http://changingwind.org/index/ 2026-05-20T05:35:14-04:00 e107 http://e107.org/ e107 e107 http://changingwind.org/rename/e107_images/logo.png Changing Wind - changingwind@nospam.com ChangingWind.Org was begun as a dramatization related to the book Gold Baron by A. Dru Kristenev. This book set forth scenarios with fictional characters, using factual incidence and current events. The site features real articles about real world events, which correlate with the subject matter of the book. Now ChangingWind.Org has become a means to distribute research, with the opinions and conclusions triggered in support of Freedom thru Christ and the Unalienable Rights given to each of us by our Creator. http://changingwind.org/rename/news.php?item.316.2 2016-02-14T19:36:00-05:00 Toddy Littman bt001@nospam.com

Actually, it's not...Well, not the conspiracy you might have thought.See the Conspiracy theory goes “those wretched Rothschilds! They're at it again with the Federal Reserve they 100% own! We have to fight back, tell everyone about the conspiracy”...A conspiracy disproven quite easily:“...However, subscriptions, by member banks were adequate and there was no necessity or authority for the allocation of any stock to the United States...” -- http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/VI/284.Which is incomplete without the code where the government takes the profits of the Federal Reserve and puts them into the United States Treasury, http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2010/title12/chap3/subchapvi/sec289/. For some this proves the conspiracy of wealthy people against the rest of us, the government data mined “1%,” a part of our Progressive education to guarantee we learn we are oppressed by the wealthy, http://web.archive.org/web/20090423190627/http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm.However, I am of the mind of another, broader, larger, and more likely “conspiracy,” since everything changed in our society from the time of our Founders is listed as a particular religion's goals. These folks don't hide their perverse use of government's coercive power, but we're so unaware of their presence that we have no idea a religion is being established by the government – the religion of Humanism, http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I & http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II.Who thinks that the things these people find important and have effectively changed in America is based on money? Or by order of the Rothschilds? See the World Community section under Manifesto II, especially paragraph “FOURTEENTH” and “FIFTEENTH.” I'd suggest looking at “FOURTEENTH” in Manifesto I for the worldwide Socialist Order.And often it seems Humanists are in government, claiming and imposing authority over some aspect of our daily Individual lives. I wonder if the FBI agent who shot Lavoy Finicum was a Humanist in light of his shooting an unarmed man in cold blood, (start about 9:00 minutes in) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ&feature=youtu.be.I say this because the Humanist idea of the Individual (as described in Manifesto I at FOURTEENTH) is predicated on “a shared life in a shared world,” the shortest section in Manifesto II, comprised of paragraphs “FIFTH” and “SIXTH,” is about the Individual, claiming that all individuality should be increased, but of course within the framework of a centralized socialist collective society that, according to Humanist rules by some formal agreement, a collective solidarity, with them, we shall all think alike, and that is our “social responsibility.” Note the “reject, religious, ideological and moral codes” in FIFTH, while claiming in SIXTH, “Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity”... Whose morality? From what will this morality be derived? It surely isn't a morality derived from what is rejected except, perhaps, in the nature of rejection, to be entirely polar opposite of all that preceded.America and our Constitution limiting government to protect the Individual (though it may appear to be ineffective at this time) carries out this function by limiting the government from impeding, from infringing, my Rights as my own Personal Property, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.96. The People are the assumed Sovereign, the lawgiver and crown wearer in America, originally per the House having the sole voice of the People, representation based on populations in each state across the nation, and per Our Founders in proclaiming to the World the era of Individual Liberty and self governance had begun, a New World Order of governance, by the Declaration of Independence and our written Constitution, http://web.archive.org/web/20131112025133/.We look at Lavoy Finicum, comparing this standing of an American in America, according to our Founding Fathers, with the acts of an FBI who admits they have no Constitutional Authority (and haven't moved to Amend the Constitution to remedy this), http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/brief-history. In this, we see how easily those with a badge and a gun can and will act with impunity against the People, government agents knowing the government is loaded with similar ideological minds, especially in their superiors, and that these fellow government employees, maybe all the way to the top, will protect them.Government's sole Constitutional authorization to collect, let alone keep, information on every man, woman and child in the United States is for a Census to determine the districting of proper representative government in the House (An authorization due to the limited taxing power under Article I, Section 2 being, for some unknown reason, stricken when applying the 14th Amendment, that had nothing to do with taxation, to the Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html, a strike that removed the further limitation on taxation imposed by the Constitution under Article I, Section 9, ibid.). Government has no other Constitutional authority, nor any other right, to private Individual information for anything else, be it Social Security, Internal Revenue, Obamacare, etc. Thus, one must ask how far fetched is it to comprehend a government who ignores one’s privacy asserted by silence and the fact our private Individual information is our Personal Property, a government that has no trouble gunning down a man and taking his unalienable Right to Life according to government's moral standard, to then assume making you pay to save money, again your private Personal Property, in a private bank?Do you see the Progressive Humanist War on the Individual? Do you see it's not for some temporal wealth of bankers or other power tripping wealthy that the Progressive Humanists act and that they always finger these so labeled “1%” as stealing your fair share? The usual Progressive gimmick to repeat a lie against numerous people in sequence until we accept the allegation as true and the numbers of people accused as demonstrating a consistent pattern of guilt to which we take up the cause against them, declaring war on Individual Liberty and the right to ones own property.Yes, I've intertwined a group of issues, a group of things happening today because the Principle of these things is such:“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html And I continue...“Such has been the patient sufferance of the American People since the Civil War and 14th Amendment whose lofty goals appear to have led to a National Government assuming a persistence of such egregious assertion of national power over the States, resulting in an oppression situation for the Individual and in violation of the Constitution which was constructed from the failure of the Articles of Confederation and is based upon the Principles of the Declaration of Independence as the Individual reigns Supreme; such is now the necessity which constrains the American People to carry out any means necessary to remind government America is our nation and it is our right to alter such an oppressive System of Government so it no longer oppresses without just cause and re-establish a Government well certain of its role as our servant and not our Master. The history of the present collective King in Washington, DC, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States and the Individual.”While many will have you think who is elected President is important upon the idea of electing a “Leader,” I submit to you it is in electing a follower, a follower of the Constitution, THE Ratified (consent of the governed) written Will of the People, and our terms and conditions upon which government authority is established and government's actions to be compared to, that who is President of the United States is only the beginning of reining in government, of forcing government to carry out its job in compliance with the Constitution; And that only from this point would Amendment of the Constitution be right and feasible, as bureaucracies and their immense public union coffers would be ejected from influence, as well as every other private lobby because they no longer have an oppressive government they're trying to influence not to oppress them. Freedom is only had by the American People being the sole interest, the sole concern, and sole lobby upon the Congress, the amounts we pay in taxation and to which government is entrusted to manage in a fiduciary manner is value enough of our absolute Sovereign authority.Hopefully, yet not soon enough, we'll rightfully repeal the 17th Amendment to re-instate the influence of the States upon the National Government while ending the division of what is the Voice of the People to where Congress (House and Senate) is divided, negotiating exchanges of power between them to get a bill to the President's desk, while the very guardian and original bulwark against National Government encroachment, the State Governments, has to sit by and react to the outcome of a contest never intended by Our Founders. Yes, we must end this pompous government ritual of government bodies trading our rights for the fiction of their power in order to begin a fundamental return to a resolute nation for Freedom and Individual Liberty with an Honorable servant government that knows its place.As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,Toddy LittmanP.S. If the emphasis eluded you: It's not a conspiracy, it's government since the time of Socrates and before. This is what Our Founders intended to end, is their legacy entrusted to us as their Posterity a noble or ignoble cause because it's too much trouble for us to care, even when what we do, how we decide, what action we take, is for our Posterity?

