Should The US Break Up?

When a marriage becomes untenable for either the husband or wife, or both, the marriage is dissolved. They get a divorce, and few — outside of religious circles — would argue against their right to divorce or its necessity if one or other of the parties determines there are "irreconcilable differences" and a legal dissolution of the marriage is in his best interest. Yet when secession — which is the divorce of a state from the nation or divorce of one part of the state from another — is mentioned, people seem to lose their minds. But make no mistake; secession is in the air. You heard it in Virginia as the General Assembly discussed the very real possibility it would pass legislation to disarm the commonwealth's citizens. The governor of West Virginia offered liberty-loving Virginians safe haven if they wanted to divorce themselves from dark blue gun-grabbing Richmond and it surrounding statist suburbs. Secession talk is also rife in Oregon, where rural Oregonians are seeking to become part of Idaho, and in Illinois, where Illinoians would like nothing better than to separate from Chicago — or separate Chicago from Illinois. There remains an active Calexit movement where factions are alternately trying to either separate entirely from California to form a 51st state, or break the state up into as many as six smaller states. More and more, American people are becoming fed up with the elected class in both the Washington, D.C., cesspool and their heavily blue state capitols. It seems that once elected and after sniffing the wine at the altar of power, most politicians lose whatever humanity they ever had. They quickly begin to ignore the will of their constituents, bowing instead to the will of their corporate masters, forgetting (or ignoring) the promises they made to get elected. Once entrenched in office and buttressed by the crony/fascist system, they become almost impossible to unseat. This is occurring in state governments and the federal government. What's more, these urban centers seem to concentrate statist bureaucrats who make their living off government, lawyers and minorities which seek to leach off it. Politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers love socialism for everyone else, but not themselves. Lawyers write the laws that channel all power, authority and wealth to the government. They create confusion so the people can't understand the law and can't understand esoteric (hidden) political and "legal" manipulation of the public. So lawyers create socialism and label it democracy. Socialism is a disguised system of stealing the wealth and production of the producers of wealth with spurious laws. Stealing or taking from producers and transferring it to nonproducers make for very sophisticated and concealed class warfare. In other words, it is a parasite system with the parasites ruling and fleecing their host through deception. In the halls of power there is a hostile movement against the people and toward more government centralization. While this idea sits well with much of the parasite class found in mostly urban areas of the country, it is disagreeable to many — if not most — in the more rural "red" portion of the country. Manipulated minorities love government intervention and intrusion (socialism) as a net for perceived social inequality, poverty and underachievement. This is the exact opposite of what a free people want and need. The American Union was formed as a confederation of States that joined together voluntarily. It was the States that joined together, not the people. The Founders saw the states as checks on the Federal government. They understood that the federal government would attempt to assume more power than it was granted by the Constitution. So the senate was devised in Article I, Section 3 in such a way as to give the State legislatures Senate-appointing powers. This made the senators accountable to the States rather than special interests. The War of Northern Aggression (aka the Civil War) took away one check the states had on federal overreach: secession. It also forever linked the idea of secession to slavery and/or white supremacy. Thanks to indoctrination from the public (non)education system, most people have no idea that secession has nothing to do with racism or slavery and everything to do with preserving liberty. The Constitution drafted by the Founders was not intended to form a strong "national" government with heavily centralized power, but as a means to represent a group of states only on matters that concerned them all. The government was given a list of enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The Constitution was not a document designed to restrain the people or the states, but to place restraints on the federal government the Founders were creating. This is an important distinction. It would not have been ratified if not for the promise of a bill of rights to further check the federal government. That's because most of the Founders — particularly the Anti-Federalists — feared the Constitution wasn't strong enough to prevent the Federal government from stealing power from the states. To that end, the Bill of Rights established a set of restrictions on federal government. The preamble to the Bill of Rights expresses this quite plainly: THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. The first eight amendments were checks on federal power. The 9th and 10th Amendments state the Founders' intent that all power not granted the general (federal) government in the Constitution was reserved to the states and to the people. The Constitution was based on Federalism, or the concept that authority for governing local matters should be left to the purview of local and state governments, and authority for big items affecting the whole (trade, war, disputes between the states, etc.) was held by the federal government and determined through representatives of the people (House of Representatives) and the states (Senate). The Founding Fathers understood that states joining the compact voluntarily were free to leave. They believed in the words of the Declaration that governments derived their just powers from the consent of the governed, and when government becomes destructive of those ends it is the right of the people to change or abolish it. In fact, it was New England states, or at least Federalists from those states, who first broached the idea of leaving the United States as early as 1800. They called it disunion. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts (who was George Washington's adjutant general during the Revolution and served as Washington's secretary of state and secretary of war), along with his Federalist cohorts, sought to separate after Thomas Jefferson was elected president. Pickering called separation the remedy pointed to by "the principles of our Revolution." "I will rather anticipate a new confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence of the aristocratic Democrats of the South," wrote Pickering. "There will be a separation… [and] the black and white populations will mark the boundary." Senator James Hillhouse, a Revolutionary War captain who went on to serve in the second, third and fourth congresses, said, "The Eastern States must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." New England Federalists believed that Virginia was gaining too much power and would act against the interests of New England states and in the interests of Southern ones. After Jefferson's election, Federalist Stephen Higgenson claimed the federal government "had fallen into the hands of infidel, anti-commercial, anti-New England Southerners" who would "govern and depress New England." Federalist John Lowell Jr. expressed state's rights sentiments of the New England secessionists when he stated, "[I]t is our duty, our most solemn duty, to vindicate the rights, and support the interests of the states we represent." Their complaints mirrored those made by Southerners advocating for secession in the 1860s, including Robert E. Lee, who told General Winfield Scott, "If the union is disrupted I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defense will draw my sword on none." In 1804, Federalists began plotting their strategy to begin "disunion." Massachusetts was to take the lead by seceding first, Pickering wrote in a letter to Theodore Lyman, followed by Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Their cause disintegrated when Aaron Burr failed to win the governorship of New York and Burr was then tarnished after he killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. In the 1830s and 1840s, abolitionists, chief among them William Lloyd Garrison, called for "disunion." The New England Anti-Slavery Convention voted in favor of secession by a margin of 250-24. The Civil War — aka the War to Prevent Southern Secession or the war of Northern Aggression — essentially neutered the 9th and 10th Amendments. The war was not started by President Abraham Lincoln to end slavery. It was fought to reign in a "rebellion" of states who were exercising their rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln, the war's chief prosecutor, himself said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." In fact, the official government name for the war is the "War of the Rebellion." To "save the Union," Lincoln trampled on the rule of law. He suspended habeas corpus, ignored Supreme Court rulings, sent federal troops into state legislatures to prevent them from voting, arrested politicians, shut down opposition newspapers and held their editors without trial and signed illegal executive orders and congress-passed laws. Americans are as politically divided today as they were in the mid-19th century. On the one hand are progressive/socialist/communists who long for stronger federal government and control over every aspect of life. They inhabit the corridors of power on the east and west coasts and the urban centers of the states — primarily state capitols. On the other hand are the people who desire liberty and a small government that doesn't seek to control them but instead seeks to stand aside so they can prosper. These two philosophies are diametrically opposed. Why shouldn't there be a separation so we can determine which works best for the people? Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter®

