It’s Better to be American

Friend —

First of all. I want to send a huge thanks to all of our new donors. Our website traffic is up, new donations are increasing, and our message is resonating with Americans all across the land. If you like this content, if you agree with the message, if you want to see American values restored, don’t forget that your donations give us the ability to move forward. Don’t forget to subscribe to our social media. We are building a larger and more inclusive social media presence, so everyone has more chances to interact with us. Please read to the end to find links to our social media and donation pages.

One thing that I often hear about in the media these days is the issue of “our morality”. This bothers me. And it bothers me for a specific reason: Whose morality is “our morality”? And what does it have to do with nationhood?

Americans as a group are unique in the world. Nowhere in the world can you go, apply for a passport, and then be considered to be “one of” their people. You can’t go to Germany, pick up a German passport, and then people will say that you are “German”. What if you go to China and picked up a Chinese passport? Do you think that they would accept you as “Chinese”? They don’t even allow foreigners to apply for citizenship. How about Japan? What about in South Africa, Namibia, South Sudan, Syria, or Russia? Would they look at your local passport and say “Oh. Yep. You are one of us.”?

No. Of course not. And that is why our nation and our people are so unique.

At no point in the history of our species has a country arisen to any meaningful position of power and influence while also saying  “Anyone can be one of us.” The closest that comes to mind would perhaps be the Roman Empire. But even then, it wasn’t just a matter of taking an oath, swapping out one little pocket-sized book for another, and then BOOM you’re Roman. No. They had a complex system of citizenship classes, and the criteria for acquiring them was equally onerous.

Only in our day and age, and only in the United States of America do foreigners even have the chance of not just getting a passport but being able to say with honesty and earnestness “I am American.” Even persons from completely alien cultures, with traditions and ways of life entirely antithetical to our own. Even if they came here ILLEGALLY.

But now we have to consider an important question: Why? Why are Americans, and to a limited extent people from around the anglosphere (English speaking countries that are part of the Common Wealth) pushed further and further into the cultural miasma of “Multi-culturalism”?

You may have grown up being told that all cultures and all nations are equal. Certainly, all human beings are born equal, but why does that equality naturally extend to all cultures, languages, and nations? It doesn’t. If all cultures are equal, then why do waves upon waves of people from all around the world flock to the US? Why don’t they flock to places like Zimbabwe by the millions? Or to Romania? Because not all countries are created equal. Not all cultures are created equal. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but once you think about it, you realize that it’s true.

The traditional culture of the United States built the most prosperous, most powerful nation in the history of the world. That culture is under attack, now.

The Leftist Progressives and their Globalist RINO allies in the Republican party push this narrative that all cultures are equal, because they know that most Americans have never stepped foot outside of America and have no frame of reference on the matter. These Progressives and Globalists know that Americans can be manipulated by appealing to their sense of morality. Their only view is the limited window provided to them by television, and now the slightly larger window of the Internet.

Why do they do this?

They do it because Republican business lobbies benefit due to cheap labor from countries whose cultures have little to no value for individual liberty, and Democrats like them because they are raised in cultures that are socialistic and where Big Government seems like a natural thing and these immigrants vote roughly 85% Democrat.

Most Americans will never know the feeling of stepping out onto the street and seeing gangs of knife-wielding teenagers numbering in the dozens roaming the streets unchallenged, enforcing religious and political doctrines. They don’t know what it means to be cornered by corrupt police, with guns pointed at them and having money or valuable belongings extorted from them. They will never witness swarms of police vans shuttling hundreds of blue-and-white clad officers to descend on impoverished villages, and then see those villagers bundled off in the middle of the night so that corrupt land developers can demolish their homes to make way for a new luxury high-rise. Do we want people who hold these kinds of cultural values? Do they somehow help America become a better place?

They know that by pushing the narrative of cultural equality, Americans will be less likely to resist the importation of millions of people whose cultural values are completely opposite our values. They also know that, when Americans begin to notice that people from these other cultures don’t learn our language, don’t observe our traditions, and don’t respect our values, we won’t push back. Our morality won’t allow for it. It would be considered racist, or at the very least, rude. But we have the right to push back. It is our nation.

How many Americans know that open-air slave markets are run, quite profitably, in places like Libya? Is it white European colonists capturing and selling the slaves? The liberal progressives would have you believe that European colonizers are the only culture in history to have ever kept slaves. They remind us of that history every chance they get. They won’t tell you that it was Conservative Americans that chose to free the slaves, extend citizenship to them, and fought a civil war to do it. They try to hide that it was the Democrats that resisted giving up slavery and formed the KKK. They won’t tell you that the slave markets in North Africa are run by Muslims and that they sell captured Christian women of various ethnicities to be wives to ISIS soldiers.

What do we gain?

Do we want people with these cultural values entering our country, creating communities of their own, and completely rejecting our morals and values? What, exactly, is wrong with demanding that these people abide by our traditions? Why are we forced to accept their cultures, but if we want them to live by our standards, it’s racist?

