"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
With all of that is going on with these anti gunner politicians (surrounded by armed security detail) working hard for their special interest groups, rather than upholding the US Constitution, the US Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold, instead, and in using the tactic of “necessity” based off of some tragedy or massacre, which, in many cases, are induced false flag events (conspired black ops Jeremiah 11:9), one must understand the methods and the language of their enemies.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
Furthermore, when you look to the anti-gunner corrupt politicians and their methods one must ask where did they derive their delegated authority to encroach upon the God-given RIGHTS of the American people? I cannot find it! Why? Because it isn’t there (Hosea 4:6).
Americans must come to terms that corrupt politicians are not the type that you can help or rehabilitate; they are the type that you must lawfully remove, or you will lose your God-given RIGHTS! (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution)
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – President Thomas Jefferson
You must fight for your God-given RIGHTS! (Deuteronomy 1:8; James 2:14-26)
It is the difference between a FREE people, and an enslaved people there are no in-between (Luke 11:2).
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
Therefore, it might be well for you to take a couple of minutes and read what our forefathers had said in their writings during the ratifications to establish gun rights to Americans as a whole, namely the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers that established our God-given rights?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
First, who are the militia?
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
Second, look to our American forefathers and how what they established contradicts the corruptions in the face of the present day criminal politicians (Psalm 94:20; Luke 22:48; John 8:44).
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
We have heard over and over from criminal anti-gunner politicians that we do not need 30 round magazines when it comes to our ability to protect ourselves.
Just a reminder to all, we do not need 30 rounds to hunt with, correct, but the Second Amendment was not written in case the deer turn against us, it was given in case our government does.
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it!”
During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump said that if I voted for Hillary Clinton - I’d be stuck with a criminal president under constant federal investigation from day one! Turns out he was right! I voted for Hillary Clinton and now I’m stuck with a criminal president under federal investigation since day one! - viral meme, 2017 - author unknown.
Republican President Donald Trump overwhelmingly won the conservative christian vote and yet we find him neck deep in another infidelity scandal. He was married to his first wife Ivana Trump from 77-92. Donald cheated on her a bunch (including with upcoming wife number two) and the rocky marriage came to a harsh ending. And it wasn't just about the cheating. Let’s not forget that in Ivana's 91 deposition she accused Donald Trump of physically abusing her up to and including one case where he ripped out fistfuls of her hair (for disobeying him) and another where he sexually assaulted after they had separated.
Wife number two: Marla Maples (92-99)
Shortly after his divorce from Ivana, Donald Trump marries his long time mistress. Of course, right before the wedding he tells People magazine he would “never marry Maples” because he has “too many other girlfriends” to look after. Well, I’m sure you will be shocked to learn that, reportedly, Donald Trump was extremely unfaithful to Maples. Then, in a moment of extreme hypocrisy, Trump decides to divorce Maples when he finds her “together” with one of their longtime bodyguards. Message clear - Donald is allowed to cheat, Donald’s wife - is not.
Third wife: Melania Trump. 2005 - present.
It’s recently been revealed that porn star Stormy Daniels was paid $130,000 to hush-hush her affair with Donald Trump while his wife Melania was pregnant with their son Barron. A second story has now come out that Donald Trump had a 2006 several month long affair with another porn star, Karen McDougal. Ronan Farrow broke the story for the New Yorker on Feb 16, 2018.
But that’s not all! Nineteen other women have come forward alleging stories of sexual harassment and / or sexual assault by the current president. That’s nineteen women alleging that from the 80’s up to as late as 2013 Donald Trump forced them into non consensual sexual encounters.
Right now I really want to say - do you know how much Fox News and Republicans would have lost their shit on President Obama had he been on his third marriage, had multiple stories of cheating against him and then had nineteen additional women alleging sexual misconduct against him?
I mean, seriously? Can you imagine? There would have been conservative rage aneurysms like the world has never seen.
Of course, obviously - I don’t need to say “what do you think conservatives would have said if Obama did it” because - President Obama wouldn’t have done anything like that!
President Obama: one spouse, zero sex scandals, zero assault allegations against him, zero abuse allegations against him. Conservative christians - hate him!
President Trump: third spouse, dozens of sex scandals, multiple assault allegations against him, multiple abuse allegations against him. Conservative christians - love him!
Multiple cases of fraud have dogged president Trump for decades, there are federal investigations into him for election tampering and an endless backlog of fraudulent business dealings weigh him down, gross nepotism has created a WH that multiple sources report is “chaotic” and “nonfunctional” and a cabinet so corrupt they are dropping like flies.
How many over all scandals has President Trump had in year one of his presidency? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? I honestly can’t remember. It’s too hard to keep up. I am scandal weary and he still has another three years.
I know my conservative allies across the aisle really want to believe that President Obama was a foreign Muslim spy in charge of the Illuminati. After all, you read it on www.hateragemoronsforever.com - so it must be true! And go on ahead and continue to pretend that the reason you hate him is because he is a foreign Muslim spy coming after your guns! Because we know it's probably that other reason - something about the color of his skin? Maybe?
Anyway, what is actually true is that we currently have a President with ties to a real and legitimately evil foreign power. A foreign power that actively works against the best interests of the United States. That's true news. As opposed to fake news such as "Obama is a Muslim spy" and "Clinton family uses local pizza parlor to sell underage sex slaves."
But, you know - thankfully, we didn’t end up with Hillary in office - what what that email scandal of hers! We sure dodged a bullet there! (Note the sarcasm).
Of course, turns out - Gov. Pence was doing the exact same thing!
And Pence was hacked by parties unknown!
And Pence shared all sorts of sensitive matters and homeland security issues in those emails.