Welcome To 1984 Virginia Style! Where Illegals Are Freed And Police Officers Punished!

Virginia Cop Suspended for Detaining Illegal

Controversial “sanctuary” laws imposed by left-wing politicians continue to cause chaos across the US. Last week, a Virginia police department announced that they’d suspended one of their officers — for doing his job and detaining a criminal until he could be handed over to ICE. When we end up with police officers being disciplined for upholding the law, something has gone very wrong with our country.

Highlights

Fairfax County, Virginia brought in a so-called “sanctuary” law in May of last year. County Sheriff Stacey Kincaid announced that her department would no longer cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or honor ICE detainer requests unless they were accompanied by a court-issued criminal detainer.

• Fairfax is a Dem-leaning county, and Sheriff Kincaid is an elected official, so it’s probably no surprise she supports “sanctuary” policies. Her decision to stop cooperating with ICE was backed by the county Board of Supervisors and the local Democratic Party.
• However, local Republicans warned that “Sheriff Kincaid is sending a message that she would rather protect criminal illegal aliens than Fairfax residents.” It turns out that’s exactly what Kincaid had in mind.
• A county police officer was responding to a traffic accident on September 21st when he discovered that the driver didn’t have a license. He ran the driver’s details through the DMV computer and found that he was in the country illegally, had failed to attend a deportation hearing and ICE had issued a warrant for him.
• After verifying the warrant, the officer called ICE, who attended the scene and detained the driver. He was fitted with an ankle monitor and released.
• Unfortunately, the officer’s initiative and diligence violated the county’s sanctuary policy. Under these rules, officers aren’t allowed to check anyone’s immigration status unless they’re booked into the county jail — and they can’t detain anyone solely for an immigration violation.
• Now the officer has been suspended from duty while the department investigates, and he will have to do “remedial” training on county policy.
• According to Police Chief Edwin C. Roessler, this was an “unfortunate incident” and the officer was “confused.” He went on, “This is the first time we’ve had a lapse in judgment, and the officer is being punished.”
• It’s hard to think of a case that could show up the madness of “sanctuary” laws any more clearly. A police officer found that someone was driving illegally, had been in an accident — suggesting they weren’t a safe driver — and was wanted by another law enforcement agency. For dealing with this obvious threat to public safety, he’s now being punished. Nothing about this makes sense.

Copyright, 2019. RightWing.org

Hamas Keeps Cropping Up!

Powerful Tlaib Backer Connected

 to Hamas

• 2019-05-21 
• Source: AAN 
• by: AAN Staff

0 0  0

image: https://aanews-structure-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/aanews/media/picture/5ce4/38b8/6970/2d64/5fa4/0d00/Slideshow_800px-Rashida_Tlaib_on_Voice_of_America.jpg?1558460625

Kane Farabaugh, Voice of America News [Public domain]

Report Advertisement

Advertisement
Punish Omar & AOC! [ACT NOW]

Ibraheem Samirah is no stranger to controversy.

The self-described youngest Muslim lawmaker in America won election to Virginia's House of Delegates despite Facebook posts comparing support for Israel to the Ku Klux Klan.

Despite Samirah's past transgressions, his progressive platform proved enough to eke out a victory in deep blue Northern Virginia.

RELATED: Dem Rep Blamed America for Islamic Terrorism

But troubling new developments – including a connection to Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Hamas – threatens to derail his aspirations.

Per Twitchy:

This thread on a member of the VA legislature and former volunteer for Rep. Rashida Tlaib is both disconcerting and fascinating.

A volunteer for Rashida? We’re SHOCKED! SHOCKED we say!

...

So his dad is a security risk.

This just keeps getting better.

BONUS STORY: Radical House Trio's Growing List of Embarrassing Failures >>

Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/powerful-tlaib-backer-connected-to-hamas#7pmoHVKfXj7ZLqbW.99

If These Guys Were Republicans, They Would Have Already Resigned. Not So For Dems!

Another Politician Caught in 

Blackface Scandal

• 2019-02-07 
• Source: AAN 
• by: AAN Staff

1 2 0  3

image: https://aanews-structure-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/aanews/media/picture/59af/0bf3/6970/2d43/fe1a/3100/content_Doh.jpg?1520439623

Photo by Jonund via Flickr

Report Advertisement

The Republican majority leader of Virginia's state Senate finds himself in trouble over his role as the managing editor of a college yearbook featuring multiple photos of students wearing blackface alongside racist slurs. (New York Post)

The revelation comes as the state’s Democratic leadership is in crisis, with Gov. Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring both facing calls to resign after they admitted to wearing blackface while they were college students in the 1980s.

State Sen. Tommy Norment oversaw the Virginia Military Institute’s “The Bomb” yearbook in 1968 — the same year the college first allowed black students to enroll, according to The Virginian-Pilot.

The yearbook includes several photos of people in blackface — including one at a costume party, and another of two men in the racist makeup while holding a football — as well as the N-word and a student from Thailand who is referred to as a “Chink,” the paper reports.

A photo of one man is captioned: “He was known as the ‘Barracks Jew’ having his fingers in the finances of the entire Corps.”

Norment refused to respond to press inquiries.

Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/another-politician-caught-in-blackface-scandal#pDFSx4w8vA8hhSg8.99

Another Attack On The First Amendment? Does Freedom Of Religion Prevent Private Companies From Preventing Free Exercise?

RETIRED PASTOR THREATENED WITH EVICTION OVER BIBLE STUDY

Landlord claims Christian gatherings are a 'business'

Published: 1 day ago

image: https://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg

 BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive

image: https://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png

 Subscribe to feed

243

Share on Facebook

 

Share on Twitter

 

Email

 243

image: https://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif

 Print

 

 

image: https://www.wnd.com/files/2012/12/open_bible_21.jpg

A company that runs a senior-living center in Fredericksburg, Virginia, has decided that a Bible study is a “business” and consequently has threatened to evict a retired Lutheran pastor and his wife for conducting one in their residence.

“Evicting elderly residents from their home for holding a Bible study is not only outrageous, it’s illegal,” asserts First Liberty Institute, which has issued a letter to the center demanding it withdraw the threat.

“Ken Hauge is a retired Lutheran minister. He and his wife, Liv, received a notice threatening eviction from Community Realty Company (CRC) claiming that Ken’s leadership of a Bible study violates his lease. The Bible study previously met in the apartment complex community room until CRC instituted a policy prohibiting residents from using the community room for ‘religious services or for other religious activities,'” First Liberty explained.

The actions violate the federal Fair Housing Act, and the First Liberty letter to Community Realty Company, which runs the Evergreens at Smith Run, and lawyer Joshua Greenberg demands that they fix the problem.

“We request that CRC and the Evergreens take the following actions: 1) rescind the Notice [of eviction] and remove it from the Hauges’s tenant file; 2) rescind the July 23 Community Room Policy prohibiting religious activities and notify Evergreens residents accordingly; 3) restore Hauge’s access to the Community Room for the Bible study; and 4) take prompt steps to curtail the pattern of harassment against the Hauges and other residents of faith who attend the Bible study.”

The legal team set a deadline of Thursday.

“Should you deny these requests or fail to respond to his letter, we are prepared to pursue all available legal remedies, including reporting the matter to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.”

The letter said Hauge “has been stopped in the hallway and subjected to profane rants, and several individuals have attempted to disrupt the Bible study on multiple occasions.”

The Hauges, both in their 80s, moved into the residence early in 2017. Ken Hauge volunteers at a local church, and some members asked if he and his wife would hold a Bible study in their home.

The community room was available, and center allowed them to use it if they called the gathering a “book review” instead of a Bible study.

Later the rules for using the room were changed to ban Bible studies entirely.

The policy change was cited in the eviction letter in which managers stated, “Landlord has learned that you have hosted Bible study classes in the Club Room.”

The property managers said the policy violated the lease, which states, “Conducting any kind of business (including child care services) in your apartment or in the apartment community is prohibited.”

While the managers said the community room should be used for events such as bridal showers, birthday parties, wedding receptions, funeral gatherings, resident socials, pot lucks and management seminars, they insisted they retain the right to cancel any event.

But the First Liberty team explained that the residential property managers allowed other residents to remove notices about the Bible studies.

The actions by the Evergreens “violate the Fair Housing Act and its accompanying regulations,” First Liberty contended. “The FHA prohibits discrimination ‘against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of … religion.”

The letter to the lawyer for the property managers warned him his clients “have established a long record of obstructing and stifling residents’ religious beliefs and the free exercise thereof.”

“Finally, Hauge and other Bible study attendees also have endured harassment and verbal abuse from residents who oppose the Bible study ideologically – harassment and abuse to which your clients appear indifferent.

“These residents appear to take offense from encountering residents whose beliefs differ from their own, subjecting Hauge and other Bible study attendees to verbal abuse and attempting not to impede the Bible study on multiple occasions,” First Liberty wrote.

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/retired-minister-threatened-with-eviction-over-bible-study/#9SgdZKWgLXcTLUCJ.99

If Sarah Suddenly Gets Secret Service Protection There Must Be A Pretty Big Threat To Her Or Her Family

Report: Sarah Huckabee Sanders to be put under Secret Service protection after restaurant ejection

Jun 27, 2018 4:36 pm

New reports say that White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be placed under Secret Service protection while at home after her ejection from the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. (Getty Images)

Follow

Sarah TaylorSTAFF WRITER

POLITICAL VIEW

CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN

VALUES

FAITH, FAMILY

HERO

JOHN THE BAPTIST

Article GoalINFORM

• SHARE
• TWEET

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be placed under the protection of Secret Service while at home, according to a report Wednesday by NPR and NBC News’ Peter Alexander.

What are the details?

On Tuesday, Alexander shared a tweet that revealed that Sanders would be put under the protection of the Secret Service on a “temporary basis,” and cited law enforcement officials as sources.

Special: Doctors amazed by skincare breakthrough that is 99% natural

“NEW: The Secret Service will begin providing security at the home of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, on a temporary basis, a law enforcement official tells @PeteWilliamsNBC,” Alexander wrote.

On Wednesday, NPR reported that Sanders will receive temporary Secret Service protection — protection usually reserved for the president, vice president, and their respective families — following the incident Friday in which she was asked to leave Red Hen, a Lexington, Virginia, restaurant.

Leading up to the incident, the restaurant’s owner reportedly conferred with staff about how to handle Sanders’ presence in the restaurant, and ultimately decided — because of “moral conviction” — that the press secretary should be asked to leave the premises.

What did Sanders do next?

Sanders complied with the restaurant owner’s request without a fuss and even offered to pay for the meals.

The restaurant owner said Sanders was not charged.

CNN also made a similar report on Wednesday, noting that Sanders could receive Secret Service protection as early as Wednesday, and cited “two sources familiar with the decision.”

The two sources did not detail the length of Sanders’ protection or any other details surrounding the reports.

A representative for the Secret Service told CNN in a statement, “For operational security purposes, the Secret Service does not comment on its protective operations.”