Tag Archives: Alexander Hamilton

U.S. tech giants are waging a war against free speech

Our Founding Fathers were learned men who founded the newly independent American Republic on a particular — and correct — view of human nature. They believed that humans have a dual nature, both good and bad, and that we are self-interested but rational, being each capable of discerning what is in our own interests.

That humans are fundamentally selfish accounts for why the Founders fashioned a government that is limited and constrained in its exercise of power, instead of unlimited and totalitarian. As James Madison so eloquently stated in The Federalist Papers:

What is government but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the greatest difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Among the constraints that our Founders placed on government to prevent it from abusing political power are the Bill of Rights or the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which collectively delimit government’s power by specifying the rights and liberties of the people which no government can abridge. The Founders also created other constraints on government, one of which is a free press (or media).

A free press also serves another function. Since humans are endowed by the Creator with the capacity to reason, the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that we be given a pluralism and variety of information and knowledge — the “market place of ideas” — which we can utilize to make the “right” choices in the ballot box and away.

Surveys have found that journalists of the Mainstream Media are overwhelmingly partisan in favor of one political party. For example, a poll found that Washington media correspondents voted Democratic 93% to 7% (see Professor Tim Groseclose’s Left Turn, How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind).  As a result of the MSM’s partisanship, the First Amendment’s freedom of the press no longer delivers pluralism of information and ideas.

Happily, with the rise of the Internet, social media and alternate media are doing what the MSM whether willingly or by coercion no longer do. A recent Pew Research Center study found that some 14% of Americans have changed their minds about an issue because of something they saw on social media. But the voice of both social and alternate media is now being silenced, one by one, by privately-owned high-tech corporations acting in the interest of and in cahoots with the Democratic Party and the Deep State.

The social media tech giants — Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, Disqus — are all owned and operated by liberals/Democrats/Progressive, i.e., the Left. Although they are separate corporations, their similar political partisanship and ideology make them a virtual monopoly. When they each act to censor and stifle the American people’s freedom of speech in social and alternative media, their collective reach approaches totalitarian in scope.

See Edwin Vieira Jr.’s “Censorship by Internet Corporations Is Still Censorship

Think of those tech giants as private enterprises with deceptive smiles but razor-sharp teeth.

Having unexpectedly lost the 2016 presidential election, in which social and alternative media played a significant role in electing D.C. outsider Donald Trump, Democrats and the tech giants have learned a lesson. To ensure against a repeat of 2016, the cabal of tech giants are silencing dissenting voices on social media and blogs before this November’s mid-term election.

See “The Coming Democrat Vote Fraud: dead voters in Ohio; non-citizen voters in Texas; Pelosi tells Dems to be unscrupulous

The cabal first went after a giant AltMedia target — Alex Jones and his InfoWars. Next is the 21st-century digital version of book-burning when web-host WordPress began, abruptly and without warning, shutting down (“suspend”) blogs, including Fellowship of the Minds, ostensibly because they had violated WordPress’ Terms of Service (TOS).

Other blogs and voices that are silenced include (incomplete list):

  1. WordPress-hosted blogs American Everyman (Willy Loman), Harold Saive‘s ChemTrailsPlanet, Dutchsinse’s blog, Jay’sAnalysis, and Jeff Fenske‘s 11-year-old ToBeFree.
  2. Twitter terminated many accounts, including that of anti-war activist Caitlin Johnston @caitoz (see “Twitter purges accounts across the platform again“).
  3. Facebook is blocking ads for pro-Trump Diamond & Silk’s upcoming movie Dummycrats.
  4. The internet browser Mozilla Firefox is pushing an “Information Trust Initiative” to block independent media sources at the browser level while favoring corporate media giants like fake news CNN (Natural News).
  5. All 37 of Stewart Ogilby‘s columns on veteranstoday.com, including a dozen about 9/11, as well as his bio and photo, were removed without explanation.
  6. From a FOTM reader: “A priest who has a website in Europe told me that a liberal priest from the United States sent someone from Europe to shut down his website. This good priest was exposing Obama’s and other liberals’ agenda.”

The hypocrisy of WordPress is particularly galling. As Dr. James Tracy points out in his Memory Hole Blog, after silencing those it has identified as violating its TOS, WordPress nevertheless continues to host blogs “that are in demonstrable violation of the company’s TOS,” including the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer and blogs by Antifa, whom the Obama administration’s FBI and DHS had identified in April 2016 as “domestic terrorists”.

Explanations as to why WP-hosted blogs are being taken down include the following:

  1. Because the blogs are conservative and/or Christian (see WND; Breitbart).
  2. Because the blogs posted on the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting being a false-flag hoax (see Phibetaiota.net; Techcrunch). As an example, Cinderella’s Broom, a relatively small blog that mainly posted on Sandy Hook, was taken down. WordPress is so vindictive that they also took down Cinderella’s three other blogs, none of which has political content.
  3. Because those blogs posted on other false flags, e.g., 9/11 and the 1985 Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, which suggests it is the Deep State that’s engineering the take-downs (see Natural News; All News Pipeline). That in turn has an ominous implication: Is the Deep State silencing bloggers who write about false flags because either a massive false flag or a diabolical conspiracy is in the works, such as an attempt to assassinate President Trump?

