Author Archives: Christian Zionist

It’s Colder Because It’s Warmer, Camel Urine, and HPVs

The article below by journalist, Jim O’Neill, may make some folks a bit squeamish, so if that’s the case, pass this one by.  Nevertheless, it is loaded with information and truth, some of which is quite frightening.  Jim has given his permission to repost his article.

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERABorn June 4, 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. Worked as a commercial diver in the waters off of Scotland, India, and the United States. While attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student in 1998 was presented with the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award,” 1st place undergraduate division. (The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with money she won from successfully suing a national newspaper for libel). Awarded US Army, US Navy, South African, and Russian jump wings. Graduate of NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School, 1970). Member of Mensa, China Post #1, and lifetime member of the UDT/SEAL Association.

Jim can be reached at: lausdeo.jim@gmail.com

In my last article (“The USA in Libya: Battle of Derne”) I should have perhaps made mention of the fact that among the “colorful characters” who took part in that battle was Oliver Hazard Perry, who commanded the “USS Nautilus.” Perry would later go on to gain fame during the “War of 1812,” and his statement “We have met the enemy and they are ours” became something of a cultural catchphrase. Cartoonist Walt Kelly famously turned Perry’s comment on its head in 1971 with “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Be that as it may, this article concerns itself (albeit briefly) with a few of the many lies put out by the Obama Administration – I will wrap up the article with a couple of cautionary public health announcements.

First a glance at a few of the more outrageous liberal spins. If you thought that the global cooling trend would have the global warming alarmists scurrying for cover you would be wrong. As many of you know, we are now being told (with a straight face I might add) that the world is getting colder because it is getting warmer.

The UK’s “Daily Mail” warns us that “Global warming could be triggering increasingly cold winters in some parts of the world….” Yikes! It was bad enough when it was just getting hotter because of AGW (Anthropocentric Global Warming), but now it’s making things colder as well! Alas, it appears we are stuck between Scylla and Charybdis.

Mind you, these “scientific facts” are brought to us courtesy of the same folks who told us that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, al Qaeda is on the run, that if you like your health care you can keep your health care, and the attacks in Benghazi were the result of a barely watchable and barely watched video.  Caveat emptor people.

Now for the public health concerns. We can thank Walid Shoebat for bringing to our attention the fact that the widespread use of camel products in Saudi Arabia is almost certainly responsible for the spread of MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome). This includes the practices of shampooing with, and drinking, camel urine.

Since 2012, more than 1,000 cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) have been reported and almost 400 deaths. Infection has been confirmed in the US, France, the UK and other countries, usually after travel to Saudi Arabia, where the virus was first identified.

The only reason for the virus to be shrouded in mystery is political correctness.

Walid Shoebat “MERS Is Surging Again In…Saudi Arabia: The Cover-Ups Behind Muslims Drinking Camel Urine

I concur with Mr. Shoebat. In our politically correct Brave New World of relativistic multiculturalism — where ISIS savages stand on an equal footing with Doctors Without Borders — who will dare point out that someone’s cultural norm poses an unsanitary health risk?

Speaking of unsanitary health risks, there is another health risk that appears to be an inexplicable puzzle to health officials – and this health risk is occurring in the USA.

I am speaking of the marked increase in oral and rectal cancer among young American adults. “Forbes” ran an article last fall titled “For Reasons Unknown, Colon And Rectal Cancer Rates Are Rising In People Under 50.” I think I can help point researchers in a profitable direction.

What I am about to briefly discuss does not make for pleasant “table talk,” so if you feel you might be offended by topics of a sexual nature then by all means feel free to stop reading my article at this point.

As homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle have become increasing accepted in our culture so have sexual practices first popularized and propagated in the homosexual community – i.e. oral and anal sex. So widespread are these practices in the young adult heterosexual community these days that although I would not say that they are by any means standard sexual fare, they are far from being the rarity they once were – especially oral sex (due in no small part to the example set by former President Bill “It’s Not Really Sex” Clinton).

