Monday, October 10, 2016

Clinton Cash: The Movie

Published in May of last year, the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer generated extreme controversy, even for a political book based on a sensitive subject.

In this case, the sensitive subject was the taking of donations and payments for speeches by Bill and Hillary Clinton from donors to the couple's Clinton Foundation, mostly during the time when Hillary Clinton was serving as the United States Secretary of State.

These actions raised the question of whether such donors were, in fact, buying influence for deals to be signed off on or approved by either the State Department, Hillary Clinton herself or both.
Now, the controversial book is getting even more attention as it's being promoted as the basis for a new documentary of the same name.

The film has been put together by Schweizer, who is a Senior Editor-at-Large of and a former William J. Casey Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, in association with Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News Network.

It's being directed by M. A. Taylor, who directed a previous documentary, Hillary: The Movie. The latter film was responsible for the notorious Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which determined that corporations could give unlimited funds to political campaigns, a larger controversy unto itself.

Taylor also served as the cinematographer and production manager for the movieHype: The Obama Effect, which examined the past of Barack Obama before he was elected president in 2008.

The full title of Schweizer's book about the Clintons is Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. When you see the title in its entire glory you get a better description of the book's content. But it doesn't stop there, the book includes such gems as this: "The Lincoln Bedroom Goes Global,” which is the name of chapter one. It goes on from there.

Portions of the book are devoted to such State Department-sanctioned deals as the one for Uranium One, a company that controls 20 percent of the world's uranium production. Uranium One was eventually sold to a Russian concern, the deal for which was approved by the State Department on Hillary Clinton's watch.

As it turns out, several individuals who had hefty stakes in Uranium One made large donations to the Clinton Foundation just prior to the deal's approval. The New York Times, basing an article on Schweizer's research, said that this deal presented "special ethical challenges."

In the UK's The Guardian, British journalist Ed Pilkington pointed to "glaring conflicts of interest." Writing in The Washington Post, Harvard law professor and political activist Lawrence Lessig said that, "on any fair reading, the pattern of behavior that Schweizer has charged is corruption."

The website Politifact confirmed the book's claims that between 2001 and 2013, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches for which he was paid in excess of $500,000 each is correct. Of the 13 speeches, 11 were made during the time when Hillary Clinton was serving as the Secretary of State.

"When you have one or two examples, it's a coincidence," Schweizer noted. "When you have this many, to me it's a trend."

Of those 11 speeches, all were made in foreign countries, mostly to foreign businesses, such as finance, media, telecom or pharmaceutical firms. Clinton's record haul was in Hong Kong in 2011 when he was paid $750,000 for a speech on behalf of Ericsson, the Swedish telecommunications giant.

Among other charges in Schweizer's book are that one of the companies that paid Bill Clinton, Digicel, received favorable telecommunications contracts in Haiti, a country which is no stranger to the Clintons and their dealings.

In 2011, Hillary Clinton's State Department helped engineer the removal of Haitian President René Préval through obviously rigged elections. The Clinton's chose U.S. puppet, gangster and dancehall performer Michel Martelly as Préval's replacement.

In the wake of the disastrous earthquake of the previous year, Bill Clinton arranged aid for the country, enriching numerous Clinton Foundation donors via no-bid contracts through the State Department's U.S. Agency for International Development.

Another chapter of Clinton Cash deals with Bill Clinton's role at Laureate International Universities, a for-profit educational venture run by private firm Laureate Education. Laureate Education had hired Clinton to be its "Honorary Chancellor."

The timing of his hire is especially suspicious because the Obama administration had just begun to draft tighter rules regarding financial aid for students attending for-profit educational institutions. Simultaneously, an investigation into this questionable industry was being opened by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

After Clinton accepted his position with Laureate, Hillary Clinton brought the firm into a State Department Global Partnership and gave tens of millions of dollars of Department funds to an ostensible nonprofit, the International Youth Foundation (IYF), chaired by Laureate's chairman Douglas Becker.