2016-02-14T19:36:00-05:00 http://changingwind.org/rename/news.php?item.315.23 2016-02-10T05:29:22-05:00 Toddy Littman bt001@nospam.com

Had to do it. Had to make sure you understand how meaningless Vattel is.Article 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America:“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”Please note the semicolon at the very end, not to be mistaken as a period...Continued:“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...;”Establish, per 1828 Websters:“1. To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently...“I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant. Genesis 17:7.“3. To enact or decree by authority and for permanence; to ordain; to appoint; as, to establish laws, regulations, institutions, rules, ordinances, etc...“8. To set up in the place of another and confirm.“Who go about to establish their own righteousness. Romans 10:3.” -- http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/establishThe point here is the power of a uniform Rule of Naturalization never existed in Congress prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The Continental Congress of the Confederacy was virtually powerless, all it took was one state to reject any proposal and the proposal fails. I haven't reviewed this recently in the Federalist, yet seem to recall it was something explained in the first 10 of the Federalist Papers but I cannot recall exactly where at the time of writing this. That's fine as Hamilton provides a snippet here from Federalist 32:“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [The unratified Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: [1]where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; [2]where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; [3] and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT...These three cases of exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government may be exemplified by the following instances...The third will be found in that clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States." This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE. -- Typographic emphasis mine, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_32.html.Notice the mention of States having this power being a problem? Now, often I hear, this has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizens, apparently the lack of comprehending the root of the words “Naturalization” and “Natural” is too confusing.Let us turn to Madison, from Federalist 42, the paper explaining at its beginning how Art I, Sec 9 was placed in the Constitution to end slavery by 1808, apparently America's “uncaring white slave owner Founders” (as even I was taught) are a Progressive fiction of agenda imagination, however we'll be focusing on the latter part of this Federalist Paper:“The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions [Apparently the most Emmerich De Vattel's Law of Nations influenced instrument]. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce," etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” -- Typographical emphasis mine, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html.I hope you see what's coming...I don't care who was mentioned in the Constitution Convention nor how many times, as, in the end, the reality is: The text of the Constitution explains the objects and specific powers granted to government to achieve those objects, some exclusive, some shared, but authorized by ratification of the Constitution, and not existing as powers until then (much of that shared jurisdiction destroyed by the 17th Amendment which destroyed the influence of the residual Sovereignty of the States on the National Government in DC), and Our Founders articulated with intention to be so specific in the Constitution that the limits to the powers, and even the object entrusted to the National government are expressed by implication. Easily seen if one recognizes the directive language of the Constitution instead of accepting our Progressive education that “the people were granted rights from the Constitution” while the same Progressives argue the 2nd Amendment isn't on equal footing with the rest of the Bill of Rights, such is the Progressive way to destroy our knowledge and understanding of our unalienable Rights and replace them with an assertion of privileges by erroneous claims of rights granted from government as being violated by that same government... It'd be funny if it weren't such a mangled mindjob on us being carried on by those in government who believe their own lie, with exception of Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus.Now to the first act, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” done by Congress, shortly after the Constitution was Ratified (1790), an act later repealed (Note that after reading the next 5 acts to do the very same thing that also were repealed have the same “beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” (I call the “Born Abroad” provision), I decided it was a waste to look further than 20 years forward from the first act to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” since that repetition of a particular clause is synonymous with “establish” and explains that Vattel, as asserted by all these folks claiming concern about where Ted Cruz was born (who did nothing about the situation when Obama was the subject of the question)...That Vattel was rejected by Congress in carrying out its new Constitutional Art I, Sec 8 power, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Dare I say, when you consider what Madison said in Federalist 42, Congress intentionally defied the asserted principle of Vattel, apparently the principle used in the Articles of Confederation:I'll just type the part that rejects what people assert Vattel demands, even though Vattel's work was never Ratified as law in America, nor recognized by some Resolution in Congress for nobly influencing the Constitution, and I'll likely surmise that this is because the Constitution explained the power “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” for the first time in existence is, also for the first time, being vested in Congress after the Constitution is Ratified:“...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” -- Statutes-At-Large, 1790, pgs 103-104.The act is Congress using this power for the first time and defining a natural born citizen as close in time as the phrase was used in the Constitution, whether repealed or not is meaningless to understanding the gravity of context of the term in the Constitution as used, and that Congress’ establishment of a uniform Rule of Naturalization is entirely tied to what is a Natural Born Citizen according to Congress passing an act defining the very same, asserting their new power by their first act in and using the very same language.And as the provision has continued to be a part of act after act for at least 20 years thereafter, it is simply a unicorn's dream or Progressive fairy dust to think some book by Vattel binds the Congress, a book never ratified by the People and never subjected to the Declaration of Independence scrutinizing principle of the Consent of the Governed for its every word, every jot and every tittle; and never a part of Republican (representative) government in being ratified by the States, thus never of any greater meaning than a 3rd in weight reference at its very best, and a very far cry from a document over and above our Constitution.So can we put this to rest once and for all in realizing that until Congress exercised the power, Vattel had no meaning, and when their first and continuing exercise of the power appears to intentionally defy Vattel, that Vattel is rendered by Congress, who alone has the power under the Constitution, entirely meaningless and nugatory in relation to natural born citizens?What is more significant, more important for us to have done and hopefully to decide to do (which Donald Trump in his boasted buying of politicians appears to have failed to place on the top of his priority list even after making such a stink about Obama's birth certificate & illegitimacy) is to have a national yet objective, similar to the Congressional Research Service or Congressional Budget Office, “Presidential Candidate Packet Submission Review Board” that is entirely objective and will verify in fact the veracity and certainty of information provided by anyone running for President of the United States, and reporting as to what of a candidate's packet submission meets the Constitutional Standard, and what does not, for the voters to review and decide for themselves.I became aware of this lack of anyone to carry out an objective presidential candidate packet review from a CRS memo released prior to Obama finally sharing a birth certificate with the American People, that I'll quote here:“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate...[T]here is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.3“3. The Federal Election Commission is authorized by law to administer and seek compliance with the campaign finance provisions of federal law for candidates to federal office, and to administer and seek compliance with the provisions for public financing of the nomination and election of candidates for President, but has no duties or responsibilities with respect to judging or vetting qualifications or eligibility of candidates to federal office. 2 U.S.C. Section 437c.” [Do not think to shortcut the idea of having an objective body vet these packets, do not forget Lois Lerner worked for the Federal Election Commission in her past.]Choice is simple: Jump up and down screaming “VATTEL SAYS...” or do something about the situation by making sure there's an objective body to vet candidates? The clarity that We the People haven't done the latter is fully expressed in those literally “exercising” the former.As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,Toddy Littman

2016-02-10T05:29:22-05:00 http://changingwind.org/rename/news.php?item.314.23 2016-02-06T21:28:35-05:00 Toddy Littman bt001@nospam.com