Is there a cause-and-effect relationship between oral/anal sex, some HPV (Human PapillomaVirus) strains, and the rise in cases of oral and anal cancer? I don’t know for sure one way or the other, but I suspect that there is indeed such a correlation. In any event, it is worth looking into — political correctness be damned.

According to Dr. Richard Watson:

HPV is now widely recognized as responsible for more than 95% of cervical cancers in women.

Today, cervical cancer is a pandemic disease worldwide, and the rapidly escalating transmission of HPV augurs even starker statistics for decades to come.

HPV is recognized to be the most frequently acquired sexually transmitted viral infection worldwide.

Whatever utility condoms may have in preventing transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases, they provide no proven protection against the transmission of HPV.

Richard A. Watson, MD “Human Papillomavirus: Confronting the Epidemic

The good news is that with early detection the prognosis for successfully treating HPV-related cancers in non-smoking patients is excellent. Also, doctors report efficacious results in fighting HPV (especially the virulent strains 16 and 18) using the vaccines Gardasil or Cervarix. I am well aware of how leery, if not downright hostile, many readers are regarding the use of vaccines, and I am not promoting their use, but perhaps some of you may wish to research the topic further and come to your own conclusions.

The bad news is that cases of oral and rectal cancer continue increasing year after year. It should be noted that, in any event, partaking in certain elements of the homosexual lifestyle can lead to a significant reduction in a person’s life expectancy (e.g. one report I read noted that “anal cancers are about 35 times more common in gay men than the general population”). Be advised that the last few paragraphs should not be taken as an oblique slur on homosexuality; they are meant simply as a word to the wise. An alert awareness of the above health concerns is in order.

Being politically correct and sticking our head in the sand over these matters can and will cost any number of lives. Do not expect the “it’s getting colder because it’s warmer” crowd to inform you about such things.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

15 Unusual Animal Friendships That Will Melt Your Heart

There are some people out there that still believe that animals are just dumb beasts, but the unlikely animal friendships we’ve gathered here will prove that they are capable of feeling love and compassion just like we are.

Naturally, all of these pictures are heart-breakingly adorable, but there’s more to it than that. Why did these animals form their friendships? Some of them, like the lions, dogs and elephants, are known for forming strong social relationships or even networks in the wild. In the absence of their prides or packs, it makes sense that they would seek social relationships outside of their own species. Other more solitary animals may form parent-child relationship with animals that they spend time with or that helped raise them, especially if their own parents are gone.

Whatever the reason may be, unusual friendships like these show that animals may be far more emotionally complex than many of us believe. Maybe these friendships aren’t so unusual after all!

1. Bubbles the African Elephant and Bella the Black Labrador

Image credits: Barry Bland

Despite the extreme difference in size, Bubbles the elephant and Bella the black lab have become great friends. Bubbles was brought to a safari reserve in the U.S. after she was rescued from ivory poachers in Africa, while Bella was left there by a contractor for the park. The two are great to see together, especially when Bella uses Bubbles as a diving board! (read more)

2. Bea the Giraffe and Wilma the Ostrich

Image credits: PA

Bea and Wilma have become great friends during their time together at Busch Gardens in the U.S. The two share a huge 65-acre enclosure, so they aren’t forced to spend time together – they do so willingly.

3. Tinni the Dog and Sniffer the Wild Fox

Image credits: Torgeir Berge

Tinni the dog and Sniffer the wild fox have been the best of friends since they met in the forests of Norway. Torgeir Berge, Tinni’s owner, does what he can to keep up and photograph the pair as they play in the woods. (read more)

4. Torque the Dog and Shrek the Owl

Image credits: Solent News and Photos

Torque adopted Shrek the owl chick when he was just 6 months old himself. Shrek was removed from his mother’s care because handlers were afraid that she might eat him when stressed. He’s doing great now, and the two have become inseparable pals.

5. Fred the Labrador and Dennis the Duckling

Image credits: SWNS

Things were looking grim for Dennis the duckling when his mother had been mauled by a fox. Fred the Labrador and his owner Jeremy, however, found and rescued Dennis. Dennis and Fred have been buddies ever since. Fred apparently has a big heart, because it’s not the first time he’s helped take care of an orphan – he once adopted a baby deer as well.