Documents show that after Bill Clinton became Laureate's honorary chancellor, IYF was the recipient of tens of millions of dollars in new government grants, accounting for most of that organization's revenue in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Schweizer wrote that prior to tax filings, the relationship between IYF and Laureate was undisclosed. For its part, Laureate declined to say to what extent it compensated the former president.

However, Laureate was recorded as being a Clinton Foundation donor to the tune of millions of dollars up until 2014. During Clinton's time with the company, he spoke at its educational campuses in Peru, Brazil, Malaysia, Turkey, Spain, Germany, Mexico and Honduras.

The former president stepped down from his position coincidentally as the aforementioned tax filings were being made. Schweizer claims this was to avoid a wave of negative publicity.

A number of the Clintons' high-powered friends such as Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate, are revealed in Schweizer's book. Giustra lent his private jet to Bill Clinton and engaged him as a speaker while Hillary Clinton pressured officials in Kazakhstan to give Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy, valuable mining rights in the country.

When it looked as if the prime minister of Kazakhstan, Karim Massimov, might interfere with the deal, Hillary canceled a meeting with him, holding out until the deal was complete.

Another stunning charge Schweizer writes about is that ABC News commentator and former Bill Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation over several years but did not disclose this fact to ABC News prior to moderating televised presidential debates in 2015 and even prior to interviewing Schweizer about his book.

In fact, Stephanopoulos was only forced to admit the donations when the Clinton Foundation listed him in its records. In the wake of this scandal, Republican presidential candidates demanded that ABC News ban him from further debates due to a conflict of interest.

The film version of Clinton Cash is being financed by Breitbart News Network and is premiered at the Cannes Film Festival.

You can watch the film in its entirety on

Donald Trump has already used material from Clinton Cash in campaigning against Hillary Clinton, saying that it "will become very pertinent" and that he was surprised it hadn't been referred to more by Clinton's Democratic rival Bernie Sanders.

The movie is an eye-opener for all Americans and may give Hillary Clinton more to worry about in November than just a general election loss.


Mark Patricks--League of Power

Monday, August 15, 2016

Can Trump Win the Presidency?

Nelson Hultberg

Members of the mainstream media are coming down on Donald Trump like the German Luftwaffe came down on London. Ruthlessly biased, they are obsessed with sabotaging this maverick businessman-turned-politician in hopes of electing their statist champion, Hillary, to the presidency.
The American people, however, are not overly eager to buy MSM's leftist bias. The majority of them still believe in free enterprise and limited government. Unfortunately The Donald is not exactly a "free-enterpriser" or a "limited government" advocate. But then no one else out there is either.
Thus the choice is clear for patriots. If we wish to keep Hillary - who will destroy what last semblance of freedom we have left - out of the White House, we must support Trump. Despite his flaws, he will vehemently challenge the establishment and restore freedom and growth to the wreckage Bill Clinton, the Bushes, and Barack Obama have cursed us with over the past 28 years.

None of our problems, however, are going to be truly solved by a "new political administration." America crossed the Rubicon of political sanity long ago, and is now going to crash horrendously because of the fallacies of Keynesianism and social welfarism, either slowly over the next two decades, or suddenly in a gigantic collapse of banking that takes only a couple of years to unfold.

All Trump can do is buy some time by restoring productivity to the economy, along with sanity to immigration, trade and foreign policy, which would give us a chance to educate some of the powerful intelligentsia prior to the inevitable economic crash that is coming. Then after the crash when we are climbing out, perhaps we can guide America back toward the Founders' ideal, rather than toward the globalist vision of today's collectivist establishment. So there is no alternative to Trump if we wish to have any chance of directing the country back to freedom after the coming collapse of the economy and everything tied to it.   

Establishment Panic
Jack Nicholson is smiling brightly these days, for his comrades from the Cuckoo's Nest have taken over MSM. The members of today's media have gone truly, irreparably insane, in full panic fearing that Donald Trump might actually win. Thus they are willing to sacrifice all integrity and patriotism to serve the super state headquartered in Washington and Wall Street. Their panic is like what one encounters when he shines a flashlight on a dumpster while it's still dark and confronts rats scurrying in all directions.
But these leftist rats and cuckoos are reluctant to attack Trump on the critical issues (such as the sputtering economy, immigration, trade, imperialism, etc.) because they can't. The people support Trump on such issues. So MSM resorts to egregious smears and distortions of Trump's temperment and controversial statements.