Whiners...Whining about someone else as a cheater, it's the Progressive mantra, “you have more than me because you took mine!”...Or... “You cheated that isn't fair!” all the while, like the leader of Black Lives Matter, working a political angle, looking for a chance to be the media event of the moment...Donald Trump did this right after Iowa. Whine! Whine! Whine! (Google Trump's twitter feed for Feb 3-5, 2016 yourself, it'd make this article 10 pages to include that.)When the fact is CNN and their illustrious crew of Progressive brain trusts asserted information as an exclusive with a tenor that suggested Ben Carson is leaving the race. Was the word “suspend” uttered? Nope, but citing that Carson's going home to “rest” after citing all the States Carson won't be going to, Jake Tapper saying “it's very unusual,” with his co-host responding, “if you want to signal to your supporters, you want it, that you're hungry for it, that you want them to get out and campaign, you've got to be out there doing it to, and he's [Ben Carson's] not out there, doing it, it's very unusual,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3TZ_m2bEO0. Progressive media and it's agitators carrying off a minute and a half of non-story entertainment at its finest.Cruz and Rubio both sent out messages, tweets, etc., to their organization to promote their campaigns, though only Rubio used the “dropping out” phrase, in what he sent out (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/02/).Cruz apologizes to Ben Carson, Rubio, not so much. Cruz is reported as winner, while media after media focus on Marco Rubio as the big deal, who came in 3rd, and, of course, reporting what Donald Trump puts out there about Cruz as a cheater....While Marco Rubio remains failing to make any apology to CarsonBen Carson, accepts Cruz's apology, then wants more to be done, but never says one word about Marco Rubio's communications.Reality: This is politics. So let's look at everyone's claims a minute for their real value.Donald Trump's comments are his normal media manipulation genius to deny the winner of Iowa. Ted Cruz, his due in the media, and yes Trump succeeded, but not alone...Establishment darling, and dead from his efforts at Amnesty that he's reiterated he remains entirely for in each debate, Marco Rubio, promoted by Fox News to the point I no longer watch -- their establishment bias that appears to be all about making sure Charles Krauthammer isn't wrong, is so blatant and obvious they might as well make it skywriting with 1000 planes (the original and real chemtrails :p). Thus, Marco Rubio is the sneaky establishment candidate, getting free publicity from those who want the same government growth agenda that both parties continue and neither will cease from because Progressive Humanism has become accepted as normal. This is akin to how so many use the word “evolve” as though evolution is more than a theory, as though evolution is not a theory proven a fraud (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1065151.html) from the beginning (https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/_, but we're deemed unintelligent if we don't subscribe to it, yet it is a religious undertaking no one realizing this is the first of the Humanist Religious Political Correctness efforts (http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I and http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II).Ben Carson, who was my second choice, recently took to dealing with the Cruz phenomena as an adult, https://twitter.com/bcwilliams92/status/695324776525492225 and http://theconservativehistorian.com/wordpress/2016/02/03/, but as of February 6, 2016, returns again to whining about Cruz. Dr. Carson apparently allowing his emotions to take over, upset that the other candidates would even think he'd leave the race, “...It disappoints me to think that they would think that I am that kind of person, that I would have hundreds if not thousands of volunteers working hard, college students working their hearts out, one even losing his life, and I'm gonna say 'Ahhh, you guys I'm outta here.” Political drama at its finest, reminding us one of his volunteers died, and of course noting he might have thousands of volunteers, but knows for sure he has hundreds, and of course “college students” had to be mentioned.I reiterate, reality: This is politics.Trump is upset his team didn't catch what was being said on CNN and do something about it before anyone else. Of course that gave him the chance to destroy Ted Cruz's momentum out of Iowa so opportunist Trump takes complete advantage of it, much like the irrelevant Alaska Governor needing to feel relevant again.Rubio took advantage of Carson and moves on, like a typical establishment snake, he doesn't even apologize to Ben Carson and Ben Carson hasn't said a word about it, only attacking Ted Cruz. I am repeating this point because it is odd that Carson, the supposed outsider, is only attacking Cruz when Carson's supposed ethical standards are blind to Marco Rubio's contribution.Conclusion: America's corporate media, which is a far cry from Ben Franklin's printing press, is informing us of what their Progressive, and usually Humanist, editors want us to see, to read, to hear. The bias against the only candidate who will promote the Constitution is overwhelming, yet the American sitting in their home watching a broadcast or Internet newsfeed is falling for every part of it, even from Ben Carson, according to the Marco Rubio cheerleading Fox News. It is no secret the American Media is at minimum left leaning, if not entirely Progressive, and usually Humanist as well (Humanism advocates a collectivist/socialist society), and the Progressive Media goal here was to make the entire leading GOP field seem like amateur hour, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump (alphabetical by last name) were all played by CNN and media in general, including how this all took off on social media, to where media's narrative is taking shape with a life of its own against all Republican candidates, Conservative or not.Ted Cruz is the first American of Hispanic descent to win the Iowa Caucus, but you noticed no one making that a media issue, even if it would be powerful against the Progressive Democrats and their “we're for minorities” lie (1957 filibustering and stripping voting rights for Americans of African descent, former slaves or not, Senator Strom Thurmond a Democrat at the time, http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/, and again Democrat Senator Robert Byrd filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act, http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/).So here's the point: Progressive Establishment GOP, Progressive Democrat Machine, and the Progressive Media, will do anything to keep a Constitutional Conservative from being in the Oval Office, almost quietly working together to destroy the opportunity for We the People to win this election, keeping us from voting in someone that will assure us of an Executive Office Commander-In-Chief who will apply the Constitution to their decisions, who will humbly serve and not claim to be our Master, not someone mandating what we must buy (Obamacare) what we must bake if Christian and asked (without any forced baking of cakes for Humanist gays by Muslim bakeries).You want to claim me full of it, want to tell me that Cruz is a snake cause of his wife's job at Goldman Sachs, want to tell me Cruz was for legalization, etc., then consider I know these things and the only thing I will directly rebut is the legalization. My reason is because DC relies on convincing drama, as that is how DC became so important to the People (when it should be something we wouldn't mind went bankrupt if it is trying to usurp the Constitution, which it has done in spades, all branches without us doing anything) and that many know it was Ted Cruz who destroyed Marco Rubio's amnesty bill, that, as Democratic Senator Chuck Shumer puts it, “has his [Rubio's] fingerprints all over it.”For the rest of the claims against Cruz I submit for consideration, first an article that shows leadership and what happens when a Constitutional Conservative can work for a State's Executive Branch, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/. Second a video of Ted Cruz's life that few may know of via article by Charles C. Johnson who worked for Conservative Mississippi State Senator, Chris McDaniel, http://linkis.com/9O411. Lastly, it's a longer and more difficult thing to listen to but it's the SCOTUS argument of Medellin v. Texas where Ted Cruz argued against 2 advocates for Presidential authority to claim a memorandum to the Attorney General makes a treaty a law to be imposed on the States, and denies the United States Supreme Court any authority to review decisions of the World Court, and, Ted Cruz won, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/06-984. Note the case was reviewed in 2007 (SCOTUS 2008 term), meaning Ted Cruz was arguing against power asserted by President George Bush (POTUS 43), who we well know, though a very Christian man, was, to be generous, a “moderate Establishment Conservative.”So many people complain about the banks and wealthy like a bunch of Socialists. So many think they've been dumbed down while voting for candidates on the basis of their personality and any semblance of agreement with rhetoric spewed by candidates on the campaign trail or in sound bites. This researcher, this American writing this article is asking you to remember we're Americans, and all of us are protected by the Constitution, so long as we have a government that remembers that, a government of representatives who care about the Constitution as well, not their party, not agendas, but objective governance to do what's right even for those who didn't vote for them because the Constitution dictates government's objects & powers, and the limits to these, boundaries these representatives of every office take an Oath to uphold, from township to National Government in DC, even before there was a 14th Amendment.If your goal is Freedom, if you want as full an opportunity as possible in living your life as you see fit while assuring integrity of our economy and that foreign interests, ideas, and beliefs aren't influencing our lives, Ted Cruz has proven himself to be the President to do what the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus have been trying to do from mostly the House alone without much success for almost 8 years. It's not hard to guess the problem: Constitutional Conservatives are up against a Progressive Humanist establishment in both Political Parties. This establishment promotes Socialist agendas whose cherry on top of their cake of power is Barack Obama's Presidency. I only ask you to review the Ted Cruz links above and decide for yourself what you stand for, substance of America being the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, making sure the blood spilled for this nation from the beginning is not wasted, or falling for the media promoted minutiae of micro politics engineered to play with our emotions as great weight in comparison to what a candidate has actually done.Ben Carson has become my 3rd favorite (replaced by Carly Fiorina as my 2nd) as Carson exploits what is, and has been, part and parcel to politics since this country began, as though Ben Carson is looking for some special political gain for himself by whining. Haven't we had enough of this “unfairness” whining over the last almost 8 years?As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,Toddy Littman

2016-02-06T21:28:35-05:00 http://changingwind.org/rename/news.php?item.313.11 2016-01-30T18:24:44-05:00 Toddy Littman bt001@nospam.com

