Now We Know Who Was Right about Obama

This was such a good article, I am reposting it here on my Blog. Leon

Now We Know Who Was Right about Obama

By Karin McQuillan

Now we know.  After three years in office and the launching of his second election campaign, we have experienced President Obama's leadership.  We can see whom we elected president -- the mystery man of 2008 revealed.

Democrats were in ecstasy over the great healer, the multiracial candidate who would bring together red states and blue states, black and white, coasts and flyover country.  Republicans saw the man with the most leftist, least bipartisan voting record in Congress being installed in the White House.  We now know who was right.

Democrat professionals Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen this July pleaded with Obama in a Wall Street Journal column, "Our Divisive President," not to run for a second term.  They describe his leadership as toxically divisive to our country.  According to Gallup, Obama's approval gap after one year was the most polarized in history, with an average approval of 88% among his own party and 23% among Republicans.

Obama's disdain and hostility to opponents has been quite visible.  He dissed the Supreme Court to their faces, dismissed Congressman Ryan's efforts to work together on the deficit with a "you lost, we won" crack, and told Republicans to shut up and go to the back of the bus.  He rammed through the biggest changes to health care in history by chicanery, to avoid having to make compromises with Republicans through the normal conference process.  He ignored the recommendations of his own bipartisan commission on controlling debt and deficit.  His favorite activity (next to golf) is class warfare.  Obama is indeed the great divider, and the country shows it.

What else do we know?  To the surprise of many, we now know that Obama does not pay attention to the black community -- he doesn't visit them, talk to them, encourage them, propose policies to benefit them.  He hasn't helped this suffering community, and when he does go to speechify, this is what he says:

Take off your bedroom slippers.  Put on your marching shoes.  Stop complainin'.  Stop grumblin'.  Stop cryin'.  We are going to press on.  We have work to do.

What work is Obama referring to -- jobs for the black community?  No, the work is the re-election work he feels blacks owe him!

Look at black teenagers' 40% unemployment rate.  Our president's "stimulus" package was not targeted to create private-sector jobs for them or anyone else.  Eighty percent of the almost trillion dollars went to teachers' unions, Obama's re-election army, the very teachers who are failing those black teenagers so spectacularly.

In the words of Congressional Black Caucus leader Maxine Waters, "We're supportive of the president, but we're getting tired.  We're getting tired.  The unemployment is unconscionable.  We don't know what the strategy is.  We don't know why on this trip that he's in the United States now, he's not in any black community."  Actions speak louder than words.  The black community is right to feel abandoned.

What else do we know about our president?  We now know that the elites were half-right: Obama is an intellectual.  He surrounds himself with Ivy League economic advisors and follows their formulaic prescriptions.  He believes them despite the evidence of his own eyes.  He was told that there exists a "multiplier effect" by which $1 in government spending on anything -- government salaries, a bankrupt solar power company, aid to the states for Medicare or food stamps -- automatically creates $2 worth of jobs.  Instead of creating jobs, the Democrat stimulus policy set our recession in stone, made unemployment skyrocket, and has pushed federal government spending to a crippling quarter of our GDP.  Obama the intellectual is still a believer, still wants to spend more.  He believes in the Ivy League elite's brilliance, not common sense.

On intelligence, sadly, the Democrats were completely wrong.  Democrats swooned over Obama's suave self-presentation.  They constantly cited his position as editor at the Harvard Law Review as an impressive qualification to be president of the United States.  (Strange, but true.)  Republicans who did their homework knew that Obama was not the first black, but only the first affirmative action Harvard Law Review editor.  He did make history at the Law Review: he was the only editor never to write an article for the Review.  Indeed, Obama has never written a law article on anything.  Despite being given a job as lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, he is unpublished.

Journalists proclaimed him the most intelligent man to ever hold the White House.  What does this great brain do with his free time?  According to the New York Times, his favorite activities are playing Taboo, Wii video games, and basketball.  It seems that the Republicans were right who wondered about a mediocre high school student who smoked dope and drifted through his early college years at Occidental and was an "unspectacular" student at Columbia.  As Donald Trump asked, "I heard he was a terrible student, terrible.  How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?"  Percy Sutton, former borough president of Manhattan, in a TV interview, gives one possible answer: Islamic supremacist Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, an advisor to a wealthy Saudi, paid for Barack Obama to go to Harvard Law School.