6. Mabel the Chicken and the Puppies

Image credits: Anita Maric

After being saved from the pot due to a foot injury, Mable found a new wonder when she was moved into her owners’ home – puppies! For some reason, the year-old hen has taken to roosting on the puppies and keeping them warm while their mother prefers the yard. Go figure!

7. Milo the Dog and Bonedigger the Lion

Image credits: Barcroft USA

Milo the tiny dachshund took Bonedigger the lion cub under his wing when it was discovered that the lion was suffering from a metabolic bone disease that left him disabled. Five years later, the 500 pound lion is still the best of buddies with the 11-pound dachshund and his two compatriots, Bullet and Angel.

8. Cat and the Fox

Image credits: imgur.com

Image credits: imgur.com

This curious pair was spotted playing by fishermen on the shore of Lake Van in Turkey. Not much is known beyond the fact that they’re very cute and very playful.

9. Shere Khan, Baloo and Leo

Image credits: Barcroft Media

The tale of Shere Khan the tiger, Baloo the bear and Leo the lion is truly touching. The three of them were rescued together from a drug dealer who had abused them extensively. Baloo even needed surgery to remove a harness that had grown into his skin and caused deformities – the owner had never bothered to adjust it. Because of what they’ve suffered together, the three friends are now inseparable. They are under the care of the Noah’s Ark Animal Sanctuary in the U.S.

10. Mani the Wild Boar Piglet and Candy the Dog

Image credits: spiegel.de

Manni the wild boar piglet was found starving in a field in southwest Germany and brought home by the Dahlhaus family. When he was introduced to their Jack Russell terrier Candy, the two immediately hit it off. Since last we heard, Manni is recovering well and will either stay with his family or move to a wildlife park.

11. Kasi the Cheetah and Mtani the Labrador

Image credits: Busch Gardens Tampa

Kasi and Mtani were raised together at Bush Gardens in the U.S. During their youth, their unusual friendship was a treat to watch. As he grew into adolescence, however, Kasi began drifting away from Mtani and becoming more interested in the female cheetahs in the next pen. While Kasi now spends more time with other cheetahs, the two are still good friends and often visit schools and other places together.

12. Rabbit and Deer

unusual-animal-friendship-9-3

Image credits: Tanja Askani

Spotted by animal photographer Tanja Askani, this unusual deer and rabbit duo looks like right out of Disney’s classic Bambi.

13. Suryia the Orangutan and Roscoe the Blue Tick Hound

Suryia and Roscoe live together at a rare and endangered species reserve in the U.S. While orangutans are endangered, dogs are certainly less so. However, Roscoe has lived with her ever since he followed Suryia and her handlers home. It didn’t look like he had any other home to go to, so he stayed with Suryia, and they’ve been great friends ever since.

14. Kate the Great Dane and Pippin the Deer

Image credits: Isobel Springett

Image credits: Isobel Springett

Pippin the baby deer was adopted by Kate the caring Great Dane. They were great friends while growing up, but as Pippin matured, she moved out into the forest to raise a deer family of her own. She still visits Kate and her owner Isobel, however.

15. Anjana the Chimpanzee and Tiger Cubs

Image credits: Bary Bland

These two white tiger cubs were separated from their mother after her enclosure was flooded during a hurricane. Fortunately, they’ve been adopted by a U.S. animal reserve by Anjana the chimpanzee and their caretaker, China York. Anjana has helped China raise many different orphaned animals, so we’re sure they’re in good hands.

Obama administration tracking Muslim candidates for military, Pentagon positions

Special to WorldTribune.com

WASHINGTON — The administration of President Barack Obama has been identifying Muslims in the military in an effort to encourage their presence.

Officials said the Defense Department has been keeping records and tracking Muslims. They said the administration sought to attract Muslims both to the military and to the Pentagon.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work on May 22.  /Glenn Fawcett/Office of the Secretary of Defense

“Our nation and our entire military family remain stronger because of
the service and sacrifice of people of all faiths, including the thousands
of patriotic Muslim Americans who have served and still serve in this long
period of war,” Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said last week.

