The revolution may be televised

There is a coup going down in America. The same coups we've seen in other countries is now in our country. The Marshall Report goes into detail about it and effective ways to combat it. Trump is not taking this lying down and neither should the rest of us patriots.

Facebook Censorship

From the YouTube website:

MY FACEBOOK 30 DAY BAN = ILLEGAL CENSORSHIP!!!

THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR MY LAST 30 DAY BAN ON HATEBOOK WAS AFTER A VIDEO WAS SHOWN ABOUT MUSLIM KIDS SINGING THEY WOULD CUT OFF THE HEADS OF AMERICANS AND I TOLD MY FRIENDS THEY HAD NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT..

...I REALLY DO MEAN IT... YOU ALL HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.. THATS NOT A KNIFE!!!
======================================
Above before i received the 30 day FB BAN, I was sending another old warning to my Fb friends about a 420 ride that was a bust.. Police were stalking the users Fb page and his daily posts to track him and arrest them in the illegal ride and pot smoke out in Nyc that is a yearly celebration.. I didn't get to send the warning which was sent to me by someone I work for in an E mail after it turned up in a news story....i was illegally censored 5-9-2019 After I was banned a few days later I received another message that something I posted later in addition to what I said about fanatical muslims with knives was also banned.. FB HOW DO YOU BAN SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ON A 30 DAY BAN MORONS??? again I am asking because I am special I get banned while I am banned already..
===============================
MY FACEBOOK 30 DAY BAN May 2019
IT HAPPENED TO ME AGAIN!!!! This is around my 3oth bullshit illegal censorship ban on Facebook and this time it is for 30 days..All for saying something that was deemed hateful or against Fb's new rules..Now anything you say can be deemed offensive or hateful and you can be blocked or outright banned for life from using the website..
========================================
Recently about a month ago I was banned for asking WHAT SHITHOLE PLANET DIO ALEXANDRIA OCASIO CORTEZ COME FROM??? Which if you think about it in legal terms I was not saying it I was asking it so I have extra protections..
Then a week later I was banned for saying that democrat states are evil for making 5 million each day on over 900 daily abortions.. I was sticking up for life but my comments were against Facebooks liberal agenda
===================================
Then I get banned for WARNING my close friends about threats coming from muslim children who sang about cutting American heads off!! There again I get extra legal protections under the whistleblower act.. if I am warning people close to me, I just don't have 1st amendment protections, i also have whistleblower protection.. That all gets taken away when you get banned on Fb you can't send messages, you can't even like anything, post anything, no posting notes, you cant post video or even change your profile picture to tell everyone you are in Fb jail.. Nothing.. You can't even use Fb messenger when on a 30 day ban.. Total illegal censorship and I NEVER AGREED TO THAT OR TO BE TREATED THAT WAY
============================
I am in talks with a 1st Amendment lawyer and may pursue a class action billion dollar lawsuit if something isn't done to correct this LIBERAL AGENDA. on Facebook.. it went from Facebook to Fakebook to Hatebook.. They want to silence anyone who does not go along with heir evil Democrat agenda.. Those examples right there could be deemed hate speech but it is all true, and these 4 videos right here back up every word I am saying
============================
Most people would just walk away and not use the site anymore, but I am not like most people and refuse to back down from a fight especially a biased one against me and what I am saying.. I publish notes on all hot topics, a citizen journalist of sorts, exposing the truth from an unbiased view and nobody likes that..i have also published videos and posted informative articles.. I do that all the time to help, to solve problems in the world and make it a better place.. The Democrat Liberal agenda is evil and does not want any part of that, so they will try to silence me.. There is only one way to do that , just make sure the safety catches are in the off position when you come calling evil ones.. That is your only chance
==================
Good will defeat evil as it is written, so it is written so it shall be done!!!

Also:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Source

The FBI is spying on Ron Paul and Campaign For Liberty

From Ron Paul for Campaign For Liberty:

Have you seen the news? The FBI is spying on Campaign for Liberty!

Now, I’m wondering if my own personal phone lines are tapped and emails being read by Peter Strzok-like agents who want to see our Liberty Movement DESTROYED.

That’s why I’m counting on your EMERGENCY action today.

With a showdown looming over PERMANENT reauthorization of the NSA’s domestic spying powers in March, I don’t think it’s an accident we’re being targeted by the Deep State.

They know Campaign for Liberty and the patriots like you who support us are their biggest remaining obstacle to their dream of turning America into a full-blown surveillance state.

They tell us it’s to “keep us safe,” and their power would never, ever be abused.

The Deep State coup they’ve led against President Trump has exposed to many Americans what a blatant LIE this is.

As I’ve pointed out time and again if they’ll go after a sitting president, what’s to stop them from coming after you or me?

The answer is nothing.

That’s why I’m counting on you to please sign your EXPOSE THE DEEP STATE petition to Congress, DEMANDING they investigate FBI spying on Campaign for Liberty and any other domestic organization they’re targeting.

You see, not long ago, Cato Institute Scholar Patrick Eddington submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information Requests (FOIA) to the FBI asking whether the bureau had ever conducted warrantless surveillance of organizations like Campaign for Liberty.

When the responses started pouring back in, the FBI effectively responded, “No, nope, nope, never, not them, nope. . .”

That is UNTIL they were asked about Campaign for Liberty.

Then the FBI issued a “Glomar” response, effectively saying, “No comment.”

These “Glomar” responses are extremely rare, used only when the FBI wants to refuse to confirm or deny whether it was collecting national security or intelligence records on the subjects of the FOIA request.

In other words, if they WEREN’T spying on me, they’d say so!

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. . .

To the Deep State, I’m “dangerous” because I support liberty.

