Wednesday, October 22, 2014

U.S. Constitution

Powers Not Delegated Do Not Exist
Posted by Keith Broaders on October 21, 2014 at 1:54am in Public Comments & Discussions
According to the words of Thomas Jefferson the government of the United States was created to be the servant of the states and the people. The authority of the government comes from the consent of the governed. The power of the national government was limited and well defined in order to prevent its abuse of power. Any power or authority not specifically granted in the Constitution was to be prohibited.
The authors of the Constitution knew that a strong central government would be potentially very dangerous if it had the power to regulate and discipline itself. They understood that unless the government was restrained, the government would become our master and we would become its slaves.
Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were afraid that granting too much power to Congress would render the states and the people powerless to prevent the abuse of power by those elected to be our servants.
The Constitution was written to govern the government and if it had the power to write the rules to govern their own behavior it would like allowing Al Capone to sit on the jury to determine the guilt or innocence of Bonnie and Clyde.
The Constitution is like a recipe that needs to be followed exactly. If you add or subtract from it you will reap tyranny instead of liberty.
When making a batch of chocolate cookies, would you allow the baker to replace the sugar with garlic and the eggs with vinegar?
When we allow Congress to assume powers not delegated to them in the Constitution  we give them the power to abuse us. Remember that powers not specifically granted to the government of the United States are reserved to the states and to the people.
A liberal or loose interpretation of the Constitution paves the way for bankers and the financial institutions to usurp the power that rightfully belongs to the people.
As the creator of our government our founders wrote a rulebook for our governmental employees. This rulebook known as the Constitution defines what the employees of the government can do. Any action taken by Congress that is not enumerated is unconstitutional.
Congress has crossed the line on many occasions and done things that they felt were necessary and proper, This progressive mindset has brought us the National Bank, the Progressive Income Tax, the Federal Reserve and the IRS are  undeclared wars.

Muslim Burial Spreads Ebola

Just when you thought Ebola and Islam were two separate news stories, it’s being reported that Sharia law is actually facilitating the spread of the deadly virus. The burial rituals and practices in Sharia constitutes a toxic brew when the deceased died of Ebola. In fact, Ebola is even more contagious when handling corpses of people with it.

There is a significant Muslim population in all of the west African countries where Ebola is metastasizing with two of those countries having a super majority Muslim population.

Islam isn’t just at the heart of the terror threat posed by the Islamic State. The religion is also contributing to the other major crisis plaguing the globe: the spread of Ebola.
Washington and its media stenographers won’t tell you this, lest they look intolerant, but Islamic burial rituals are a key reason why health officials can’t contain the spread of the deadly disease in West Africa.
Many of the victims of Ebola in the three hot-spot nations there — Sierra Leone and Guinea, as well as neighboring Liberia — are Muslim. Roughly 73% of Sierra Leone’s and about 85% of Guinea’s people are Muslim. Islam, moreover, is practiced by more than 13% of Liberians.
When Muslims die, family members don’t turn to a funeral home or crematorium to take care of the body. In Islam, death is handled much differently.
Relatives personally wash the corpses of loved ones from head to toe. Often, several family members participate in this posthumous bathing ritual, known as Ghusl.
Before scrubbing the skin with soap and water, family members press down on the abdomen to excrete fluids still in the body. A mixture of camphor and water is used for a final washing. Then, family members dry off the body and shroud it in white linens.
Again, washing the bodies of the dead in this way is considered a collective duty for Muslims, especially in Muslim nations. Failure to do so is believed to leave the deceased “impure” and jeopardizes the faithful’s ascension into Paradise (unless he died in jihad; then no Ghusl is required).
Before the body is buried, Muslims attending the funeral typically pass a common bowl for use in ablution or washing of the face, feet and hands, compounding the risk of infection.
Though these customs are prescribed by Shariah law, they’re extremely dangerous and should be suspended. Mosque leaders must step in to educate village Muslims about the dangers of interacting with corpses.
Ebola victims can be more contagious dead than alive. Their bodies are covered in rashes, blood and other fluids containing the virus.
“Funerals and washing dead bodies in West African countries have led, to a great extent, to spread the disease,” a World Health Organization spokeswoman recently warned.
WHO has issued an advisory to Red Cross and other relief workers in African Muslim nations to “be aware of the family’s cultural practices and religious beliefs. Help the family understand why some practices cannot be done because they place the family or others at risk for exposure.”
The document added: “Identify a family member who has influence with the rest of the family and who can make sure family members avoid dangerous practices such as washing or touching the body.”
The warning appears to be falling on deaf ears, however.
Last month, Red Cross workers in Guinea were attacked by family members while trying to bury Ebola dead safely. In Sierra Leone, moreover, a family took Ebola-ridden bodies secured in body bags from the Red Cross, opened them up and exposed all members of the family to Ebola. They all contracted the disease.
The UN warns that if the spread of Ebola can’t be contained within 60 days, it could turn into a global plague. The West African infection rate is expected to jump from 1,000 a week to 10,000 a week.
President Obama argues that suspending travel with these West African nations would do more harm than good.
But the practice of these religious customs is even more reason to do so.
Even Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam, is now barring pilgrims from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea from traveling to Mecca for fear of them bringing the virus into the kingdom.
So what’s stopping us from barring travelers from those countries?