The U.S. military currently has 4,500 uniformed Muslims, the Pentagon said on
July 3. It was not clear how the Pentagon identified the Muslims. The department
has not given statistics on members of other religious faiths.

In 2009, a U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, shouting “God is great,”
opened fire and killed 13 of his colleagues. Later, authorities acknowledged
that Hasan, a psychiatrist, was linked to Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

Critics have accused the administration of promoting Islam as the
preferential faith in the United States. Over the last year, a senior
adviser to the Homeland Security Department, Mohamed Elibiary, issued a
statement that said the U.S. Constitution was “Islamically compliant” and
that a Muslim caliphate was “inevitable.”

“I said America was an Islamic country not a Muslim country,” Elibiary
said in a Twitter post on June 30.

On July 3, Work attended the annual Pentagon ceremony of Iftar, or the evening dinner after a day-long fast that continues throughout the Muslim month of Ramadan. The Pentagon has been conducting the ceremony since 1998 in commemoration of Islam.

“Tonight is an opportunity for people of different faiths to come
together in the spirit of respect and tolerance to share the richness of our
beliefs and to enjoy the traditions of hospitality that are such an
important part of the Muslim community,” Work said.

The Pentagon, which hired Saudi-sponsored groups to raise awareness, has
reported the employment of 1,000 Muslims. Officials said they included
civilians and contractors for the Defense Department.

In his address, Work quoted Obama as saying that Ramadan reminded Americans of the principles of peace, justice and equality. The deputy
secretary also urged those at the Iftar to remember their responsibility to
the defense of the United States.

“Our country’s founders understood in a visceral way [that] the best way
to honor the place of faith in the lives of all Americans was to fight for
justice and equality as well as liberty and freedom,” Work said. “That is
exactly what the men and women both in and out of uniform who serve in the
Department of Defense do every single day. They are safeguarding the very
ideals deemed so precious by our founding fathers.”

Israel: Beware of Obama

By Michael Goodwin at the New York Post

US-POLITICS-OBAMA-FILM

First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.

Now he’s coming for Israel.

Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.

Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.

Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.

Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.

If Obama’s six years in office teach us anything, it is that he is impervious to appeals to good sense. Quite the contrary. Even respectful suggestions from supporters that he behave in the traditions of American presidents fill him with angry determination to do it his way.

For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.

His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions.

That refusal is now the excuse to act against Israel. Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists, “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Obama asked Vladimir Putin for patience, promising “more flexibility” after the 2012 election, a genuflection that earned him Russian aggression. His Asian pivot was a head fake, and China is exploiting the vacuum. None of those leaders has gotten the Netanyahu treatment, which included his being forced to use the White House back door on one trip, and the cold shoulder on another.

It is a clear and glaring double standard.

Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.

The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?

Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.

They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.

It’s just like old crimes

Reader Stephen Shapiro agrees that the bad old days of “Taxi Driver” are coming back to Gotham. “Only last night, my wife noted the same thing when walking up Broadway from the Theater District,” he writes. “The sidewalks were packed with illegal sellers of cheap trinkets and maybe stolen goods. Like it was decades ago.”

Step right up, NYers

P.T. Barnum is credited with saying, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” but the sentiment applies better to Albany than the circus. After all, who are the greater fools: ticket buyers who believe in sword swallowers and fire-eaters, or taxpayers who believe Gov. Cuomo and legislators will clean up corruption?

School vow is more blah-blah-blasio

There he goes again. Mayor de Blasio is making promises that make no sense and saying things he can’t possibly believe.

Putzie is so desperate to fend off state changes to his control of city schools that he is promising to apply crime-control techniques to educrats. “We’re going to hold every one of the principals to the same kinds of standards that our precinct commanders are held to via CompStat,” he declared.

That’s crazy talk for two reasons.

First, he and Chancellor Carmen Fariña say repeatedly they don’t like mainstream educational standards, especially a heavy use of standardized tests for evaluating students and teachers. Throw in their cutback of suspensions for disruptive students and their willful expansion of union power, and it’s hard to see on what basis they will measure principals’ performance.