An email I just received from Stewart Ogilby lends strength to the #3 explanation. Ogilby had re-published my April 2015 post that the Challenger astronauts may be alive. He writes:

“The situation is worse than we fear. This morning the file that previously loaded  your page intact (challenger.htm), including the graphics, not only
no longer loads from my server, but the file itself has been corrupted. I do not use WordPress or any other webpage ‘wizzard’.”

See also Ogilby’s “Owners of America’s Media Lie“.

The tech giants do what they do because they are sanctioned and shielded by the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), specifically Section 230’s “Safe Harbor” provision, which allows social media giants like Facebook and Twitter to censor at will any content they don’t like. Former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wireless bureau chief Fred Campbell is on a mission to repeal that provision. (Read more about this on Thought Police.)

As if the Safe Harbor provision isn’t bad enough, Virginia Democrat senator Mark Warner means to restrict our free speech even further. In a policy paper obtained by Axios and in the name of combating “fake news,” Warner would have our freedom of speech be even more abridged by:

  • Requiring web platforms to label so-called fake and bot accounts or do more to identify “authentic” accounts, with the threat of sanction by the Federal Trade Commission if they fail to do so.
  • Making web platforms legally liable for claims of “defamation, invasion of privacy, false light, and public disclosure of private facts”.

Axios observes that “Warner, who made his fortune in telecommunications before running for office, has been a prominent critic of major social media platforms from his perch as top Democrat overseeing the intelligence committee’s investigation of Russian election interference.” Although Warner’s proposal for now is just that, a “Democratic wave in November could put more momentum behind these ideas”.

To the tech giants must be asked the same question that I’ve asked Sandy Hookers who harass, attack, terrorize, successfully get YouTube and WordPress take down videos, posts and entire blogs, and send hateful and life-threatening emails to Sandy Hook researchers who are simply exercising our First Amendment right to free speech and free press:

If you have truth on your sidewhy would you stifle our voices? What are you so afraid of?

H/t Big Lug, CSM, Greg Holt, Harold Saive, Kelleigh, and Matthew S.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

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

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Moral Sickness at Root of America's Decay

James Madison

How can self-government work if the people’s “self” is depraved? As James Madison so rightly observed, “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” (Federalist No. 51, 1788)
Both the Left as well as Libertarians like to think that America’s Founding Fathers pursued individual liberty merely and solely for itself, without regard to matters of morality and faith.
Not true.

Thomas Jefferson in old age

Our Founders believed that the new American Republic was possible and viable only if it rested on the proper foundation or infrastructure — a virtuous people. (A good book on this is The Moral Foundations of the American Republic.)
In a letter to George Logan in 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The man who is dishonest as a statesman would be a dishonest man in any station. It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.”

John Adams

John Adams, in his letter to Mercy Warren in 1776, similarly noted: “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty….”
But it was George Washington, the Father of the new American Republic, who put it best when he sounded this warning in his first inaugural address in 1789: “There exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness … we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”

George Washington praying at Valley Forge


Popular culture is the expression of a people’s moral orientation. Look at the state of America’s pop culture today.
Who speaks of “virtue” today? What an old-fashioned archaic word!
A half-naked Britney “The Crotch” Spears, 29, bumps, grinds, and gyrates before a rapt crowd of 6,000 in San Francisco; while the media slavishly report on the latest antics of bad “boys” like middle-aged Charlie Sheen, 45, and bad “girls” like mature adult Lindsay Lohan, 24.
Less than 20 minutes after the tickets for Sheen’s two “My Violent Torpedo of Truth/Defeat is Not an Option” concerts went on sale, they were all sold out. So he expanded his concert tour to 20 cities. A ticket for his “concert” in San Francisco costs $97 to $136. After Lohan wore a tightly-fitted white Kimberly Ovitz dress to court to face grand theft charges of a necklace she claims she had merely “borrowed” from a jewelry store, the $575 dress quickly sold out.

Alexander Hamilton


So much for our supposed economic recession-depression!
Did you know that John Adams was 41, Thomas Jefferson only 30, and Alexander Hamilton a mere 21 years old, in 1776 when the American Revolution began? [Source]
At the root of our political-economic-social problems is plain moral rot.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Message to Obama

…from one of our country’s Founding Fathers, a group of extraordinary Patriots for whom Obama neither appreciates, respects, nor loves:

Alexander Hamilton


“I will venture to assert that no combination of designing men under heaven will be capable of making a government unpopular which is in its principles a wise and good one, and vigorous in its operations.” –Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788
Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) was an Aide-de-camp to General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War. He was America’s first secretary of the Treasury, an economist, political philosopher, and unlike Obama, a real Constitutional lawyer. Unlike Obama who, despite having a law degree from Harvard manages to have no legal writing, Hamilton not just wrote about law, he was the author of most of the Federalist Papers, a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0