For example, Trump was not advocating assassination in a recent speech. Anyone who is intelligent realizes that. Yet MSM hopped all over his Second Amendment terminology to try and intimate that he was.
Trump is simply not refined with political-speak. He hasn't played in the game of politics for his life's work like the Bushes, Obamas and Clintons. Thus he occasionally lets fly with awkward phrasings and stupid statements in the emotion of a rally. But he's an advocate of assassination like Pope Francis is an advocate of fornication.
Likewise, was Trump actually saying that Obama and Clinton were the "personal" founders of ICIS? Of course not. He was saying that their naivety about Islam, their appeasement of it, and their premature abandonment of Iraq created the rise of ICIS. In his mind, this made them the "founders" of ICIS, but certainly not the "personal" or "physical" founders. Again awkward phrasing and a stupid statement. Obviously more clarity could have been used. But surely members of MSM knew what Trump meant. They simply chose to distort it and smear him with the ambiguity of the phrasing by conveying that he meant Obama and Hillary were "personal" founders. MSM has to do this because Hillary offers them no rational campaign to support; thus they must smear Trump's missteps and hope this will carry the day for their cause of mega-statism.

Can All this Smearing Be Circumvented?
The major strength we have is that Hillary is as corrupt as the sleaziest of banana republic dictators and is a pathological liar. Even when the truth would serve nicely, she is compelled to lie. Moreover her economics will destroy America and drive us deeper into the permanent recessionary malaise we suffer from now. Trump's economics will rejuvenate America. If the people can distinguish between the productivity-increasing free-market  jobs of Trump's economic vision and the productivity-stifling bureaucratic jobs of Hillary's economic vision, then Trump will win. He proposes to reduce business taxes to 15%; Hillary wants to raise them to 50%.

The two visions couldn't be more starkly opposed. Hillary will plunge America into European socialism and all its tyrannical misery. This is the iron law of ideology. Once it takes over one's mind (and socialism took over Hillary in her early twenties), there is no escape from its hold over you even when it shows itself as catastrophic and nefarious. Hillary is a mindless tool of the socialist ideology, and she will employ it to destroy America if the people are stupid enough to vote her in.

How will Trump overcome this? Hammer home his vision on 1) restoring jobs and economic growth via lower taxes and regulations, 2) closing our open borders, 3) cutting better trade deals, 4) ending imperialistic foreign policy, and 5) appointing conservative judges to the Supreme Court. Point out the profound specifics where his vision differs dramatically from Hillary's on these five points. Shame the quisling RINOs with the fact that if they support Hillary, they will be dooming America to destruction. They know this; they just have to be reminded of it repeatedly between now and November.

If Trump will also continue to call attention to the criminality of Hillary, then this is all he needs to do to win. Emphasize the above five policy proposals and remind the people repeatedly that they will be putting a Bernie Madoff / Leona Helmsley clone into the White House by voting for Hillary. If he sticks to this format, he will overpower her. She stands directly opposed to the above five policy proposals, yet a definite majority of the people have indicated that they support them.     

Many voters are unsophisticated when it comes to politics, but most of them do understand the basics of political taxation and regulation and its stultification of jobs and economic growth. They also understand the basics of political corruptions such as "pay for play," which the Clinton Foundation is waist deep in.
Why the Polls Are Not Valid
Hillary's present lead in the polls is not valid. Here's why. I believe that most RINOs want the statist establishment to see them as anti-Trump. This will keep them in good standing with the establishment's power elites and point of view. So they proclaim from the rooftops how they dislike The Donald and now support Hillary. This is what all good "herd mentalities" do. But when Election Day arrives most of them will not, in good conscience, be able to consummate their proclamations with action. In the privacy of the voting booth, they will "do the right thing," and vote against the destruction of America. Most of them will pull the lever for Trump even though they publicly denounced him because their denunciations were only for show so as to curry popularity with the establishment's elites.