Apologies in advance, this hasn't been to the editor as it is a part of my personal story and I wanted to state it as seamlessly as possible from my head, even if maybe grammatically incorrect and somewhat incomprehensible, all are minor details when compared to controverting a publicly claimed fact about the cause of the space shuttle Challenger Disaster.What I am about to tell you I don't know if it is meant to be, was, or was not, classified, but I know it was subject to clearances that I didn't have, and, it won't jibe with what I've been told (as I didn't watch it) is the public story about the Challenger Space Shuttle “O-ring.” I am going to figure that after 30 years has passed, where for some it won't matter, I can post this one of few things I did for my country, as merely my personal account.I don't recall how they contacted me, nothing nefarious or mysterious, I just don't remember how an old friend who was an Electronic Engineer for a company in Orange County California contacted me to explain he was working on a project for some company, and that he talked them into having me take a look at it since they had come up against a brick wall. He wouldn't go into any details and just asked me to come down to their office.I arrived, they took me to a meeting room, and the first thing they brought up is the Challenger disaster that occurred at least a month prior, this meeting may have been 2 or 3 months later, and how their company was a subcontractor to Morton Thiokol, that their subcontract is to design and build a system to use NDT, Non-Destructive Testing, to analyze the O-ring. My first reaction, as I'd been a mechanic too, was disbelief. In my head an “O-ring” is a rubber grommet of some sort that usually fits in the lip of something to form a seal, so I naturally thought that's what they were using NDT on (A quick search at writing of this article instantly brought up an article suggesting the same, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1986/12/10/morton-thiokol-getting-off-easy/).NDT uses a transducer that physically transmits electrons at very high frequencies, 10 Gigahertz or greater, through a medium such as water, and, transmitting the signal through material submerged in the water, and then similar to radar, using the “echo” to create an image, like an X-ray, of the thing being tested, probably more similar to ultrasound since it is considered ultrasonics. You can imagine that I almost started laughing at the idea of using NDT on rubber grommets, I believe I asked, not to seem completely oblivious, “how many of these rubber O-rings are on the shuttle?” That's all I could think of for justifying some project to use NDT on them, a mass scan of thousands of them at once.I was taken into a room, probably the size of 6 or so 4 car garages all together, and in the middle of it was a circular track inside a tank that I later learn is to hold the water. It was then explained to me, “The O-Ring will sit on this track [that I recall being around half-elevated in the tank], and then a device will take a stepper motor, manipulating, x, y, z, and theta to run a transducer at a 90-degree angle through each one of the weld holes prior to the O-ring being welded on the bottom of the main fuel tank for the large booster rocket. The theory is that one of the welds was cracked prior to the O-ring being welded on and that this leaked fumes causing the shuttle to explode.”Now they got my absolute attention, though still in disbelief that I am there, so I asked, “Okay well you guys look like you have this all under control, what do you need from me?” And then they explained, “We've been working on this for 2 and a half weeks, Morton Thiokol is losing $250,000 a day. The military gave us this stepper motor controller.”The stepper motor controller looked like it had been in a war and then stored for 20 years, more like some early stereo equipment. Though it was solid state, it was as though it had some of the first transistors ever made. It was about the size of an original IBM PC with twice the weight, mounted on a rolling cart. In retrospect I figure it was probably loaded with technology to avoid interference or lacked being subject to some forms of interference due to its age.They continued, “Morton Thiokol requires us to use this device, which is also required by the Military. We need to interface it to this computer here (showed me an 80386 DX running at 40 Mhz) using a serial cable. This stepper controller doesn't support any speed beyond 9600 baud [1/6 the speed of a 56k dial-up modem].”They then pulled up a program written in BASICA, typed a command to the stepper motor controller and pressed enter, and a set of different characters appeared a second later, and my Electronic Engineer friend explained to me, “This is supposed to be an echo of the text I sent the stepper motor controller, it's a way to authenticate and verify the command sent and this controller requires echoing the command, which can be logged, before acting on the command sent.” I don't recall what command he sent, it seemed to be just some text to echo back to show it wasn't working. I decided to type in “Bozo” and hit enter, a second later the reply came up with a mix of characters you couldn't think derived from Bozo.In any event, after around 6 and a half hours time I ascertained that the problem was that the stepper motor controller had a 1khz processor, and that it was taking around 1/5th second for this processor to process each character of the text we sent from a 40 Mhz processor. I modified the program with a routine to send each character of the string one at a time with a “For I = 1 to 1000: Next I” in between each character send, once the entire string was sent a Chr$ (13) was sent for enter, and then the string echoed back exactly what was typed, eventually I could lower the delay loop to “1 to 200” and get the same result, I had used 1000 as a starting point.Well, they were shocked that I had been there less than a day and figured out what had them baffled for 2 and a half weeks, and they then explained they were authorized to pay me well for my time. I was taken away from the Engineers and the other workers by one of the owners of the company, up to their business office to see a document entitled “Presidential Purchase Order” at the top, with a red stamp that I believe said something like “Clearance Required” at an angle of around 15-30 degrees, with text underneath it reading something like this:“America's Space Shuttle Program is vital to our defense and national security. Determining the cause and devising a solution for the Challenger disaster is absolutely imperative, and I, George Herbert Walker Bush, authorize use of any and all means necessary to get our Space Shuttles flying again ASAP.”Signed “George Herbert Walker Bush” in pen, a genuine wet signature in blue ink.I scanned it again a few times, pretty amazed, pretty shaken by learning I actually worked on something that mattered, that meant something to my country. I had never been raised for any of that, taught the exact opposite by a Progressive family, Progressive parents, and a Progressive educational system throughout my life, and only starting, at the time of the Challenger Disaster, to investigate the truth of what I'd been told and believed most of my life that I now know was entirely wrong, even anti-American. I’m sharing all of this to illustrate how important one event can be in one’s life, how significant it can be to change one’s character.So they said to me, “you've really saved our fat from the fire so make out your invoice for whatever you want.” And I explained instantly, “Well, I have a simple hourly rate, I was here for 6 and a half hours, so all I ask is what I normally charge for my time.” They immediately raised an eyebrow, and asked, “Are you sure? This type of thing doesn't happen often. I am planning to frame that Purchase Order when this is all over as I've never seen one before.” And I replied, “Yes, I am absolutely sure. I wouldn't feel right charging any more than what I walked in the door expecting to charge for my time. I am just glad I was able to help.”Yeah sure, it may seem as though they're exploiting the situation, and that's what I thought at the time too. Yet, as he said, it doesn't happen often, and, again in retrospect, I believe he meant that there was a greater opportunity for me to work on other things like this, and by paying me gratuitously for what to them was a marvel in comparison to their struggle for 2 and a half weeks that would have gained me notice by the major contractors and other sub-contractors, so I could do this work, which I greatly enjoy, a lot more often. Understand, I didn't realize this at the time and instead thought of it as exploiting the situation, short-sighted and not realizing that I could have been problem-solving all over the country, a recommended vendor, that maybe I could help solve a lot of things that, though likely, and not from such a horrific disaster as significant as this, would be significant to my country.So I handed him my invoice for $227.50 and he handed me a check immediately.I had no clearances, and anyone who wants to dispute that this welded ring the size of 6-4 car garages was the O-Ring that failed, believe what you want to believe. Sure my memory is foggy after 30 years and, as I am well aware clearances were required, I've deliberately “forgotten” a few minor details and remembered a few of them differently to assure I do not compromise those who were involved, should this happen to still require some sort of clearance to disclose. This American company gave me a great opportunity to help my country, which was followed by more over the course of the next few years, and I begrudge them nothing, wish them no ill-will whatsoever. However, the O-ring that had been welded on to hold the main booster is the O-ring, and I believe 30 years after the Challenger Disaster it's only right that the American people know exactly what “O-ring” failed on the Challenger Space Shuttle, and without any apologies from this innocent computer programmer who was brought by a good friend to help a company charged with figuring out a system to secure future shuttle launches will not have the same problem. My efforts on their behalf forever changed me and are a significant source of my pride in being an American and for the honor and privilege to do something meaningful for my country.Looking back, this was the beginning of my turning point, the beginning of me becoming a Conservative, which was finalized shortly after 09-11-2001, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.299.As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,Toddy Littman

2016-01-30T18:24:44-05:00 http://changingwind.org/rename/news.php?item.312.23 2016-01-10T01:00:13-05:00 Toddy Littman bt001@nospam.com

This will be about Presidential Primary Candidate Donald J. Trump, and, no, that he's not my first choice, and that yes, I may stay home if he's nominated (need more time to know if that will be the case or not).One can easily point to Mr. Trump's Democrat history as meaningful. That may have significance in measuring Mr. Trump's views, and what he has to say. However, many of the things he has put forth, are an America, and an American Dream many of us hoped to grow up and live in. The appeal to the “dream” isn't an issue so long as we're objective enough to separate it from reality, to understand it is an appeal to an ideal and not a statement of what will absolutely and assuredly happen (such a belief would mean great opportunity for disappointment and deepening the divide amongst Americans, our American Union beyond the States).What I am saying here is that Billionaire Donald Trump who I believe deserves every penny he has and praise for what he's accomplished and overcome in his life, that Mr. Trump is surely a man to be learned from for those things, but above all that Donald Trump is a marketing genius. So I hope I put to rest any idea of my having any sort of personal bias against him in the mind of anyone reading this, though I must point out it is a form of political correctness for me to explain my lack of any bias against Mr. Trump for any personal reason. I admire Donald Trump's achievements and his exceptional marketing skill as the traditional get-it-done American Way.My issue is a simple one: I am a Conservative, which means I believe the government is bloated in myriad ways, including but not limited to money, power, assumption of authority, too much bureaucracy, and sure these are more than likely related, which, as a Conservative, demonstrates to me without any reservation that government is a synonym for corruption and corruption appears the sole gross national product of the National government. But bloated, corrupt, in comparison to what? Answer: The Constitution!Yes I can re-cite numerous things about the Constitution and get lost in the history and document whose limitation of government is by express enumeration of powers along with the warnings of Hamilton to not have a Bill of Rights re-expressing existing limits on government, Hamilton's warning that people (conveniently including the Supreme Court) will mistakenly assume the Bill of Rights as rights granted from government to the people. However this article isn't about the Constitution and our Progressive Humanist educations that I've mentioned numerous times at http://changingwind.org (which I greatly appreciate McAfee expeditiously reviewing the site again and giving us an all clear, http://www.mcafee.com/threat-intelligence/domain/default.aspx?domain=changingwind.org).This is about Donald Trump and a great need of him to establish to many of us (actually to the American People as a whole) that he has a significant knowledge of the Constitution and a personal knowledge of the limits of government, that he will promise to follow the Constitution and not assume SCOTUS the final unchecked voice of what the Constitution (as amended) means. I would be eager to promote Mr. Trump after his being able to express a more than general knowledge of our Granting the Constitution, granting the Terms and Conditions of having a national government system, State and National, called Federalism; that Mr. Trump at least understands America is a Constitutional Republic, though it would be exceptional if he understands the Compound Republic that America is; and that Mr. Trump well knows how the 14th Amendment and Sherman Anti-Trust Act have been the most significant tools to destroy Federalism, to destroy Freedom and Enterprise, i.e. Free Enterprise, Capitalism.It would be after this showing of certain knowledge of the Constitution that I would then expect Mr. Trump to explain he no longer supports universal healthcare as a government initiative, or other government institutional method, and that he further ceases from carrying on the Progressive Humanist talking point of how some rich don't “pay their fair share” (as Mr. Trump has said in relation to his proposed tax on hedge fund managers), and no longer emphasize the rich owning politicians. Historically it is the government's encroachment on private/free enterprise, claiming everything produced, every service, subject to Interstate Commerce and the Commerce Clause as though the government is merely an Organized Crime Government Syndicate that legalizes stealing under the guise of a new means of “legit” government revenue with another tax, fee, and penalty “scheme,” easily comparable to protection money schemes. Of course, these government schemes are then challenged in court, and become the means of the Supreme Court expanding National Government jurisdiction into the states, and directly into our lives, our personal “environment,” and, government via political parties offers to minimize legal fees and avoid risk to the business (can't lose that employee tax revenue) by soliciting “donations” to their campaigns. Name someone with property who won't do everything they can to protect it from threat of loss, be it from natural disaster, theft by a hoodlum, or theft by what would otherwise be formally named scofflaws if they weren't the government leaders drafting the legislation and ignoring the Constitution.To be clear, once the government puts its boot on the neck of any business (government is the one with the right of the use of force), these entities and their owners who were once freely engaging in a free market, then find themselves in a bidding war to gain protection from the law through politicians elected to office, politicians offering favors to stay in office – Might as well be Rome! Sure these businesses know the politician will be back for more next year (the “campaign contribution” is like blood in the water for sharks in politician form), sure they know the politician will invite them to galas and other functions that will boost their business' activities and capabilities...And the politician will then ask for more money the following year with a greater leverage by more intimate knowledge of the business' relationships and how they came about. Thus these American Free Enterprise Capitalist Entrepreneurs and Industry Magnates whose ambition and genius is to be admired, find themselves in the unenviable position of competing to donate enough to politicians to protect themselves from government's lead boot because government wants it that way.Understand, a few findings by a bureaucracy that fines you, (such as the SEC, EPA, the dreaded IRS, though easily shooed away as personal threats) if you continue to buck government's unconstitutional, and thereby unlawful, trespass, then government uses these findings with the Secretary of State of your State of Incorporation to get your charter suspended. Of course this is if they don't pursue you as a “person of interest” or terrorist to then quietly “escort” you to an interrogation site via NSA, CIA, etc.The “Wealthy,” being used as a noun describing a group of people everyone is so worried about, is a term of art to invoke jealousy and prejudice, never putting forth that “wealth” as property, by title and interest in holding, is by laws and lawful processes, and that these are held by legal “persons” according to the 14th Amendment's wardship of former slaves, as that is how business entities as legal persons are treated. Every legal vehicle an American uses to protect their property is eventually placed within the confines of the “American Legal Organized Crime to Suppress Capitalism Revenue Generation Regime of Government Subjugation of the People” by the 90%+ Progressive Humanist-leaning American BAR Association and its BAR licensees across the country, but that's how the 14th Amendment “person” works.As you can probably pick up, I am not a keen fan of government control of anything but the specific objects entrusted to them by the Constitution, to be cared for by the limited enumeration of powers under Article I, Section 8. Anyone running for office who isn't fully cognizant and willing to respect our Constitution of written Terms and Conditions of government that, by our ratification brought government into existence, and is not ready to enforce the Constitution by adherence to it, is not going to serve America on America's terms, but on their own.Yes, we've lived under a horrific socialist agenda for way too long, the peak of which, since Jimmy Carter, has been by Barack Obama, and we want it to stop, want our Individual Liberty to cease being sacrificed for some Utopian fiction, such as universal healthcare. And please don't cite socialist, subject (slave) citizen nations with high personal taxes at the expense of lower corporate taxes to steal America's Industrial magnates, making specious claims of “working universal healthcare” as justification, for that is only affirming the fiction of universal healthcare and acknowledging the Socialist Terrorism & Tyranny of America and all People across the world that's been going on for far too long.When I see Mr. Trump speak with the same deliberate and passionate tenor about Our Constitution and our Individual Liberty, expressing with the same conviction, that he - understanding the “insurance policy” to guarantee our Freedom is a Constitution revered by those serving, that it is an Honor for us to entrust anyone to serve, and that the Constitution must be complied with to assure objective government of, by and for the People – would then be rewarded with an avalanche of Conservative votes, from Democrats, Republicans and Independents with little if any remaining reservations.To those thinking the world is about to explode and I am focusing on the wrong thing, please understand that the reason we're exposed to any of this is a government who failed to act solely within the limits of the Constitution, and that until we fix this it's a perpetual cycle of destruction, death, and hate. We're aiding and abetting this cycle by failing to elect Honorable well informed Americans to serve, not lead, not to Master us under a subjective agenda, but serve by their Oath as their Bond to We the People as their Master, at least until they leave office. As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,Toddy Littman

2016-01-10T01:00:13-05:00 http://changingwind.org/rename/news.php?item.311.11 2015-12-25T11:57:48-05:00 Toddy Littman bt001@nospam.com

There is a rising tide of Christmasphobia that stems directly from a deeper fear – that of the truth. Phobia denotes an irrational fear of something that can’t harm you, which is why the term “Islamophobia” is a misnomer in that Islamic terrorists are a real threat, not imagined. What the worldly, atheistic and polytheistic suffer from is what they refuse to understand, and the most common type of fear that exists is that of the unknown, even if the subject is only unknown due to willful ignorance. And the Word is the quintessence of apprehension to anyone who prefers adherence to their own thoughts and conclusions despite evidence proving them faulty.As the day celebrating the birth of Christ approaches, a fear-based hate of anything Christmas becomes more fervent although the Western world now wallows in commercial gain borne directly from the holiday’s roots. It is something akin to self-hate where one enjoys the fruit of their endeavors but can’t stand what they did to reap it. The question is, why do those who like to celebrate the holiday so despise the reason for its establishment? As stated above, it is the fear of the basis for it, Christ and for what He stands – the embodiment of God’s Word: “And the Word was made flesh,” (John 1:14). It’s obvious to see why that would make unbelievers so uncomfortable… who wants to acknowledge something they vehemently deny exists? Even if that something is the underlying cause of what they celebrate, name changes notwithstanding?Bit of an oxymoron, isn’t it. However, in this world of self-proclaimed nonjudgmental righteousness, good sense can be overlooked, and is, in favor of nonsense. Every day, there is a new spate of denial of every kind of in-your-face fact, whether it’s political (these days everything is political), scientific or faith-driven. Too many people are convinced that the three are at odds and cannot be amalgamated, which is flatly untrue. But then, truth is the one factor these folks can’t stomach.Trouble is, too many Christians share a dread of truth that rivals the non-believers. They avoid reading the Bible for fear that what they want to believe will not be substantiated within its pages. Take note that Solomon’s metaphoric “strange woman” in the following scripture is the voice of any who contradicts, perverts or ignores the truth:Proverbs 5:1 My son, attend unto my wisdom,
and bow thine ear to my understanding: 2 that thou mayest regard discretion,
and that thy lips may keep knowledge. 3 For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb,
and her mouth is smoother than oil: 4 but her end is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a twoedged sword. (KJV)Read Chapter 5 through to verse 14 to understand the need of wisdom to counter feel-good falsehood; and wisdom is found in the Word.The Word, Christ, challenges what we want to believe, that which is not the truth. We are afraid of leaving our comfortable deceit. For everyone, truth is not easy to accept but living a sham guarantees disappointment when the wishing something to be true simply doesn’t make it so. And wishing Christmas to go away by renaming it and denying Christ, whose very birth gave us the Gregorian calendar by which we measure the days, will not do away with Him. May we all open our hearts to receive the living God’s love that gave earth the gift of Emmanuel, God among us, and have a blessed and Merry Christmas!A. Dru Kristenevhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+5%3A1-14&version=AKJV

2015-12-25T11:57:48-05:00 http://changingwind.org/rename/news.php?item.310.2 2015-12-19T17:01:59-05:00 Toddy Littman bt001@nospam.com

There aren't masses of soldiers along some border, or oppressing a nation's people by some physical abuse or intimidating numbers, Humanists aren't that overt.No, instead the U.N. is claiming a time of negotiations regarding Syria (some nation that is backing a faction has influence in the U.N., go figure), irrespective of Syria's still having an existing and present President and government, not that I am for or against him (though he did desperately try to protect the Christians in Syria), but that we probably shouldn't overlook what's happening here as far as the U.N. and their assumptions of power.Syria is a sovereign nation. I am not aware of Syria being a Constitutional Republic like America, or a Social Democracy like most of the rest of the civilized world, but instead, essentially a Democratic Kingdom where the “majority” is who has the majority of the wealth, the actual example of what Progressives erroneously claim about wealthy Free Market Americans and American corporations. The difference being that the wealth in Syria has direct use of force (a government power) whereas wealth in America has to lobby for favor of government, because the government gutted Individual Liberty with the 14th Amendment and Free Enterprise in the 1890's by passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in every effort to make both subservient existences, and government hasn't looked back (to being Constitutional) since.But, setting the Progressive lack of appreciation of Individual Liberty and education on American History aside, Syria is a sovereign nation like any other, and it defies all reason why the U.N. can dictate when factions must negotiate, what factions can or can't be present, and whatever else will set a Humanist Religious-blessed terms of a peace agreement, such as the draft currently also containing a provision that “elections will [mandatory] be held in 18 months.” Doesn't this place the sword of Damocles over the head of every nation? And why should a nation, like America, where the People are the Sovereign authority (See Justice James Wilson, http://web.archive.org/web/20131112025133/http://govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/) have to ever be concerned with the U.N.? Apparently, because anyone belonging to the U.N. agrees to be a subject nation to a Master Humanist World Order. Notice I didn't say “New World Order” because America was the last of the “New World” and we are the New World Order, an order of Declarations of Independence Proclaiming the supremacy of Individual Liberty and breaking all ties to the Feudal Political system and proclaim all rightful rule is solely by consent of the governed; An order of a Constitution painstakingly written to limit government and achieve consent of the governed by ratification of the States and the People themselves; a Constitution that, for the first time in history made the People their own Lawgiver. (See the entire Federalist Papers, citing one volume would be a disservice to this Sovereign power of Constitutional Republican, means representative, government.)But, as the U.N. seems to assert this assumed power every time that it can inject a “Humanitarian Aid” and “violations of Human Rights” by every faction, which is the natural result of civil wars almost always funded by foreigners and foreign interests backing each faction, it is a Humanist imposition taking place to undermine the opportunity of the people themselves to rise in their own Right of Self-Government based on their people and their beliefs without a Master Humanist World Order's boot on their neck.Islam is not something I agree with, nor do I even see it as a faith (see http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.279.5), but I will never deny another the right to believe as they want to believe! A nation has a right to be governed as its people will tolerate. That Americans had nowhere to run, not that they wanted to as the option didn't exist so it wouldn't matter, we fought against all odds and won to establish the first and only Constitutional Republic, with an economic system of equal opportunity for all who would pursue their self-interest: survival of themselves and their family, for as many generations as they can foresee. Every nation deserves the opportunity, as many as possible, for their People to rise on their own in Individual Liberty and claim their Jeffersonian Majority of 1.Syrians may wish this themselves, and may have for a long time, but never finding a means of successfully asserting their will over a government that oppresses them, likely due to Humanist interventions such as this U.N. imposition that thwart them before they gain their own Will. Taken in context of how a people rise to Freedom, it's clear the U.N. doesn't get to decide. Wouldn't we be first to assert the U.N. has no authority, uniting on that principle, if similar to what happened in Syria happened in America?Important to ask: What nations came and attacked us during the Civil War to take land from our nation? What countries met to then dictate to Lincoln how things will be? Anyone arriving at, “but the U.N. didn't exist then,” oh how right you are, so then who did exist? Why didn't they create a U.N. then? I do sort of ask in a lawyerly way (though I am no lawyer), knowing the answer to the question before I ask it (keep reading). I ask in pointing you to look outside concern for what existed then as compared to now instead of assuming some conclusion by some recognition of what exists today, the vein of some great pronouncement in counter-argument. The facts of the historical record is more important than noting what exists today as though its non-existence was due to some lack of evolution of man – it isn't.The whole modern day, the U.N. is a con-job.I'll illustrate through Humanist H.G. Wells. Though he wrote of Christianity in relation to Socialism, Wells was a student of Darwinism, https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/eugenics/hg-wells-darwins-disciple-and-eugenicist-extraordinaire/. In reading that you'll find he had worked with 2 “Huxleys,” one an educator described as “Darwin's chief disciple” and the other a collaborator, well-known Humanist Sir Julian Huxley – likely related to the other Huxley but not mentioned in article.Why is this important? How does this show the Humanist Religious Order has no respect for Individual Liberty and places their beliefs and concepts of Humanity above all? In short (and to only mention the opening paragraph of above link goes right into eugenics), the U.N. derived from the League of Nations. Guess who began the process of forming the League of Nations? A: H.G. Wells, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1919/01/the-idea-of-a-league-of-nations/306270/, part 2, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/19feb/leag219.htm.To solidify understanding the con I'll use a paragraph from one of the above cited article links:“Wells soon became a writer and, in his long career, authored over 100 books, including such classic best-selling science fiction (a genre he largely invented) as The Time Machine (1895), The Invisible Man (1897), The War of the Worlds (1898) and The First Man on the Moon (1901). He also published much general fiction, and later branched out into other areas, including history and science. His best-selling (and still in print) Outline of History (1920), and the four-volume The Science of Life (1931), in which he and his eldest son, George Phillip Wells, collaborated with Sir Julian Huxley, sold very well. The Outline of History alone has sold over two million copies.[fn. omitted] Both The Outline and Science of Life went into great detail to defend the Darwinist worldview.[fn. omitted]” - https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/eugenics/hg-wells-darwins-disciple-and-eugenicist-extraordinaire/.Can you say “self-fulfilling prophesy?” If you're a fiction writer and gain a level of acclaim and influence, isn't it immortality to be responsible for forming a Master Humanist World Order over all the World's People that pursues the designs of the future you authored since you were part and parcel to a World Government's formation?Thus, by the simple self-interest of a science-fiction writer, without lobbying or some extensive expense as is often claimed of so-called greedy capitalists, our lives, the lives of everyone in the world, our nations and the governments we put in place to run them, whether entirely voluntary or not, are mere stages of a Master Humanist World Government fiction story written by H.G. Wells, a real story of self-destruction of our Freedom, a hyper-real simulation of slavery that is so real it's governing our lives. Just ask a sole survivor of a Syrian Christian family that lived in the same town for 2,000 years and just wants to go home, but whose home is destroyed along with his whole town, their relatives and children beheaded. What's real and what's fiction in this Humanist world?Tell me how this isn't exactly the western intrusion into the private affairs of a nation's people in the eyes of people who practice islam who, I believe as well as I, do not appreciate the Humanist Religion's intrusion into our dictating our own lives.Religious Freedom is where islam has common ground with any other religion, if and when they appreciate that, though other religions aren't paying attention to the Humanist Religion's use of government force to establish their Religious order, no religion other than Humanism is overtly trying to stamp out all other religions, Faith, and beliefs to believe and follow only their Humanist Religion, http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I.Humanism, a hold over of the Pagan orders of Rome, that even was trying to lobby Ferdinand and Isabella for a return to the Roman Hispania (joining of north and south Spain divided by Rome in the first place) is responsible for the deaths of everyone in every other religion for at least the last 400 years. Humanism is a cabal of a few well placed people quietly pulling puppet strings on both sides of the variety of dividing aisles of people, dividing and destroying the politics of nation after nation. It's high time the people of the world were at least aware of Humanism, and past Humanist shenanigans to have some idea how long Humanists have been destroying all who don’t believe as they do.For more, I strongly recommend looking up Tim Lahaye whose work, The Battle for the Mind: A Subtle Warfare, has been eye-opening for me, http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-Mind-Subtle-Warfare/.As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,Toddy Littman

2015-12-19T17:01:59-05:00 http://changingwind.org/rename/news.php?item.309.23 2015-12-14T16:51:39-05:00 Toddy Littman bt001@nospam.com

I love the lack of PC of Donald Trump, his promoted ideas are as American as you can expect, but...He speaks to controlling the Internet, the letter “i” there capitalized to recognize it as a separate jurisdiction, something not a part of Congressional Authority or some public property.I submit to you to consider, that every good negotiator I've met uses words with more than one meaning, words that are meant to convey what the other person wants to hear while they may not necessarily be saying what we think they are saying.Obama did this to America once via Liberals who follow blindly, examples...Or Or let's try Occupy folks,So, now, consider please, as you consider these people: What if someone does this to what is now, in our review of these examples and laughing at them, the voice of sobriety, the patriotic Americans, the Conservatives (those who understand government is to act in accordance with the limits of the Constitution and never to act beyond these limits as then it is a government of oppression, Tyrannical and will never again cease trespass on Individual Liberty)? Apologies, but had to define Conservative since many think it's just carrying on nostalgic traditions, a liquidating of the meaning, purpose, and weight of America's Founding that began the end of Feudalism; liquidating of the Principles of the Declaration of Independence as effectuated by the Constitution's Enumerated (limited) Powers granted to government by Article I, Section 8 alone through our ratification (Consent of the Governed), http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.Oh, and my apology is for demonstrating the Divine Spine of the American People, our resilience in the face of adversity. I know many want to believe Mr. Trump, and I don't blame them for wanting a hero after Obama's failure to deliver one, save for the Progressive Left and their goal of destroying America. But, I must explain what I am laying out here because it is a moral imperative for America to have a Constitutionally wise President who isn't placating us by appeasing statements (i.e. “red meat”) that we want and long to hear. I mean, isn't that exactly what Barack Obama did? Who voted for the first black President on the grounds he'd declare war in the name of climate change against all who remember science isn't here to prove anything is true but to prove what hypotheses are false? Well I guess you voted for Obama to rewrite the purpose of our institutions and their history as well (see, https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins100017.html).Have I yet documented how we too easily follow our emotions, fall in the trap of what we want to believe versus what's actually occurring? Well then, let's see:First, consider the woman in the first video link above, and see if there's a mirror there representing you. I say this because, it is no secret why they passed Obamacare without reading it, knowing it would fail:Weigh whether Healthcare is an entitlement or a Right. That's the debate being framed by the two “frontrunners” Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump via the Progressive media, as Obamacare is meant to be affirming a “right to healthcare”, while Donald Trump has said “healthcare is an entitlement.” Tell me who will win that debate as it is framed right now, which, in both cases assumes the worst of the oxymorons one could ever hear regarding money: “government savings.” Understand that the “savings” is a fairy tale of mis-management by government right now.Doctors get 40-60% of their bill paid by government generally. Of course, many doctors have discounts if you pay cash, but that's at their discretion. With government running healthcare, even before Obamacare, the difference for the doctor was that he got paid same day for cash as he gave service to the patient. Government generally strings doctors along at least 90 days and usually 180 or even more before paying them 40-60% on the bill – it’s called ‘cascading’ as they downgrade each ‘service’ going down the bill and can go to 80% of the amount, which is why the ‘usual and customary’ amount for service is hiked in the first place and why docs can give cash discounts. What does the doctor do with that situation? They raise the price and often are screwing up your medical records, not to make them inaccurate but because some bureaucrat rejected the payment as submitted for the last 6 months and the doctor, who just wants to get paid, to cover their costs of office, staff, etc, and receive their desired profit from what is often a laborious education, keeps re-submitting the bill to get the bureaucrat to sign-off on it. Remember: The bureaucrat signs-off on it eventually, meaning they know that this is the game and this is the government's method of negotiating the bill with a doctor. Of course, now with the Obamacare electronic medical records mandate government blames the doctors... Er... “Healthcare Providers” for errors in medical records, (that's government taking a stand against doctors to uphold the law for insurance companies while never doing anything about government and/or insurance bureaucrats who created the situation).So...Setting aside that Donald Trump wants to control the Internet like China or other country's governments... I guess I should mention North Korea here, and, as Hillary Clinton wants to control the Internet, as well as the Government wanting it to become a tax generator... Ummm...One last thing. We're erroneously hearing about Gun Control over San Bernardino. Well, consider how absolute the 2nd Amendment is, its language not limiting “infringement” to any branch of government but denying all government, as ratified by us and the States (capital “S” denoting the governments of the States):“Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” -- 2nd Amendment language from original Bill of Rights, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.htmlCompare and contrast to the record of Gun Control, originating in the Dixiecrat South over fear of “negroes” with guns, and explaining the NRA's existence with little effort, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/516676/posts.Yet what makes that so interesting is what happened under FDR in 1938, The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 began the firearm dealer licensing system.” Everyone understanding this? The Federal Government's desire for more revenue was their entire purpose and means of getting involved with firearm ownership, but not directly, instead through a backdoor of claiming and creating a jurisdiction by imposing a national licensing program on gun dealers. Gun Control has never had a place in our Society, our American Culture and, as with so many things done since the 14th Amendment, government is all about the money... Can anyone say Obamacare? Especially as a tax enforced by the IRS isn't it all about the money? And while we all know Mr. Trump has said he's for the lawful right of citizens to own a gun, where's the recognition it's not up to the government at all but is something even the Supreme Court of the United States isn't given any authority to make any determinations on by the very language of the 2nd Amendment?Point being that the Right to Bear Arms is no different than the Right to Self-Defense, and trusts you to know your use of a weapon, to know when to use it or not, and self-responsibility is the point to it all. Yet, eventually, licensing schemes for government's revenues, usually riding on the coattails of SCOTUS whose claimed authority is their word for their claim and of no constitutional authority at all, because it cannot by assertion violate the Constitution, which the 2nd Amendment is the Constitution as an Amendment:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Which means: The Constitution must be upheld, pursuant to the enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8) and the “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” added to it (i.e. 2nd Amendment, pursuant to the preamble of the Bill of Rights, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html ). So SCOTUS can't violate the Constitution to claim, well, anything about it, period!But hey, let's talk to the Progressives in Silicon Valley, California and Bellevue, Washington to determine controlling the Internet... To me this is an omen of things to come when a man who claims to be Conservative, doesn't honor the Constitution and wants to get Progressive advice to solve the problem.May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this, Toddy LittmanP.S. Never forget they still have Clinton's Echelon right now, http://www.duncancampbell.org/content/echelon and if interested, here's the “UKUSA” agreement they're talking about (wonder what constitutional power the President made this agreement under), which 1956 amendment to, incidentally, created the NSA, https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml. Choose wisely, deliberately, in 2016.

2015-12-14T16:51:39-05:00 http://changingwind.org/rename/news.php?item.308.2 2015-12-04T22:27:27-05:00 Toddy Littman bt001@nospam.com

As the medium is the message, where today numbness is the norm as the overwhelming amount of information from overwhelming forms of media overwhelms the senses and results in delegation to “Siri,” or some other digital assistant (communicating that the age of those without the means of affording assistance now have one), the base problem with sharia and islam is being, for lack of a better term, “overlooked” (see this video to understand “radical” is a political correctness term of no import whatsoever, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGE2eBUdlQ&feature=youtu.be).Verbose man (yours truly) just made every effort to overwhelm your senses, knowing likely you just went to scanning this article, likely deciding from the first paragraph to send, read, or discard and ignore it (unless you're one of those Evelyn Wood speed reader types).Yet this all takes us to why all these oppressive systems, oppressive economic systems like Socialism and Communism, some in England wanting to return to Royal government, and such an easy acceptance of having some “expert” tell us that we are responsible for changes in Earth's environment by what car we drive -- while America's government funded military experiments through the 1990's HAARP project whose effort was to punch a hole through the Ionosphere and see how long it takes to heal without blinking an eye -- “Politicians,” a generally affectionate term for those who seek authority over others, see every bit of our relinquishing self-responsibility and, using many forms of the ultimate power of government, force, to legislate and swallow our Freedom up like a blackhole of Progressive oppression sucking up every scintilla of power we hand them by any form of grant.For brevity (Surprise!) I'll use the idea of contracts and how one can give actual consent by signing off on something, yet knowing most are well aware of the variety of forms of implied consent. This simple understanding that we all apply to a variety of situations every day in dealing with other people is a good starting point to understand how those politicians, those political parties and their agendas, have built Progressive Oppression on the backs of what we believe, subversively using our delusion to lie to us with a straight face knowing we'll blame ourselves, and not them, later.To illustrate (which shouldn't be required after the IRS showed a willingness to suppress Freedom of Speech and Political Expression so easily by mere bureaucratic delays, same tactic used for Keystone, same tactic used by George Soros to keep Rosia Montana Romania from working their gold mine), let's look at the FBI's site regarding their historical origins:“The FBI originated from a force of special agents created in 1908 by Attorney General Charles Bonaparte during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The two men first met when they both spoke at a meeting of the Baltimore Civil Service Reform Association. Roosevelt, then Civil Service commissioner, boasted of his reforms in federal law enforcement. It was 1892, a time when law enforcement was often political rather than professional. Roosevelt spoke with pride of his insistence that Border Patrol applicants pass marksmanship tests, with the most accurate getting the jobs. Following Roosevelt on the program, Bonaparte countered, tongue in cheek [sic], that target shooting was not the way to get the best men. "Roosevelt should have had the men shoot at each other and given the jobs to the survivors."“Roosevelt and Bonaparte both were "Progressives." They shared the conviction that efficiency and expertise, not political connections, should determine who could best serve in government. Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United States in 1901; four years later, he appointed Bonaparte to be attorney general. In 1908, Bonaparte applied that Progressive philosophy to the Department of Justice by creating a corps of special agents. It had neither a name nor an officially designated leader other than the attorney general. Yet, these former detectives and Secret Service men were the forerunners of the FBI.“Today, most Americans take for granted that our country needs a federal investigative service, but in 1908, the establishment of this kind of agency at a national level was highly controversial. The U.S. Constitution is based on "federalism:" a national government with jurisdiction over matters that crossed boundaries, like interstate commerce and foreign affairs, with all other powers reserved to the states. Through the 1800s, Americans usually looked to cities, counties, and states to fulfill most government responsibilities. However, by the 20th century, easier transportation and communications had created a climate of opinion favorable to the federal government establishing a strong investigative tradition.” -- Emphasis mine, https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/brief-historyNow, I am sure even those of the “Progressive” philosophy, especially those well versed in the Chicago Way patronage system, can see the above FBI definition of Progressive is, at best, political spin. There'd be no bundlers of funds, no Bill Clinton Clinton Foundation Speeches receiving $500,000 etc., and one cannot claim efficiency and professionalism are the dominant qualities of the excessive cost of government and its Progressive programs... But, just like Obamacare being a tax not passed by Constitutional process (see Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services info, http://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Sissel-3-1374, and detailed explanation at the time by yours truly, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.121), the FBI here admits without fear or hesitation it exists without any constitutional authority. Please note last paragraph of FBI history above as most important to this article as well.With the truth of the lack of a constitutional authority for the FBI as admitted by their website, please see this gem of the audacity of power corrupted absolutely:“They could be dismissed as a nuisance, a loose network of individuals living in the United States who call themselves “sovereign citizens” and believe that federal, state, and local governments operate illegally. Some of their actions, although quirky, are not crimes. The offenses they do commit seem minor, including regularly false license plates, driver’s licenses, and even currency.” -- Emphasis mine, https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/september/sovereign-citizens-a-growing-domestic-threat-to-law-enforcement.In relation to the FBI's admitted lack of any constitutional authority under Federalism for them to exist, is it wise for the FBI to claim Sovereign Citizens “believe that federal... governments operate illegally?” And to what degree does the FBI's continued operation and existence without any constitutional authority subtract weight from trusting ANY government agency?...from trusting politicians? From trusting government? Isn't the FBI vehicle with “government plates” using false license plates? Isn't their Drivers License identification that’s used in a Law Enforcement computer falsely identifying them as a Federal Government Employee? Isn't FBI officer pay and their Federal Officer's Union Pension Fund a direct stealing from the United States Treasury when their agency has no constitutional authority to exist?Now I've known these Sovereignty folks, the Sovereign Citizen Movement, in fact, this movement started in Progressive/Liberal California. At the time it was called the State Citizenship movement. I researched much of what they claimed and found a large portion of it true. However, they were also steeped in conspiracy theory, claiming, “it's the banks and the Rothschilds... The income tax is to pay interest on the debt we owe to them... The Federal Reserve is just a Rothschild bank lending every single dollar to the U.S. Government” which is entirely false Progressive Leftist anti-Capitalist Looneyism (I must note they wanted to not pay income taxes, sometimes even as employees of the Local and State government, while demanding help getting their disability/social security, and/or welfare checks). I am making these ideological affiliation points to begin closing out this article with a Progressive media example of effort to politicize the Sovereign Citizen movement as “Right Wing Extremists” at this link, http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/terror-threat-homeland-security/index.html.The idea of limited government is objective application of Freedom to every American and isn't a Left/Right anything and is instead a Constitutional fact, that the limits imposed on government are the self-executing point of the Constitution to assure greater freedom for every Individual American, limitations executed upon the office holder the moment they take their Oath of Office as the limits they agree to act pursuant to and not in excess of, limits also noted in full by the FBI in the paragraphs pasted from their brief history page above on this December 4, 2015 where the FBI is explaining Federalism. This means that ideology is merely a method of agitation, a wedge, to assure Americans, as the beginning of this article explained, will relinquish more and more of their Freedom for Politicians to steal or claim by “legislation” the tool of alphabet agency “regulatory interpretation” in making every effort to justify their existence, which is most dramatically done by asserting government's ultimate power: the use of force. Consider that the budget is legislation passed by Congress, yet the FBI who exists without (and thereby in excess of) any constitutional authority is included in those budgets, appropriated money to carry on what are essentially unconstitutional and illegal activities, that is all paid from our tax dollars and anyone can see how the Sovereignty Movement has a point in questioning the legitimacy of government no matter how looney the Sovereignty Movement's assertion of conspiratorial purposes and claims for it.But, to punctuate the sheer abuse of power by government, a reminder:“Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” -- Emphasis mine, 10th Amendment language directly from the Bill of Rights (where it was the 12th article) as Amended to the Constitution, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.And to be clear these amendments are limiting clauses:“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.” -- Emphasis mine, Preamble to the Bill of Rights, Ibid.Thus the entirety of the first 10 Amendments are to be read in this context of declaratory and restrictive (together, a declared restriction, a limitation). These Amendments are not a declaration of the rights of Americans under a nationalized State, and, if you pay close attention to the context of this Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you'll notice they aren't creating something new but are making an effort to further knowledge and certainty of the already declaratory and restrictive (limiting) enumerated powers over certain and specific objects delegated to the National Government.Supreme Court Justice James Wilson probably explains the farce of claiming the threat of a Sovereignty Movement best:“Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigor through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem expedient.[”] James Wilson, Founding Father, Lectures on Law: Volume 1 Chapter 1 page 17, http://deila.dickinson.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ownwords/id/14067.The mere idea of “Sovereignty” asserted by an American is an absolute and certain political expression (why American Citizenship is so precious), to which government is barred from any encroachment, including any notion of criminality, and for government to do so is government in violation of the First Amendment – And now for the round robin – Thus, having an agency, like the FBI, without any constitutional authority, claim such a movement to be a threat (not a crime) only further proves the point of the Sovereignty Movement.And all of this is because, as said earlier, Politicians and their parties want to take from you whatever you'll relinquish of self-responsibility, as that is relinquishing... Pardon me... Abdicating, your Sovereign Authority – Your freedom, at least according to Justice James Wilson, one of few who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.I applaud every Sheriff, of any political affiliation, who has asked that their armed Citizens carry their guns and be ready to use them should they be in the presence of a terrorist attack. These Shire-reefs recognize who they serve, who their Oath of Office is to, and, when overwhelmed, know to turn to and appreciate the Sovereignty of the American Citizens they serve. Might explain why the 2nd Amendment doesn't open with limiting one branch of government, as the 1st does, to instead proscribe any and all government interference with the Right to Bear Arms. It is a travesty that there is an effort to make a gun not a weapon by legal manipulation of what a bullet is, as though not part of the weapon when absolutely necessary and integral by design for a gun to be a gun, a device invented to use bullets, not invented to throw at attackers, nor to be used for pistol whipping but as a last resort when out of bullets, that, of course, assumes you survive and aren't killed by the attacker, and the gun which isn't designed to be used this way easily kicked from your hand. But hey, I've bored you all enough with my verbosity and shall take my leave....Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Should I not happen to produce another article before then.)May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,Toddy Littman P.S. Terrorism is bad, but the remedy for the nation isn't to have the government attack and divide the People on the issue of the Sovereignty of the American Citizen.

2015-12-04T22:27:27-05:00