Recently, Ilhan Omar has been in the news numerous times for promoting antisemitism and Islamic culture in Congress. When people denounce this, they are called racist and Islamophobic. Why is it unreasonable to expect a US representative to obey the customs and morals of our country? She is an immigrant here, after all. If her homeland was so bad that she had to come here as a refugee, why should we accept our generosity being repaid with a slap to the face? Does the US gain by keeping her around?

What does OUR nation have to gain by inviting people from these cultures into our country? Not by the hundreds nor the thousands. But by the millions. How long can our traditions, our values, and our very way of life stand against such an onslaught? As mentioned before, we already have Muslims in congress who demand that our ancient traditions be changed in order to suit their culture. Is that to say that all people from these countries are bad? Absolutely not! Is it so say that respect and a healthy curiosity in their cultures is evil? Not at all. Is that to say that the US should be a white country, to the exclusion of other races? Not even a little bit. The US DOES have plenty to gain by inviting the best and brightest from other countries and other cultures to become American. But that’s the point. They have to want to become American. The problem is that most who are coming here now not only don’t want to transform themselves into Americans, many of them actively hate our country, our values, and our history.

They have weaponized our morality against us.

Americans are loath to take true pride in their unique accomplishments. It is part of the religiosity that helped found this nation. Pride comes before the fall, as the old saying goes. In religious terms, this may be true, but what about in nationalistic terms? When I asked my mother recently if she knows what nationalism means, she said that MSNBC told her it means to be fascist and racist, that only Nazis are nationalists. I dared her to look at the dictionary, and she was completely confused when she saw the real meaning of nationalism.

How can people preserve their nation when they are indoctrinated from youth not to take genuine pride in the unique accomplishments of their nation? What happens when you have enclaves of people living within your borders who don’t share your values, don’t speak your language, and don’t understand or care about your traditions? What happens is that you no longer have a country. You have a disparate collection of mutually-distrustful ethnic groups with competing and contradictory interests. Is that what a “melting pot” looks like? What exactly are the “conservatives” in our government conserving? They aren’t conserving our way of life, that’s for sure. They are selling it out for cheap, easily controlled labor.

How long can such a place remain peaceful?

Certain people in the media and mainstream politics would call even talking about this racist. They would call this “white nationalism”, or “fascist”. But we have to ask some very important questions, then. Why is it racist? How many of you know that there is an activist group in the US called La Raza? If some of you have heard of it, how many know what it means? It’s Spanish for “The Race”. Why aren’t they called racist? How many of you know who Keith Ellison is? Or that he’s a Muslim US congressman? How many of you know that he has made official calls since his late 20’s for African-Americans to claim a portion of US soil, secede from the union, and form a black ethno-state (a country designed to be occupied by only one race)? Why aren’t he and his supporters called racist? Are those the kind of morals that we as Americans should accept?

When Progressive democrats and RINOs talk about “our morals”, that should be a red flag in your mind to start thinking really hard about whose “morals” they are talking about. We have our own values, customs, language, and culture. It’s our values that built this country. And it’s our traditions that will see our Liberty and Integrity restored so that we all may enjoy Prosperity.

It’s Ok to respect other cultures. It’s OK to learn and be fluent in other languages. It’s OK to travel to other countries to appreciate their way of life. It’s OK to have a nation made richer by inviting in vetted and trusted people from around the world to contribute skills and knowledge. It’s OK to be members of different races and ethnicities.

Yes. All of that is fine and well. But more importantly…

It’s better to be American.

With warmest regards,

DPR (Digital Paul Revere)

 

P.S. – Please like and share this content far and wide. Please donate what you can. Even small donations help to revive the hope for a truly Constitutionist America. Join us on social media to keep the conversation going.

Signed

Digital Paul Revere

 

Constitution Party Logo

DONATE

 

Follow Us

 

Share This Article

 

 

Thanks to Your Support, MORE Big Things Are Happening!

Email_Header_600p.png

Just last week we received word from the Hawaii Secretary of State that the Constitution Party is now officially recognized as a ballot-qualified party in that state.  This is the first time ever that the Constitution Party has achieved ballot access in Hawaii in a mid-term election. The party completed the signature drive in mid-February, but by state law, the petition could be challenged within 20 business days of when the final petitions were submitted to the state for verification.  That deadline was  March 7th and the following day the Hawaii Secretary of State confirmed that no one had challenged our petition thereby qualifying the party for ballot status.

Other big news for the party is our ballot petitioning effort going on in North Carolina.  Gaining ballot access in that state will be a landmark achievement.  By this weekend, we should be able to surpass the 6,000 signature mark. If the validity rate of 83% holds up we should be able to secure the required 12,000 valid signatures with a total of about 15,000.  We continue to average  getting about 1,200 signatures a week in spite of the inclement weather being experienced in that state.  At this rate, we should be able to complete the signature drive before the end of April….a full month before the deadline.  Since completing the petitioning in Hawaii Nicholas Sumbles has been gathering signatures in North Carolina.

Besides Nicholas’ work, we have volunteers working gun shows every weekend and the number of volunteers grows each week. The goal of the party leaders is to gather signatures in all 100 counties in the state. At this point, they have succeeded in getting signatures from 93 of the counties.  This is a most remarkable feat and has been possible only because of the increased number of volunteers who are gathering signatures. However, in order to reach our goal we are going to need additional financial assistance from our supporters. We are paying Nicholas $2.00 a signature which is a very reasonable rate compared to what other professional signature gathers have quoted us.

This is where we need your help and we need it very urgently.  We must keep the funds coming in so that we can keep Nicholas there.  A donor from North Carolina has offered to match dollar for dollar any funds that we raise up to $4,250.00. Due to the generosity of our supporters, we are close to qualifying for the total amount of the matching funds, but we are still going to need additional donations to reach our 15,000 signature goal. If you are in a position to donate any amount please go to www.constitutionparty.com and donate what you can to ballot access.  If you wish, you may also send a check payable to the Constitution Party to P O Box 1782 Lancaster, PA 17608.  A donation of $5.00, $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, $25.00. $50.00. $100.00, $500.00, or whatever you are able to donate would be deeply appreciated.  It is urgent that we raise those funds immediately.

Gaining ballot access in North Carolina will open other doors for us in yet more states. Again, I plead with you to give what you are able to. Then share this message with family and friends of like mind. Your sharing this message with others is paying off as we are receiving donations from people who have never donated to the party before. I can not thank you enough for the effort you are making to help us make history in North Carolina.  I have been extremely impressed with the hard work and dedication of the party leaders there.  Together we can achieve heights we have never reached before.

My sincere thanks and appreciation to each of you for your past support and encouragement.

For God Family and Country,

Fluckiger_Signature.png

National Chairman
Constitution Party
www.constitutionparty.com

Dr. Scott Bradley Discusses Constitutionality Of Missile Strike On Syria

In under 8 minutes Dr. Scott Bradley, PhD in Constitutional Law and 2016 Constitution Party VP Nominee, touches on the Constitutionality of the recent missile strike launched against Syria.

 

For those saying the President has the power to launch an attack:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States:

[The Congress shall have Power To…] Declare war

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 & 2 of the Constitution of the United States:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…

 

For those citing that Commander-In-Chief = ability to unilaterally launch attacks in which Americans are not in imminent danger:

Thomas Jefferson, in 1801 as President:

He was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton:

The President is to be the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States.” In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: — First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.

 

For those insinuating that an Act, Treaty, Resolution, or international law warrants usurpation of the Constitution and carries the same weight as a Constitutional Amendment which changes the Constitution:

St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States:

Let it be supposed, for example, that the president and senate should stipulate by treaty with any foreign nation, that in case of war between that nation and any other, the United States should immediately declare against that nation: Can it be supposed that such a treaty would be so far the law of the land, as to take from the house of representatives their constitutional right to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of such a declaration of war, and to determine and act thereon, according to their own judgement?”

 

Also… James Madison, Constitutional Debates

Does it follow, because this power [treaty power] is given to Congress. That it is absolute and unlimited? I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.”

 

And Thomas Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice:

“By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are regulated by treaty and cannot be otherwise regulated. . . . It must have meant to except out of these rights reserved to the states, for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

 

Obvious logical flaws with support for the strikes…

Who did it, with proof, please? – People are so convinced that Assad conducted the chemical weapon attacks. Why would he? Assad has changed the tide of the war over the past couple of years and has finally even been winning the P.R. War. None of this matters because it isn’t Constitutional, but there’s no logic behind an Assad attack.

But the innocent children!1. Don’t we hate when liberals demagogue and use the heart-wrenching, doomsday, or Alinskyite tactics? Why would conservatives resort to them? 2. We killed 4 innocent children in those strikes. If this provokes a war, how many of our children will die in a war that we have no business being in? 3. Millions of innocent AMERICAN children are murdered at the hands of Planned Parenthood. Where is the outcry regarding the genocide at home? Isn’t Trump’s daughter lobbying for PP now? Would there be rage if it were Planned Parenthood being attacked due to what they do to innocent children and women daily, or is that ok?

Was the United States in imminent danger? – Were we on the brink, with verifiable intelligence, of being attacked by Syria? Even if someone states that we were, intelligence informed us about WMD’s in Iraq, none there. They told us that Benghazi was caused by a video. Instead, our Intelligence agencies were running guns from Benghazi to Syrian rebels, aka TO ISIS!

Are we now siding with ISIS, against Christians? – It is common knowledge that Assad is fighting ISIS and has been protecting the persecuted Coptic Christians for quite some time. Are we not assisting ISIS by firing missiles on the Syrian military? Are we fighting against Christianity in the Middle East?

Ohhhhh the Hypocrisy! – Donald J. Trump in 2013 after a previous, supposed chemical weapon attack by Assad on his people via Twitter: “The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!”

 

 

Previous quotes and citations extracted from Dr. Bradley’s “To Preserve The Nation Webinars at http://www.freedomsrisingsun.com