That’s been the message time and again, going all the way back to 2009 when the Department of Homeland Security issued warnings about people with my presidential campaign stickers on their cars!

Then, a few years later, we were targeted by the IRS seeking personal records and information on some of our largest donors (an attack we fought and ultimately WON with your help).

Deep State mouthpieces in the media have accused me of being a Russian stooge for simply standing up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now, this.

With a battle looming over PERMANENT reauthorization over Section 215 of the so-called “USA Freedom Act” in just weeks, I don’t think this is an accident.

This is the (UNCONSTITUTIONAL!) section of federal law pointed to by the Deep State authorizing them to spy on Americans’ phone calls, emails, Internet searches, chats, social media posts, and all the rest. . .

It’s the crown jewel of the domestic surveillance state.

And Campaign for Liberty is daring to threaten its survival!

So Deep State allies in the FBI want to intimidate me into shutting up -- something I will NEVER EVER do, so long as I have you standing beside me.

The only good news is this entire scheme can backfire -- IF I can count on your help today.

Deep State apologists in BOTH parties, from U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to Lindsey Graham (R-SC), are growing squeamish about reauthorization.

They know there’s abuse. And they know -- despite the Deep State’s promises -- domestic government spying has never done anything to catch a terrorist.

For you and me, that’s no surprise. That’s never what these schemes have been about.

From the beginning, they’ve ALWAYS been about shutting up voices like mine who support American freedom.

The good news is, if you and I can FORCE Congress to investigate the FBI’s surveillance of Campaign for Liberty, it will expose the Deep State’s true colors for all of America to see -- right as the battle over reauthorization of Section 215 of the so-called “USA Freedom Act” comes to a head.

That’s why I’m counting on your EMERGENCY action today.

So please sign your EXPOSE THE DEEP STATE petition right away.
But I hope you won’t stop there. If possible, please agree to your most generous contribution to help Campaign for Liberty:

1) Deploy targeted online Internet ads calling on Congress to investigate the FBI spying on Campaign for Liberty and any other similar organization they’re targeting. This may be THE most cost-effective way for you and me to turn up the heat!

2) Use mail and email to contact up to 12 million Americans from coast-to-coast to generate petitions just like the one I’ve linked for you to Congress;

3) Work the talk-radio lines to explain exactly why our effort to expose the Deep State’s true colors is absolutely critical to stop the reauthorization of their UNCONSTITUTIONAL spying powers; and

4) Launch an all-out email and phone mobilization campaign to explain to the American people exactly why the Deep State MUST be exposed.

With the fight over the USA Freedom Act just weeks away, we’re running out of time to raise the resources we need to fight back.

So after you’ve signed your Directive, won’t you please make your most generous contribution of $15?

I know I’ve asked a lot of you lately. But considering everything that’s at stake, I’m asking each and every Campaign for Liberty supporters to dig deep.

Of course, if that’s just too much please agree to $10 or at least $5.

The FBI and their Deep State allies have run rough-shod over Americans’ civil liberties long enough.

It’s time to take the power back -- and that begins by us demanding Congress investigate FBI spying on Campaign for Liberty and any other pro-freedom organization they’re targeting.

Please take action by signing your EXPOSE THE DEEP STATE petition and making your most generous contribution of $15, $10, or at least $5 right away.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul
Chairman

Controlled Substances Act may be unconstitutional

As an attorney, I am always disappointed that the courts in this country – both at the state and federal level – have refused to get involved in the efforts to end marijuana prohibition and end the practice of treating responsible marijuana smokers as criminals. But that is the reality.

While the courts in this country have played a leading role in ending racial discrimination, in guaranteeing women the right to obtain a legal abortion, in protecting the rights of the LGBT community, and in many other areas involving the protection of personal freedom, they have consistently rejected attempts to declare state and federal anti-marijuana laws as unconstitutional.

But that does not mean that we should give up the fight in the courts, and rely only on voter initiatives and elected officials to fix this problem. As long as there are new legal arguments to be made, and fresh and hopefully more convincing facts to be argued, we must continue to engage the courts in this struggle for personal freedom.

Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al

One such legal challenge, Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al, was recently filed in US District Court in the Southern District of New York by lead attorney Michael Hiller, with NORML Legal Committee (NLC) attorneys David Holland and Joseph Bondy serving as co-counsel. The full complaint can be found here.

Individual plaintiffs in the suit were two young children, an American military veteran, and a retired professional football player, all of whom are medical marijuana patients; and a membership organization alleging their minority members have been discriminated against by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Seeking to overturn the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, plaintiffs request a declaration that the CSA, as it pertains to the classification of Cannabis as a Schedule I drug, is unconstitutional, because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, an assortment of protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the fundamental Right to Travel. Further, plaintiffs seek a declaration that Congress, in enacting the CSA as it pertains to marijuana, violated the Commerce Clause, extending the breadth of legislative power well beyond the scope contemplated by Article I of the Constitution.

Named as defendants in the case are Attorney General Jeff Beauregard Sessions, Acting Administrator of the DEA Chuck Rosenberg, the Justice Department, the DEA and the Federal Government.

In their Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the federal government does not, and could not possibly, believe that Cannabis meets the definition of a Schedule I drug, which is reserved for the most dangerous of substances, such as heroin, LSD, and mescaline; and that classifying Cannabis as a “Schedule I drug,” is so irrational that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Among the other claims in the lawsuit are that the CSA: (i) was enacted and implemented in order to discriminate against African Americans and to suppress people’s First Amendment rights; and (ii) violates plaintiffs’ constitutional Right to Travel.

Joseph Bondy, a federal criminal defense attorney and legalization advocate, explained he felt it was important to “question the agenda of those who continue to push for enforcement of the CSA, given its unlawful and discriminatory impact and that so few in America support such an effort.” Co-counsel David Holland, a litigator and Executive Director of Empire State NORML, noted that “the efforts to criminalize Cannabis are relatively recent and were largely underwritten by racial and ethnic animus,” referring to recent findings that African Americans and other persons of color are four times as likely to be arrested under the CSA than white Americans, even though marijuana is used equally by people of color and Caucasians.

Perhaps the federal courts will surprise us at long last and finally take a critical look at marijuana prohibition, and find the courage to declare the CSA to be unconstitutional. That would be an enormous step forward in ending marijuana prohibition altogether. But regardless of the outcome of this particular suit, it is encouraging to see the criminal defense bar continue to push the legal envelope, and to advance the best and latest legal and factual arguments. At some point, the courts will have no choice but to strike downC1_8734_r_x prohibition as a violation of our personal

Source

Liberals hate the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States has failed
This is not fine.

What kind of nation allows the loser of a national election to become president — and then does it again 16 years later?

What kind of nation retains an electoral process that was originally designed to inflate the influence of slaveholders?

What kind of nation permits its Congress to write a time bomb into law that periodically forces rival factions into a game of chicken that could wreck the world economy?

What kind of nation fights a civil war over the question of whether people of African descent are people or property, and then looks the other way when the loser ignores the resolution of that war? What kind of nation waits until 1965 to guarantee black people’s right to vote?
Americans speak of our Constitution as if it were a religious text. To label a law “unconstitutional” is not simply to say that it violates some procedural rule or legal technicality, it is to label it fundamentally unAmerican. To do so is to question the values of any lawmaker despicable enough to support such a law, and to suggest that those values are at odds with who we are as a nation.

But our Constitution has not served us nearly as well as we would have been served by other systems adopted by our peer nations. Nor has it lived up to the expectations of its drafters.

Now, our country is facing a man of superlative ignorance. A racist. An admitted sexual assaulter of women. A man poised to violate the Constitution the very instant he takes the oath of office. A man who openly encouraged Russia’s efforts to usher him into the White House. A man who owes his election to the underhanded efforts of deep state actors within our nation’s internal police agency. A man who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. And the Constitution has placed this man in the White House.

The Constitution gave Donald Trump command of the world’s most powerful military and an nuclear arsenal that can eradicate all life on Earth. It let him name a racist as our nation’s top enforcer of its laws. It let him use his office to sell hotel rooms to foreign diplomats. The Electoral College has voted. Trump will be our next president. This is what the Constitution hath wrought.

It did this because our Constitution remains the product of a compromise with moral monsters who believed that human beings could be owned as property. It did this because our Constitution offers no guarantee, or even much in the way of likelihood, that the men and women elected to lead the country will share the preferences of the nation as a whole. It did this because our Constitution fosters voter ignorance. It did this because our Constitution can be gamed — and was gamed quite successfully by the Republican Party.

The price of peace

There are competing theories for why America has an Electoral College. One, offered by Alexander Hamilton in an advocacy document written to persuade the nation to support its new Constitution, is that it would allow “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to” the presidency to determine who should hold that crucial job.

Another theory, which Hamilton did not include in his sales pitch for the Constitution, is that the Electoral College was part of the price northerners had to pay in order to form a union with states whose entire economic model depended on slavery.

Regardless of which theory you prefer, it is undeniable that the Electoral College now serves the second goal of giving a leg up to racists far better than it serves the first. In 2016, the electors themselves are almost entirely obscurities — party activists who are typically selected more for their willingness to cast a vote for their party’s candidate than for their ability to analyse the qualities best adapted to the presidency. Even if they’d wanted to elect someone other than Donald Trump as the president, they lack the stature necessary to quell unrest that would likely ensue.

What the Electoral College has done is steal the presidency from the woman who won it, and given it to a man who openly campaigned on racism and nativism. It’s the sort of outcome that would make many of the Founding Fathers smile — the ones who demanded a terrible price as the cost of Union.

To be sure, there were good men at the Philadelphia convention that drafted the original Constitution. There were men who, as Gouverner Morris said in a speech to the convention, saw slavery as a “nefarious institution” and “the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed.” There were also delegates from large states who stood for the very simple proposition that a vote from Virginia should count exactly the same amount as a vote from Delaware.

Yet these good men traded away their convictions. The new Constitution explicitly protected slavery. It allowed slave states to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for purposes of calculating representation in the House and the Electoral College, even though those slaves could not vote. And it created the Senate, an anti-democratic body which today counts each person in Wyoming as 67 times more important than each person in California.

The good men in Philadelphia agreed to these terms in service of a singular goal: peace through Union. As Yale’s Akhil Amar explains, the Articles of Confederation, the loose alliance of states that preceded the Constitution, conceived of the United States as “an alliance, a multilateral treaty of sovereign nation-states.” Pennsylvania was as much a separate a sovereign nation from Virginia as Russia is today separate from China. The Articles largely bound these nations into a pact of mutual commerce and defense.

Nevertheless, the framers were well-versed in European history. They knew of the frequent warfare which plagued that continent, and they came to see Union as the best defense against a similar fate. As Amar describes their concerns, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but also perhaps to awe its neighbors. America would then recreate continental Europe — borders, armies, dictators, chains, and all.”

The threat from such armies, moreover, was twofold. As Hamilton warned, these armies could themselves be turned against the people, becoming “engines of despotism” that would lead the states in a “progressive direction toward monarchy.” Standing armies were a threat, not just to rival states, but to the people of their home states.

More than two centuries later, the Founding Fathers’ belief that their Constitution would keep America from keeping a standing army is quaint. The United States has the most powerful military in the world, in addition to a network of federal police, intelligence agencies, and an entire cabinet department devoted to internal security. Perhaps these institutions will balk if Trump orders them to impose the kind of tyranny Hamilton feared, but the Constitution sure did not stop them from being built.

It also didn’t save us from war among the states. The early history of the United States was an uneasy peace broken by regional conflicts and near-misses — the Nullification Crisis, Bleeding Kansas, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry. And then the war came, a four year conflict that killed between 2 and 3 percent of the nation’s entire population.

Our Founding Fathers traded away democracy. They traded away the fundamental principle that every American’s vote is equal. They traded away every person’s inalienable right to freedom. And they’d traded it away for nothing.

Three generations of lost rights

If you go to the American South today, and you speak to a black person over the age of 50, you are most likely speaking to someone who was born into an apartheid state. If you speak to someone over the age of 70, that person probably had their voting rights stolen from them by a white supremacist regime.

This is not ancient history. These are flesh and blood Americans who live and work among us. America became a liberal democracy in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act. Free and fair elections, at least at the nationwide level, are not something we have all that much experience with.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. When the Civil War was won, the victors demanded a new covenant. They wrote slavery out of our Constitution. They wrote freedmen’s right to vote into the Constitution. And, in the most sweeping and radical change that has ever been written into the Constitution, they completely reworked the balance of power between the states and the people.

The Fourteenth Amendment declared, for the first time in American history, that everyone born in the United States is a citizen and that every citizen enjoys certain rights solely because they are an American (without this amendment, states were free to violate the Bill of Rights). It provided that no one can be stripped of their liberty without appropriate legal process, and it insisted on equal treatment along racial lines.

Yet, for much of the next century, the South gleefully ignored these guarantees. “Black codes” relegated freedmen to a status that was often difficult to distinguish from actual slavery. Black men were arrested for minor or even fabricated offenses, then rented out to whites as cheap labor. Jim Crow segregated African Americans and stripped them of their vote. And if anyone dared to question white supremacy, they were quieted by terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan, which often worked in close coordination with the state.

There are many villains in this saga. The resilience of white supremacist government in the South occurred because the Supreme Court largely sat on its hands, often explicitly embracing the South’s most odious practices. It happened because the rest of the nation lost its nerve, abandoning Reconstruction for a peace built from the bones of black Americans. It happened because of immoral men willing to use murder as a tool of political control. But white supremacy also thrived because of the Founding Fathers.

Remember that compromise? The one that gave Alabama exactly the same number of senators as New York? It also prevented Congress from enacting a single civil rights law from 1875 until 1957.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was one of Congress’ final serious attempts to reconstruct the South. Enacted just over a year before Rutherford B. Hayes sold out black America in order to secure his presidency, the Act banned racial discrimination by “inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement.” It survived eight years before it was struck by the Supreme Court.

Though new civil rights legislation sometimes passed the House — five such bills did so in the 12 years following World War II — none of this legislation survived contact with the Senate. The same Senate malapportionment that, for many years, gave slave states parity with free states in Congress’ upper house, despite the fact that the free population in the North significantly exceeded that of the South, now gave the Jim Crow states a far louder voice in the Senate than their population warranted.

That thumb on the scale, combined with the filibuster, was enough to keep civil rights bills from becoming law.

Nearly six decades after the Senate finally ended its blockade of all civil rights laws, malapportionment continues to advantage conservatives and stymie progressives. To give just one example, the 54 senators who make up the current Republican majority (and who effectively kept the Supreme Court in Republican hands by preventing Chief Judge Merrick Garland from being confirmed to fill its vacant seat) represent fewer than 150 million people. The 46 senators in the Democratic majority, meanwhile, represent more than 170 million.

What’s more, according to the group FairVote, “the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes.”

The ungovernable nation

Even setting aside the undemocratic Senate, the United States is an outlier among our peer democracies because of the unusual number of roadblocks our Constitution places before any bill that seeks to become law.

America’s separation of powers, which typically requires consensus among the president, two houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court — not to mention the cooperation of congressional leaders and committee chairs who have outsized power to hold up legislation — is generally taught to schoolchildren as if it were divine wisdom delivered to the Founding Fathers at Mt. Sinai. But it is a highly unusual system, in no small part because so many democracies that adopted similar models failed.

In his seminal essay “The Perils of Presidentialism,” the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz warned about the danger inherent in a constitutional system, like the one in the United States, which elects the nation’s chief executive separately from its legislature. In such a system, it is easy for two irreconcilable factions to each gain control of at least one veto point that enables them to halt the legislative process. Moreover, because both sides “derive their power from the votes of the people in a free competition among well-defined alternatives,” there’s no “democratic principle” that can be cited to break such an impasse.

As one Republican lawmaker defended his party’s actions in the lead up to the 2013 government shutdown, “I too won an election. You want me to just disregard all of my voters and all of the promises that I made and how I got elected?” The shutdown happened because both our Democratic president and our Republican House had an equal claim to democratic legitimacy.

The shutdown is an unhappy memory, but it is hardly the worse case scenario for what can happen if the president and the legislature face a unsolvable disagreement. It is “no accident,” Linz recalled of other nations that have faced such an impasse, “that in some such situations in the past, the armed forces were often tempted to intervene as a mediating power.”

The United States, fortunately, did not reach the point where Obama and former House Speaker John Boenher (R) needed to start counting their loyalists among the nation’s generals and admirals. But there’s still plenty of evidence of the issues that Linz is referencing in U.S. government.

Our stagnant, imperfect democracy leaves many problems — crumbling infrastructure, a job market that still has not fully recovered from the recession — unaddressed or underaddressed. It also denies voters much of the feedback that they need in order to cast their ballots wisely.

A likely reason why Republicans felt hornswoggled when President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law is that they had good reason to believe that such a thing wasn’t possible. After all, every Democratic president since Harry Truman (as well as Republican Richard Nixon) promised a universal health plan. Yet, for more than six decades, they failed. Failed health care reform plans were as American as baseball and capitalism. It’s hard to blame Obama’s opponents for thinking they were safe from the horrors of affordable health care for the less fortunate.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party’s fiscal proposals, which include deep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, a plan to charge seniors up to 40 percent more for inferior health coverage, and big tax cuts for the highest earners, are unpopular with the general public, unpopular with Republicans, and unpopular even with most Republican donors. Pretty much the only people who like these proposals are rich Republican donors.

And yet, somehow, the American people just elected a Republican Congress that is poised to enact these unpopular proposals and a president (albeit not with anything close to a majority vote) who is likely to sign them into law. How can this be? Why did so many voters condemn themselves to policies that they hate?

Vox’s Sarah Kliff offers one explanation for this dichotomy. In a recent trip to a Kentucky town that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, despite the fact that many of its residents depend upon Obamacare for health coverage, she heard a frequent refrain. In Kliff’s words, these voters “just couldn’t fathom the idea that this new coverage would be taken away from them.”

In one of the most heartbreaking interviews in Kliff’s piece, a voter whose husband is waiting for a liver transplant was able to get health insurance for her family thanks to Obamacare. Yet she told Kliff that she backed Trump because “I guess I thought that, you know, he would not do this, he would not take health insurance away knowing it would affect so many people’s lives.”

In 2012, a Democratic super PAC convened a focus group to assess whether Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the GOP’s fiscal proposals could be used against him. Yet the focus group’s reactions to these proposals resembled the conversations Kliff had with Trump voters in Kentucky. When the super PAC “informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed ‘ending Medicare as we know it’ — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.”

The Constitution of the United States, in other words, built a nation where elections frequently don’t have significant consequences. In doing so, it lulled many voters into a false sense of security. It taught them not to believe politicians’ promises because, chances are, those promises won’t be implemented anyway.

And then, when a party actually does bring about sweeping radical change, the same voters seem flabbergasted that the government they elected actually did what it said it would do.

The risk of permanence

One good thing that can be said about unified Republican control of Congress and the White House is that it is likely to break this cycle. If Republicans succeed in repealing Obamacare, replacing Medicare with a voucher program, slashing Medicaid, cutting Social Security benefits by 20–50 percent, and using the savings to put more money in the wealthiest Americans’ pockets, then it will be hard to pretend that elections don’t matter. Or that voters shouldn’t pay attention to a party’s ideas before they cast a ballot for its candidates.

But the biggest danger arising from unified Republican government isn’t that it will enact bad policies that might be repealed later. It is that the GOP will use its moment at the apex of power to ensure that it can never be displaced from this position.

In many ways, this process began long before Donald Trump even declared his candidacy. Over the last several years, voter suppression laws thrived in Republican-led states. Meanwhile, these laws — many of which are unconstitutional — have survived judicial review thanks to a GOP-dominated Supreme Court that even went so far as to gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

There are also strong arguments that partisan gerrymandering violates either the First Amendment’s protections against viewpoint discrimination, or the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. Yet Republicans on the Supreme Court also thwarted efforts to combat such gerrymandering in court. These decisions, combined with geographic factors that advantage Republicans, prevent Democrats from enacting legislation even when they win. In 2012, for example, Democratic House candidates won nearly 1.4 million more votes than Republicans. Yet the GOP kept control of the House.

There are many good things in our Constitution. But they don’t mean very much if the Supreme Court is unwilling to enforce them.

Once Trump adds another Republican justice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Court’s first orders of business will probably be a long-pending dispute that seeks to hobble public sector unions’ ability to fund themselves — it is highly likely that Trump’s nominee will provide the fifth vote to inflict this wound on unions. That not only means lower wages for government workers in the long run, but also means Democrats will lose much of the political infrastructure that these unions provide.

And enabling voter suppression while carving up unions is really only a small part of the damage a truly partisan Supreme Court could inflict upon democratic governance. In the worse case scenario, a Supreme Court stacked with Trump justices could recreate the early twentieth century, when minimum wage laws, child labor laws, and much of the New Deal were blocked by an ideological Court that did not feel especially constrained by the text of the Constitution.

Despite all the obstacles laid by voter suppression and similar tactics, Democrats could claw their way back into congressional majorities and the White House — only to discover that their efforts to roll back Trump era legislation will be struck down by Republicans on the Supreme Court.

Learning the wrong lessons

If America holds a free and fair election in 2020, and if that election places a Democrat back in the White House, there’s a danger that liberals will learn the wrong lessons from four years of Donald Trump.

To be sure, some of the right lessons are obvious and unlikely to be missed. The Electoral College, for example, is a pathology that will have few informed defenders outside of the party that has twice seen its losing candidate declared the winner.

But conservatives also spent much of the last century spinning a fairly consistent narrative about what’s wrong with the American system of government. In their mythology, the problem with the United States is that it is too democratic. That it is too easy for the federal government to enact new programs and regulations. And that the way to save America is to erect barriers that make it harder for elected officials in Washington to govern.

This narrative is likely to have some appeal to liberals reeling from four years of Trump. The idea that Obamacare, or Medicare, or Social Security, could have been saved if only there’d been more veto points in our system will be appealing. We are likely to see just how bad things can get if government is able to move quickly.

If Brexit does prove to be a calamity, British voters will at least know who to blame.

But liberals will shoot themselves in the foot if they succumb to the appeal of a left-libertarian alliance whose sole goal is to keep future Presidents Trump from doing too much, too quickly. In the short term, they are likely to freeze government in the weakened state that four years of Donald Trump will produce. In the long term, such a single-minded alliance would exacerbate the constitutional defects that brought America to the point we find ourselves in today.

Today, as President-elect Donald Trump waits to take the oath of office, the nation of Great Britain faces a similar crisis. The Brexit campaign, which appealed to much of the same racism and nationalism that drove Trump’s campaign, is victorious. A web of alliances that helped end centuries of warfare within Europe is now at risk. British workers are expected to “make £38 less a week than their E.U. counterparts by the year 2030 once the country leaves the E.U.”

The British parliamentary system, which typically places a single party in charge of the entire government, did not prevent these outcomes. But if Brexit does prove to be a calamity, British voters will at least know who to blame. It was a Tory prime minister who allowed the Brexit vote, and a Tory government will manage the nation’s transition out of the European Union.

There can be no doubt in London that elections have consequences. And no further doubt about who foisted these consequences upon the British people.

And, if Tory candidates campaign on a plan to dismantle their nation’s universal health care system, British voters will know damn well that they better believe that these candidates will actually do it.

They won’t vote, as so many Americans did, to dismantle our social safety net by accident.

Source

A very comprehensive arguement in favor of marijuana legalization

I was surfing Yahoo Answers and came across this. It is the most informative post ever written in favor of marijuana legalization:

I did the government marijuana studies in the 1960's. This was a controlled study that lasted 3 months. They set up two societies that were kept apart. One side smoked placebos and one side smoked what I would now consider mediocre pot. The smoker side was found to be more industrious and creative.

Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind and does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people.

If marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The elite have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies. :

All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered,

It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s;

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.

Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow's export to England;

For thousands of years, 90% of all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis. 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc. were made from hemp until the 1820s with the introduction of the cotton gin.

The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross's flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp; U.S. Government Archives.

In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs; Department of Agriculture
Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935; Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONTRUCTED FROM HEMP! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941.

Mechanical Engineering Magazine published an article entitled 'The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop that Can be Grown.' It stated that if hemp was cultivated using 20th Century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

In the 1930s, innovations in farm machinery would have caused an industrial revolution when applied to hemp.. Hemp, if not made illegal, would have brought America out of the Great Depression.

William Randolph Hearst and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. He stood to lose billions because of hemp.

In 1937, Dupont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. Dupont's Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of Dupont's business.

Andrew Mellon became Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont's primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: 'marihuana' and pushed it into the consciousness of America.

A media blitz of 'yellow journalism' raged in the late 1920s and 1930s. Hearst's newspapers ran stories emphasizing the horrors of marihuana. The menace of marihuana made headlines. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to loose morality. Films like 'Reefer Madness' (1936), 'Marihuana: Assassin of Youth' (1935) and 'Marihuana: The Devil's Weed' (1936) were propaganda designed by these industrialists to create an enemy. Their purpose was to gain public support so that anti-marihuana laws could be passed.

Examine the following quotes from 'The Burning Question' aka REEFER MADNESS: a violent narcotic, acts of shocking violence, incurable insanity, soul-destroying effects, under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax, more vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marihuana!

In the 1930s, people were very naive; even to the point of ignorance. The masses were like sheep waiting to be led by the few in power. They did not challenge authority. If the news was in print or on the radio, they believed it had to be true. That has been the downfall of America. Innocence used against itself. These people kept the stories alive and told their children. Here we are today.

Congress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. Many great problems could be reversed if we industrialized hemp. Natural biomass could provide all of the planet's energy needs that are currently supplied by fossil fuels. We have consumed 80% of our oil and gas reserves. We need a renewable resource. Hemp could be the solution to soaring gas prices.

Hemp has a higher quality fiber than wood fiber. Far fewer caustic chemicals are required to make paper from hemp than from trees. Hemp paper does not turn yellow and is very durable. The plant grows quickly to maturity in a season where trees take a lifetime.

ALL PLASTIC PRODUCTS SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP SEED OIL. Hempen plastics are biodegradable! Over time, they would break down and not harm the environment. MEDICINES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. We should go back to the days when the AMA supported cannabis cures. 'Medical Marijuana' is given out legally to only a handful of people while the rest of us are forced into a system that relies on chemicals. Pot is only healthy for the human body.

WORLD HUNGER COULD END. A large variety of food products can be generated from hemp. The seeds contain one of the highest sources of protein in nature. ALSO: They have two essential fatty acids that clean your body of cholesterol. CLOTHES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. Hemp clothing is extremely strong and durable over time. You could hand clothing, made from pot, down to your grandchildren.

There is only one enemy; the friendly people you pay your taxes to; the war-makers and nature destroyers. With your funding, they are killing the world right in front of your eyes. HALF A MILLION DEATHS EACH YEAR ARE CAUSED BY TOBACCO. HALF A MILLION DEATHS EACH YEAR ARE CAUSED BY ALCOHOL. NO ONE HAS EVER, EVER DIED FROM SMOKING POT!! In the entire history of the human race, not one death can be attributed to cannabis.

Our society has outlawed grass but condones the use of the KILLERS: TOBACCO and ALCOHOL. Hemp should be declassified and placed in DRUG stores to relieve stress. Hardening and constriction of the arteries are bad; but hemp usage actually enlarges the arteries.which is a healthy condition. We have been so conditioned to think that: Smoking is harmful. That is NOT the case for passive pot.
Ingesting THC, hemp's active agent, has a positive effect; relieving asthma and glaucoma. A joint tends to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy. You are able to eat on hemp. This is a healthy state of being.

The stereotype for a pothead is similar to a drunk, bubble-brain. Yet, the truth is one’s creative abilities can be enhanced under its influence. The perception of time slightly slows and one can become more sensitive. You can more appreciate all arts; be closer to nature and generally FEEL more under the influence of cannabis. It is, in fact, the exact opposite state of mind and body as the drunken state. You can be more aware with pot.


…POT IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE BILLIONAIRES WANT TO REMAIN BILLIONAIRES!

The next time you are arguing with a prohibitionist or two (or more) hit them with this puppy and see if they can refute it. They can't so it should shut them up. This way they can't spew their lies.

If you wish to make you're elected officials in the House and Senate aware of this post you are highly encouraged to do so. I did so go for it. In fact everybody go for it and cause some real change. The biggest prohibitionists in the Senate: Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Chuck Grassley should be contacted as well. Politely but firmly tell them that they are out of touch with the wishes of the American people and that the people support marijuana legalization.

IRS threatens Campaign For Liberty

From Ron Paul and Campaign For Liberty:

After over forty years in politics, you would think there was nothing the statist politicians could do to shock me.

But I was amazed when I heard the Democratic platform called for the President and federal bureaucracy to silence groups like Campaign for Liberty.

Hillary Clinton and her allies have openly declared war on our First Amendment rights!

They want to use government power to stop Campaign for Liberty from mobilizing pro-liberty Americans to stop Hillary and her pals from:

*** Restricting our Second Amendment rights;
*** Giving new powers to the surveillance state;
*** Imposing new taxes and regulations on the Internet; and
*** Further crippling our economy with Cap-and-Tax and ObamaCare expansion.

And Hillary and her allies certainly do not want Campaign for Liberty to tell you about Hillary's history of supporting every single failed policy in the statist playbook.

They want to gag us so they can wipe Hillary's record cleaner than she wiped her servers!

The IRS could literally silence Campaign for Liberty from telling the truth about Hillary Clinton and other statists before the election.

You and I must not let the IRS wipe Hillary's record clean!

That's why I've initiated C4L's "Stop Wiping Hillary's Record" IRS Attack Money Bomb.

Can I count on you for a special contribution of $30 , $20 or $10 to help Campaign for Liberty raise $50,000 by Sept 6?

You see, for three years now the IRS has threatened Campaign for Liberty with fines and other legal action if we do not give in to their demands that we turn over the names of some of our most loyal donors.

Of course, Campaign for Liberty has flat-out refused to give in to the IRS.

The IRS has no legitimate reason to force us to hand over personal information on any of our supporters.

I also have strong reason to believe this is not about enforcing tax laws but about intimidating supporters of pro-liberty organizations in order to silence the liberty moment.

After all, the IRS has a long, clear history of abusing its power to harass the political enemies of those in power.

Ever since the IRS launched its attack on Campaign for Liberty, I have been afraid that the agency could force us to close our doors.

But right now I'm more worried than ever.

So I've asked Campaign for Liberty to run a "Stop Wiping Hillary's Record" IRS Attack Money Bomb to help C4L fight attempts by the IRS and other federal agencies to wipe Hillary's record clean.

Can I count on you to for an immediate special contribution of $30 , $20 or $10 to help Campaign for Liberty raise $50,000 by Sept 6?

As some of you already know, Campaign for Liberty's bank accounts are hovering near zero, forcing Campaign for Liberty President Norman Singleton and me to make some painful cuts.

That's the bad news.

The good news is we are putting together a solid plan to put Campaign for Liberty on a sound footing and grow the organization into a more effective force for liberty!

But all of our efforts will be for naught if the IRS doubles down on their efforts to force us to turn over our donor information.

While I am confident we could win a fight, the fact is right know we cannot afford the costly legal bills.

So if the worst came, I would be forced into an uncomfortable choice:

Give in to the IRS' demands or continue to resist and let the agency shut us down.

So please give your most generous contribution of $30 , $20 or $10 immediately to ensure the statists don't get away with wiping Hillary's record?

A pre-election attack on Campaign for Liberty would make it much easier for Hillary Clinton and her congressional cronies to campaign without fear of having their records exposed.

And if Campaign for Liberty is not around in 2017, it will be much easier for the statists to implement their agenda no matter who wins the election.

Consider how many freedom-grabs Campaign for Liberty has stopped over the past eight years -- from Cap-and-Tax to DISCLOSE to attempts to tax-and-regulate the Internet -- one can see why Hillary Clinton and her ilk would rather not have us around!

Without C4L, many Republicans would feel free to cut "bipartisan compromises" that do nothing more than compromise away our liberty.

So it is not just Hillary's Democratic pals who wish we would disappear.

Statists want Campaign for Liberty to disappear because they are afraid we may begin rolling back their powers.

You see, the continued failure of Big Government programs like ObamaCare to deliver on their promises, as well as continued economic stagnation caused by the Federal Reserve's reckless monetary policy, is leading more and more Americans to reject Big Government and embrace the ideal of liberty.

This shift gives Campaign for Liberty a great opportunity to mobilize these Americans and build on our past progress.

In the next four years, we may be able to force Congress to pass Audit the Fed, repeal ObamaCare and all other infringements on our health freedom, end TSA harassment and NSA spying, and defeat even more power grabs at the state and local levels.

But we will only be able to take advantage of the growing interest in the idea of liberty if Campaign for Liberty is around to mobilize the growing number of pro-liberty Americans to force Congress to respond to the people's demands for smaller government and sound money.

That's why I'm asking you to chip in today to C4L's "Stop Wiping Hillary's Record" IRS Attack Money Bomb.

I'm counting on your immediate special contribution of $30 , $20 or $10 to help Campaign for Liberty raise $50,000 by Sept 6.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul
Chairman

P.S. Hillary Clinton's platform calls for the use of "executive action" to silence groups like Campaign for Liberty. Clinton and her cronies, including President Obama, want to silence Campaign for Liberty so we are unable to mobilize opposition to their statist agenda.