We now see the lazy student, the charmer in the White House, busy at what he likes best: golf, basketball, vacations, parties, speeches, and raising money.  He has not been the policy wonk Democrats dreamed of, President Clinton redux.  Obama doesn't do hard work.  He farmed out his health reform to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, showing no interest or capability in formulating the details of the policy or even working the politics to get it through Congress.  He famously didn't lift the phone to call Capitol Hill and get his signature policy passed.  Obama's only contribution was nonstop speeches, which failed to win over the country.  He doesn't seem interested in or capable of formulating an intelligent economic policy or foreign policy.  He doesn't care enough to even try.

Progressives saw Obama as worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, before even taking office.  Republicans warned that Obama was a psychologically troubled man who deified his anti-colonial father, resented American power abroad, and had a troubling history of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel relationships (think Reverend Wright and Rashid Khalidi), never outgrowing an adolescent idolization of Castro and Che Guevara.

Tragically, once again, the Republicans were right.  We now can see that Obama doesn't understand what it takes to support stability in the Middle East.  He and Hillary Clinton have overturned the hard work of decades that created a neutral Egypt, key to the forty-year hiatus since the last Arab war against Israel.  He's furthered Iran's nuclear ambitions, thrown all the gains made in stabilizing Iraq down the drain, and even managed to turn Libya over to the jihadis, losing track of Gaddafi's weapons caches on the way.  Obama cares about happy headlines about the Facebook Revolution and the "Arab Spring," not about the hard work of supporting our allies and defeating our enemies.  He and the State Department do not care about the spread of the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood, Hitler's living legacy.

To everyone's surprise, Obama doesn't care about some very important hot-button liberal issues, such as closing Guantánamo or protecting the rights of terrorists.  Unlike the typical liberal, he's happy to use drones to kill individuals, even American citizens, without trial.  It's more important to our president to avoid Guantánamo interrogations because the headlines would cause him electoral headaches.  (He doesn't care about national security all that much, or he'd make sure we got those interrogations.)  He's "still working" on his position on gay marriage.

We now know that Obama doesn't care about seniors.  He took $500 billion out of Medicare to redistribute via ObamaCare to the uninsured.  His payroll tax holiday is gutting our Social Security fund; he used that "solution" rather than working on bipartisan reforms to keep the next generation of seniors safe.  Obama cares a great deal about scaring seniors to get them to vote Democrat.  He does not care about fixing the safety net's serious problems.

Our law professor president doesn't care about rule of law.  He and his attorney general and his Cabinet prefer government by fiat and by exemption -- the government of favoritism, not equality before the law.  This is very important issue not written about enough.  George Marlin's comments on the ballot box apply equally well to laws already passed:

If you look at the extreme left elites, they really don't have much use for democracy anymore because they're afraid people will not vote their way.  So they bite away at the democratic process by imposing upon us a managerial state where agencies and bureaucracies basically rule things by going around the ballot box.

The most dangerous thing the Obama administration is doing is filling up government agencies all over the United States with like-minded people who will be running the administrative state.  What Obama cannot get done through the Congress, through a democratically elected Congress, he's trying to do administratively.

We now know that our charming president has a narcissism problem.  Like all narcissists, he likes people's adulation, but actual people, not so much.  His most avid supporters complain that he is a cold fish.  He is an empty suit, the famous narcissistic false self, in the words of one Democrat, a "Where's Waldo" president, or in the words of another, "Members of Obama's own party ... wonder who he really is."  He takes criticism badly, has little empathy for others, and suffers from envy.  In fact, envy is his one great leadership ambition.  He wants the whole country to operate on envy instead of hard work.

A pathological narcissist, Obama has no capacity to learn, because he cannot admit mistakes.  This grandiouse self-evaluation, from a December 2011 60 Minutes interview, is typical of the man:

I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president -- with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln -- just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history.

Which brings us to the persistent question of who Obama really is.  He is not a traditional liberal, not a great help to the black community, not interested in protecting seniors or safeguarding our safety net.  He doesn't care about jobs, or he'd change from a failing policy.  He doesn't care about working-class Americans, or he wouldn't kill oil and gas development, a one-two gut-punch which jacks up gas prices -- meaning the price of everything -- and kills jobs.  He doesn't care about rule of law or clean government, but he does care about all the power he can grab.

The only constituencies he has worked for are government unions and the greens, his radical base.  The two policies he focused on were ObamaCare and cap and trade -- two policies that promise to destroy American prosperity and power, permanently.  He does not act like a normal liberal politician, such as Clinton, who backed off from the unpopularity of attacking our health care system.  A normal politician would have made economic recovery a priority.  Obama did not.

Conservative Republicans believe that Obama stands not for a failed presidency as much as for a malevolent one.  He is unknown even to his own party, because he is hiding his true goals and values.  He does not act like a typical liberal, because he is actually a radical.  He's not interested in crafting good laws and policies or working with the opposition, because his goal is destruction.  He is following the exact prescription of "the late American socialist Michael Harrington's 'socialist realignment strategy' -- deliberately dividing Americans by class 'with Republicans marked out as the aggressors,' forcing the 'have-nots' to act as a unified, pro-socialist - and electorally dominant - force."

Stanley Kurtz describes how Obama found his vocation as a community organizer at the 1983 Socialists Conference.

The socialist conferences Obama attended were filled with talk of community organizing as the key to socialist strategy.  Every socialist faction at those conferences was entranced with the idea that African-American political leaders could emerge out of socialist-run community organizations and move the country to the left.

In 2008, Americans didn't know what a community organizer was, and most still don't -- they think of it as something like a social worker, an aura of compassion for the poor.  They don't know that community organizing is the modern spearhead and training ground for the present-day American radicals' dream of destroying capitalism.

Obama has been implementing the teachings of America's leading socialists.  One of their proposed strategies was to use ACORN pressure tactics on the banks, by false accusations of racism in their lending practices, to force a mortgage/finacial crisis that would ultimately bring down capitalism.

Peter Dreier, one of the speakers Obama heard at the Socialist conference, worked for Obama in 2008 as a campaign advisor.  Dreir proposed to bring down American capitalism from below by swamping governments with entitlement programs.  Dreier claimed that "the process leads to expansion of state activity and budgets, and ... to fiscal crisis in the public sector.  In the longer run, it may give socialist norms an opportunity for expansion[.]"

In the words of the Wall Street Journal's New Year's Eve editorial in 2011:

For today's left, the main goal of politics is not to respond to public opinion.  The goal is to impose the dream of an egalitarian entitlement state whether the public likes it or not[.]

The dream of an egalitarian state -- we now know that we did elect a socialist for president.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/now_we_know_who_was_right_about_obama.htmlat January 22, 2012 - 02:20:38 PM CST

The Juror

The Juror

By Leon Howard

One of our ‘inalienable rights’ is to a trial by a jury of our peers; most Americans avoid jury duty at all reasonable costs. When we do avoid this duty, we miss one of the best opportunities to bring our judiciary and our unconstitutional laws back in control of those who loaned the power to govern us – We, the People!

Most judges and courts will not inform jurors they have the power to judge the law and its application. It is called “Jury Nullification” and the governments hate it! Why? Because it holds our servants ‘in-check’ and prevents tyranny! The judges and prosecutor will not tell you that you cannot nullify; they just don’t mention it! In Washington state, the judge “instructs” the jury as to what the jury’s “finding” can be and – surprise, surprise! – No mention of nullification!

Eleven years ago, I was notified to report for jury duty – Something I had always wanted to do – I reported to the Superior Court and was empaneled! It was a drug dealer case and, although I support legalization of drugs so they can be taxed, I wanted to serve with an open mind. The judge started asking the 12 of us a series of questions to reveal racial bias, prejudice, etc. Most of the questions were easy to comply with but he then asked, “Can you take instruction from the bench?”

I like to think I am an honest person and I raised my hand – The judge asked me, “Why?” I started to answer him when the prosecutor interrupted and said, “Leon, I have your letter here and, your honor, I request a side-bar.” The letter he spoke of was one I had written in response to the Jury Summons and Questionnaire; I stated in the letter that most of their questions were irrelevant and inappropriate to ask of a potential juror! I further stated that, “ … I am of majority age, a freeman, and a fully informed juror.” The prosecutor requested the side-bar so I wouldn’t pollute the entire jury pool as to what that statement meant.

At the side-bar, the judge read the letter and asked me, “You cannot accept instruction from the bench?” I said, “No, your honor, unless that instruction informs the jurors of their power to judge the law and its application in this case, I will not accept instruction from the bench.” The judge stated, “You cannot serve on my jury; you are excused.”

I so wanted to challenge him on that statement with, “I thought I was serving on their jury.” (the defendants) But I didn’t and I regret that today! Next time I am called for Jury Duty, I will suppress the urge to raise my hand when the questions are asked so I can serve my duty (I do believe it is my duty and the duty of every liberty-minded American to serve that duty when called!) We, the People, must hold our courts accountable; otherwise, tyranny comes to the forefront and there is no liberty for anybody!

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged.  The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

Jury nullification has a long and colorful history but the most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of  John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby.  Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty." 

Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge. Our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."  Further, the jury's veto power protects minorities from "the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority." (James Madison, June 8, 1789) Twelve people taken randomly from the population will represent both friends and opponents of the party in power. With fully-informed juries, the government cannot exercise its powers over the people without the consent of the people. Trial by jury is trial by the people. When juries are not allowed to judge law, it becomes trial by the government. "In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law." (Lysander Spooner,"Jury Power" by L. & J. Osburn)

"Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual 
administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant 
community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined 
minority, find the same obstacle in the local jury that formerly confronted 
kings and ministers."
 U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia
Source: U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1130 at note 32 (1972).

"I know, may it please your honour, the jury may do so; but I do likewise know 
they may do otherwise. I know they have the right, beyond all dispute, to 
determine both the law and the fact; and where they do not doubt the law, they 
ought to do so. This of leaving it to the judgment of the Court whether the 
words are libelous or not in effect renders juries useless (to say no worse) in 
many cases."
 Alexander Hamilton
(1757-1804)
Source: August 4, 1735, made to the jury as defense counsel at the seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger; Rex. V. Zenger, How. St. Tr. 17:675 (1735); quoted in Stanley N. Katz, Introduction to James Alexander, A Brief Narrative Of The Case And Trial Of John Peter Zenger, 3-5 (Stanley N. Katz ed. 1963).

Jury nullification has had it’s injustices as well, most notably the “Not Guilty” verdicts in some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. So, yes, there have been good and bad nullifications but the question of whether or not jurors should be able to nullify must always be answered with a resounding: “Yes!”

The Constitutions, both State and Federal, are contracts between the People and the government; the government’s power comes from the governed and it is “on loan” to the government – The People never abandoned their power to the government; that is what it means to be a Republic! The best way to evaluate government’s “just power” is to think in the simplest format (something bureaucracies aren’t capable of doing) Using the “first person”, I must ask myself, “Can I do this to another person myself, without violating the other person’s inalienable rights?” If I can answer that question in the affirmative, “Yes!”, then that is the ‘just power’ I am loaning to the government on my behalf. If I cannot answer the question in the affirmative, then the power is unjust and is proof the government is usurping powers not granted to them. An excellent example of usurped power is the “wealth redistribution” this government has been guilty of since they started giving “income tax rebates” to those Americans who pay no taxes whatsoever! That is theft, plain and simple! No matter what ‘warm and fuzzy’ terms they use to “explain” it – It is still theft!

Going back to the “first person” scenario, as a person not making enough money to be paying the tax, I cannot go out to you (part of the 53%) and tell you to give me money and, unless you are a fool, you are going to say, “No!” But if I stick a gun in your face and demand your money, you are going to give it to me, unless you are a fool!

How do you stop the usurpation of power? Obviously, the first place to go is back to the 535 idiots in Congress and point out their abuse and demand they repeal the law! But, when we look at it, how successful has that been? We still have the “income tax rebates” to 47% of the People being stolen from the other 53%! We still have the “Patriot Act” and the majority of the People have repeatedly told the 535 idiots it violates our inalienable rights; we now have the NDAA language that has the provision for the President to authorize American citizens to be imprisoned by our military, suspend ‘habeas corpus’, deny bail, never be charged with anything, and held until ‘the end of hostilities’!

Oh, they say it could never happen; President Zero stated he would never sign that order (that makes me all warm & fuzzy!); and some in Congress say they are going to “fix it”! Why the hell was it passed in the first place? Oh, I forgot; I already answered that: 535 idiots in Congress! Many of us warned these idiots the language was there and to remove it weeks before they voted to pass it but these elitist fools think the American People are too stupid to know anything!

What they so conveniently forget is the Constitution is OUR Constitution and it is the limits put on the government by us, the People!

Short of taking up arms against these idiots, we have two (2) choices: 1.) Vote them all out of office and place citizen legislators in their place and, 2.) Jury nullification of any case brought before the court where Americans are indicted on these unconstitutional statutes! My take is we must do both! Vote the bums out and jurors need to nullify! The Republic will become history if we do not take charge!

To learn more about becoming a fully-informed juror, I would suggest:

http://fija.org/

http://fija.org/links/

The Missing Link

The 10^th Amendment is explained a little differently by Anna von Reitz in the following article, published first in the Alaska Patriot News:

The Missing Link

by Anna von Reitz

There is a reason that our government is failing and our Constitution is ignored. There's a missing link. It's called the state government in each one of the 50 States.

The Constitution is a contract. In the 1824 edition of Webster's Dictionary, the word "federal" was a synonym for "contract". The "federal government" is a "contract government".

The 50 States are parties to the contract. Individuals are only parties to it under subrogation meaning that we are one tier down from being active parties to the contract, with our interests being (supposedly) represented by our State government.

Like any other contract, the parties to it are responsible for its enforcement, but since 1933, the States have slacked off their responsibility. Once the federal government got into our pockets with the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve schemes, the States took back seats and the Governors started sucking up to the federal officials for favors and federal money.

They have allowed the members of Congress to "rule by presumption" for the better part of eight decades now, during which time the Constitution has been given lip-service, but seldom been honored by anyone in government.

A contract that is not enforced is subject to being breached. During our lifetimes we have seen the Constitution breached and breached and breached.

So what do we do? Politely ask thieves to honor our property rights with endless petitions that are ignored? Chase our tails trying to get this person out of office and that person into office, thinking that will change anything?

Petitions are a waste of time and seeking to change things via elections is nearly as useless, especially as we are now ruled by Diebold machines.

There remains one effective and efficient means to regain control of our government: the 50 States and their governors have to be prodded into action. How, you say? The Governors are as bad as the rest of the politicians, so what help are they?

The Governors bear a fiduciary responsibility to you and me that the federal officials do not. When our property interests, represented by our rights, freedoms, and immunities, are trashed by Congress, the State is under legal obligation to stand in our stead and enforce the terms of the Constitution. If the Governors don't do their job and fail in this fiduciary responsibility, they can be sued, criminally charged, and put out of office.

Let's say that the Governors are subject to becoming highly motivated, and it is time to motivate them to enforce the terms of the Constitution.

In Alaska, the process has already been engaged. Governor Sean Parnell, Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell, and the Alaska Attorney General John J. Burns, have been served Notice of Dereliction of Duty and Demand to Show Cause. If they don't respond, they will receive Notice of Willful Failure to Perform. If they still don't get moving, they will be served Notice of Breach of Contract. If they continue, they will receive Notice of Full Estoppel and Denial of Authority to Act. Once those four Notices are cured by Due Process, they will be ripe to stand as evidence supporting a Motion for Summary Judgment in US District Court. That Summary Judgment will require removal of these men from office and the end of the commission of "The State of Alaska" as it now exists.

The state government and state officials also become liable for material damages. It is, after all, a fiduciary trust they are willfully ignoring.

The Governors so attacked by The People for non-performance are between a rock and a hard place. They do their job and enforce the terms of The Constitution of the United States of America in behalf of the Inhabitants of their State, or they lose their job and become subject to liability for their inaction, up to and including being sued and serving jail time.

So, for all those who are weary of seeing their rights disrespected and infringed, their money going to support causes they don't believe in, their lives circumscribed by an out of control government----take heart. You have a cheap and simple means of goading your State officials into action in your behalf, and engaging the considerable resources of state government to enforce the terms of the Constitution. You can reconnect the Missing Link and make American government functional again.

Please share this insight and information with as many other Americans in other States as possible. Get the Governors moving!

GUARDIANS OF THE REPUBLIC!

I am a member of Oath Keepers, you know – That group of people that Homeland Security wants to deem a “terrorist organization” because we are made up of veterans? I cannot think of anything more terrifying than the current administration and most of the Congress!

Anyway. I received a newsletter from Oath Keepers and it was so appropriate I am adding it to my Blog; I hope you enjoy it as much as did!

A note from Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers:

"Below is something my Uncle Rex (my Mom's brother) recently wrote for me, when he knew I was feeling down and losing hope.  I think you will like it."  

In the Shadow of our Fathers

The liberty we possess as Americans is not government granted but God given.  It is what our Fathers call "Our natural birthright." Therefore, it is not ours to give away nor to relinquish; for in essence, it is given to us as caretakers for the up and coming generations of Americans yet unborn.

It is as if we are running a marathon with the baton of American liberty clutched in our hands.  Our goal and our purpose is to carry it safely and pass it on to the next generation of American runners so they in turn may pass it on to the next and so forth.

But - if because we cannot see the finish line and the odds against us seem insurmountable; if we become overwhelmed and lose our will to continue the race and succumb to the temptation to sit it out; if we lose the hope in the contest and give up the race, then all is lost and American liberty is no more. The fate of future Americans is weighed in the balance and we as a free people are in charge of the outcome for no man or group of men holds in their hands the final answer to the issue but ourselves. It is up to us to run the good race and fight the good fight; we as individuals as well as we as a team, for no one person carries the American baton of liberty by themselves, we are all in this together till the end...and be assured there is no end, at least not until Providence dictates it to be so.

When in the darkest hours of the year 1772, when disunion against British tyranny seemed eminent, Warren of Plymouth was desponding and said:

"The towns are dead and cannot be raised without a miracle."

Samuel Adams responded: "I am very sorry to find in you the least approach towards despair. Nil desperandum (never despair) is a model for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it." (Bancroft"History of the United States" Vol. III pg. 426)

And indeed they did!

In late December of 1772, during that same low ebb, the Boston Committee of Correspondence wrote:

" By the people's thorough understanding of their civil and religious rights and liberties, encouraged to trust in God that a day was hastening when the efforts of the colonists would be crowned with success, and the present generation furnish an example of public virtue worthy of imitation of all posterity." (IBID pg. 428)

Today is that day!

Therefore, let us be a worthy example for our posterity by walking worthily of the freedom whereby we have been made free and by never returning back to the beggarly elements of slavery; for we are not children of the bond woman of old Europe but we are free born under these western skies, and free we must remain, for you are children of noble parental blood - they never quit, neither must you.

The world watches what you do here today with the greatest of anxiety for if we fail, the light of mankind's hope for liberty and freedom will be extinguished and the world will be thrown into an age darker, sinister and more slavish than mankind has ever experienced.

Finally brethren, be not counted as the generation who lost all after it has been given all by those who gave all,  for if you do, your posterity shall rise up in their slavish toil and curse you.

-

R. Ruth, Founder, The Educational Institute for Governmental Studies