On his unsecured AOL account.
At this time my conservatives allies are all uttering the battle cry they learned so well during the 16’ election campaign - Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up! #amiright?
That’s totally what they’re saying.
On Monday, while speaking about gun control to a gathering of US governors at the White House, President Trump claimed he would have rushed into Stoneman Douglas High School (FL) to stop shooter Nikolas Cruz from attacking his former school and killing 17. “I really believe I’d run in there, even if I didn’t have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room would have done that too,” Trump told the governors.
Rich, safe, white man Donald Trump would SO NOT have run into that school. The very comment makes me eye roll to Pluto. Donald Trump actually had a chance to show combat bravery during the Vietnam war. He was in the draft. And now he’s being called “Five deferment draft dodger Donald Trump” by military members, some of whom now serve in Congress and the Senate.
If you are unfamiliar with President Trump’s case, he, like many other (mostly white) middle to upper class men had plenty of legal ways to opt out of the Vietnam draft. President Trump received four student deferments while he attended University of Pennsylvania Wharton School and a fifth medical deferment for “bone spurs in his heels.”
Um, okay. His recent White House medical examination, which passed him with flying colors - don’t mention any bone spurs in the President’s heels but, whatever.
Rich, white male easily dodges draft - nothing new.
In a 2017 interview with the ladies of The View, Sen. John McCain threw some shade at President Trump’s deferments saying that Trump, “found a doctor that would say that he had a bone spur,” to avoid the draft.
Later in the interview he followed up, “I don’t consider him so much a draft dodger as I feel the systems was so wrong that certain Americans could evade their responsibilities to serve the country.”
In a separate interview a few days after, McCain further clarified. “One aspect of the conflict, by the way, that I will never ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest-income level of America, and the highest-income level found they had a bone spur. That is wrong. That is wrong. If we are going to ask every American to serve, every American should serve.”
Obviously, Donald Trump is not the only person to take student deferments but the point being - he was not going to go to a war zone and risk his life and so he found a legal way out of the draft.
And yet, for some reason - we should expect he would rush - unarmed - into a school during an active shooting?
I call bullshit.
I mean, did you hear that there was an actual “good guy with a gun” at the school? Apparently, there was an armed sheriff at the school while the shooting was active. The sheriff took up position outside the building, but never entered. The trained, armed, armored sheriff who was stationed at the school didn’t run into the building during the attack (he has since resigned)! That’s right, the oft repeated, “All you need to stop a bad buy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” took a slap to the face.
If trained armed folk won’t rush into a building while an active shooting is happening, I find it doubtful, and frankly, insulting to my intelligence, that President Trump expects us to believe he would rush into a building where bullets are flying.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not surprised President Trump made the claim! He is, after all, by self admission - pretty much the best at everything. And stable. And really intelligent. And we know this because he reminds us every chance he gets. Again, I'm not surprised he made the claim - but there is no way in hell he would ever actually do it.
Anyway. The sheriff on site is being vilified as a coward. Anyone with reason and common sense knows exactly why that sheriff didn’t enter the building - fear. Yes, he should have gone in to help! That’s exactly why he was stationed there. But he feared for his life. And perhaps he thought about his family and he didn't want his own family to grow up without a father / husband. And so he didn’t go in.
President Trump, armed or not, would feel the same fear - and run the opposite direction.
Any by the way, did you know that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you? True story, man. Google that sad news up. The police do not have to help you if you are in danger! Which means said sheriff, who did not enter the building to assist those kids - did nothing illegal.
Despite that, I’m willing to suspect most of us are on the same page, - the sheriff on site should have gone inside and killed the hell out of the shooter. Or died trying.
But that’s easy for us to say from the comfort of our couch.
The law may not require police to assist people in danger but they should do it anyway, and many of them do - because it’s moral, and just and right.
And those kids needed help. The onsite sheriff failed them. And President Donald Trump wouldn't have helped them, either.
With an increasing number of mass shootings in recent months, we are urged by law enforcement officials to keep an eye out. Report anything suspicious. “If you see something, say something” we are regularly told. The problem is, that in too many instances, the alarms raised by concerned citizens are falling on deaf ears.
The most recent blatant example of a failure to respond came last week as 17 teachers and students were gunned down in Parkland, Florida. The FBI received several credible tips that a graduate of Parkland High school, Nikolas Cruz, was posting disturbing social media postings that he wanted to become a “professional school shooter” and had a desire to kill people. The FBI admitted it had failed to investigate even though there are only 12 “Nikolas Cruz” in the country. So much for “see something, say something.”
In the same case, the local sheriff admitted to receiving over 20 calls about the dangers of the shooter. No action was taken. The Parkland public defender, whose office is representing Nikolas Cruz, said: “This kid exhibited every single known red flag, from killing animals to having a cache of weapons to disruptive behavior to saying he wanted to be a school shooter. If this isn’t a person who should have gotten someone’s attention, I don’t know who is. This was a multi-system failure.”
In the Nassar molestation case of teenage gymnasts, the doctor molested more than 40 young girls after the FBI had been notified. One of the gymnasts who complained to the FBI told The New York Times: “I never got a phone call from the police or the FBI during that time. Not one person. Not one. Not one. Not one.” She saw something and said something, but got no response.
How about Devin Kelley, the mass murderer at the small church in Texas. While in the Air Force, he talked openly about killing his superiors, illegally snuck a gun on his military base, was charged with assault and escaping from a psychiatric hospital, attacked his wife with a gun, hitting and choking her, fractured the skull of his baby stepson, and became a convicted felon. Yet after all this, he still was allowed to buy a number of guns. Many saw something and said something, but there was no response.