Second, his reference to the Police Department as the gold standard of accountability would be valid — if de Blasio weren’t mayor. He is taking away so many enforcement tools from the NYPD that shootings and murder are soaring and evidence mounts that cops are under orders to ignore many quality-of-life crimes. With cops increasingly reduced to responding to crimes already committed, it is unclear what standards de Blasio is using to measure police commanders.

In truth, the similarity between the mayor’s approach to schools and crime reveals the danger of his incoherent philosophy. He’s a central planner of the Soviet model who doesn’t trust principals, teachers or cops to exercise their professional judgment. Ideological to the core, he’s imposing his political prejudices on their authority despite his lack of experience and training.

His decisions amount to micromanagement, not leadership, and represent the height of arrogance from a man who is late for virtually every public engagement.

Here’s an offer: He starts to show up on time, and we start to take him seriously.

 

West Must Help China Build ‘New World Order’?

NWO

China’s Place in the New World Economic Order … Competition between the world’s two greatest economic powers is both inevitable and (for the most part) beneficial. This is the case even when China and the U.S. are arguing over control of increasingly obsolescent international financial institutions. – Bloomberg

Dominant Social Theme: The New World Order is coming to town?

Free-Market Analysis: It used to be those who used the phrase “New World Order” were derided as conspiracy theorists. So what do we call Bloomberg now that its lead editorial for Friday trumpets the term?

The editorial – penned by Bloomberg’s editorial board – makes the point that US opposition to China’s new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is counterproductive.

Instead of opposing efforts by Western powers to support China’s version of the World Bank, the US ought to be “pushing harder to carry out financial reforms” that will make its own facilities (like the Asian Development Bank) more efficacious and fair.

More:

China’s effort to start the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank grows more popular by the day, despite U.S. resistance to the idea. The question is no longer whether the bank will fulfill an unmet need, but how best to ensure that it contributes to Asian growth — and, not incidentally, draws China more deeply into the global financial order.

Now that the U.K. and several other European countries have joined the bank, holdouts such as Australia and South Korea are almost certain to jump in. This counts as a soft-power victory for China over the U.S., which reportedly lobbied allies not to sign up. But Washington largely has itself to blame.

The editorial goes on to say that European eagerness to cooperate with the AIIB is more pragmatic than idealistic. Meanwhile, “American opposition to any new source of financing looks churlish and hypocritical. ”

We wrote about this issue just the other day in an analysis entitled, “Real Reason for the Asian Investment Bank – and Western Participation.

Right now the creation of this new bank is being positioned as stemming from disenchantment with Washington. But over time it will be seen that China – Asia and perhaps Russia, too – are creating an entirely separate financial infrastructure.

Yet it is not one – despite current reports – intent on shutting out Western interests. The West, for instance, is now a big part of the initial creation of the Asian bank. In fact, the City of London itself, perhaps the most powerful Western financial player, is also significantly involved.

If the plan is to build and then merge a bipolar system, it certainly makes sense that the West would have significant interests in the new facility as well as the old one. The merger is presumably a ways off, but preparations are being made …

The Bloomberg article would seem to confirm our analysis, as it advocates that Washington engage China’s new bank and respond to it by making the appropriate reforms in its own facilities. This includes allowing China and others a greater say in the operations of the World Bank and IMF.

Indeed, this is surely how financial realities are reconfigured and a “new world order” is ushered in. The motivating mechanism is the dialectic itself. Now that China has created its own international funding facility, the Western world must respond. The eventual outcome is a merger of the two opposing sides: Hence, Bloomberg’s use of the term “new world order.”

The Bloomberg editorial also advocates that it is “advantageous” to have “US allies at the table.” It even suggests that the new bank “adopt the debt sustainability framework promoted by the IMF and World Bank.”

Thus we can see that even though China is developing a new facility, its profile may resemble the West’s current international lending structures.

The language being used in the Bloomberg article is certainly deliberate and likely intended to send a message. Now that China (the BRICs actually) has emerged as one pole of a newly emplaced dialectic, the construction of a “new order” can begin in earnest.

