Dems Just Met At The Capitol To Demand More Gun Control, But There’s One HUGE Problem…

In the aftermath of the shooting at a college in Oregon, Democrats have once again jumped to pushing pro-gun control policies. So, on Thursday, they arranged a hasty meeting before the press on the steps of the Capitol to propose more anti-gun laws. But even as they assembled to push an anti-gun message, they were surrounded by armed guards, sparking calls of hypocrisy.

As the 27 Senate Democrats gathered on the steps of the Capitol for their anti-gun press conference, surrounding the politicians were a cadre of armed officers from the U.S. Capitol Police which joined the regular, heavily armed police detail that patrols the Capitol grounds.

The Democrat senators then rolled out a series of demands that, according to the Washington Times, “closely mirrored the plan rolled out last week by Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The demands include strengthening background checks, making stricter rules to prevent “straw purchases” and new laws to prevent stalkers and domestic abusers from obtaining or owning firearms.

The Democrats also again indulged one of their favorite causes by demanding the closing of the “gun show loophole,” despite that such a “loophole” is a myth and does not exist.

“The victims and their families deserve better than a Congress that shrugs its shoulders and waited for the next tragedy,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said during the event. “They deserve action.”

But the fact that these anti-Second Amendment Senators stood pushing their gun grabbing policies surrounded by heavily armed guards as they did it caused quite a stir among center right media.

To name a few, on Thursday, Fox Nation featured the Democrats’ hypocrisy with a major link to the Times article.

Dave Workman of outright called the senators hypocrites.

Minuteman News also posted about the dichotomy of the senators pushing an anti-gun message while being surrounded by armed guards.

The Times story also made waves on a series of posting boards from Reddit to gun forums and other discussion boards and websites, many of which highlighted the “irony” of the incident.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Fraudulent Contract

Obama promised he would make us just like Europe. He is fulfilling that promise. What can we do about it?

Everyone is going to be talking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for the next few days. After 7 years of secrecy, the people of America will be “allowed” to view this agreement for the next 90 days. I wonder how many will be telling the truth about how evil this usurpation of the Constitution really is?

The driving force for the establishment of TPP is a congressional act called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). This is a congressional act that authorizes international executive agreements and attempts to give these international agreements the same force of law as constitutionally established treaties. In a recent article, I explained this process, why it is unconstitutional and why Congress is the real problem, not Obama.

So, what can WE do about it?

Power to create treaties is established in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. The power to create a treaty is delegated by the people to the President with approval of a two thirds vote of the Senate. The Supremacy Clause then declares that Treaties are ONLY supreme when they comply with the Constitution.  

[For a full explanation of the establishment of the constitutional treaty process, please read this article.]

TPP is NOT a Treaty. Therefore, it is an unlawful agreement and a fraudulent contract.

John Jay explains in Federalist #64 that, to the founders, it was nearly incomprehensible that the President and the Senate could act in concert to usurp the protections of the Constitution regarding treaties; but if they did, there is a simple solution:

“if they [the President & Senate] act corruptly, they can be punished; and if they make disadvantageous treaties, how are we to get rid of those treaties?…As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained. But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations.”

You see, the solution is simple. TPP is a fraudulent contract; therefore, it is null and void by every aspect of law. Since it is a void contract, here is exactly what John Jay, James Madison, and even Patrick Henry would expect to happen.

The Governors of each State should draft a letter explaining that TPP was drafted outside our Constitutional process. Since the States were not given proper control through their representatives, the Senators, this “agreement” will not be honored by the States or their local governments. Therefore, the 12 countries involved in this agreement must be put on notice that the States of America will not recognize this agreement as legal or binding, and these 12 countries should act accordingly. This is exactly what our founders expected our States to do!

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded… [this act] would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution.”  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #33

We have yet another opportunity to cull the chaff from the wheat, but will we be able to put Principle over Party, or Truth over our Favorite Personality or Organization? If ANYONE, and I do mean anyone, tries to defend this unconstitutional and wicked agreement, they have declared themselves not only an opponent to the Constitution, but I dare say an enemy to America. I make that assertion based upon fact, and boldly proclaim its accusation without any mental reservation.

What we need now are people who are educated on the Constitution, and State leaders bold enough to defend it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Watch: Ted Cruz Burns Global Warming Pusher To A Crisp — It Got Awkward

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz this week shared a clip from Sierra Club President Aaron Mair’s recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cruz’s questioning began with his incredulity over Mair’s assertion that the man-caused effects of global warming on minority communities “should not be up for debate.”

Mair defended the definitive position by broadly citing “the evidence and data, the science, the preponderance of the evidence” and an oft-referenced consensus among 97 percent of the world’s scientists.

“If you want to end debate,” Cruz shot back, “you don’t want to address the facts. How do you address the fact that the last 18 years, the satellite data show no demonstrable warming whatsoever?”

When pressed regarding why he rejected Cruz’s evidence, Mair leaned back for an earful from an apparent colleague.

He eventually emerged from the sidebar to proclaim: “Based on our experts, it’s been refuted long ago and there’s no longer, it’s not up for scientific debate.”

Cruz noted that he found it “highly interesting” that the ostensible expert witness “apparently is relying on staff” for advice regarding how to respond to scientific research.

“The nice thing about the satellite data,” the senator added, “is these are objective numbers.”

He then pressed Mair on a phenomenon known as “the pause.”

Mair engaged in an even longer ad hoc conference session before confirming that he believed it to be a “slowing in global warming during the ‘40s.”

Cruz asked if it was not also “the term the global warming alarmists have used to explain the inconvenient truth … that the satellite data over the last 18 years demonstrate no significant warming whatsoever.”

Mair cited the supposed scientific community’s consensus on the issue, which Cruz asserted was “based on one bogus study” before lambasting the Sierra Club’s approach to science.

“Your response is quite striking,” he said. “I asked about the science and the evidence and the actual data. We have satellites. They’re measuring temperature. That should be relevant. Your answer was, ‘Pay no attention to your lying eyes and the numbers the satellites show. Instead, listen to the scientists who are receiving massive grants  who tell us do not debate the science.’”

When Mair flatly asserted that “our planet is cooking up and heating and warming,” Cruz asked if that could be interpreted as the Sierra Club’s official position.

If so, he wondered if Mair would issue a retraction when confronted with contradictory evidence.

Despite multiple attempts by Cruz to elicit a direct reply, Mair only repeated his talking point that the organization is “concurring with 97 percent of the scientists” he claimed believe in man-caused global warming.

Cruz concluded that he found it “striking that, for a public policy organization that purports to focus exclusively on environmental issues, that you’re not willing to tell this committee that you would issue a retraction if your testimony is objectively false under scientific data.”

Such behavior, he asserted, “undermines the credibility of any organization” and “is not consistent … with sound public policy.”

Who Has Control Over The Government’s Budget?

I was recently contacted by a concerned Texan regarding a town hall meeting she attended with her Congressional representative. Her email to me reads as follows:

I have a constitutional question. At a town hall yesterday, we had a heated discussion with our Congressional representative Mike Conaway. Our question was why isn’t the House withholding funds for Obama’s overreaches? Conaway’s reply was the House can’t do that alone, it also takes the Senate. I have been under the impression the House alone controlled the purse strings. Am I correct?

I wanted to respond to this email publicly since it involves an important constitutional issue. I fear that many are confused on this vital check and balance; and because of our ignorance of this principle, we are losing one of the most important controls on government incorporated into the Constitution.

Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution is the governing text regarding this issue of spending. It reads:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Since the Constitution is a contract, pursuant to contract law we must look to the drafters of the contract when we need clarity. James Madison explains exactly what we need to know in Federalist 58:

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of the government…This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutatory measure.

Madison also explains that one of the main reasons the House was vested with this important power was to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government” as the people may demand.

On May 15, 1789, Madison, then a federal representative to his District in Virginia, had a conversation with fellow Virginia Representative Alexander White during the ratification debates:

Mr. White said: “The Constitution, having authorized the House of Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part with.  I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than this house; but the Constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given the immediate representatives of the people a control over the whole government in this particular, which, for their interest, they ought not let out of their hands.”

It is interesting to note that Alexander White is repeating the principle of the power of the purse Madison identified in Federalist 58, that it is the duty of the House to have a “control over the whole government” to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.”

Madison replies to White with confirmation:

The principle reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they (the House) were chosen by the people, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.

It is clear, according to the drafters of the Constitution, that the House alone was vested with the power of purse. Pursuant to Article 1 section 7, the Senate may propose amendments and may concur, but their assent is not necessary. As both White and Madison stated, this power rests in the House alone because it is the House that is chosen directly by the people as their representatives, and best suited to redress their grievances and reduce and control all the other branches as the people see fit. If the House proposes a budget that the Senate refuses to vote upon, then the House budget stands. If the Senate proposes an amendment to the budget, and the House doesn’t want it, then the original House budget stands. It is also important to note that constitutionally speaking, the president has no veto power over a budget.

Some may confuse the procedure for passing a law with the procedure for passing a budget. A very important distinction must be recognized; a budget expires, but a law does not. A law must follow the procedure of both houses of Congress, with veto power by the president because in order to get rid of a law, it must be repealed. Budgets, however, expire and must be renewed by each congressional session. No future Congress is ever bound by a past congressional budget. That is why the Senate is not necessary and the President is procedurally excluded from the budget process.  

We must also remember that one of the chief purposes for vesting this power in the House was to reduce the overgrowth of the other branches of government. It is counterintuitive to ask the House to exercise that control over the Senate, the Executive, and the Judiciary and then require those branches to concur with that control. It is highly unlikely that our founders would create such an absurdity with the Constitution.

The current budget procedures, invented outside the boundaries of the Constitution by past Congresses, have achieved exactly what both Madison and White have warned about; they have let this vital power out of their hands and placed it into the hands of those not constitutionally fit to fulfil the demand. We need educated and principled leaders in Congress to stand against this usurp of the greatest check and balance on governmental overreach.  

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Senator Graham, All Unborn Children Have Value

Speaking on the US Senate Floor for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, US Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said, “All I’m asking is just don’t crush that baby’s skull unless there’s a very good reason.”  

While I agree with parts of Graham’s bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortion after 20 weeks since babies can feel pain at this stage, I do not agree with the fact that it has exceptions for abortions, and I cannot agree with his statement. According to Senator Graham, good reasons for an abortion exception include endangerment of the mother’s life, and if the pregnancy is the result of abuse. In my opinion, however, there is absolutely no good reason to crush an infant’s skull.

Let me put it this way. In the first reason, if you risk the mother, there is only a chance that death could occur. But if you perform an abortion, there is absolutely no way around it; that baby is going to die.  

In the second reason, exception for sexual abuse, is it right to kill a child just because its life started violently? Are not all men created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  Jeremiah 1:5 says: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” None of these exceptions are good reasons at all.

Retired Southern Baptist pastor and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said that “Every human life has value because it is the creation of the hands of a holy God.”

I believe that we need to end abortion in its entirety and do it soon. We are the voice for the voiceless and must stand up for every human life, not just one here and one there. America has to get off the tracks because as the song goes, “There’s a long black train comin’ down the line.” Hell exists, and we can’t pretend it doesn’t.


Learn more about your Constitution with Mason Chandler and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by