teresa died. On September 4, 2016, Pope Francis recognized her as a saint in the Catholic Church. Albanian Mother Teresa shared what motivated her:   “I see Jesus in every human being. I say to myself, this is hungry Jesus, I must feed him.   This is sick Jesus. This one has leprosy or gangrene; I must wash him and tend to him. I serve because I love Jesus.”

Judicial Tyranny

Judicial Tyranny

    The Committee for the Constitution has repeatedly published on the Constitutional intention to limit the power of the judiciary. Keeping company with the Framers’ and Founders’ fear of the public majority and preeminent expressed desire to limit the power and cancer of government, particularly the Federal government, many foresaw the potential for the abusive overreach of judiciary.

    Their foresight and concerns have been realized in the attack on America by “enemies, foreign and domestic”. Whether seeking to wrongfully influence the public majority by the propaganda of lies and deceptions spewing from the contaminated toxic sewers of the liberal media, foreign governments covertly trying to influence elections, or traitors such as Soros funding political disruption and the anarchy of protestors, the attack on America has taken on forms never anticipated in 1787.

    The ever expanding tumors of the administrative state, at every level of government, funded by legislative bodies of every size and composition across America, consume the just earnings of working Americans while birthing and enabling unbridled capitalism[1]. Shackled by corporations, both public and private, unrestrained by Congress and betrayed by those they elect, working Americans have been forced into bondage joining the undeserved welfare recipients enslaved by government handouts.

Most egregiously, Congress and legislatures have failed to hold those robed in black on the benches of injustice accountable to the supreme order of law in every jurisdiction giving them authority. The following discussion by Stephen and John McDowell of the Providence Foundation discusses some remedies already available according to the Framers’ original intention. Drawing from our preview of the soon to be published Set My People Free[1] by the author of the The Attack on America and Beyond Reason, this Committee for the Constitution’s articles addressing judicial tyranny suggest other actions that Congress can enact to halt the attack on the Constitution by these traitors. This tyranny and injustice by what was intended to be the weakest branch of government tasked only to interpret the original intention of the makers of the law according to the historical record has moved from the Dred Scott decision and the ensuing holocaust tragedy of the great Civil War to the atrocity of killing the unborn fully capable of life outside the womb to permitting the unquestioned perversion of the natural order.

All those Senators voting against the confirmation of any judge holding to the strict original intention of the makers of the “supreme law of the land” fail in their oath of office and must be removed!

CftC

[1] Set My People Free, Freedom Press, in process of publication

Stopping Judicial Activism

“We the People” or “We the Judges”?

Stephen McDowell & John McDowell

    Abraham Lincoln once asked, “How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a leg?” According to modern courts the answer may well be five. Following a string of Federal district courts, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a man and a man, or a woman and woman, is a family. They can call it so; however, just like declaring a dog has five legs, that declaration does not make it so.

    In response to abusive actions of the British government, James Otis, a leader in America’s independence movement, wrote:

    To say the Parliament is absolute and arbitrary is a contradiction. The Parliament cannot make 2 and 2, 5: Omnipotency cannot do it. The supreme power in a state … belongs alone to God. Parliaments are in all cases to declare what is for the good of the whole; but it is not the declaration of Parliament that makes it so: There must be in every instance a higher authority, viz. God. Should an Act of Parliament be against any of His natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity, and justice, and consequently void.[1]

    The Supreme Court, like the British Parliament, has made numerous declarations regarding matters of life, family, liberty, and property. Many Americans seem to think the declarations of a majority of judges are the final word. However, they can declare all they want, but such a declaration does not make it true.

    Two plus two is always four, regardless of man’s contrary view. A dog’s tail is never a leg. There are negative consequences to violating the immutable laws of God. In building a house or sending a man to the moon, saying 2+2=5 will result in trouble. Likewise, any act of man that is contrary to God’s natural laws will result in harm. However, if a few rulers make such declarations, who will hold them accountable? According to our founding governmental principles and the U.S. Constitution, it is “we the people.”

    “We the people” is one fundamental component of American constitutionalism. Unlike most nations in history, America was not ruled by an elite few. All citizens had a voice in how they were governed. We did not live under rulers’ law, where an enlightened few made the laws and imposed them on the ignorant masses. Rather, a moral, self-governed citizenry formulated their own laws under the higher law of God and willingly chose to obey them. In America, “the people made the laws.”[2] This concept of self-government is one reason America was exceptional.[3]

    This historically unique aspect of government – Christian self-government – is sadly being replaced by the age-old pagan concept of “rulers’ law.” Over the past few decades, activist judges have assumed the place of unelected law-makers. With little resistance or outcry from either the Congress or the general populace, we have embraced what is likely the most absurd idea in modern American polity, viz., that a handful of men and women sitting on the Supreme Court will decide for 320 million citizens what is lawful, right, and acceptable behavior.[4] These few have decided the value and origin of life, the meaning of private property, the role religion plays in public affairs, the place of religious convictions in business, and they just decided what constitutes a family. Most of their decisions regarding these matters have been contrary to the decrees of the Creator, Who, according to the Declaration of Independence – our founding covenant document – is the source of our life, liberty, and rights.

    We are moving from a representative republic to an oligarchy, one becoming more and more oppressive, especially for those who believe in Creator-endowed rights. Most of the Founders could never envision runaway courts. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution… [T]he judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power… [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.”[5]

    If the courts ever attempted to usurp legislative or executive authority, the Founders believed the Congress would rein them in, as the United States Constitution clearly gives the legislative branch (which represents and are elected by the people) the primary power in the Federal government. Just compare the length and content of Article 1 of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of Congress, with Article 3, which presents the powers of the Supreme Court: 255 lines of copy deal with the powers of Congress, 114 with the powers of the President, and only 44 with the Courts.

    James Madison declared that “the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”[6] Legitimate power is derived from the people and the people only. The Founders understood the tendency of man to abuse power, therefore they separated it among three branches of government and invested most power in the people through their elected representatives. Due to ignorance, apathy, and bad education we are gradually embracing the idea of judicial supremacy, where judges not only interpret, but also make and enforce law. This is in stark contrast to the Founders view of Constitutional supremacy.

    Insightfully, Thomas Jefferson did warn of potential abuse of courts, writing:

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.[7]

    Jefferson did not charge all judges with “willful and ill-intentional error” when their rulings worked to consolidate all power in the federal judiciary and to undermine the rule of the people under law, but he wrote that “honest error must be arrested where its toleration leads to public ruin.” How was this to be done? One way, he wrote, was through the Constitutional provision of impeachment (though he lamented a supermajority of two-thirds was needed[8]): “Judges should be withdrawn from their benches whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the Republic, which is the first and supreme law.”[9]

    A more practical fix from Jefferson, and one we should institute today, was: “Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years, and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation.”[10]

    Given that most Americans profess democratic ideals, you would think everyone – liberals and conservatives – would agree on curbing the aristocratic concept of judicial rule. But alas, many folks, thinking their immoral values would more easily gain ascendency through aggressively positioning a few people on the courts rather than winning the battle of ideas in the general public, oppose restricting the judiciary. They posit various scenarios of checking the rule of the majority via enlightened judges, like asking, “What if the majority wants slavery? How would we stop this?” Yet, the more frightening (and likely) scenario is, “What if five judges want slavery?” It is much easier to get five men to embrace wrong ideas than 160 million. Moreover, it would require more than the consent of the majority to change the Constitution.

    America is a Federal Republic, where certain God-given inalienable rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. Thus for slavery, or anything contrary to “the laws of nature and nature’s God”[11] to be established, it would require three-fourths of the states to approve such a measure. A three-fourths majority is significantly more difficult to obtain than the decision of five judges. Some say that the Supreme Court will never exhibit such drastic behavior or enact such rulings. But in fact it has. In the Dred Scott decision of 1857 the Supreme Court denied the personhood of blacks, and in Roe v Wade (1973) it denied the personhood of unborn children.

    The courts have made numerous unconstitutional decisions (according to the intent of the Framers), especially in modern times, that have violated the will of the majority of citizens and more importantly the will of God. It has been primarily through the courts, with the rulings of a very small number of people, that a new definition of the family has been imposed upon the American people.

    Recently, judges have ruled that business owners must provide services to customers even though such actions violate their strongly held religious beliefs. Florists, bakers, and photographers have been ordered to accommodate same-sex weddings or else face fines or worse. Many have chosen to close their businesses rather than violate the Christian convictions.

    Homosexual activists and misguided liberals have claimed “victory,” but the rulings by these judges are both dangerous and unconstitutional. These citizens’ First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech were stripped away by a single judge. Giving such power to the judiciary puts all our God-given and constitutionally secured rights in jeopardy. What is next? Our right to life, or fair trial, or public protest? Will judges rule that you cannot run for office and even vote if you oppose homosexuality or same-sex marriage? For the liberal thinker, what if a judge ruled only regenerated Christian believers could run for office, own property, and vote? Why would anyone, liberals included, want to trust their inalienable rights to a few judges? The people as a whole are a much better security.

    With the current system of an unaccountable activist federal judiciary, many other unjust decisions will surely take place. When such rulings occur what should we do? Abraham Lincoln criticized the Supreme Court Dred Scot decision for its denial of the laws of nature and nature’s God which assert the inalienable liberty of every individual. Lincoln believed that if that court decision was the absolute law of the land, then “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”[12] It is the task of “we the people” to keep any such declarations from being incorporated into the law of the land. Most especially, we must keep a few judges (no matter how educated and “enlightened”) from imposing their morality upon the nation. But how?

Restricting Activist Judges

    The Constitution provides numerous ways that Congress – the representative of “we the people” – can check activist judges. These include:

  1. Impeachment – Judges can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors (Art. II. Sec. 4). In the past, judges have been removed for public drunkenness[13] and even bad rulings.[14]
  2. Restrict jurisdiction – Congress can regulate much of the jurisdiction of the federal courts (Art. III, Sec. 2).
  3. Reorganize the courts – Congress can establish and reorganize a system of inferior Federal Courts (Art. III, Sec. 1).
  4. Cut off money – All bills raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives (Art. 1. Sec. 7, 8), hence Congress can use this power to restrict a run-away judiciary.

    It would be best for competent judges[15] to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and hence, use of the above means would not be necessary. Yet, even the best of judges need to be held accountable, and the current Constitutional provisions to do so have not worked well. We should heed the advice of Jefferson and change their terms to 4 or 6 years, with re-approval needed for continued service.

    Jefferson said that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal.”[16] In fact, the United States Constitution sprang from “we the people,” not from “we the elite few rulers.” It is time to return to the liberating idea of self-government. And … let’s also stop calling the tail a leg.

[1] James Otis, “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” Sources of Our Liberties, Richard L. Perry, editor, New York: American Bar Foundation, 1952, pp. 264-265

[2] Historian David Gregg, quoted in Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, America’s Providential History, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 1989, p. 115.

[3] Early Americans could form good and godly laws and constrain themselves to obey them because, according to Gregg, “the churches made the people.” The churches imparted the Biblical wisdom necessary to construct good laws, as well as the Biblical character necessary to live under them.

[4] Thomas Jefferson said it this way:”That there should be public functionaries independent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency.” Letter to William T. Barry, July 2, 1822, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor, Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, 15:389.

[5] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1898, No. 78, pp. 518-519.

[6] Ibid., No. 51, p. 345.

[7] Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to Charles Hammond, Aug. 18, 1821,” The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 15:331-332.[8] Jefferson said requiring two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove a judge must be changed, writing that this percentage is “a vote so impossible, where any defense is made before men of ordinary prejudices and passions, that our judges are effectually independent of the nation.” He wrote that this ought not to be and suggested that for our government to continue that judges “should be submitted to some practical and impartial control; and that this, to be impartial, must be compounded of a mixture of state and federal authorities.” (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 1:120)[9] Jefferson’s Autobiography (1821), in Writings, 1:120-122.[10] Letter to William T. Barry, July 2, 1822, Writings, 15:389.[11]This phrase in the Declaration of Independence had a well established meaning. The laws of nature are the general revelation of God in creation and the conscience of man, and the laws of nature’s God are the specific revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures (see Stephen McDowell, American a Christian Nation, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 2004, p. 7-12).[12] Beliles and McDowell, p. 261.[13] Judge Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached as a “habitual and maniac drunkard.” (See Thomas Jefferson’s Autobiography, in Writings, 1:121.)[14] See David Barton, Impeachment, Restraining an Overactive Judiciary, Aledo, TX: WallBuilders, 1996.[15] To prepare competent judges we must change the philosophy and content of what is taught in colleges and law schools.[16] Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to William Charles Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 15:277.

Citizenship and Immigration

A Nation of Immigrants

Michelle Malkin

Aug 20, 2018

    The common narrative today is that after decades of globalism, hard-hearted Americans now seek to close the nation’s borders to new immigrants. But the truth is that the United States maintains the most generous immigration policies in the world. However, as Michelle Malkin explains, a few ill-conceived immigration policies are threatening to destroy the American Dream for Americans and aspiring Americans alike.

Transcript of “A Nation of Immigrants

    “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”

    These poetic lines, engraved on a bronze plaque beneath the Statue of Liberty, speak to who we are: a nation of immigrants. Until now . . .

    As Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer lamented, “Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty.” We’ve turned our backs on those huddled masses. Closed our borders. Separated families. Hardened our hearts.

    Or so you would think if you only read the headlines or watch TV news. Just one problem: It’s not true.

    The United States still maintains the most generous immigration policies in the world. Generous to a fault…because the overwhelming numbers have stymied our ability to assimilate the huddled masses. 50 million residents of America are foreign-born. In fact, today the United States has more immigrants as a percentage of its total population than at any time since 1890. That’s why, to give one illustration, 176 different languages are spoken among students in the New York City school system.

    How did we get here? For starters, America grants permanent residence to a million people every single year. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg because of something you’ve probably heard referred to as “chain migration.” Chain migration allows immigrants to sponsor not only their immediate family—parents, spouses and children under age 21, but much of their extended family once they gain citizenship: unmarried adult children and any children they might have, married adult children and their children, and brothers and sisters and their children. Princeton University researchers, using the most recently available data, found that immigrants sponsored an average of 3.45 additional relatives each.

    So, the one million immigrants granted permanent residence each year potentially adds, over time, another three and a half million.

    In addition, an estimated 100,000 refugees and asylum-seekers — people who claim to be fleeing political or personal strife abroad — enter the country annually. From 2008 to 2017, the U.S. gave green cards to well over a million people for humanitarian reasons, allowing them to live and work here permanently. After five years, they can apply for full citizenship.

    We’re not done yet. In that same time frame, nearly half a million more people came to America through the diversity visa lottery—a program designed to admit more people from “underrepresented” countries into the U.S.

    Diversity visa applicants don’t need a high school education, job skills — or pretty much anything. And, thanks again to chain migration, spouses and unmarried children under 21 of visa lottery winners also get to come to America.

    This non-stop flow of new legal immigrants — based on family ties instead of skills, abilities, and allegiance to American values — has, of course, been supplemented by millions who enter the country illegally and stay illegally.

    Dominant media outlets use the euphemism “undocumented,” but the official U.S. government term used in federal statutes is “illegal alien”: an unlawful entrant who came without permission and stays in open defiance of our laws.  The number of illegal aliens in the country is usually given as 11 million, but have you noticed that number never seems to change? Common sense suggests it’s higher—much higher. And though illegal aliens themselves don’t qualify for welfare, they receive free health care in our clinics and hospitals, and through their American-born children they can expect to receive all manner of benefits—cash aid, food stamps, and housing vouchers. Their children are entitled to a free education in public schools.

    Building a high-tech border barrier would certainly help stem this flow. Ending chain migration is another obvious remedy. E-Verify, the national database that allows employers to check workers’ immigration status, is also essential. So is a fully-functioning entry-exit system to track visa overstayers.

    But all solutions will ultimately fail unless we get control of the numbers and enforce our laws consistently.  It’s Sovereignty 101: This is our home and we have not only the right, but the responsibility, to determine who comes in, how many come in, and what qualities and qualifications they bring.

    The truth is, we let in millions. And, of course, millions more want to come. Who can blame them? But it’s simply not possible or desirable to let in everyone.  And it’s not hateful to say so.

    It’s not hateful to protect our borders. It’s not hateful to protect our citizens. It’s not hateful to protect our values.

    Lady Liberty may be shedding tears—not because we’ve stopped welcoming immigrants, but because our ill-conceived immigration policies are threatening the American Dream. 

    I’m Michelle Malkin, CRTV host and author of Invasion and Sold Out