Nobola for Me

I will not submit to medical martial law; here’s why
One of the most dangerous philosophical contentions, even among liberty movement activists, is the conundrum of government force and prevention during times of imminent pandemic. All of us at one time or another have had this debate. If a legitimate viral threat existed and threatened to infect and kill millions of Americans, is it then acceptable for the government to step in, remove civil liberties, enforce quarantines and stop people from spreading the disease? After all, during a viral event, the decisions of each individual can truly have a positive or negative effect on the rest of society, right? One out-of-control (or “lone wolf”) person could ignite a biological firestorm, so should we not turn to government and forgo certain freedoms in order to achieve the greater good for the greater number?
If the government in question were a proven and honorable institution, then I would say pro-medical martial law arguments might have a leg to stand on. However, this is not the case. In my view, medical martial law is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances, including Ebola, in light of the fact that our current government will be the predominant cause of viral outbreak. That is to say, you do not turn to the government for help when the government is the cause of the problem. Period.
The recent rise of global Ebola is slowly bringing the issue of medical martial law to the forefront of our culture. Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer recently argued in favor of possible restrictions on individual and Constitutional liberties in the face of a viral pandemic threat.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now argues that in the case of people who may be potential carriers, or even in the case of people who refuse to undergo screenings, it has the legal authority to dissolve all constitutional protections and essentially imprison (quarantine) an American citizen for as long as they see fit to do so.
The Obama Administration is now using militant terminology in reference to Ebola response, including the formation of Ebola “SWAT teams” for quick reaction to potential outbreak areas.
And finally, the Department of Defense has been tasked to create a military controlled “quick-strike team” to deal with Ebola within U.S. borders. This team will be under the command of none other than Northcom, apparently trampling the Posse Comitatus Act and setting the stage for the rationalized use of military personnel against U.S. citizens under the guise of pandemic prevention.
It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that medical martial law is being quietly prepared and that the threat of such measures is not a paranoid conspiracy, but a very real possibility. I discussed in great detail why Ebola works in favor of establishment elites in my article “An Ebola outbreak would be advantageous for globalists.”
Understand that bureaucrats will come to you with promises of offering a helping hand, hoping that you are afraid enough to accept; but their intentions will not be compassionate. Rather, their intent will be to assert as much dominance over the public as possible during the chaos and to erase any conception the people may have had in the past that they have inalienable rights.
But going beyond the hidden motives of tyrants, I think it is important to point out that the CDC and the federal government in general has already lost all credibility in dealing with Ebola. Therefore, the government has lost any authority it may have had in administrating a future response.
Ebola has been officially known to the CDC for more than 30 years. Why has the CDC refused for three decades to produce proper care guidelines for hospitals? Medical staff in the U.S. didn’t even receive guidelines when the outbreak in Western Africa was obviously progressing out of control.
Why did the CDC leave Thomas Eric Duncan, the very first U.S. Ebola case, in the hands of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, without proper procedures in place to prevent further infection and without a CDC team present? The CDC has an annual budget of nearly $7 billion. Where is all of this money going if not to stamp out such threats as Ebola?
The argument presented by the White House, the CDC and even the World Bank has been that stopping direct or indirect travel from nations with an Ebola outbreak would be “impractical” and that such travel bans would somehow “make matters worse.” They have yet to produce a logical explanation as to how this makes sense. But let’s say we did not need to institute a travel ban. The CDC, with its massive budget, could easily establish quarantine measures in infected countries. Anyone wishing to travel outside of these nations would be welcome to do so, as long as they voluntarily participate in quarantine procedures for a set number of days. No quarantine, no plane ticket. Where has the CDC response been in Western Africa?
Why not use minor and measured travel restriction in Africa today, instead of using unprecedented martial law in America tomorrow? It makes no sense, unless, of course, the plan is to allow Ebola to spread.
Why has the White House nominated Ron Klain, a man who knows absolutely nothing about Ebola or medical emergency strategies, as the new Ebola czar?
Why has all discussion on Ebola prevention revolved around government measures rather than community measures?