We know about mass shootings here in Louisiana, A killer named John Houser, who had a long history of violence and mental illness traveled to Louisiana from Georgia. Houser had been ordered to a psychiatric hospital by a Georgia judge in 2008, which should have prevented him from even buying a gun. But then he went to an Alabama pawnshop and bought a 40-caliber, semiautomatic handgun. Georgia and Alabama are both saying the other state should have done more to stop Houser from purchasing the gun considering his checkered mental condition. So what good was it to “see something, say something?”
As I wrote in a column last year, some 48,000 convicted felons and fugitives lied about their criminal history, a federal offense, so as to pass the background checks and purchase guns illegally. How many of these 48,000 were prosecuted for making false statements? A total of 44. The Justice Department’s response was that it was “prioritizing prosecutions to focus on more serious crimes.” More serious crimes? What could be more serious than getting thousands of potential killers off the streets who lie to get a weapon?
It’s all well and good to have these national campaigns that tell the public to keep their eyes open and report suspicious activity. Some will argue that this leads to a big brother mentality, but it’s just the price we have to pay in the this violent day and age.
But if you “see something and say something,” you expect that federal and state law enforcement agencies will give such information a serious look. Too often, such important information gets ignored or falls through the cracks. Americans deserve a lot better.
Peace and Justice
International sensation Fergie has apologized for her sultry, jazzy, downtempo take on the National Anthem - opening the NBA All-Star Game. If you have not heard it, you should take a two minutes and listen. Fergie took a beating on social media for her version of the Star Spangled Banner. Even stars didn’t hold back. SNL’s Leslie Jones tweeted, “Meanwhile back in the states... I leave for a couple of days and y’all lose your muthafucking mind!! Why did this happen? Not everyone supposed to do this y’all! You might as well should have ask me to sing. Wtf?!”
I must admit, I wasn’t a huge fan of Fergie’s version, either. But then I thought - hell, at least she took a chance. And that’s awesome, because you can’t make great art without taking chances. So, good for her. That being said - her rendition is still awkward. I’ve read that she was, perhaps, trying to emulate Marvin Gaye’s 1983 version of the Star Spangled Banner. I just listened Gaye’s take on the Anthem. Gaye’s version is also odd and not for me.
I’m not really going to go into if the Star Spangled Banner is racist, or not. Much has been written about that and if you want to learn more, you are one Google search away (but verse three, which is seldom sung, is pretty racist).
The Star Spangled Banner has a specific musical tone. Stray too far away and people get angry. Stray really far away and people get really angry. But, again, art can never be great art unless it has the capacity to anger, or frighten people. So, at the very least, I get what she was trying to do.
Fergie has since apologized, saying, “I've always been honored and proud to perform the national anthem, and last night I wanted to try something special for the NBA. I'm a risk-taker artistically, but clearly this rendition didn't strike the intended tone. I love this country and honestly tried my best."
Her apology is also getting roasted but honestly, I’m fine with it. It’s just a song. And it was only a basketball game.
Though, to be honest, I actually thought Rosie O'Donnell's 1990 HATED comedic take on the song was … well, kind of funny. Not super funny. But kind of funny. And, obviously - not for everyone. She sang it at a baseball game. Her performance lampooned how fans behave during baseball games. And after all, they hired fucking Rosie O’Donnell - to sing! You know - professional comedian, satirist and performance artist Rosie O’Donnell. Honestly, what the hell were they expecting?
Look, all I’m saying is, I get there is a history to the Star Spangled Banner. And a tradition. And some folks want that history and tradition to be taken very, very seriously.
But … it’s only a song, after all. Fergie’s version of the song was fine. So was Marvin Gaye’s. So was Rosie’s. Maybe not for everyone. Maybe not for you. Maybe not even for me.
But just fine.
“…after the Massacre in Littleton, CO, I realized that as a member of this generation that kills without remorse, I had a duty to challenge all of my elders to explain why they have allowed things to become so bad.” -Marcy Musgrave
Just last week, I was taking the time to speak about school shootings and the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the indoctrination taking place in public schools on my national radio broadcast.
I also took the time to bring forth warnings to parents as to what their kids were and are facing and what it is that their kids are being subjected to on a 5-day a week basis in public schools. I shared a letter to the editor from a student warning what would happen if her generation, and those upcoming, were ignored by their parents and elders.
The following letter from college student Marcy Musgrave in the editorial section of the Dallas Morning News on Sunday, May 2, 1999.
Generation NEXT has some Questions I am a member of the upcoming generation--the one after Generation X that has yet to be given a name. So far, it appears that most people are rallying behind the idea of calling us Generation Next. I believe I know why. The older generations are hoping we will mindlessly assume our place as the "next" in line. That way, they won't have to explain why my generation has had to experience so much pain and heartache. "What heartache?" you say. "Don't you know you have grown up in a time of great prosperity?" Yeah, we know that. Believe me, it has been drilled into our heads since birth. Unfortunately, the pain and hurt I speak of can't be reconciled with money. You have tried for years to buy us happiness, but it is only temporary. Money isn't the answer, and it is time for people to begin admitting their guilt for failing my generation. I will admit that I wasn't planning to write this. I was going to tuck it away in some corner of my mind and fall victim to your whole "next" mentality.
But after the Massacre in Littleton, CO, I realize that as a member of this generation that kills without remorse, I had a duty to challenge all of my elders to explain why they have allowed things to become so bad. Let me tell you this: These questions don't represent only me but a Whole generation that is struggling to grow up and make sense of this world. We all have questions; we all want explanations. People may label us Generation Next, but we are more appropriately Generation "Why?"