Conclusion:

Did “conspiracy theorists” have a point all along?

– See more at: THE DAILY BELL

Canada May Allow Euthanizing Patients and Harvesting Their Organs

International Wesley J. Smith Mar 19, 2015 | 12:25PM Ottawa, Canada LIFE NEWS

In my very first anti-euthanasia article, published by Newsweek in 1993, I warned that legalizing assisted suicide would lead to “organ harvesting as a plum to society.”

That dark prophesy has come true in Netherlands and Belgium, aimed specifically at people with “good organs,” such as MS patients and those with mental illnesses.

And now Canada? From the Ottawa Citizen story:

As the nation awaits legalized doctor-assisted death, the transplant community is grappling with a potential new source of life-saving organs — offered by patients who have chosen to die. Some surgeons say every effort should be made to respect the dying wishes of people seeking assisted death, once the Supreme Court of Canada ruling comes into effect next year, including the desire to donate their organs.

But the prospect of combining two separate requests — doctor-assisted suicide and organ donation — is creating profound unease for others. Some worry those contemplating assisted suicide might feel a societal pressure to carry through with the act so that others might live, or that it could undermine struggling efforts to increase Canada’s mediocre donor rate.

It should be more than unease. It should be implacable opposition!

I can think of nothing more dangerous than to allow a despairing disabled, mentally ill, or dying patient believe their deaths would have greater value than their lives.

picassistedsuicide18

Oh, maybe one: If society comes to accept that premise.

Anyone who asks for euthanasia or assisted suicide should be ineligible to be organ donors to prevent the siren song of utilitarianism from luring people onto the rocks of hastened death.

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.

Delegates To An Article V Convention Can’t Be Controlled By State Laws

By Publius Huldah

Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding Principles that:

♦ All men are created equal.

♦ Rights come from God.

♦ People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).

♦ When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.

These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.

These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”: Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.

This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.

The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates

Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution), the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and issuing instructions to Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (North Carolina and New Hampshire) gave instructions which arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation. 2

But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution (the one we have now is our second Constitution).  Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at a convention today (which will surely result in a third Constitution).

The Delegates to the 1787 convention also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.

Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?

So! Do you see?

If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a third Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:

♦ Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.

♦ The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.

♦ The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.

Warnings from the Wise

Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoral to dismiss their warnings:

♦  Alexander Hamilton writes of “the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…”  Federalist No. 85 (9th para)

♦  James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. In Federalist No. 49, he shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.

♦  Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

♦  Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”

Can State Laws Control Delegates?

Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling their Delegates.

Really? James Madison, Father of our Constitution and a consistent opponent of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.

But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t – I will show you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented.

Let’s use House Bill 148, recently filed in the New Hampshire Legislature, to illustrate this:

Section 20-C:2 I. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” [italics mine]

Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:

“any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New Hampshire”.

What is wrong with this?

♦ It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving a new Constitution.

♦ Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.

♦ New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.

♦ It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

♦  And if the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison always advised.

Section 20-C:2 II. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V convention.”

What is wrong with this?

♦ What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings secret? At the federal convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers made rules restricting publications of their proceedings.

♦ What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.

Section 20-C:2 III. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:”

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]

Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last clause, of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution.

Who today honors his Oath of Office?

Section 20-C:2 IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”

Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:

♦ As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.

♦ Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.

♦ The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.

♦ If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.

♦ The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?

Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates.

Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain

If there is a convention today, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t know. Do you trust them?

Our Framers never said that when the federal [and State] government violate the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution they violate. They never said the remedy is to file a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.

They expected us to act as they did – with “manly firmness” 3 – and resist unconstitutional acts of the federal and state governments. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read and enforced by our votes; and failing that, by manly opposition – resistance – nullification.

Endnotes:

1 Rhode Island boycotted the Convention. See RI’s Statement of Reasons in document at 2 below.

2 For the texts of the States’ instructions to their Delegates and a helpful commentary, go to Principled Policy Blog HERE.

3 The 7th paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” [boldface mine] PH

Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h