The reality is that the government does not have any treatments for Ebola that are outside of the knowledge and capabilities of the average medically trained citizen, meaning the government and the CDC are not needed for a community to handle an Ebola outbreak if that community is given proper guidelines and strategies in advance. Treatment for Ebola, at least in First World nations, consists primarily of regimented transfusions. These transfusions are a mixture of isotonic saline, electrolytes and plasma, designed to keep the body supported until its immune system can build up a proper defense to the virus. Natural and homeopathic methods can also boost immune system functions, making the body resistant to the virus before it is ever contracted. The most effective of all treatments appears to be the transfusion of blood from a recovering patient with antibodies into a newly sick patient. This is likely the reason for quick recovery in infected doctors like Kent Brantly.
The CDC would never be able to coherently organize a large-scale program of transfusion initiatives, even if it wanted to. Most hospitals around the country have no isolation wards able to handle even a minor Ebola outbreak. The hospitals that do have facilities that are limited to less than a dozen beds. According to medical workers with whom I have spoken, most hospitals require a minimum of about 50 health professionals to deal with a single Ebola patient. In the event of an outbreak larger than a few people per state, the CDC and local hospitals are simply not equipped to react to the problem. This leaves individual communities to either prepare for the worst or die off while waiting for the government to save them.
The greatest danger to American citizens is not the Ebola virus, but the government reaction to the Ebola virus. Already, several medical outfits around the world are suddenly interested in producing an Ebola vaccination when no one seemed very interested before. This might sound like good news, until you learn the terrible history of vaccinations.
Pharmaceutical company Merck was caught red-handed faking vaccine efficacy data. Merck’s Gardisil was found to contain DNA fragments of human papillomavirus.
GlaxoSmithKline, a major vaccine producer, has been caught repeatedly attempting to bribe doctors and health professionals into promoting their product or outright lying about their effectiveness. GlaxoSmithKline was caught producing rotavirus vaccinations tainted with a swine virus in 2010. GlaxoSmithKline has been caught producing vaccines tainted with bacteria and endotoxins.
It is important to note that GlaxoSmithKline is also spearheading an Ebola vaccine initiative.
U.S.-based Baxter produced a flu vaccination in Austria tainted with both avian flu and swine flu. The mixture just happened to be randomly tested on a group of ferrets by a lab in the Czech Republic. All the test animals died. The exposure of this “mix up” was quietly swept under the rug by Baxter and the mainstream media. But reports indicate that if the vaccine had been used on the general population, a terrible pandemic would have erupted.
None of these companies can be trusted to produce a working vaccine that will not cause more infection and more death. If the CDC and the federal government trigger a medical martial law scenario, they will most likely include forced vaccinations of the population to maintain “herd immunity.” The bottom line? The use of such vaccines will be a death sentence for many, a death more certain than the contraction of Ebola.
I can think of no rationale for government involvement in the treatment of an Ebola outbreak. If it is not pure incompetence on their part that has exacerbated the threat, then, even worse, it is a deliberate program of genocide. In either case, no military or CDC “strike teams” should be allowed free reign in our neighborhoods, towns, counties or states. Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency Community Emergency Response Teams are also a no-go, given FEMA’s track record of dismal disaster response. They cannot be allowed to take control of our communities.
The only way for Americans to survive such an event is to cut out government entirely and establish their own medical strategies, as organizations like the Oath Keepers Community Preparedness Teams are doing.
If someone wants to voluntarily go to the CDC or FEMA for assistance, then they should be allowed to take that risk. However, medical martial law over all of us in the name of the “greater good” should not be tolerated. The government has proven beyond a doubt that it is not qualified to handle a viral crisis scenario, let alone determine what the “greater good” actually is. I can’t speak for the whole of the liberty movement. But if a group of hazmat-suited thugs decides to chase me down with a syringe, I am relatively certain none of them will live through the encounter.
Will I be accused of aiding the spread of Ebola because of my noncompliance? Of course. Do I care? Not so much. Each individual American will have to make his own decision on this matter in due course. Is it better to conform and risk annihilation at the hands of an ignorant and/or corrupt government or to fight back and be labeled a bioterrorist? With the clear lack of tangible government prevention of outbreak in the United States, you’ll probably get your chance soon enough.
–Brandon Smith
Note from the Editor: Round two of the financial meltdown is predicted to reach global proportions, already adversely affecting Greece, Spain and most of Europe. It appears less severe in the states because our banks are printing useless fiat currency. I’ve arranged for readers to get two free books—Surviving a Global financial Crisis and Currency Collapse, plus How to Survive the Collapse of Civilization—to help you prepare for the worst.
This entry was posted in Featured and tagged Ebola. Bookmark the permalink.
Hospitals designated for Obola treatment currently can’t even protect patients from staff and strep infections. Go to the source URL and mark yes or no on the survey.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody Ga Tea Party Leader

Intimidating Teachers

Skinnerizing Teachers Posted on October 21, 2014 Written by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, Day 21: Skin­ner Hor­ror Files The Skin­ner­iza­tion* of Teachers
*DEFINITION of Skin­ner­ize: The process by which stu­dents, teach­ers, prin­ci­pals, admin­is­tra­tors, etc. — and any­one else for that mat­ter — con­form to B.F. Skinner’s model, meth­ods, goals, process and sys­tem. To become Skin­ner­ized means one has adapted them­selves, will­ingly or through com­pul­sion, to the entire modus operendi of B.F. Skin­ner and his sub­se­quent behav­ioral clones and change agents. Related terms: Skin­ner­iza­tion, Skin­ner­iz­ing.
Thus it isn’t a sur­prise to read how the Skinnner­ian sys­tem is applied to the behav­ior of teach­ers. The Effec­tive School Report’s May 1985 issue con­tained an arti­cle titled “Principal’s Expec­ta­tions as a Moti­vat­ing Fac­tor in Effec­tive Schools.” Notice how the prin­ci­pal is expected to shape the behav­ior of teach­ers, who are then expected to shape the behav­ior of their stu­dents. And notice how “achieve­ment” is no longer about aca­d­e­mic goals, but “abil­ity” and “per­cep­tions” and “atti­tude” changes:
The prin­ci­pal expects spe­cific behav­ior from par­tic­u­lar teach­ers which should then trans­late into achieve­ment by the stu­dents of these teach­ers; because of these var­ied expec­ta­tions, the prin­ci­pal behaves dif­fer­ently toward dif­fer­ent teach­ers; i.e., body lan­guage, ver­bal inter­ac­tions and resource allo­ca­tions. This treat­ment also influ­ences the atti­tudes of the teacher toward the prin­ci­pal and their per­cep­tion of the future util­ity of any increased effort toward stu­dent achieve­ment. If this treat­ment is con­sis­tent over time, and if the teach­ers do not resist change, it will shape their behav­ior and through it the achieve­ment of their students….
With time teach­ers’ behav­ior, self-concepts of abil­ity, per­cep­tions of future util­ity, atti­tude toward the prin­ci­pal and stu­dents’ achieve­ment will con­form more and more closely to the behav­ior orig­i­nally expected of them.
Children are born unique, with free will as sovereign beings. Those who do not know this have not spent a sufficient amount of time with 3 year olds. The goal should be to teach the basics and help children identify what they love to do.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Professor Baits Students and Loses

Judge Sides with Student Punished for Criticizing Lesbians
'Controversy built right into the syllabus'
The University of New Mexico and one of its professors will face trial on a charge of violating the constitutional rights of a student punished for expressing her opinions about lesbianism in a class described by the instructor as having “controversy built right into the syllabus.
Chief U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo denied a motion by the university to dismiss a case brought by student Monica Pompeo, who claimed she was improperly dismissed from the class for describing lesbianism as perverse in an assigned critique of a lesbian romance film.
The course, “Images of (Wo)men: From Icons to Iconoclasts,” was taught by professor Caroline Hinkley in 2012.
Judge Armijo, in her Sept. 29 order, wrote that the First Amendment “violation in this case arises from the irreconcilable conflict between the all-views-are-welcome description of the forum and [the professor's] only-those-views-with-which-I-personally-agree-are-acceptable implementation of the forum.”
Hinkley wrote in the syllabus: “It’s quite clear that we do not expect anyone to necessarily agree with the positions and arguments advanced in our work. There’s controversy built right into the syllabus, and we can’t wait to hash out our differences.”
But when she assigned students to watch and write about “Desert Hearts,” a 1985 lesbian romance film, Pompeo said Hinckley refused to read beyond the first two pages of her harsh critique. The professor described Pompeo’s opinion as “inflammatory and offensive” hate speech and said it would be in her best interest to drop the class.
The movie, set in the 1950s, tells the story of a woman who arrives to get a divorce and “finds herself increasingly drawn” to another woman, “an open and self-assured lesbian.”
The judge noted that “due to Hinkley’s hostility, including her refusal to assign a grade to plaintiff’s critique,” Pompeo withdrew from the class.
Noted law professor, legal analyst and writer Eugene Volokh, writing at his Volokh Conspiracy, pointed out Hinkley’s supervisor, Susan Dever, also warned there would be “consequences” because of Pompeo’s opinion.
The school officials “acted to suppress a viewpoint [they] found personally offensive, rather than for a legitimate pedagogical reason,” Volokh said.
The judge said there were three questions to be addressed: Was the speech protected, in what forum did the speech occur and what about restrictions on student speech allowed for pedagogical reasons?
“The first two inquiries are not seriously in dispute. Defendants conceded that plaintiff’s speech is protected by the First Amendment and all parties agree that under governing 10th Circuit precedent a university classroom is a nonpublic forum,” the judge wrote.
“As to the third inquiry, defendants maintain that a university can restrict a student’s curricular speech so long as the restrictions are reasonable related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”
Armijo wrote that Pompeo agreed, but she explained that the university was imposing viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the law.
“Plaintiff has made out a case that no reasonable educator could have believed that by criticizing lesbianism, plaintiff’s critique fell outside the parameters of the class, given the description of the class set out in the syllabus,” she wrote.
“The court questions whether a university can have a legitimate pedagogical interest in inviting students to engage in ‘incendiary’ and provocative speech on a topic and then punishing a a student because he or she did just that. Simply because plaintiff expressed views about homosexuality that some people may deem offensive does not deprive her views of First Amendment protection. Plaintiff has made out a plausible case that Hinkley ostracized her because of Hinkley’s personal disagreement with plaintiff’s ideology, and not for legitimate pedogogical purpose.”
The judge concluded that “views opposing homosexuality are protected by the First Amendment and that the government is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one.”

UK Law favors Muslims

Christian School told to have Muslim Imam Lead Assemblies
Regulators say refusal could result in closure of institution by Bob Unruh
Britain’s official education inspector has informed an independent Christian school that it is out of step with “British values” prescribed by the government and must invite someone from another faith, such as a Muslim imam, to lead assemblies or it risks being closed.
The threat comes amid a series of new school inspections imposed by the government in response to a “Trojan horse” scandal in which several public schools in Birmingham, England, were taken over by Muslim managers who imposed Islamic education standards.
The U.K.’s Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, known as Ofsted, then established new rules requiring the active promotion of “British values” such as tolerance.
The Christian Institute, which is planning a legal challenge to the regulations, said the school was told by Ofsted “to invite a leader from another religion, such as an imam, to lead assemblies.”
Simon Calvert, deputy director of the Christian Institute, said evidence is already emerging “of how the new regulations are requiring Ofsted inspection teams to behave in ways which do not respect the religious ethos of faith schools.”
“The new requirements are infringing the rights of children, parents, teachers, and schools to hold and practice their religious beliefs,” he said.
Opposition also has come from the National Association of Jewish Orthodox Schools, which said it was “appalled” by the demands.
According to a report by John Bingham, religious affairs editor for the London Telegraph, inspectors claimed the school, which was identified only as a “successful Christian school,” was failing to promote “tolerance.”
Bingham said inspectors warned the head that the school would be downgraded from “good” to “adequate” for failing to “actively promote” harmony between different faiths because it had failed to bring in representatives from other religions.
The report said there would be further inspections that could ultimately lead to it being closed.”
A spokeswoman for the government agency told the newspaper: “Under Ofsted’s revised guidance for the inspection of schools, inspectors now pay greater attention to ensuring that schools provide a broad and balanced education for their pupils, so that young people are well prepared for the next stage in their education, or for employment and for life in modern Britain.”
Included in the evaluation are the spiritual, moral, social and cultural perspectives of students.
The agency spokeswoman said: “This includes, among other factors, pupils’ acceptance and engagement of different faiths and beliefs, and their understanding and appreciation of the range of different cultures within school and further afield.”
WND previously reported the rules were being blamed for requiring teachers to “challenge” the religious beliefs of parents “in the name of equality.”
The institute said a report from Peter Clarke, the former chief of counter-terrorism for the Metropolitan Police, said school children in the “Trojan Horse” schools were encouraged to express vocal support for anti-Christian remarks and Christmas was banned.
The report found a “coordinated, deliberate and sustained action, carried out by a number of associated individuals, to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos into a few schools in Birmingham.”
But the institute said the reaction was an overreach, and the rules call for teachers to “actively promote” the rights defined in the Equality Act 2010, including sexual orientation and transsexual rights.
The schools also “will be required to challenge parents” on their values if they contradict what the government has determined is “equality,” a legal analysis concluded.

Anti-discrimination laws tend to turn into “minority rule”.  Corrupt governments will push this until citizens either revolt and un-elect the perpetrators or succumb and comply.  It is difficult for voters to affect change when all candidates support the same agenda.  It requires that voters fight back with lawsuits and any means available to promote freedom from the oppression by the nanny-state.  Tolerance requires merit.  In this case tolerance is not required.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Incremental Destruction of Religion in U.S.

When Russia fell into the hands of the Marxist Communists, they closed the churches.  When Germany fell into the hands of the Fascists, they replaced the churches with Hitler Youth and imposed restrictions to diminish religion.  When the U.S. fell into the hands of the Communists, they took an incremental approach because they knew we would resist losing our religious freedom. 
They used the fact that our government had already blended religion with state.  The U.S. was established as a religious nation and tasked the federal government to protect religious freedom.
American Communists needed to allow the federal government to expand its powers beyond its Constitutional limits.  “Progressives” pushed to allow the federal government to own or control land in the 1870s and delegate its power to coin money to the Federal Reserve in 1913. They establish “public schools” despite higher literacy rates. They granted tax breaks to “married couples:
Government did this using the cover that they were “supporting” religion.  Bibles were used in public schools until the Supreme Court decisions to separate church and state beginning in 1948, including the ban on school prayer in 1962. 
The gay marriage campaign is “progressing”, but the Houston ordinance to require citizens to “support” “transgender’ bathrooms and grant government the right to censor pastor’s sermons is another overreach. This will result in unnecessary added renovation and addition costs to public buildings and private businesses alike.
The “gay marriage” campaign is already over-stepping. American Communists could have allowed civil marriage of gays, performed by a Judge to suffice.  But that wasn’t “in our face” enough to satisfy them. They needed to violate the “sacrament of marriage”, definitely not government’s business. They also violate the civil rights of businesses who choose not to play along and pastors, who are now expected to support the entire scheme.
The attack on rights includes the passage of laws that grant rights to different groups at the expense of the rights of those not in the “protected” groups. 
The attack on elected governance includes providing federal grants requiring that elected officials violate the rights of citizens and squander tax dollars on non-essentials.
The current strategy is to accelerate these attacks to blitzkrieg our citizens into revolt or submission.  How we handle this revolt is critical.  We must use the elective process and the ballot box to reverse this treason.  We must insist that elected officials begin to preserve and restore the U.S. Constitution (as written). That’s where our rights are codified.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader