Franklin Graham to Christians: Shake up politics ‘before it’s too late’


Spiritual leader Franklin Graham is encouraging pastors and everyday Christians to jump into politics “before it’s too late” to fight a growing wave of political correctness.

In a Facebook post, he praised some 200 pastors that have already decided to run for office, part of a national effort led by David Lane’s American Renewal Project. Graham said he hopes that is just the beginning.

“The time for Christians to be sitting on the sidelines is over,” wrote Graham, who has continued the missionary work of his father, Billy Graham, the “Pastor to Presidents.

Quoting a local official involved in the debate over letting transgendered school children using their bathroom of choice, he wrote, “Do you think that if people on your deacon board or pastoral board were serving on the school board that you would be discussing same-sex bathrooms?”

Lane told Secrets Saturday that his effort continues to gain steam because Evangelical leaders see politics threatening their values.

“As we recruit, train and organize to place conservative, principled Biblical-based leaders in public office, Christians can no longer sit in the bleachers. America’s survival depends on it, for virtue is a key component of freedom. We must organize locally and win from the bottom-up instead of the top-down. Christians must begin to win incrementally by taking on small races that are more psychologically winnable,” said Lane.

“The next generation of Christians in America will be left to suffer the consequences of our inaction and un-involvement in the public square, for someone’s values are going to reign supreme,” he added.

Lane recently sent a memo to 100,000 pastors urging more to run for office and encourage churchgoers to vote. In it he said, “Here is the good news, with just a small increase in voter turnout at the voting booth for the estimated 65M-80M Evangelical constituency, the political landscape can be changed dramatically-overnight.”

Below is Graham’s full post, first reported by Charisma News:

Do pastors belong in politics? Absolutely—if God leads them to be. I’m thankful for these 200 pastors who are getting involved in making a difference in their communities, their states, and the nation—and they’re encouraging their congregations to do the same, before it’s too late. As Godspeak Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks’s Rob McCoy says “You can change the city council. You can change the school board. You can make a difference right where you are. You can affect your schools…” He’s right—the time for Christians to be sitting on the sidelines is over! One state representative said, “Do you think that if people on your deacon board or pastoral board were serving on the school board that you would be discussing same-sex bathrooms?” Think about it. The Bible says, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3) McCoy answered that question—”Rebuild the foundation!” We need Christians running for office at all levels—local, state, and national. Where could God be leading you to serve?

Stupid Is As Stupid Does …

Ask any person, not your child between the ages of 18 and 25, if they ever heard of the Nuremburg Trials. 1 in 13 might say they have, but will not be able to tell you “what” was on trial (not who).Muslim-Army Those same people will not be able to tell you the name of the Vice President. 84% of those who receive this will not read it completely, or at all. 10% will but will also chose not to forward it. The remaining 6% will forward it.

The war started in the 7th century and lasted through the 17th century. I would contend it never stopped but historically the facts below are correct.

This is why I choke when I hear someone say we will defeat or contain these Islamic terrorists in a few years or even 30 years as recently stated by Leon Panetta.

If the latest batch of murders, beheadings, and killing of innocent Christians has shocked you, maybe you should read this compilation of historical facts about the hatred of Muslims.


This is factually (and historically) correct – and verifiable:

In 732 A.D. the Muslim Army, which was moving on Paris, was defeated and turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martell.

In 1571 A.D. the Muslim Army/Navy was defeated by the Italians and Austrians as they tried to cross the Mediterranean to attack southern Europe in the Battle of Lepanto.

In 1683 A.D. the Turkish Muslim Army, attacking Eastern Europe, was finally defeated in the Battle of Vienna by German and Polish Christian Armies.

This has been going on for 1,400 years and half of the politicians don’t even know it.

If these battles had not been won, we might be speaking Arabic and Christianity could be non-existent; Judaism certainly would not exist.

Reflecting: A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves. Pause a moment and reflect back.

These events are actual events from history. They really happened!

Do you remember?

47 years since 1968 and this just keeps going on and on.

1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.

2. In 1972, at the Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.

3. In 1972, a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach. Shortly after landing it was blown up by Muslim males.

4. In 1973, a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome, with 33 people killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.

5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.

6. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males.

7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males.

8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70-year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.

9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim males.

10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.

11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males.

12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males.

13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.

14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim males.

15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by – you guessed it – a Muslim male. (Plus two other American journalists who were just recently beheaded).

16. In 2013, the Boston Marathon Bombing resulted in 4 Innocent people, (including a child) being killed and 264 people injured by Muslim males.

No Obama, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.

So, ask yourself “Just how stupid are we???”

Absolutely No Profiling! They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the Obama’s security detail, 85-year-old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, BUT … leave Muslim Males alone lest we be guilty of profiling.

Ask yourself, “Just how stupid are we?” Have the American people completely lost their minds or just their Power of Reason???

Let ‘s send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Alred’s and other stupid attorneys, along with Federal Justices, that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves — if they have any such sense.

As the writer of the award winning story ” Forrest Gump ” so aptly put it, “Stupid Is As Stupid Does.”

Destroying the Electoral College Destroys Freedom

A campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and “let the people elect the president,” is gaining steam. A group called “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” started in 2006, has won electorlcommitments from eleven states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. These include, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, California, New York, Hawaii and the District of Columbia. These states control 165 electoral votes. They only need states representing 105 more electoral votes to join and the Electoral College will be a thing of the past. Meanwhile, such legislation is under consideration in Missouri, Oklahoma and Arizona, to name a few. It could be a done deal by 2020.

When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral votes would have to pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any state’s bill could take effect.

As usual, it’s easy to get people to join this cause – yet another sound bite based on emotion rather than knowledge or logic. “Let the people decide.” “It’s the American way.” “It’s Democracy at work.” Yep, that’s why America was never set up as a democracy. Here’s another sound bite for you – “Democracy is a lynch mob.” Here’s another one – “Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.” Majority rule violates the rights of minorities. It’s not a good thing. Get the picture?

Our Founding Fathers went to a lot of trouble to give us a government that was fair, representing all the people in every state – to protect a minority of one against the will of a mob which isn’t too concerned about the rights of someone standing in their way. Hence the Electoral College.

The abolishment of the Electoral College would, in fact, establish an election tyranny giving control of the government to the massive population centers of the nation’s Northeastern sector, along with the area around Los Angeles. If these sections of the nation were to control the election of our nation’s leaders, the voice of the ranchers and farmers of the Mid and Far West would be lost, along with the values and virtues of the South. It would also mean the end of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.

Throughout history, certain factions have challenged the legality of the Electoral College. Opponents point out that our President is actually elected by 538 virtually unknown people who are members of 51 small delegations in fifty States and the District of Columbia. Moreover, in most states the electors are not even bound to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. In fact, many Constitutional scholars believe that’s just what the founders intended, 538 independent thinkers, bound to no one. There is reason and logic behind the idea.

The Founding Fathers, particularly those from small States, were very concerned that they would be smothered by the larger states. Under the representative republic (not a democracy) established by the founders, the United States is made up of fifty sovereign States. Under the Constitution, except for limited powers specifically defined for the central government, power for the rule of law is intended to reside in the States.

To deal with the problem, the founders decided on a compromise that would establish two chambers for the Congress; the House of Representatives, whose size would be dictated by the population in each state and the Senate in which every state would get two representatives, regardless of its size or population. You see, in the beginning, the states appointed Senators to be their representatives in Congress. But, like these geniuses of today who want to wreck the Electoral College, previous geniuses came up with the idea that Senators should be elected by the people – “It’s only fair,” went the mantra! The result is an imperial Senate that answers to no one but their own elite club members. That’s what happens when you mess with the real genius of the Constitution.

The same problem arose in deciding how to select a President, the one nationally-elected official. Here again there was the fear that election by popular vote would overwhelm the will of smaller States. Again, compromise was reached to address the issue in a fair and equitable manner in order to maintain the power of the states. Each state was assigned a number of presidential electoral votes equal to its representation in the House and the Senate. In each state, the electors would vote for a President and Vice President. The candidate receiving the largest number of electoral votes would be elected.

Under the plan, the connection to the popular vote was the selection of state electors. The popular vote was to be used to select individuals trusted by the people to select the President. Each presidential candidate has a slate of electors committed to them. As the people vote for a candidate, they are actually electing his/her slate of electors. Again, the selection of electors goes directly to local control of the process. Under the Constitution, even the smallest state was assured at least three votes in the process. To provide a further check to protect the smaller states, in the event no candidate won a majority of the electoral vote, the names of the top five would go to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation would cast one vote for one of the candidates. In this process each state, again, is equal.

To understand the Electoral College one must realize that the Founders considered the states as the dominate power in the nation. Election of the office of President was a bit like the selection of the Chairman of the Board, with the states serving as the board of directors for the nation. The great mistake Electoral College opponents make is to believe the President was supposed to be elected by the people. It was never the plan.

There are fundamental and often regional differences in how Americans view the role of government and the leaders they elect to run it. Little wonder those who seek to strengthen the power of the central government prefer that elections be decided by the popular vote. It’s a great sound bite- but the results will not give “the people” the “fair” result they desire.

Such a move will eliminate the power of individual states in favor of elections decided by the population of large, politically liberal cities. I’ve actually heard it said by residents of California, San Francisco, in particular, “why do we even let people in Ohio and Iowa vote?” Such elitism is behind the “National Popular Vote” movement which apparently believes that only the East and West Coasts count. The rest is just flyover country.

Keep these facts in mind as we watch the enforcement of Sustainable Development policies that lead to Smart Growth cities. The stated plans of such ideas are that most people will eventually be ‘persuaded” to leave the rural areas and migrate to the cities. In addition, we now are witnessing the invasion of illegal immigrants who normally land in such communities and swell their size.

The “feel good” propaganda of the National Popular Vote movement insists that a popular vote would not change the face of the nation. However, by design or not, the fact is their scheme plays right into the hands of the Sustainablists who openly seek top down control though the establishment of mega cities. By forcing the massive majority of citizens into such areas, a majority vote in just a few will drown any other area in the nation.

Ion such a planned agenda for the 21st Century, individuals living in the majority of the nation’s territory will quickly learn how little their “popular vote” counts if the Electoral College is abandoned by the “National Popular Vote” scheme. Those smaller states (and therefore their votes) may have no impact on the election of the President, just as our founders feared. Control by a few over the many can only be defined as tyranny. Today we can stop the National Popular Vote. Tomorrow will be too late.

by Tom DeWeese
Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, is one of the nation’s leading experts on Agenda 21 and its assault on property rights and personal freedom. He is author of the book “Now Tell Me I was Wrong” and editor of the website The DeWeese Report.

Constitution Party Vice Presidential Nominee Speech

[wp_lightbox_prettyPhoto_video link=”″ width=”853″ height=”480″ description=”Constitution Party Vice Presidential Nominee Speech” source=”” title=”Constitution Party Vice Presidential Nominee Speech”]

If you haven’t met our VP candidate, Scott Bradley, of Utah, then you’re missing a treat.  Unlike the major parties, the Constitution Party endeavors to field a candidate for VP who is just as qualified to sit in the Oval Office as is the candidate for President.  (Oh, wait!  Come to think of it, the major parties DO that – BOTH their candidates for BOTH offices are just as qualified for the offices they seek – that is to say, they are ALL unqualified!)  Let me put it another way.  If the Founding Fathers could meet Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley, they would be proud to endorse them for office.

This speech on YouTube was filmed by an amateur and is pretty poor quality, but the quality of Scott Bradley shines through.

Hillary Clinton: “We Created Al Qaeda”. The Protagonists of the “Global War on Terrorism” are the Terrorists

Hillary-RamboThe following video features Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:  

““Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago

… let’s go recruit these mujahideen. 

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.” 

What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 35 years has the US ceased to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries. It was “a pretty good idea”, says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today: 

Amply documented, the ISIS and Al Nusrah Mujahideen are recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. 

The more fundamental question:

Should a presidential candidate who candidly acknowledges that “We created Al Qaeda” without a word of caution or regret become president of the US, not to mention Hillary’s commitment to waging nuclear war on Russia if and when she becomes president of the United States of America. 

Hillary is a  Danger to America and the World 

Michel Chossudovsky, May 20, 2016

*        *       *

The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.

Quite the opposite: The “Global War on Terrorism” uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their foot soldiers.

“Political Islam” and the imposition of  an “Islamic State” (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia) is an integral part of US foreign policy.

America is the Terror State.

The GWOT is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest.

It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing “regime change”.

Clinton’s successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its allies.

In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a “Terror  Suspect”.

New Normal? Al Nusra is on the State Department blacklist of terrorist organizations and the US Secretary of State is channeling money and weapons to Al Nusra.

Support to Al Qaeda operatives in different countries by the US government is known and documented.

In this upside down World,  the Lie prevails: The Protagonists of the “Global War on Terrorism” and the “Responsibility to Protect” are the Terrorists.

Its a circular relationship, a vicious circle: Those who lead the “Global War on Terrorism” in the name of “Democracy” are those who are supporting and financing terrorist organizations, which they themselves created.


“Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.

“They invaded Afghanistan… and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work… and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.

“And guess what … they (Soviets) retreated … they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“So there is a very strong argument which is… it wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let’s be careful with what we sow… because we will harvest.

“So we then left Pakistan … We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country… you deal with the mines that are along the border and… by the way we don’t want to have anything to do with you… in fact we’re sanctioning you… So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.” (HILLARY CLINTON)

C’est le monde à l’envers.

Presidential and Vice-Presidential Nominees

dcastle-bradleyDelegates nominated Darrell Castle as the party’s candidate for President at the convention in Salt Lake City on Saturday 16 April.

“If I am elected president, I will first of all get out of the super-national authority, the United Nations,” Castle said.

He also vowed that he would have the US leave NATO and promised to “end the Federal Reserve”.

He added: “[We’ll have] a different monetary system. By that I just mean – no more going to the king’s table for his scraps. No more crying and begging for an audit of this bank, please-tell-us-what-you-did-with-our-money kind of thing,” he said.

Castle, 67, also said he would deal with state debt in order for the US to stop being “a slave to the creditors” – but did not elaborate on how he would do that.

Constitution Party Nominee Acceptance Speech Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley gave their acceptance speeches at the party’s convention at the City Center Hilton in Salt Lake City.

Time for a 3rd Party?

Well-respected constitutional scholar, Georgetown Law professor, and head of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution Randy E. Barnett makes the case for a third-party candidate if Donald


Trump is the Republican nominee.

Barnett has long made the case against third parties, but in his view, Trump changes the dynamics and opportunity costs.

I have long vocally opposed third parties as irrational in our two-party system. They inevitably drain votes away from the major party closest to them, thereby benefiting the major party that is even worse. But strategies must adjust to circumstances. If Trump wins the GOP nominations, one of two things will happen, either of which would be disastrous for the Constitution and for the country.

He believes the norm doesn’t hold true with Trump, however, because “millions of patriotic Americans who would ordinarily vote GOP — including most conservatives and all constitutionalists — will never vote for him.”

If Trump wins, he’s made clear he cares nothing for the constitutional constraints on the president, or on government generally. His ignorance of our republican Constitution

— to match his ignorance of much else — and his strong-man approach to governance would make Trump’s election a political cataclysm second only to Southern secession in its danger to our constitutional republic.

For this reason, millions of patriotic Americans who would ordinarily vote GOP — including most conservatives and all constitutionalists — will never vote for him. Yet were he somehow to win without them — say by moving to the left of Hillary Clinton to capture the Sanders vote — a Trump presidency would doom America as an exceptional nation.

Furthermore, the media, which has been soft on Trump and given him generous air time, will no longer be so gentle.

Far more likely, however, once the Republican nomination is in his grasp, the media who have been irresponsibly reaping the ratings whirlwind will lay waste to Donald Trump in conjunction with the Democrats. His presidential campaign will be reduced to a few million die-hard Trumpies and little more.

Barnett’s view is supported by data. According to Gallup, Trump “has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles.” Numerous media breakdowns also show that cable news dedicates more time air time to Trump than other candidates, and sometimes more than all other candidates combined.

He suggests a third-party candidate could serve as “a lifeboat for anyone aboard the sinking GOP ship,” adding, “They will desperately need another vessel they can support in good conscience.”

“Parties die. The Whigs died because they could not bring themselves to stand against the Democratic Party that overwhelmingly supported or, at least, tolerated slavery in the South and its extension into the territories, thereby threatening the North. So a new Republican Party very quickly arose to replace it. Now the national GOP establishment’s failure to listen to the people is on the verge of giving us Donald Trump. If it does, it deserves to be replaced by a party that puts the Constitution first and politics second.”

A Federal Judge Got It Right For A Change

cbaldwinHere is the report as covered by

“Apple scored a major legal victory in its ongoing battle against the FBI on Monday when a federal magistrate judge in New York rejected the U.S. government’s request as part of a drug case to force the company to help it extract data from a locked iPhone. The ruling from U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein was issued as part of the criminal case against Jun Feng, who pleaded guilty in October to drug charges. It is a significant boost to Apple’s well-publicized campaign to resist the FBI’s similar efforts in the case of the San Bernardino killers.”

The report continued: “Perhaps most devastating to the FBI’s case is Orenstein’s recognition that the purpose of the FBI’s request is not simply to obtain evidence in one particular case, but rather to grant the government broad, precedential authority to force Apple and other tech companies to take affirmative technological steps to cooperate with criminal investigations generally. That the FBI is seeking to establish broad precedent is a key argument made by Apple and its supporters in the San Bernardino case. To accept that the U.S. government has this power, ruled the court, is to vest law enforcement agencies with statutory authority that Congress itself never enacted.”

And again, “The judge also accused the government of trying to manipulate secret judicial proceedings to obtain powers for itself against Apple that public debate and Congress would never permit. It is, Orenstein wrote, ‘clear that the government has made the considered decision that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking.’ Because the government wants the courts rather than Congress to grant this power, the ‘government’s interpretation of the breadth of authority the AWA confers on courts of limited jurisdiction … raises serious doubts about how such a statute could withstand constitutional scrutiny under the separation-of-powers doctrine.’”

Continuing: “Finally, the ruling recognized that forcing Apple to compromise its own security systems at the behest of the U.S. government would impose a considerable cost far beyond financial expenses.”

“This cost, Orenstein wrote, is particularly high since–rejecting the FBI’s claim in the public debate that its request is limited to just one phone ‘the record of this case makes clear that the burdens the government seeks to impose on Apple under the authority of the AWA are not nearly so limited.’ To the contrary, ‘it clearly intends to continue seeking assistance that is similarly burdensome –if not far more so–for the foreseeable future.’”

See the report here:

Apple Wins Major Court Victory Against FBI In A Case Similar To San Bernardino

One of Apple’s attorneys was even more direct in assessing the importance of this case:

“Apple’s attorney painted a scary picture if Apple loses its fight with the FBI.

“In an interview with CNNMoney’s Laurie Segall on Friday, Ted Olson warned of a government with ‘limitless’ powers that could ‘listen to your conversations.’

“Olson said the demands would mount.

“‘You can imagine every different law enforcement official telling Apple we want a new product to get into something,’ Olson said. ‘Even a state judge could order Apple to build something. There’s no stopping point. That would lead to a police state.’”

See the report here:

Apple’s Lawyer: If We Lose, It Will Lead To A ‘Police State’

Hooray! A federal judge got it right for a change.

The three separate branches of government are supposed to serve as a check and balance when the other branches begin usurping constitutional liberties. For the most part, they have NOT done that. This particular U.S. Magistrate Judge did what courts are supposed to do: serve as a check to the overreach of the executive branch.

Virtually every abridgment of our Bill of Rights is committed in the name of “public safety” or “national security.” Most of us are patriotic, law and order people who want justice served. But in truth, the interests of justice and liberty are mutual. And this particular case–mandating that cell phone companies “unlock” the security and privacy features of cell phones–is fraught with violations of basic civil liberties, because the electronic search sought by the feds extends WAY BEYOND the individual suspected criminal.

The specific case above is only one of at least ten where the federal government is currently attempting to force cell phone companies to unlock the privacy features of their customers’ phones during criminal investigations. The ramifications of this prospective breach of personal privacy are staggering.

Unlocking a person’s cell phone would be worse than the current broad e-surveillance that is going on every day. This is a very specific and finite search that involves a person’s most private and intimate details.

Smartphones are more than talking devices; they record online searches, shopping data, travel information, medical information, private communication, and financial information–along with the personal information of EVERYONE CONNECTED to that cell phone. In other words, it’s not just the targeted person’s (presumably a suspected criminal) privacy that is being breached, but EVERYONE with whom that person had contact. Can you imagine the amount of private information of totally innocent people that potentially would be subject to police reports–all of which become “public record” and, therefore, available to the media, Internet bloggers, etc.?

Please read that paragraph again and let it sink in.

To get a little taste for just how much private information is stored on your smartphone and how dangerous it would be for the government to be able to freely unlock the information stored on your smartphone, read this article:

Your Smartphone Knows Who You Are And What You’re Doing

I’m not sure whether the American people comprehend just how serious an abridgment of privacy it would be if Apple loses this case, but in many respects, this is a technological Waterloo for liberty. I dare say this is a more egregious assault against our privacy (technologically speaking) than even the Patriot Act itself.

And, unfortunately, all of the remaining GOP presidential candidates–Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Donald Trump–oppose the protection of cell phone privacy. The Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have said they are “neutral.” But we all know that Clinton is as Big Government as Big Government gets. And if Sanders is truly in favor of cell phone privacy, why does he fudge his position?

In the name of “national security,” “the war on terror,” “the war on drugs,” “law and order,” etc., both Democrats and Republicans are turning America into a George Orwell “1984” surveillance society. And if history teaches us anything at all, it teaches us that a surveillance society is always a precursor to a Police State. ALWAYS.

At any rate, THANK YOU Judge Orenstein. Every obstruction to the burgeoning surveillance society that a judge or governor or State legislator or sheriff or congressman or senator can muster is much appreciated–and very needed.

Tom Hoefling announces 2016 Presidential campaign

3446837Tom Hoefling of Iowa, the founder and national chairman of America’s Party (AP), is seeking the nomination of the Constitution Party for the office of the President of the United States in 2016.

In 2012, Tom Hoefling was the presidential nominee of America’s Party, and was nominated and placed on the ballot by the American Independent Party of California (AIP). According to the official tally of the Federal Elections Commission, Tom finished eighth in the 2012 general election. It is believed by the Hoefling campaign that if all of the write-in ballots in the various states had been tallied, he would have placed higher.

Hoefling, who is 55, will once again be seeking the nominations of both America’s Party and the American Independent Party of California, as well as the nominations of other ballot-qualified state parties. In the states without an established ballot line, Tom will be running as an Independent candidate.

In his comments today, Tom Hoefling said, “I’m sick and tired of the morally-corrupt Democrats, who have turned into Socialists, and the unprincipled, do-nothing Republicans, who have turned into Democrats. I’m tired of seeing our politics dominated by the money men, the media people, and the political consultants. It’s time for decent, patriotic Americans to band together around our country’s historic moral, constitutional principles and take our country back; not for the sake of any political party or political personality, but for the sake of our children and grandchildren. I’m in this arena because it’s obvious that no one else is truly willing to lead the fight for equal protection for the unborn babies – all of the babies – for one e man-one woman marriage, for judges who are kept within their proper authority and jurisdiction, for our God-given right to keep and bear arms, for our national sovereignty, security, and borders, and for the restoration and preservation of our constitutional form of republican self-government.”

“This is a wholly grassroots effort. Our traditional front porch campaign, with a 21st Century technological twist, establishes a completely new standard for the way presidential campaigns are done,” Hoefling said.

In 2015, Tom Hoefling was named by Newsmax as one of America’s “Top 100 Most Influential Pro-Life Activists.” He is one of the few political leaders in the country that is rated by American Right to Life as a Tier 1 Personhood pro-life leader.


[email protected]
c) 515-351-0540

Your are also very welcome to join our calls, which we’ve been doing to the last eight and half years:

America’s Summit, Restore the Republic – National Town Hall
Every Tues. and Thurs evening – 9 pm Eastern, 8 pm Central
712-432-3566 – passcode: 340794#
All of good will are welcome!