Obama's IRS could force Campaign for Liberty to close its doors by imposing fines and other legal action on us if we continue refusing to comply with their demands for personal information on some of our biggest donors.

And a pre-election IRS attack would most likely shut our doors.

As some of you already know, Campaign for Liberty's bank accounts are hovering near zero, forcing Campaign for Liberty President Norman Singleton and me to make some painful cuts.

But if we can raise the resources to rebuild our programs and keep the IRS at bay we can take advantage of the growing opposition to Big Government and make tremendous advances for liberty in the next few years.

So please make your most generous contribution of $30 , $20 or $10 to help Campaign for Liberty raise $50,000 by Sept 6.

Hillary Clinton is not known for her sense of humbleness. In fact she lashes out at criticism of her.

Rand Paul Could Lose His Seat To A Wealthy Self Financed Challenger! The Polls Are Close!

Patriots For Economic Freedom:

Rand Paul is facing a wealthy self funded liberal! The polls are close and Rand Paul is vulnerable. The Washington establishment is doing everything possible to elect Jim Gray and defeat Rand Paul. Will you help defend Rand Paul's U.S. Senate seat? Please contribute $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000, or more, to support Rand Paul with voter outreach and advertising! All funds will be used to support Rand Paul. Not a cent will be spent on overhead costs or credit card processing.
Rand Paul's opponent is a liberal extremist. If elected, he would be a one of the most radical members of the U.S. Senate. As the Mayor of Lexington, Jim Gray has raised taxes, increased spending, and created new regulations on small businesses. He is an enemy of the Constitution! In Washington, Jim Gray would work to pass amnesty, ban private health insurance, and take away guns!
Unlike Jim Gray, Rand Paul always fights for conservative principles. In the Senate, he works to shrink government, stop amnesty and defend the Second Amendment. As a conservative, Rand Paul understands the need to cut spending and balance the budget. He knows that the American dream won't be around for future generations if action is not taken.Will you help re-elect Rand Paul to the U.S. Senate? Please contribute $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000, or more, to support Rand Paul with voter outreach and advertising! All funds will be used to support Rand Paul. Not a cent will be spent on overhead costs or credit card processing.

From Huffington Post:

Gay Democratic Mayor Jumps In Senate Race Against Rand Paul

Jim Gray wants to restore the American dream for Kentucky families, but he knows it’ll be an uphill battle.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will be facing a challenge from a prominent Kentucky Democrat come the election in November.
Lexington Mayor Jim Gray, 62, said Tuesday that he believes he has a shot at defeating the Republican incumbent despite that state’s widespread disapproval of President Barack Obama.

“I feel like that there’s an environment in Washington that’s toxic, and people across the country, and including Kentucky, are looking for alternatives,” Gray told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The second-term mayor, who is gay, said he believes Paul is vulnerable because he is simultaneously running for president. Gray said he decided last week he would challenge the senator, and that he doesn’t believe voters will take issue with his sexual orientation.

Rand Paul is one of the strongest conservatives in the Senate. He is not part of the status quo and he cannot be controlled by lobbyists. Unlike most of Washington, he ran for office as a political outside with a successful career in Medicine. Rand Paul is dedicated to restoring liberty in America and solving the debt crisis!

Re-electing Rand Paul is crucial to maintaining a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. If Rand Paul is defeated, it is likely that Democrats will take control of the Senate in 2016. That would be a disaster! If a Democrat takeover happens, amnesty will pass and spending will increase. Conservatives must do everything possible to stop a Democratic takeover. Will you help re-elect Rand Paul to the U.S. Senate? Please contribute $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000, or more, to support Rand Paul with voter outreach and advertising! All funds will be used to support Rand Paul. Not a cent will be used on overhead costs or credit card processing.

Also, checks can be mailed to:
Patriots For Economic Freedom
P.O. Box 90
New York, NY 10009

Kentucky,the Constitution and heterosexual values are on the line here. If Jim Gray wins the rainbow mafia wins and the people and the Constitution lose. Socialism will replace Libertarianism,tyranny will replace freedom and left wing special interests will rule Frankfort and the rest of the country. Jim Gray will be a Kentuckian form of Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Does that sound great? If you said yes you are a lost cause. OTOH if you said hell no then reelect Rand Paul,preserve the Constitution and the values we hold dear. Who do you want in the Senate? Hillary's best friend,Jim Gray or Hillary's worst nightmare,Rand Paul? It's up to you.

Make Senator Mitch McConnell keep his word on Supreme Court replacement

From Freedom Works:

Instead of allowing the nation to mourn Justice Scalia’s passing, Obama was already in front of the cameras demanding the Senate confirm whatever liberal justice he nominates. This is wrong, and it proves how desperate he is to pack the court with more liberal justices. Tell Mitch McConnell to keep his promise and block any Supreme Court nominee while Obama is in office.

Another liberal on the Court, would complete Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America. We would lose every major case heard by the Court for years to come. You can’t let that happen, the Constitution simply can’t afford it. That’s why it’s so crucial that you contact Mitch McConnell today and tell him to block any Supreme Court nominee while Obama is in office.

It’s up to you to keep freedom working on the Supreme Court.

This hurts

Ted Cruz is running for President. I would love that to be but unfortunately it cannot be. Why? Because Ted Cruz was born in Canada. According to the United States Constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Source

It's with a heavy heart that I type this. I would have loved a Cruz Presidency. If he were born on vacation in Minnisota there would be no problem but as it stands there is just no way. The only thing he can do is step aside. Rand Paul and Mike Lee,both native born Americans can take up the pro-liberty banner that Cruz was carrying. Like I said I type this with a heavy heart and a lot of disappointment but I'm confident that Paul and/or Lee are up for the task.