Many blue-collar Democrats will cross over and pull the lever for Trump, even though most of them are presently telling the pollsters that they support Hillary because that's what good Democrats do. But when the time comes to act in the privacy of the voting booth, they will "do the right thing." They will pull the lever for Trump because they know down deep that Hillary is just an extension of Obama and would further destroy America. This is why all the polls are such garbage. They paint a false picture of what is really banging around in the voters' heads, and which will manifest only on Election Day.

The only hitch in the above scenario unfolding is Trump. Can he get on message and stay on it, refraining from all the flamboyant statements that get him in hot water with the MSM? If he can do this, then MSM will have no kerosene to build their destructive fires with, and the overwhelming logic of Trump's Reaganesque economic plan will dominate the minds of blue-collar Democrats, independents, and RINOs on Election Day. This will compel them to "do the right thing." A 4-point deficit in the pre-election polls will turn into a 4-point surplus on the day of voting.


Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of  The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email:

Friday, July 08, 2016

Libertarian Party calls for an end to all Violence

ALEXANDRIA — Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark issued this statement today in relation to the recent shootings in Louisiana, Minnesota and Texas:

“The killing needs to stop. All of it. None of these shootings were justified – not the shootings by the police, not the shootings of the police. The Libertarian Party denounces all killing. No American should feel they’ve invited violence upon themselves because of their skin color, the uniform they wear in service to their communities, or their decision to exercise their Second Amendment rights. None of these factors should make you a target for murder in this country."

“The frustration in the black community is palpable, and frankly, justified. When rogue cop after rogue cop gets off scot-free after using excessive force and changes are not made, and consequences are not felt, it causes this horrible tension we are feeling today. However, the vast majority of the black community have been exercising their right to protest peacefully and admirably. It is despicable that a couple of bad actors put a cloud over all that and increased tension for everyone. The shooters in Dallas will see justice, but will the blue wall of silence ever be broken? Will cops ever start to do a better job of policing themselves?"

“The Libertarian Party calls for peace and justice. Those two things go hand in hand.”

Friday, June 24, 2016

Libertarian Party: The Draft is Slavery. End it.

Congress has been debating the merits of adding women into Selective Service to be drafted with men during times of national emergency. 
Sen. Rand Paul has suggested that it would be better to end the draft.
The Libertarian Party agrees.
"The draft is simply slavery by another name. Drafting people to go abroad and kill or be killed is barbaric and a discredit to our military and country," says Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
If a national emergency is so severe to merit mobilizing extra troops, Americans from all backgrounds, ages, and genders will pitch in to do what is needed.
The Libertarian Party urges elected leaders to end the draft and also to pursue foreign policy which is less dependent on military might.
The United States has many tools of foreign policy at our disposal that do not require force. Military force should always be a last resort and only in defense.

The Libertarian Party is the only political party in America devoted to protecting all rights, of all human beings, all the time. The Libertarian Party also strongly condemns the use of force except in self defense.

Monday, June 20, 2016

The Libertarian Party opposes the No Fly No Buy bill and other restrictions without due process

The Libertarian Party opposes the No Fly List, "no buy" lists, and other such lists where the government infringes on a person's rights without due process of law.
In recent years, the federal government has used "the war on terror" as an excuse to
encroach on our most fundamental human rights.

Warrant-less wiretapping, detaining prisoners for years without trials in Guantanamo
Bay, "no fly" lists that are compiled secretly and without due process, and similar "no
buy" lists all violate the human rights of Americans and non-Americans alike.

Our founders would be horrified and every American should be too.

Our country claims to stand as a beacon for "liberty and justice for all" and yet there is
no liberty and no justice in these breaches of our rights.

The presumptive Republican and Democratic Presidential nominees have stated their
support for many of these programs.

In contrast, Libertarian National Committee chair, Nicholas Sarwark, says, "There
shouldn't be a no-fly list, terrorist watch list, or any other secret government list you can
be put on without due process of law." Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for
President agrees.

