Hillary Clinton handing over a sizable portion of US uranium production potential to Russia is not an isolated event, but rather is the logical convergence of decades-old Clinton era dealings with Russia and rogue states, for enrichment of the power elite. AT contributor Michael Curtis is correct when he says that the Uranium One deal has serious implications for our national security. In fact, the revelation of Hillary’s independent intel network, coupled with Clinton era national security policy changes in the form of counter-proliferation (CP) regimes, have been far more strategically harmful than many Americans realize. More
Nobody on the conservative side can understand what is going on with the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade bill. It is astounding (a) that the text of it is being kept more secret than a Clinton Foundation contribution and (b) that Congressional Republicans are pressing for fast track status to give the president a free hand in negotiations, presumably because of his demonstrated good faith on immigration, the Iranian Bomb, backing Israel, Affordable Care, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. This legislation will see the light of day when it is passed, so what benefit is there to secrecy before it is passed? If it is to protect negotiating gambits, that is very minor compared to giving domestic constituencies the time and ability to evaluate it. And there is a critical point here. There is no crisis in U.S. trade. The chart below shows this. It tells a very important story, so stick with me for a few minutes on it. More
My Take –There are two things that are absolutely clear. There is no trade crisis and this trade agreement is being kept from the public (their employers) for a reason. If there is no trade crisis who benefits from this back room deal? What companies will be favored and why? What special interest groups will benefit and why? There can only be one thing that is clear. This trade agreement must stink so badly the public can't see it without throwing up.
Daniel John Sobieski
Rove displays an ignorance of our history and our Constitution and how we won our freedoms thanks to private citizens bearing arms. More
Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O'Malley is ready to shred the Constitution in pursuit of onerous gun laws that don't work. More
Our freedom was won at the cost of blood by men desirous of liberty unconstrained by tyrannical authority, and responding to unacceptable tyranny from a malevolent king. Once liberty was gained, the choice was made to decentralize power so as to not fall under the will of a single or limited power. Men like Madison, Jefferson, Washington, and others never envisioned that the nation would descend into what it has now become. (One man did: Alexis De Tocqueville.) The Founding Fathers recognized the experiment embarked upon suffered imperfections, as well as contradictions, such as between liberties and permitting the tyranny of slavery. They had no immediate solution for the latter, but placed into the Constitution wording to allow for modifications, which ultimately resolved the former. One solution addressing inherent imperfections is Article Five of the Constitution, which reads in part: “The Congress … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution” More
My Take – The real solution rests in three parts.
1. Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. That’s the income tax amendment. If you don’t starve the beast it will never stop growing. This amendment gave the federal government the power to take as much as they like from society and spend it like drunken sailors.
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. As mentioned in the article this was the amendment that changed how senators were chosen. The founding fathers wanted a balance of power between the states and the central government. The word state didn't mean province in those days. It meant an independent nation. In order to maintain that balance they chose to have the state legislatures appoint senators who would act as ambassadors of their states governments. That created a balance of power preventing the central government from getting out of control.
3. Pass a Twenty Eighth Amendment that would create term and age limits for the federal judiciary. There are three levels of the federal judiciary. The District level, the Appellate level and the Supreme Court. Every appointee would be limited to a ten year term at any level with a review after five years. At any time they may be chosen to fill a seat at another level, but must go through the process at each level. No jurist can be appointed to fill another term at a level they’ve completed. If a jurist is rejected by the Senate to finish the ten year term they can never be appointed to any federal court. If they finish their term and are selected to another level they must go through the process at each level. If an appointee is originally appointed to a higher court and fulfills their obligations honorable they may not be appointed to a lower court and if rejected to be seated at the higher court they cannot be appointed to a lower court. No federal jurist may serve after age seventy.
Earlier this year, a firestorm erupted when Connecticut College philosophy professor Andrew Pessin’s 2014 Facebook comments, in which he compared Hamas in Gaza to a “wild pit bull . . . chained in a cage, regularly making mass efforts to escape,” were deemed “racist” and “dehumanizing” by student activists, colleagues, and administrators alike. Meanwhile, Middle East studies academics regularly emit commentary that is unambiguous in its bigotry, tastelessness, and vulgarity, to nary a peep. Not coincidentally, the vitriol is directed at targets academe finds politically unpopular: Israel, pro-Israel Jews, and anti-Islamists. A glaring example occurred in late 2014, when UC Irvine history professor Mark LeVine posted an expletive-laden, unhinged rant on Facebook calling for the destruction of Israel: More
Megyn Kelly recently interviewed the attorney for "John Doe," a pseudonym for a young man who was charged with sexual assault when he was a sophomore at Amherst College by "Sandra Jones," another pseudonym. Evidently, colleges and universities now have panels or tribunals to judge charges of sexual assault. This began in 2011, when the Obama administration issued an edict claiming that one out of every five women in college has been sexually assaulted and warning that schools who didn't crack down and reduce the numbers of sexual assaults could lose federal funding. Colleges and universities rushed to set up panels and tribunals to "judge" these accusations in order to keep the cash flowing. Now it appears that all any woman has to do is accuse a male of sexual misconduct of any type, and this tribunal process begins. John Doe was a victim of this edict. K.C. Johnson, author of Until Proven Innocent, in a interview with Megyn Kelly, had the following to say about the tribunal system: More