"Why did most of you lie when you made the vow of 'til death do us part'?" "Why do you fool yourselves into believing that divorce really is better for the kids in the long run?" "Why do so many of you divorced parents spend more time with your new boyfriend or girlfriend than with your own children?"
"Why did you ever fall victim to the notion that kids are just as well off being raised by a complete stranger at a daycare center than by their own mother or father?" "Why do you look down on parents who decide to quit work and stay home to raise their children?" "Why does the television do the most talking at family meals?" "Why is work more important than your own family?" "Why is money regarded as more important than relationships?"
"Why is 'quality time' generally no longer than a five-to-10-minute conversation each day?" "Why do you try to make up for the lack of time you spend with us by giving us more and more material objects that we really don't need?" "Why does your work (in the form of a cell Phone, laptop computer, etc.), always come with us on vacations?"
"Why have you neglected to teach us values and morals?" "Why haven't you lived moral lives that we could model our own after?" "Why isn't religion one of the most important words in our household?" "Why do you play God when it comes to abortion?" "Why don't you have enough faith in us to teach us abstinence rather than safe sex?" "Why do you allow us to watch violent movies but expect us to maintain some type of childlike innocence?" "Why do you allow us to spend unlimited amounts of time on the Internet, but still are shocked about our knowledge of how to build bombs?" "Why are you so afraid to tell us 'no' sometimes?” "Why is it so hard for you to realize that school shootings, and other violent juvenile behavior, result from a lack of your attention more than anything else?" Call us Generation Next if you want to, but I think you will be surprised at how we will fail to fit into your neat little category. These questions should, and will, be asked of the generations that have failed us. Written by Marcy Musgrave, a junior at Texas A&M University. [YouTube Video]
It is amazing to me that another tragedy like that of the school shooting in Florida on Wednesday has to take place before people awaken to what is happening in our country today. This will, of course, last for 3 to 4 days and Americans will be diverted once again.
The sad fact is that I was refused, for a very short time by a school district in Boca Raton, Florida, not for tearing down their values and what we see in our Constitution, but for reinforcing them.
Young people are illegally indoctrinated by the federal government and then these same politicians, who push for the federal government’s illegal indoctrination in public schools, are the first ones to call for gun control after a tragedy occurs. Hopefully, people in this country do realize that a majority of school shootings are in “gun free” zones, which in itself it illegal. Funny how this does not happen in schools with armed guards.
Going back, Obama had illegally implemented an extensive overhaul of public education from kindergarten through high school, bypassing Congress (again), the voice of the American people, and inducing states to agree to major changes that none of his predecessors attempted.
Apparently, Barack Hussein Obama, the self-proclaimed “Constitutional Scholar,” hasn’t taken the time to read Article 10 of the Bill of Rights. The federal government has no business whatsoever in the education of American schoolchildren.
This was all done by implementing Common Core Standards in 46 states and D.C., drowning students with mostly “informational text” and historical documents.
Some of the non-fiction texts that will be implemented into school curriculum are “FedViews,” by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (2009) and “Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” published by the General Services Administration.
Jamie Highfill, the Arkansas 2011 middle school teacher of the year, said, “I’m struggling with this, and my students are struggling. With informational text, there isn’t that human connection that you get with literature. And the kids are shutting down. They are getting bored. I’m seeing more behavior problems in my classroom than I’ve ever seen.”
The curriculum change in public schools has been a downward spiral for many years. America has been so dumbed down that 700,000 students per year graduate without the ability to read their own diplomas.
Add to students’ confusion the innumerable amount of errors in school textbooks ranging from misinformation to omission of facts or outright lies. These “errors” can be found in virtually every subject, especially in math, science and history.
In Texas, the State Board of Education found a total of 109,263 errors in math textbooks reviewed for use in 2008 alone. Yes, I said 109,263 errors. The board had to go so far as to place a possible fine of $5,000 per error found if they were not fixed by spring of the same year.
In textbooks all across America, science (the study of creation) is well-known for being laced with the dangerous theory of evolution, which wars against Christianity, the Bible, God and His Law, which is the foundation of our republic.
In Virginia, a state review committee found a slew of errors in many history textbooks. A committee of five historians caught errors ranging from the incorrect year John Rolfe married Pocahontas to quotes that do not even appear in historical records. One book illustrated Virginia soldiers in the Revolutionary War wearing red coats, when in fact they wore blue. Another textbook erroneously stated many colonial Americans were illiterate. In fact, literacy rates were extremely high.
Retired Library of Virginia historian Brent Tarter wrote in his review of one textbook, “Our Virginia,” “I also found some very significant omissions, some internal inconsistencies, and some erroneous or questionable descriptions and analyses of historical events. Some are so ludicrous and difficult to explain that I cannot understand where the misinformation came from.”
In recent years, American public schools have also been indoctrinated with the Muslim religion. Studies have shown over 500 historical errors in public school textbooks, giving an Islamic slant to our youth.
As a result, our youth are subject to the following teachings:
• Learning to become a Muslim
• Fasting for Ramadan
• Learning the five pillars of Islam
• Memorizing verses from the Quran
• Adopting a Muslim name
• Staging a Jihad (war against non-Muslims)
As I said, the federal government of the United States of America has no lawful authority over the education of the young.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Second, the reason this is happening is that 86 percent of the American people who call themselves Christian conservatives are the ones sending their kids into public schools to be indoctrinated in a worldview they claim they despise.
Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”
The Lord commanded parents to train their children in the way they should go, not the federal government.
The good news is we still have the freedom to do the right thing. These are our kids, not the federal government’s.
As a forewarning, you might want to bless this generation while you have time to do so. If you don’t, they will be there to curse you.
“The philosophy taught in the classroom in one generation will be the taught in government in the next.”
This explains what we are dealing with today. I tried to tell you.
The president last week suggested that the nation establish a yearly military parade to honor the service and the sacrifice of the current military and our veterans. He spoke of it as “a unifying moment for the country.” Almost immediately, the Trump naysayers jumped all over the idea as nothing more than “pandering patriotism.” “Tanks, but no tanks,” was the opinion of the Washington Post.
Former Obama State Department spokesman and retired Navy Rear Admiral John Kirby ripped the idea by saying: “This is just beneath us as a nation. We are the most powerful military on earth. We don’t need to be parading our military hardware down Pennsylvania Avenue to show that to anybody.”
I personally think a number of Trump ideas are a little loony, but in this case, he is right on the mark. America has done a poor job honoring those who served in the military. The only voices who are “pandering patriots” are the numerous chick hawks who dodged the draft yet go around with the American flag on their lapel telling us to “stand up for the USA,” as they ran for the foxholes when service to their country called.
Remember former Vice President Dick Cheney’s response when asked why he didn’t serve his country in the military? In 1989 he told the Washington Post, “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.” His unpatriotic attitude is mirrored by many current members of congress who often used every trick in the book to avoid serving in the military.
Many congressmen think wearing an American flag lapel pin is some kind of fashion statement. But that doesn’t cut it to the thousands of Americans who have dedicated a portion of their lives to public service. Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy never wore lapel pins. Sen. John McCain, who was tortured for five years in a Viet Cong prison, doesn’t feel it necessary to wear his patriotism on his suit coat.
And how about General John F. Kelly, Trump’s current chief of staff? He served over 40 years in the military, fighting in the initial invasion of Iraq and in Desert Storm. And he’s a Gold Star father as his son, serving in the Marines, was killed fighting in Afghanistan. When asked why he doesn’t wear a flag pin, he responded: “I am an American flag.”
The message here is that wear a flag if you wish, but do not think this gesture substitutes for active public service to your country. Particularly in Louisiana, we need to honor those who have given so much for our freedom. The Bayou State has an exceptionally high number of war casualties who died in Iraq with 41 National Guard soldiers alone from the 256th Infantry Brigade Combat Team based out of Lafayette and Shreveport.
I enlisted in the 256th Infantry Brigade back in 1967. I was just out of Tulane Law School and beginning my law practice up in Ferriday, Louisiana, with my first child on the way. Since I was over 26, I was draft exempt. But I volunteered anyway serving both in the Army and 12 years in the Louisiana National Guard. Hey, I didn’t consider myself anything special. It was what thousands of Americans did. It was, to us, the American way and a call to duty.
The nation has numerous celebrations and parades on a local level for Veterans Day (November 11th) and Memorial Day (last Monday of the month), but there is no national military parade honoring those who served. You are right Mr. President. The world needs to see that America rallies around our military on a special day with a full review of all branches of the nation’s armed forces.
Veteran’s Day in November would be my suggestion. This year would celebrate the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. A national military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on November 11th? I’ll be there joining thousands of others who volunteered to serve.
Peace and Justice
If you watch any number of TV dramas, no doubt you’ve run across so-called police procedural shows, such as “Law and Order: SVU.” From time to time, an episode will feature a computer expert or hacker who is talking about the “Dark Web” or “darknet.” It’s very much the equivalent of the Internet’s underworld, where all sorts of unsavory types usually hang out. There are criminals there who offer all sorts of illegal services that you’ve also no doubt heard about on those TV shows.
Well, on this week’s episode of The Tech Night Owl LIVE, we featured Jarrod Suffecool, Intelligence Team Lead for Binary Defense, who took us on a fascinating journey through the Dark Web (darknet). You learned about the unsavory activities that include “crime-as-a-service” — professional hacking kits and criminal services (created or offered by skilled hackers) that anyone can buy or rent online, and they’re often very inexpensive. This makes it easier for less skilled criminals to pull off sophisticated attacks and scams, and we’ll see a lot of this with tax fraud rings over the next two months. You also learned about Tor, the browser used to access Dark Web. Binary Defense Systems specializes in monitoring and infiltrating criminal marketplaces on the Dark Web to protect businesses and uncover evidence of crimes.
Now it’s easy enough to download and set up Tor, and I expect the curious would want to check about what’s going on in darknet. But it’s also easy to get yourself in trouble if you don’t watch what you’re doing when exploring a dangerous neighborhood. It’s not meant as a place to have fun, unless it’s a very unusual sort of fun. I’ve checked it out from time to time, but I usually stay away.
You also heard from author/publisher Joe Kissell, of Take Control Books. Joe talked about some of the troubling problems he’s encountered with macOS High Sierra, and about the decline in the quality of Apple’s operating systems. What about reports that Apple is cutting back on planned features for iOS 12 to emphasize reliability? Also discussed: The apparent failure of Apple’s “underpromise and overdeliver” policy by postponing features in new products that aren’t ready for prime time, including the delays in expanding support for the APFS file system to Fusion drives and Time Machine. What about the complexities and reliability problems of iCloud, which is a cornerstone of Apple’s services? Joe mentioned that he’s had to backup and restore his new Mac after owning it for less than a month, and Gene talked about the very worst Mac he ever owned, one that required constant repairs from Apple in the short time he owned it.
On this week’s episode of our other radio show, The Paracast: Best-selling author Erich von Däniken and UFO researcher and biblical scholar David Halperin debate the theory of ancient astronauts, that advanced beings from other planets visited Earth in ancient times. David also continues with discussions about his very different views of UFO reality, and the causes behind related events. von Däniken is arguably the most widely read and most-copied nonfiction author in the world. He published his first (and best-known) book, Chariots of the Gods, in 1968. In the 1960s, David Halperin was a teenage UFOlogist. He grew up to become a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with special expertise in religious traditions of heavenly ascent and otherworldly journeys. He is the author of five books and numerous articles on Jewish mysticism and messianism, and a novel, ‘Journal of a UFO Investigator.”
Will Apple’s Critics Admit They Were Wrong About iPhone X?
When it comes to actual fake news, Apple is often the victim of phony stories about one thing or another. The reasons why are varied. So putting Apple in the headline, good or bad, is certain hit bait. That means more ad clicks, and more money.
But I often wonder whether some of those faux stories aren’t fueled by Apple’s competitors. Certainly they have motives, because Apple earns the lion’s share of profits in the smartphone business, lots more than even Samsung. Apple pretty much owns the smartwatch market with Apple Watch, and the iPad, with sales on the rise again, dominates tablets. You get the picture.
Obviously, there’s no clear evidence if another company is instigating those unfavorable comments or the alleged bad news that’s based on lies. But I can see where some carefully selected bloggers and so-called industry analysts might be encouraged to post reports that are deliberately manipulated to make Apple look bad. I wouldn’t suggest any transfer of money or goods is ever involved.
Consider what’s been going on since the summer of 2016. Even as speculation built over that year’s new iPhones, there were expectations of a far better 10th anniversary version. It made sense from a logical point of view, that Apple would want to create a premium model, maybe even limited production, which would observe the occasion. Perhaps new technologies would be featured, but what?
Now the early speculation may not have been fueled by any real information, but was mostly based on good guesses. Apple doesn’t always adopt new features first, so just what is missing?
OLED displays of course. Unlike LCD, OLED is more similar to plasma, once fairly common on TV sets. You get a rich picture, with deep blacks and a virtually unlimited viewing angle. The comparison is obvious. Take a regular iPhone — other than the iPhone X of course — and turn it to the side slowly and you’ll see the picture dim, with colors becoming more muted. It’s a phenomenon typical of a regular TV set except, of course, for those with OLED displays.
Why Apple avoided OLED before this may be due to getting more accurate color and reducing the burn-in problem, where remnants of constant images stick on the display. That was also true of plasma. Regardless, it seemed to make perfect sense that Apple would go there.
Understand that the presence of such a model was used as ammunition to claim you shouldn’t buy the 2016 iPhone family, the iPhone 7 and the iPhone 7 Plus. After all, they represented modest improvements over the previous two models, so why bother? What for the “real” update?
As 2016 turned into 2017. the speculation of the 10th anniversary iPhone coalesced, though it was at first referred to mostly as the iPhone 8. OLED was a given, but since Samsung couldn’t embed a fingerprint sensor beneath the edge-to-edge display on the Galaxy S8 family, it was assumed that Apple would confront the same problem.
The speculation first had it that Apple would put Touch ID in the rear, same as Samsung. It was also suggested by some that there would be no Touch ID or any biometric, which was, at every level, a preposterous concept. Such a feature was a must-have for many functions. Apple wouldn’t casually drop it without something better, which is why facial recognition came into the picture. But development was reportedly begun long ago; it was not tossed in as a last-minute replacement.
At this point, the complaints had it that Apple couldn’t come up with anything altogether new, since other smartphones had both facial biometrics and OLED. So how does Apple make a difference?
But remember that Apple often innovates by devising ways to improve on existing technology with its unique flair.
Yet another potential complaint had it that Apple planned to gouge customers with a $1,000 price tag, which would make the presumed iPhone 8 a non-starter. It was the height of hubris to expect customers to pay even more for a premium iPhone. This speculation continued unabated even when the Samsung Galaxy Note 8 debuted at $949. That disconnect was never explained.
But even when the iPhone 8 became the iPhone X, and the real iPhone 8 ended up as a more modest refresh of the previous model, the complaints never stopped. Face ID would present privacy problems, even though it used the same secure enclave scheme as Touch ID. When it was actually shown for the first time, it turned out that the “notch,” the narrow area at the top of the unit that contained the embedded sensing technology, dubbed TrueDepth, blocked out a small portion of the edge-to-edge display. Developers had to work around it for the best presentation of their apps.
When Apple began to take orders for the iPhone X at the end of October of last year, the backorder situation rapidly worsened. As the critics claimed, it soon lengthened to five to six weeks, implying that getting one before Christmas would be hit or miss.
As is often the case with Apple, the facts kept getting in the way. For the most part, Face ID turned out to be as reliable or more reliable than Touch ID. Not perfect, but almost seamless for many users who no longer had to reach for a Home button. Indeed, there was no Home button, meaning you had to learn a few new gestures to get around, but most people appeared to adapt to them without much complaint.
In short order, Apple began to match supplies with demand, and the situation improved really fast. So if you had to get an iPhone X immediately or with a short delay, it became more and more possible.
Why? Well, instead of assuming that Apple was simply competent in managing the supply chain, it was all about a presumed lack of demand. Soon it was rumored that Apple cut parts orders big time for this quarter, thus indicating that sales were far lower than expected.
In the days ahead of the release of Apple’s December quarter financials, the stock price began to drop. Apple allegedly placed a huge bet on the iPhone X, and it lost.
Again, the facts get in the way. Once it began to ship, the iPhone X became the number of smartphone on the planet. The iPhone 8 Plus, also fairly expensive, starting at $799, was number two, and the “lesser” iPhone 8 was number three. For the quarter, Apple’s smartphone lineup beat every other mobile handset maker in total sales, even Samsung, which sells loads of product at a fraction of the price.
That average sale prices exceeded $700 confirmed the product mix, that people bought higher quantities of the larger, more expensive iPhones.
Despite all this success, Apple still sold slightly fewer units during the quarter compared to the previous year. But was due to an accident of the calendar. So in 2016, the holiday quarter lasted 14 weeks; this year it was 13 weeks. But weekly sales totals were much higher in 2017. Apple’s revenue and profits hit record levels once again.
Apple’s guidance for this quarter reveals a healthy increase over last year, although, at $60 to $62 billon, it’s still below exaggerated analyst expectations. Indeed, Apple expects iPhone revenue to grow by double digits compared to last year. That’s supposed to be good news, better news than one has a right to expect from a product entering its second decade in a saturated market.
Overall, Apple has once again demonstrated that the critics were utterly wrong about the iPhone X and the company overall. Don’t expect any retractions or apologies, though. That’s not how things work when it comes to fake news about Apple.
Gene Steinberg is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own. Gene hosts The Tech Night Owl LIVE - broadcast on Saturday from 9:00 pm - Midnight (CST), and The Paracast - broadcast on Sunday from 3:00am - 6:00am (CST). Both shows nationally syndicated through GCNlive. Gene’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter is a weekly information service of Making The Impossible, Inc. -- Copyright © 1999-2018. Click here to subscribe to Tech Night Owl Newsletter. This article was originally published at Technightowl.com -- reprinted with permission.
It’s been a bad last few weeks for the nation’s top law enforcement agency. First, an innocent hostage was shot and killed in a botched raid in Houston by an FBI shooter. Then the television movie series “Waco” debuted and revisited the FBI killings of innocent victims in both Ruby Ridge and Waco. And currently, the Bureau faces charges by members of Congress of malfeasance and even interfering in the most recent presidential election.
The FBI has a credibility problem. And for good reason. The House Intelligence Committee is investigating the mishandling of federal wiretap requests involving both the Clinton campaign and the Trump campaign. There is also the disappearance of thousands of FBI emails and efforts by certain agents to undermine both candidates.
Take a look at just some of the newspaper headlines across America.
“Evidence Suggests a Massive Scandal is Brewing at the FBI”-New York Post
“Wanted: An Honest FBI” -Wall Street Journal
“The Massive Case of Collective Amnesia at the FBI”-National Public Radio
“Scandal Ridden FBI-Must Be Abolished”-Boston Globe
The House Intelligence Committee voted along party lines to release a staff memo that Speaker Paul Ryan says will show that “there may have been malfeasance at the FBI.” In response, the Bureau is pleading with Congress and the President not to release the document. But with all the charges and counter charges taking place, a little transparency would seem to be in order.
Maybe we can learn a little bit from Hollywood. In the movie “Final Impact,” the President asks a reporter to hold off on a major story by saying: And I can’t appeal to your sense of what’s in the nation’s best interest?” To which she responds: “I always thought the truth was in the nation’s best interest.” The point made is to let it all out.
And how about the confrontation between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”?
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I WANT THE TRUTH!
Col. Jessup: YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Yes we can Col. Jessup. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized this week: “The House memo is not about ‘attacking the FBI or our law enforcement professionals.’ This is about restoring confidence in a law-enforcement agency that played an unprecedented role in the US presidential election regarding both the Trump and Clinton campaigns.”
A number of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee seem to be outraged over any allegations that the FBI has a political agenda and that it can be vindictive. But as an investigative report by National Public Radio concluded last week: “As a matter of reality, the FBI has been political from its outset. The people in charge and the people in charge of the administrations under which it has served have been as political and as partisan as it is possible to be.”
History shows that from the creation of the FBI under President Teddy Roosevelt, the FBI has been used, misused, and by their own actions, insubordinate in many administrations. How long could we talk about the shenanigans of J. Edgar Hoover, Watergate, Deep Throat, Sen. Joe McCarthy, investigations of Martin Luther King, and LBJ having the FBI harass Vietnam protesters?
At the present time, there are three major congressional investigations into possible criminal activity within the FBI. Special prosecutors seem to be appointed in Washington at the drop of a hat. With the President himself under investigation by a special prosecutor, it would seem appropriate to have a similar special prosecutor appointed to fully investigate the numerous allegations of impropriety by the FBI.
Is this powerful bureaucracy worthy of America’s trust? Yes Col. Jessup, we can handle the truth. Just let the chips fall where they may.
Peace and Justice
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” ― Frédéric Bastiat
It has been said by Alexander Hamilton that “….the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution…The 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.”
How far backwards have Americans fallen? To see this quote in the light of what is happening today is unbelievable. It’s unbelievable in the fact that the American people have allowed Injustices not Justices to commit lawless acts in the face of plain Constitutional law.
The Judicial branch in this country has now become renowned for gutting the pith and marrow of the laws that they are to simply discover and apply. As if to suggest that somehow today’s “Justices” are above the law, the laws mind you, that they are to uphold, not tear down (Psalm 94:20).
William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England said,
“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being...This law of nature, being co-equal with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, immediately, from this original.”
Furthermore, “The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior…” (Article 3, Section 1, US Constitution - They are to be removed for bad behavior. Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution)
Well then, tolerating these injustices is simply the reflection of the people of this country.
“When there is a lack of honor in government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned.” – President Herbert Hoover
DACA- The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was an American immigration policy that allowed some individuals who entered the country as minors, and had either entered or remained in the country illegally, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for work.
DACA has protected about 800,000 illegal immigrants. The program includes hundreds of thousands of college-age students.
Question: If parents sneak their kids into Disney World and get caught, does Disney let the kids stay for FREE? Absolutely not! But corrupt politicians do not want you to look at it this way. Then what is the issue? (Deuteronomy 28:43)
Furthermore, DACA is unconstitutional.
The information coming out from the CIA-controlled media about Chuck Schumer’s house being surrounded and amnesty being demanded for illegal aliens is being funded and advocated by George Soros and his paid actors and activists. This is only a push by the media to get a demand from the American people to move on this issue of DACA. They create the problems and come behind them as the problem solvers.
I would also like to point out that Barack Hussein Obama, five minutes before his presidential inauguration said that he wanted to “fundamentally transform America,” and for 8 years, the American people let him transgress the US Constitution from the first week to the last day of his administration.
He transgressed the Constitution over 1,180. So, when I hear supporters of Donald Trump make excuses for why he has not fulfilled his promises yet because the process may take a little more time, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. Donald Trump has the law on his side, Barack Hussein Obama did not and he still did as he pleased!
As you may know, Breitbart reported that Paul Ryan’s first major legislative achievement was a total and complete sell-out of the American people masquerading as an appropriations bill.
(1) Ryan’s Omnibus Fully Funds DACA
Though much of the public attention has surrounded the President’s 2014 executive amnesty, the President’s 2012 amnesty quietly continues to churn out work permits and federal benefits for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Paul Ryan’s bill funds entirely this 2012 executive amnesty for “DREAMers”— or illegal immigrants who came to the country as minors.
Specifically, Division F of Ryan’s omnibus bill contains no language that would prohibit the use of funds to continue the President’s unconstitutional program. Obama’s executive action, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), has granted around 700,000 illegal aliens with work permits, as well as the ability to receive tax credits and federal entitlement programs. A recent GAO report documented how this illegal amnesty program for alien youth is, in large part, responsible for the illegal alien minor surge on our southern border.
In 2013, Paul Ryan said that it is his job as a U.S. lawmaker is to put himself in the shoes of “the DREAMER who is waiting” and works to find legislative solutions to his or her problems.
Which then leads us to none other than Sonia Sotomayor.
The Blaze reported:
Sotomayor’s time at Princeton takes up much of the book, but her account of her alma mater left a lot out, especially her involvement in left-wing politics and an explicitly anti-white club.
In fact, despite her self-description as “more as a mediator than a crusader” on racial and political issues, the archives of Princeton show that it was just the opposite.
According to The Daily Princetonian, Sotomayor even “helped shape” Princeton’s affirmative action practices and used her position as a student judge to advance a left-wing agenda.
As a sophomore, Sotomayor, then co-chairman of the Puerto Rican student group Accion Puertorriquena, filed an April 1974 complaint with the New York office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) demanding that Princeton do a better job recruiting Latino administrators, faculty, and students. She delivered not one, but two letters to the president of the university calling for explicit quotas and timetables for Latino students, faculty, and administrators—and got results.
“Over the next few years, the University established new hiring and recruitment practices that gradually changed the ethnic makeup of the faculty as well as the student body,” wrote The Daily Princetonian in 2009.
Sotomayor demanded more Latinos on campus. She condemned Princeton’s administrators for showing “a total absence of regard, concern, and respect” for Latinos and accused them of organizing “an attempt—a successful attempt so far—to relegate an important cultural sector of the population to oblivion” in a letter to the editor in May 10, 1974.
Sotomayor saw an “Institutional pattern of discrimination” at Princeton. Later in a 1996 speech, she described the complaint as Princeton’s “Affirmative action failures” and the ensuing pro-racial preferences as results. “A short time later, Princeton hired its first Hispanic assistant dean of students.”
Third World Center:
While Sotomayor’s book mentioned her involvement with the Third World Center (TWC), she left out that the group’s politics were laced with anti-American and anti-white rhetoric. Its constitution and founding documents made this clear, as does a 1976 document from the TWC. “Oppression breeds resistance,” the students wrote in protest of the decision by Princeton University to reduce the TWC’s funding. “The history of the peoples of the Third World, who have suffered from U.S. Imperialism, and of the oppressed nationalities within the United States—Afro-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, Asians, and Native Americans, has been a history of oppression and resistance.”
The TWC’s anti-white position was demonstrated in November 1984, when the group’s board demanded that non-white students should have the right to bar whites from their meetings on campus. They also demanded minorities-only meetings with the deans. (John Hurley, “Black students, university debate closed meeting policy,” The Daily Princetonian, November 29, 1984).
The legacy of the Third World Center continued after Sotomayor graduated. In fact, future First Lady Michelle Obama would later serve on its board. Almost a decade later, the political tone of the TWC was expressed in the group’s 1984 constitution with the following language: “We define the term ‘Third World’ as those nations and people who have fallen victim to the oppression and exploitation of the world economic order,” wrote the preamble. “This definition includes the peoples of color in the United States, as they too are victims of a brutal and racist socio-economic structure perpetuated by those who still exploit such groups as Asians, Blacks, and Latinos and who still occupy the homelands of the Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American, and Alaskan peoples.”
While careful in her book not to associate with the “Down with whitey” attitudes of many Latino students, Sotomayor wasn’t so circumspect in a speech she gave before the TWC on November 7, 1996, entitled, “The Genesis and Needs of an Ethnic Identity.”
So, I ask you Americans, "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee?" (Psalm 94:20)
Remembering that such thrones may plead a right divine, but their claim is groundless, a fraud upon mankind and a blasphemy of heaven. God enters into no alliance with unjust authority (Romans 12:21). God gives no sanction to unrighteous legislation.
Either your God-given rights are going to be stripped away by corrupt injustices, or you are going to impeach them, prosecute them, and replace them to ensure a future for your posterity.