Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 18, 2022 | Sundance
Cultural Marxism is the modern philosophy to advance political correctness toward the agenda of social change. Creating fear around speech is a technique for controlling what people are permitted to say and ultimately think. Cultural Marxism is the merging of political correctness with advanced social pressures, including from the Big Tech social media platforms, from the political left to stop and shun any speech they disagree with.
One of the common ways to understand this is to realize that speech the leftists disagree with, they label as ‘violence’. However, actual violence that supports the leftist agenda is labeled as speech. Cultural Marxism is the twisting of words and control of language to advance a far-left agenda.
In part of his monologue tonight, Fox News host Tucker Carlson uses the example of Elon Musk and Twitter to highlight the threat they perceive from the possibility of an open public discussion. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 18, 2022 | Sundance
Kari Lake continues to impress. Following an Arizona election event, ‘Black Voices for Kari’, gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake took questions from the traditionally combative media. {Direct Rumble Link} This time she brought receipts. WATCH:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 18, 2022 | Sundance
Igor Danchenko was a well-known fabricator of (dis)information long before the FBI made the purposeful decision to enlist him in their Trump targeting efforts. Specifically because Danchenko had no moral compass to the truth he was particularly useful for the FBI effort. This was the big problem for John Durham in prosecuting Danchenko for material lies the FBI knew from the outset were false.
How does the same DOJ who used the lies for their political purposes, then prosecute the liar for the false information? That was always the structural flaw in any case brought by Durham. As a result, the trial was not so much about the lying Danchenko as it was about the lying FBI and their use of Danchenko.
A jury found Igor Danchenko not guilty on four counts of lying to the FBI, on four occasions. (1) Danchenko told FBI agents he received a phone call in late July 2016 Sergei Millian. However, Danchenko knew he had never received a call from Millian. (2) Danchenko gave a false statement to FBI agents that he “was under the impression” that the late July 2016 call was from Millian. (3) Danchenko falsely stated to FBI agents that he believed he spoke to Millian on the phone on more than one occasion. And (4) Danchenko lied that he “believed he has spoken to [Millian] on the telephone,” when Danchenko well knew he had never spoken to Millian.
The FBI didn’t care about the details of the lies that were told to them; the lies served a purpose. The FBI purpose was to use the Steele Dossier as the foundation for a fraudulent all-encompassing search warrant against the Trump campaign and presidency, using Carter Page. That construct was always the motive of the DOJ/FBI use of Danchenko, Chris Steele and the infamous dossier that gave the DOJ the patina they needed for the FISA application.
The trial itself showed how corrupt the FBI and DOJ were in this scheme by: A) offering Chris Steele $1 million for proof of the dossier content. B) By making Danchenko a confidential human source for two years to shield him, “sources and methods”, from investigative inquiry. C) By paying Danchenko $200,000 for his time as a useful tool and confidential human source.
[…] “What is more important is that which informs our understanding of the Trump/Russia investigation and the FBI/DOJ/Mueller misconduct that sparked Crossfire Hurricane and continued through the Mueller investigation. That information was revelatory. The institutions were on trial alongside Danchenko, with Durham recognizing in closing arguments that “the FBI mishandled the investigation at issue.” And the institutions rightly suffered. Danchenko might have been spared, but is there any reasonable doubt as to the FBI’s incompetence – and guilt? (read more)
As CTH has stated from the outset of the entire scheme, the problem is institutional corruption. The personnel, administration, leadership and participants, within the DOJ, DOJ-NSD and FBI are corrupt.
Institutions do not become corrupt by themselves. People within the institutions are the cause of the corruption, and every person attached to the Trump-Russia investigation – including Robert Mueller, are corrupt. It was a scheme in 2016, which became a coverup operation in 2017, which became an explosive institutional problem in 2019 which Bill Barr was trying to manage.
Institutional Preservation – Bill Barr applied the Bondo to the rusted framework of the DOJ and FBI, and John Durham applied the spray paint by not targeting anyone inside the justice department.
John Durham only focused, perhaps because he was only allowed to focus, on the external participants to the originating schemes. One thing is clear, John Durham never once mentioned the corrupt nature of the Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann coverup operation.
Danchenko was represented by the same lawyers representing Hillary Clinton because at the heart of Danchenko’s intent was an effort to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 October surprise they were constructing using fabricated claims of Trump colluding with Russia to win the election.
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia— A jury has found Russian national Igor Danchenko not guilty on four false statements charges, declining to convict him for the allegations that the main source of British ex-spy Christopher Steele had lied to the FBI about his sourcing for the discredited anti-Trump dossier.
The jury reached their decision on Tuesday after less than two days of deliberations, delivering John Durham another defeat in his long-running investigation of the Trump-Russia investigators, after the special counsel lost another false statements case against a Clinton campaign lawyer in May. (more)
Americans are having voters’ remorse after the country took a sharp nose-dive into the ground under the Biden Administration. The economy has been destroyed along with our reputation and future outlook. A new poll has found that only 33% would re-elect Joe Biden if the next presidential election were held today.
Out of the 33% who would still vote for Biden, 21% said they would “definitely” re-elect him, while 12% admitted they “probably” would check his name off on the ballot. Former President Trump reached his lowest re-elect percentage in January 2018 at 35%. Obama has a low score of 39% in September 2010. Joe Biden is quickly becoming the least popular president in modern history.
Most independent voters (54%) would not re-elect Biden, while 91% of Republicans would run for the hills (perhaps a bad analogy with the ongoing hearings). Although only 71% of Democrats said that they would re-elect Biden, his own party has repeatedly skirted the question regarding his re-election in 2024.
Around 62% said Biden is not a strong leader – one of the main indications for success. Over half admitted that they no longer believe the president cares about the American people, and 52% said Biden is neither honest nor trustworthy. An alarming 56% stated he is not mentally fit to serve as president. This may be the first time Americans have had to wonder if their top decisionmaker has dementia.
It goes beyond Joe Biden as all his political supporters promote his ideas and vote for his policies. It will be interesting to see if the people remember his party’s failures this November at the midterms.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 17, 2022 | Sundance
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa held a two-day summit with Saudi Arabia on mostly economic matters.
At the conclusion of the summit, he confirmed the intent of Saudi Arabia to join the BRICS economic coalition, which should not come as a surprise given the previous statements by Saudi leader and Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman (MbS).
(MSM) Ramaphosa confirms Saudi Arabia wants to join Brics family. This was revealed by President Cyril Ramaphosa during his two-day state visit to the kingdom on Sunday.
“The Crown Prince (prime minister Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud) did express Saudi Arabia’s desire to be part of Brics and they are not the only country,” said Ramaphosa. He confirmed this on Sunday during an engagement with the media.
Brics held its first summit in 2009, with SA joining the following year. The bloc has generally been seen as an alternative to the dominance of the western economies.
“We did say that Brics having a summit next year under the chairship of South Africa in SA and the matter is going to be under consideration.
“A number of countries are making approaches to Brics members, and we have given them the same answer that it will be discussed by the Brics partners and thereafter a decision will be made.” (read more)
Since the outset of the Western Alliance sanctions against Russia, we have been predicting an increased geopolitical influence from the BRICS team. A global financial and economic cleaving is underway created by the western nations chasing ideological climate change energy policy, while the rest of the world remains pragmatic toward oil, coal and natural gas as energy resources.
We have been closely monitoring the signs of a global cleaving around the energy sector taking place. Essentially, western governments’ following the “Build Back Better” climate change agenda which stops using coal, oil and gas to power their economic engine, while the rest of the growing economic world continues using the more efficient and traditional forms of energy to power their economies.
(July 2022) […] “This accession, if Saudi joins it, will balance the world economic system, especially since the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of oil in the world, and it’s in the G20,” Hamed said. “If it happens, this will support any economic movement and development in the world trade and economy, and record remarkable progress in social and economic aspects as Saudi Arabia should have partnerships with every country in the world.” (read more)
That would essentially be the end of the petrodollar, and -in even more consequential terms- the end of the United States ability to use the weight of the international trade currency to manipulate foreign government. The global economic system would have an alternative. The fracturing of the world, created as an outcome of energy development, would be guaranteed.
Keep in mind, in early June Federal reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated, “rapid changes are taking place in the global monetary system that may affect the international role of the dollar.” {LINK}
The western alliance (yellow) would be chasing climate change energy policy to power their economies. The rest of the world (grey) would be using traditional and more efficient energy development. The global cleaving around energy use would be complete.
This is not some grand conspiracy, ‘out there‘ deep geopolitical possibility, or foreboding likelihood as an outcome of short-sighted western emotion. No, this is just a predictable outcome from western created events that pushed specific countries to a natural conclusion based on their best interests.
You can debate the motives of the western leaders who structured the sanctions against Russia, and whether they knew the outcome would happen as a consequence of their effort, but the outcome was never really in doubt. Personally, I believe this outcome is what the west intended. The people inside the World Economic Forum are not stupid – ideological, yes, but not stupid. They knew this global cleaving would happen.
For a deep dive on BRICS, as predicted by CTH, {SEE HERE}. The bottom line is – the 2022 punitive economic and financial sanctions by the western nations’ alliance against Russia was exactly the reason why BRICS assembled in the first place.
Multinational corporations in control of government are what the BRICS assembly foresaw when they first assembled during the Obama administration. When multinational corporations run the policy of western government, there is going to be a problem.
In the bigger picture, the BRICS assembly are essentially leaders who do not want corporations and multinational banks running their government. BRICS leaders want their government running their government; and yes, that means whatever form of government that exists in their nation, even if it is communist.
BRICS leaders are aligned as anti-corporatist. That doesn’t necessarily make those government leaders better stewards, it simply means they want to make the decisions, and they do not want corporations to become more powerful than they are. As a result, if you really boil it down to the common denominator, what you find is the BRICS group are the opposing element to the World Economic Forum assembly.
The BRICS team intend to create an alternative option for all the other nations. An alternative to the current western trade and financial platforms operated on the use of the dollar as a currency. Perhaps many nations will use both financial mechanisms depending on their need.
The objective of the BRICS group is simply to present an alternative trade mechanism that permits them to conduct business regardless of the opinion of the multinational corporations in the ‘western alliance.’
The BRICS team, especially if Saudi Arabia, Iran and Argentina are added creating BRICS+, would indeed be a counterbalance to the control of western trade and finance. This global cleaving is moving from a possibility to a likelihood. If Saudi Arabia joins BRICS the fracture becomes almost certain.
The State Visit to Saudi Arabia was about advancing diplomatic and political relations between our two countries, but it is the economic relations that underpinned the substance of our visit.#SAinSaudiArabiapic.twitter.com/zuVPODGy1c
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 17, 2022 | sundance
Closing arguments wrapped up on the trial of Igor Danchenko, the primary source who delivered fraudulent information to Christopher Steele for transmission to the FBI. The jury now has the case and it’s likely they will not convict.
When you accept the FBI knew the Steele Dossier was a fabricated assembly of political dirt against Trump, the trial of Danchenko becomes more about the FBI corruption than lies by the defendant. How can the same DOJ who willingly and willfully benefitted from the lies, now turn around and prosecute the liar. Hillary Clinton lawyers providing the defense for Danchenko used this angle to criticize the prosecution in closing arguments.
(Via CNN) […] Danchenko lawyer Stuart Sears said prosecutors brazenly cast aside information that “doesn’t support their narrative that he’s a liar.” Sears pointed out how Durham turned on his own witnesses after they provided evidence that helped the defense.
“The special counsel attacked them mercilessly,” Sears said. “They attacked the credibility of the very witnesses they called in here, because they didn’t say what they wanted them to say.” Sears added: “The government’s own evidence in this case proves that the defendant is not guilty.”
Durham’s team urged jurors to convict Danchenko on Monday, telling them to “look at his own words” in emails from 2016 that they believe prove that he later misled the FBI about his ties to a possible dossier source. “You didn’t check your common sense at the courthouse door,” prosecutor Michael Keilty said. “You need to use it.”
Keilty said Danchenko gave a “shifting story” to the FBI agents who interviewed him in 2017, while they were trying to corroborate the explosive allegations in the dossier that Trump’s campaign was colluding with the Russian government to win the presidency.
“The FBI surveilled a US citizen for nearly a year based on those lies,” Keilty said, referring to the wiretaps of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The FBI affidavits used to secure those surveillance warrants included material that came from the Trump-Russia dossier.
Danchenko’s lawyer also blasted the Trump-era Justice Department for “exposing” him as an FBI informant and for launching the probe that led to his prosecution.
“He was trying to help the FBI, and now they’re indicting him for it,” Sears said.
As a paid informant, Danchenko significantly assisted multiple FBI probes between 2017 and 2020. But the FBI was forced to cut ties with Danchenko in late 2020, after the Justice Department indirectly outed him as a dossier source.
“He deserved more than to be exposed because a bunch of politicians put politics over national security,” Sears said. (read more)
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 16, 2022 | sundance
Appearing for an interview with Dave Rubin, the founder of Locals and a major conscript of the branding and image shaping effort behind Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Megyn Kelly gives Mr. Rubin the bitter pill of truth. {Direct Rumble Link}
Within this excerpt, Mr. Rubin struggles through the five stages of grief following Kelly’s red pill delivery, eventually stabilizing his emotion by accepting Florida Governor Ron DeSantis can still deliver good political outcomes for the state. It’s a very interesting dynamic to watch for a few reasons.
First, because Megyn Kelly has first-hand experience with the power of the MAGA attachment to the atypical America-First leader. Second, because Kelly’s truthful statements cut against the objective for why Rubin was recruited by DeSantis Inc. WATCH:
This might be the most important outline to understand this whole sordid mess…
During the Friday testimony of witnesses put on the stand by Special Counsel John Durham, there were two key witnesses, FBI Analyst Brittany Hertzog and FBI Special Agent Amy Anderson. Both witnesses testified they were part of the Mueller investigative team with a primary mission to investigate the claims in/around the Christopher Steele dossier. [See TechnofogSubstack for transcript excerpts HERE]
The testimony of FBI agent Anderson and FBI analyst Hertzog (about their role in the Mueller probe) leads to one inescapable conclusion, Robert Mueller lied to congress when he testified the special counsel did not investigate Chris Steele, the Steele Dossier, Fusion GPS and/or Glenn Simpson. Mueller claimed it was “outside my purview.”
While Anderson and Hertzog are tied to the case against Igor Danchenko, it appears the primary purpose of their being called as witnesses in the trial is not about Danchenko. It appears John Durham presented them for testimony to ‘gently‘ and ‘diplomatically‘ expose the corrupt intent of the two-year Robert Mueller investigation. However, before getting all excited about Durham exposing Mueller be aware: There’s an outrage trap in here!
To fully comprehend the dynamic, we first need a background context, then a review of the witness statements, then an understanding of the outrage trap.
(1) Background Context:
AFTER originally interviewing Danchenko in January and February 2017, in March the DOJ/FBI then reinterviewed him before refiling the second FISA renewal in April. With Danchenko on their payroll they FBI did not need to worry about him undermining the Trump-Russia narrative or speaking the truth about the dossier. This approach protected the fraudulently obtained title-1 surveillance warrant. The surveillance warrant was renewed in April.
AFTER Robert Mueller is appointed special counsel in May 2017, with Danchenko on the FBI payroll and under control. When Danchenko is interviewed on June 15, 2017, he is being interviewed as part of the Mueller operation. Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann now submit the FISA application for another renewal on June 29, 2017. The fraudulently obtained title-1 surveillance warrant was again renewed.
The reason to keep Danchenko on the FBI payroll is to mitigate any risk he might present if he were to speak. A corrupt FBI network in Washington DC put a control mechanism over Danchenko in order to preserve their surveillance warrant, which was built upon fraud by using the Steele Dossier. They renewed the surveillance warrant twice more (April and June) while Danchenko was a paid ($200,000+) confidential human source.
As you can see from the Durham case against Igor Danchenko, a controlled Danchenko was then handed-off to the Mueller probe, who kept Danchenko on the FBI payroll throughout the Robert Mueller investigation (ended in April 2019) until October 2020 when Danchenko was dropped by the FBI and John Durham “officially” took over and was appointed special counsel.
Dates are important – On July 24, 2019, when Robert Mueller is in front of congress, answering questions about Chris Steele, the dossier and the Steele sources therein, Mueller was able to deflect and dodge answering questions about it because AG Bill Barr put John Durham into place in May 2019. AG Bill Barr put John Durham into place in May 2019, immediately following Robert Mueller’s completed investigation, April 2019, for this exact reason.
Hertzog was with the FBI from 2008 through 2019 as an intelligence analyst with a primary focus on Russian counterintelligence. She described her role as an analyst who “looks at information and tries to identify trends, patterns, and investigative next steps.” She was assigned to the Directorate of Intelligence at FBI Headquarters.
Hertzog was assigned to Special Counsel Mueller’s Office in July 2017. She described her role and chain of command with the Mueller Team:
Q And what, generally, was your role with the Special Counsel Mueller’s team?
A I was primarily initially to focus on looking into reports that the FBI had received on Russian matters.
Q All right. Did those reports have a particular name?
A We referred to them typically as the Steele dossier.
Q Now, as a member of Special Counsel Mueller’s team, was there a chain of command?
A Yes.
Q Can you describe the chain of command that you worked with?
A I reported directly to SIA Brian Auten. Above him was Special Counsel Mueller. There were horizontal chains of reporting as well. So there was an attorney, a supervisory special agent, and then head of FBI personnel.
Q Okay. So you had occasion to work with special agents as well, correct?
A Correct.
Q And who were some of the special agents that you worked with Special Counsel Mueller?
A I worked with Supervisory Special Agent Amy Anderson and Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson.
Hertzog became familiar with the Steele Dossier, and with the parties involved in the Steele Dossier, once she joined the Mueller Team:
Q And how did you become familiar with Mr. Steele?
A When I reported [July 2017] to the Special Counsel’s Office, SCO, I had received background information on the investigation up until that point.
It was her job to “look into the Steele Dossier.” She described this as “trying to identify the sourcing for the claims in the dossier and, specifically, the national security threat with regards to the Russian influence piece.” Hertzog explains:
Q And a lot of names appeared in those dossier reports?
A Correct.
Q Did you learn that there were a number of different sources that the defendant relied on?
A Yes.
Q Did you have a particular focus on any of those sources?
A There were a number of sub-sources that were identified for investigative next steps.
Q Okay. And did you have a particular individual that you focused on?
A Yes. There was an individual named Olga Galkina who was — when I was assigned to SCO, was my primary focus initially.
Compare Hertzog’s testimony to the words of Robert Mueller:
Agent Amy Anderson, who works in the field of counterintelligence, was part of the Crossfire Hurricane/Mueller Team from April 2017 through January of 2018. Her initial assignment was “to attempt to validate the Steele Dossier,” to “either verify the reporting or determine that it was not accurate.”
Anderson described her role and supervisors with Special Counsel Mueller:
Q What was your initial — who were you initially working with in that role at the Special Counsel’s investigation?
A When I first arrived at the Special Counsel, I worked with Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, as well as quite a few other intelligence analysts, Stephanie LaParre, Iva Drasinover. We had a team that was working the dossier in particular.
Q Did you work with someone by the name of Brittany Hertzog?
A I worked with Brittany a little bit later. She came in not at the very beginning but maybe a month after, a month or two.
Q And in terms of who you reported to at the Special Counsel’s office, if you could, just tell us who you reported to.
A Technically, I reported to Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson.
Essentially, agent Anderson, together with analyst Hertzog, did deep investigative work into the Dossier, Igor Danchenko and his relationship with Charles Dolan. FBI agent Amy Anderson then compiled a report outlining the fraud within the dossier and the political relationships with the people who assembled it. Anderson then passed that report up the chain of command in the Mueller investigation to Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson who buried it and did nothing.
So, we can easily see that Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissman, the special counsel team, did in fact spend a great deal of time and resources investigating the background of the Steele Dossier, including interviewing Christopher Steele himself, and all the claims within the dossier to include investigations of Danchenko and Dolan and other participants.
As a result of the FBI witness testimony, everyone can easily say that Robert Mueller mislead or lied to congress during his July 24, 2019, testimony. However, there’s an outrage trap in here, and John Durham certainly has to know it.
(3) The Outrage Trap:
Listen carefully to the testimony of Rober Mueller on July 24, 2019, best encapsulated within these two specific rounds of questioning. As noted by PBS, “Mueller, who led an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign, declined to answer questions regarding how the probe began or whether the so-called Steele dossier was a contributing factor.” WATCH:
.
Robert Mueller also claimed not to know who Fusion GPS was, or what role Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, played in the assembly of the Steele Dossier.
.
Robert Mueller is in front of congress in July 2019, answering questions about Chris Steele, the dossier and the Steele sources therein. Mueller was able to deflect and dodge answering questions about it because AG Bill Barr put John Durham into place in May 2019.
When Robert Mueller is saying there’s another group in the DOJ looking specifically at the Chris Steele, Dossier, Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson aspect to the fraudulent 2016/2017 claims about Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election, he is talking about the John Durham investigation.
Mueller is citing Durham as the reason why his purview, and subsequent report as released, did not include the Steele dossier, Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson information.
Mueller is saying that stuff is the responsibility of “the other internal investigative unit,” ie. John Durham.
When you stand back and remind yourself of the Bill Barr statements and affirmations about the ‘integrity’ and ‘honor’ of Robert Mueller, one can only accept that AG Bill Barr put John Durham into place in May 2019, immediately following Robert Mueller’s completed investigation, April 2019, so that Mueller would have a shield for why the origin of the Trump-Russia is outside his purview.
This is how they use silos as weapons and shields. Not in my purview is the same as not in my silo.
Mueller was citing Durham as the reason his team did not expand their probe to fully investigate Chris Steele et al. Mueller’s special counsel has an escape hatch for why they did nothing with their own investigative findings…. That was John Durham’s job. This is the outrage trap.
AG Bill Barr established John Durham’s probe (silo) so that Robert Mueller’s probe (silo) would have cover.
If John Durham’s investigative inquiry did not exist prior to that July 2019 testimony by Robert Mueller, then Mueller would have lied to congress.
AG Bill Barr put Durham into place, essentially constructed another silo, to protect his ‘good friend’ Robert Mueller….
Is it still possible for the People to save the USA and revert it back to its original form, as was indented in the Constitution – rights not enumerated to the Government, belong to the State or to the People?
I spend some time in the USA and in public high school. At no point, we were taught the Constitution and what it entails. That was in north Texas – open gun carry and very in favor of the constitution rights.
Texas high schools did not teach the Constitution nor the 2nd Amendment – that its purpose is not to give the right to bear arms but to DENY the Government the authority to infringe on People’s right to bear arms (the divine right).
The People no longer remember that the Founding Fathers saw the People as Sovereign with the Divine Right.
Can you opine on this, with the emphasis on the Divine Rights (inalienable rights) that were previously reserved only for the Kings and bestowed by the Church.
Cheers from Canada, Lucas
ANSWER: The TRUE answer is we have NO RIGHTS whatsoever. The courts have turned everything on its head. The Constitution is NEGATIVE – not positive. You have to look at the language very carefully. Here is the First Amendment. It stated “Congress shall make no law…” and that is a NEGATIVE restraint upon government It does not endow you with the “right” to freedom of religion of speech. This is how they are getting away with the whole cancel culture. The “negative” restraint is ONLY upon the government. You actually have no right to freedom of speech. The 2nd Amendment was to create a militia army, not a standing army. That was the advice of the Prince of Savoy.
In 1787, Patrick Henry was invited to participate in what became the Constitutional Convention. He feared that the meeting was really a sinister plot by the powerful to construct a strong central government that would become not much different from what they revolted against. When the new Constitution was sent to Virginia for ratification in 1788, Patrick Henry stood up and objected. Henry argued that it was a trap and that the Constitution did not include a bill of rights and that would lead to tyranny.
Patrick Henry argued that the clear absence of a bill of rights was confirmation that this was really an attempt by the few to become powerful and dictate to everyone beneath them once again. Henry argued eloquently and other Anti-Federalists saw his point and compelled James Madison, the leader of the Virginia Federalists, to promise the addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution. On September 25, Congress agreed upon the 12 amendments, and they were sent to the states for approval. Articles three through twelve were ratified and became the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It was not until after 25 days of heated debate, on June 26, 1788, Virginia became the 10th state to ratify the Constitution on that condition.
If it were not for Patrick Henry, we would have lived in utter tyranny all this time. Little by little, the court has very subtly inverted the Bill of Rights and most people have actually just looked at that title “Bill of Rights” and assumed that are positive rights that we have. However, look closer and you will see that this is a negative restraint. If you want to sue someone for violating your constitutional rights, they MUST be acting under “Color of Law” meaning it is really at the government’s direction.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 