In recent days, Congress has been debating a "No Fly No Buy" bill which would prevent
people listed on the No Fly list from buying firearms.

The Libertarian Party urges Congress to vote down any bill, such as this one, that
infringes upon rights without due process. Due process is one of the most critical
elements of our justice system, designed to protect our rights. It must be respected
and upheld, no matter the circumstances.

Currently, the No Fly List is so casual that Americans are at risk of being denied access
to commercial travel because of clerical errors. This is a terrible injustice. The idea of
using such a flawed No Fly List as a guide for restricting other rights, such as gun
ownership, is appalling.

If the government has evidence egregious enough that a person should be prevented from
boarding a plane, the government needs to take this evidence to court and have a fair and
open hearing to determine whether the person in question should have his/her rights
denied. If someone is found to be plotting violence, they should be arrested immediately
and prosecuted.

The Libertarian Party is the only political party in America devoted to protecting all
rights, of all human beings, all the time. The Libertarian Party also strongly condemns
the use of force except in self defense.

Monday, June 13, 2016

In wake of Orlando shooting, Libertarian Party calls for end to ‘gun-free’ zones

Minneapolis vigil for Orlando shooting victims(image)Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee, issued the following statement today:

Despite the horrific loss of life and the dozens more injured by a spiteful, deranged shooter in Orlando yesterday, the forces of hate are losing the battle against the vast majority of peaceful individuals who want social tolerance. But Americans remain at risk of more mass shootings.

Hundreds of individuals from all backgrounds lined up in the Florida heat for hours to give blood to the victims of this tragedy. Millions of Americans nationwide share the grief of this moment and express their sympathy in vigils and social media.  The outpouring of love and support from caring people is what truly makes America great.

Government can neither protect us from people who hate, nor can it provide the love and support of people who, by nature, care for their fellow man. But government can greatly reduce the likelihood of mass shootings by getting out of the way of people who want to defend themselves and others.

Without missing a beat, old party politicians recycled their calls for more failed and deadly policies.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump demonizes Muslims, failing to distinguish hateful and mentally ill individuals from the millions of peaceful Muslims who strongly condemn acts of violence.

Democrat Barack Obama calls for more deadly restrictions and prohibitions on the rights of peaceful, responsible gun owners to stop shooters and minimize their impact.

The Libertarian Party is the only political party calling for sensible, serious policy change that would reduce the frequency of mass shootings as well as minimize the damage they do.

Virtually all mass shootings happen in “gun-free” zones.  Regardless of the ideology of the shooter or the type of weapons used, the common link is that the event occurs where responsible gun owners are prohibited from carrying arms for self-defense. 
  • The Pulse nightclub was a “gun-free” zone.
  • The Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California was a “gun-free” zone.
  • The Bataclan nightclub in Paris was a “gun-free” zone.
  • The schools in Newtown, Connecticut and Columbine, Colorado were “gun-free” zones.
  • Fort Hood was a “gun-free” zone.
In each of these mass killings, the government prohibited people from exercising their life-saving right to self-defense.

Government-mandated “gun-free” zones disarm those who want to defend themselves and their loved ones.

“Gun-free” zones create killing fields for mass murderers who, by definition, do not care what the law says.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right.  Every person has a right to defend herself and her loved ones against someone who would do them harm.  When government takes away the right of self-defense, it is violating a fundamental human right and endangering its citizens.

The choice of whether and how to defend oneself is a profoundly personal one.  The government should not mandate that every American carry a gun for personal self-defense, nor should it mandate that every American must rely on police for protection. 

The beauty of the right to self-defense is that it keeps the criminals guessing as to who has a gun and who does not. This deters mass shooters from even trying.

The Libertarian Party supports freedom of choice, and calls for the government to stop denying our human rights.

Our thoughts, prayers, and love go out to the friends and families of those slain or harmed in Orlando.  We owe it to them, and to all citizens, to do what we can to stop tragedies like this in the future.

How many more mass shootings will occur before we demand that our government stop violating our fundamental human right to self-defense?

No more government-mandated “gun-free” zones.  No more government-created killing fields where madmen can slay innocent people. 

No more!

The Orlando Shooting: Obama's Sin

Nelson Hultberg

You can search the history of mankind, and you will never find a successful society that, when under attack, did not clearly define its enemies and gather its resources together in order to vigorously fight those enemies by means of education, law enforcement, and military means when necessary. A society that fails to do this does not survive.
Notice the words "clearly define its enemies" in the above. We as Americans must end the pusillanimous evasion of truth regarding Islam that hangs over our society today like the grisly smell of death in a charnel house. We must come to grips with a most paramount question: "Does our President and his administration have the courage to clearly define America's enemy, an enemy that has declared its intentions repeatedly and openly over the past 30 years and has only grown more brazen as each decade goes by?" This enemy is radical Islamic terrorism.
Barack Obama and his hopeful successor, Hillary Clinton, have steadfastly refused to mention the words "radical," "Islamic," and "terrorism" in their speeches and discussions. They have played the role of ignorant stooges in regards to one of the most nefarious threats ever to face our nation, a threat that high school students can grasp when explained to them. Yet these two disingenuous liberals declare themselves to be enlightened leaders of a modern America and ask for our political support so as to be able to continue directing the federal government in Washington. What bizarre conjurings dwell in their warped and pygmy minds to make them believe they deserve such a role?
Obama's Shame
In the aftermath of the horrific Orlando, Florida massacre Sunday morning, in which over 50 individuals were killed and 53 severely wounded, President Obama came before us to speak on this atrocity. Thankfully he was able to brand this shooting an act of terror. But shamefully he was unable to utter the critically needed words "radical Islamic terrorism." Is he going to continue to play this inexcusable role of useful idiot to Islamism as our FBI and other security forces try bravely to combat this terrorist scourge going forward? Even in face of the fact that the perpetrator of the massacre was clearly a Muslim, clearly a radical, and clearly a killer?
The gunman, Omar Mateen, shouted out "Alahu Akbar" as he was gunning down over 100 of the customers in the Orlando nightclub, Pulse. Prior to the attack he pledged allegiance to ICIS. He was born of Afghani parents, has made inflammatory comments to co-workers in the past, and was heard praying in a foreign language by police on the scene. In addition, ICIS has claimed responsibility for the shooting on their website, Amaq News.
A sane, rational leader would have no trouble concluding from these facts that this was more than just a "hate crime." It was an act of "radical Islamic terrorism," and one more atrocity in a chain of atrocities that have plagued us for several decades.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka has summed up this issue quite dramatically. He is an American expert on irregular warfare, including counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, and a distinguished professor of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University: He stated on the Maria Bartiromo Show, Sunday morning, June 12th shortly after the attack:
"This should not be called a tragedy. This is not an Amtrack train being derailed. This is part of the global jihadi strategy. It is not an accident. It is war against America....It is not a hate crime. It is part of an ideological military assault on [our country]....We have arrested 101 people linked to ICIS on U.S. soil since the caliphate was declared. This attack, in part, was facilitated by the policies of this administration, President Obama and Secretary Clinton, that have allowed political correctness into the threat assessment. Today I beg the White House. Stop with the political correctness. We need to destroy this enemy before more innocent people, gay, straight, black, white, brown, yellow are murdered on U.S. soil." Link 
Yet President Obama, true to the leftist appeasement mindset that comprises his persona, concludes in front of the nation that we need to show sympathy for the victims and begin to think rationally about seriously controlling guns in America. Why cannot he bring himself forcefully to face the real enemy attacking us? Because he himself is a crypto sympathizer of Islam, if not an actual worshiper. Thus he cannot possibly face the fact that members of the religion he reveres could do such unspeakable acts as what ICIS is perpetrating.
Moreover the Obama administration has been open to numerous Islamic advisors and organizations for its policy determinations. Obama has also had Muslim influence throughout his upbringing. This makes it very difficult for him to face up to the stark metaphysics of Islam, which preach war and violence against the West 109 times in the Koran. This is not a religion of peace; it is a totalitarian way of life that molds young impressionable minds to migrate to Western lands and subject them to destruction. See the website, Islam: The Politically Incorrect Truth. Link 
The Muslim Brotherhood
In his riveting pamphlet, The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration, Frank Gaffney, former Reagan Administration official and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, produces four highly documented case studies on the following members of the Obama administration:
Huma Abedin - Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff.
Rashad Hussain - Deputy Associate White House Counsel.
Dalia Mogahed - White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based Partnerships.
Mohamed Magid - Advisor to Obama's Attorney General and various officials in the Defense Department.
Gaffney's conclusion? There is "ample evidence that the Obama administration has afforded individuals with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood considerable access to its policy-making circles....[U]nder President Obama the United States has adopted policies increasingly aligned with the demands of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations, including notably, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation."
In addition, numerous other Muslim advisors, intellectuals and policy wonks have been part of Obama's two terms, starting with the President's trusted senior advisor Valerie Jarrett. Included also would be Areef Alikhan in the Department of Homeland Security, Kareem Shora on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, Mohamed Elibiary on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, Nawar Shora, a Senior Advisor to the Civil Rights and Liberties Office, Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour, a Patron of Obama during the 1980s, and Malik Obama, the older half-brother of Barack Obama who is in charge of international investments for the Muslim Brotherhood. A simple Google search of the above names verifies them.
America is at war with a primitive and totalitarian ideology that operates under the guise of a religion. Its guiding Koran has relentlessly galvanized Muslims for over a thousand years to make war on Western societies until all the earth is under the yoke of Islam. All religions, all infidels must be subjected to the word of Allah, if not willingly by Sharia law, then by force and terrorism.
We have seen this war play out in our streets and cities throughout the country for two decades now via terrorist attacks on peaceful American citizens. This war has been hideously exacerbated because of the quisling natures of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, neither of whom can bring themselves to clearly define the enemy that radical Islam represents to us. Until a new, tough, smart and vigilant President is elected to office, we as Americans will be under siege.

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of  The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email:

Monday, January 04, 2016

A New Equal Rights Amendment

Nelson Hultberg


                          Equal Rights: The Foundation of America
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen,
in his person and property, and in their management." -
Thomas Jefferson [1]

The fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence, which undergirds our political and legal systems in this country, is that all citizens possess "equal rights under the law." Our whole concept of rights is based upon their being equal for all citizens of the Republic. This was the guiding star of justice that spawned America and which sustained her through the first 125 years of her existence. In 1913, however, there took place a most shameful default on this concept of "equal rights" with adoption of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to enact an income tax with unequal (i.e., progressive) rates.
This default by our pundits and politicians was challenged at the time by numerous outraged legal minds, but due to the prevailing socialist sentiment taking over the culture at the turn of the century, their challenge did not prevail. Too many powerful voices had gotten swept up in the egalitarian vision of Karl Marx, and they decided that government's purpose was to coercively implement such a vision. Tax policy became one of the tools with which to bring about such a leveling of society. Collectivist irrationality won the day, and it has lasted for 100 years, despite the fact that progressive tax rates are clearly unconstitutional.
The reason why progressive tax rates are unconstitutional in America is because different classes of society are assessed different rates under such a system, which denies American citizens an equal right to the disposal of their property (i.e., income) and thus denies them equal protection under the laws of the land.
If the State can take arbitrary (unequal) percentages of our incomes because 51% of the voters deem it desirable, then we no longer have a right to the use of our property. We have only the permission for that use, and only so long as we dutifully serve the reigning political powers. There can be no justification for such a tax system. It is contrary to everything for which America stands.
As the great Scottish economist J.R. McCulloch stated 170 years ago, "The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of extracting from all individuals the same proportion of their income or of their property, you are at sea without a rudder or compass, and there is no amount of injustice or folly you may not commit." [2]
Under our present system, the blindfolded Goddess of Justice has been allowed to peek. "Tell me first who you are and what you earn," she says, "then I will tell you how the tax laws apply to you." This is privilege and arbitrary law, the harbingers of every tyranny throughout history.
Equal Rights vs. Equal Results
A federal government stripped of wasteful programs could be financed by a flat 10% tax rate. Collectivists protest at this point, claiming that equal-rate taxation would be unfair to those with lower incomes. The "results of life" must be evened out for those who haven't achieved as much. But as we have seen, if the government is going to try and bring about equal results in life, it must violate the equal rights of its citizens to their property and its disposal. This is not legitimate policy in America. Those with less in life must be helped through private and church related charities. Government cannot overrule our rights to enhance the status of interest groups deemed "special" by Washington.
Fairness and justice can never be achieved by the violation of rights! Because the "majority will" votes for such a violation does not justify it. Our rights to equality under the law and the disposal of our property can never be put up for vote. The law must be the same for everyone. This is why the Goddess of Justice wears a blindfold. To violate this basic foundation of free civilization as Congress and the bureaucrats are doing is our great sin of the modern day.
When government violates its citizens' rights, it is partaking in an act of criminality. A criminal government can never create "fairness" and "justice." Such irrationality and greed have brought us the bankruptcy of America. Progressive tax rates are unjust, unconstitutional, illegal, and dictatorial. They must be abolished, not just for the 19th century, but for all of time.
Ending the Income Tax Itself
The income tax remains popular because as Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation reports, 50% of Americans are exempt (figures swing between 47% to 51% from year to year). This creates what economists call "infinite demand" for spending programs. In other words if government programs are FREE to certain voters, and if those programs are desirable, then those voters will want all they can get. This is why government expands every year. Fifty percent of American voters do not pay for federal services. Thus we have a totally irresponsible electorate.
But the mandating of "equal rates" will bring large amounts of zero-payers back into the system. The 50% figure for zero-payers can be reduced to 20% meaning 80% of the voters will then have to pay for services. This will end the relentless expansion of government and bring about a lowering of spending every year because no one other than liberal zealots will want the heavy levels of government programs if they have to pay proportionally for them out of their own pockets. Eventually we could reach a 7%-8% equal-rate tax to fund the duties of the federal government. At this level of taxation, we could then replace the income tax with a 7%-8% sales tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.
The first step, however, is to mandate "equal rates" for all citizens via a constitutional amendment. This will remove the tyranny of progressive tax rates from congressional whim. They cannot then be voted back in again four years later. While an "equal-rate" tax enacted by Congress would be a wonderful achievement (which we should all work for), it is not nearly enough to preserve freedom. Progressive tax rates must be banned in the Constitution! This is the only way to assure a free country for future generations.
Ratifying the Amendment
Victor Hugo said, "There is nothing more powerful in history than an idea whose time has come." The American people are ready to stop the runaway freight train of government growth. A New Equal Rights Amendment for taxes is the way to do this. And it can be presented to the state legislatures for ratification via a joint resolution from Congress or the Convention of States process that the Constitution gives us. To bring this revolution about we must follow Samuel Adams lead and work to set "brushfires of freedom" in the minds of Congress and our fellow citizens.
In the 1840s when anti-slavery proponents were fighting to abolish slavery in America, they did not have Congress or a majority of the people on their side. But they did have "justice" and "rightness" on their side. They had the most powerful force in history on their side - MORAL TRUTH. Even those who defended slavery knew down deep that it was morally wrong. The same force prevails in the fight to abolish "progressive taxation." All decent men and women know it is morally wrong to treat people differently under the law in America. We must convince them to implement such conviction into our tax system.
The principle of equal rights mandates equal tax rates. No government will stay limited if it has the power to confiscate wealth from productive citizens to convey free services to massive amounts of less productive citizens so as to buy their votes on Election Day. This is a guarantee for relentless growth of taxes and tyranny. The time has come to end such political corruption and restore justice to America.
1. Letter to S. Kercheval, 1816. Saul K. Padover, ed., Thomas Jefferson on Democracy (New York: New American Library, 1949), pp. 34-35.

2. J.R. McCulloch, Taxation and the Funding System, London, 1845, pp. 141-143. Cited in Charles Adams, For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1993), p. 365.

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: