If I wanted America to Fail....what would I do?

 

IF I WANTED AMERICA TO FAIL I'D EMPLOY OBAMA AND HIS ADMINISTRATION TO DO WHAT THEY DID ALREADY AND ALL WITH THE BLESSING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S VOTE!

If I wanted to continue the institution of slavery, I would convince countless people in my own nation that poverty is THE lack of other people's money, rather than lack of knowing how to create and keep ones own wealth. The progressives from the Right and the Left have and still are destroying America from within.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Daniel Paul King wrote on Facebook some great historical black and white facts :

Progressivism promotes the "Radical Center" vs the Classic Liberal/Classical Republican Center.

 

Some of the most harmful legislation has been when the Progressive Right and Progressive Left compromise. Both have radical views and their compromises are exploitative.

Progressive Economics supports "Third Way" Economics of pseudo socialism and pseudo capitalism. A system based on Taxes/Debt/Usury growth that is in fact Corporatism and not Capitalism. Though some call it Right Wing Capitalism...but since it is based on growing DEBT and favors finance it is not Free Market.

They gave us FIAT and Fractional Reserve Banking....

"In a free market, fractional reserve banking (FRB) would be illegal because of its fraudulent nature." This is the opinion of Classic Economic Theories - Classical LIBERAL market theories....amazing now that modern "liberals" reject the consumer driven free market

Because of Progressives we no longer have a system of Free Market Capitalism - we have a Tax/Debt/Usury system. These system are not new in civilization and were called "Tyranny". The European Banking system our forefathers fled to come to America was such a system.

 Classical Liberalism and Classic Republicanism created NEW economic theories at the time based on the Liberalism (Classic) and Republicanism center....Free Market Capitalism. Capital Money- Tax and Debt Free Money. Not a Usury System.

Progressivism uses DECEPTIONS - they claim "Free Market" but it violates the core principles and values of the theory; and they also pander to pseudo Marxist ideas....it is a deceptive mix.

Progressivism came about in the 1850's and has been a force in our politicial system ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Progressive_corporatism

"Liberal corporatism was an influential component of the Progressivism in the United States that has been referred to as "interest group liberalism".[29]

 The support by U.S. labor representatives of liberal corporatism of the U.S. progressives is believed to have been influenced by the syndicalism and particularly the anarcho-syndicalism at the time in Europe.[29]

 In the United States, economic corporatism involving capital-labor cooperation was influential in the New Deal economic program of the United States in the 1930s as well as in Keynesianism and even Fordism."

If I wanted to totally destroy the American dream I would call all my critics racists if they pointed out the falsehood of that reasoning. Name calling is the oldest trick in the book to distract from the real issues at hand, it is the trick used by COWARDS AND THE WEAKER to get away with whatever their doing.

 If I wanted to expand this to the entire planet, I would invent Global Warming, Cap & Trade, and carbon credits to reward developing nations for remaining dependent and unproductive at the expense of the successful.

If I wanted America to Fail I'd get Americans to believe that the Government that fails at everything it does could take care of me and my family.

I'd tell America over and over again that they are ENTITLED to get when they give NOTHING BACK. I'd make every American feel guilty for using what they need every day to survive so that in the end they will comply and bow the knee!

 

These are what Progressives are like when they speak their minds at rallies, this is our future America unless we cut out this political cancer by its roots once and for all.......THEY HATE AMERICA! THEY HATE ISRAEL! THEY HATE CAPITALISM all of which they themselves have benefited from to get where they are today.

Don't ever forget PROGRESSIVES have MILLIONAIRES SUPPORTING THEIR SIDE AS WELL.

 They are the biggest of Hypocrites because while they speak of the poor they enjoy BILLIONS in taxpayer funding (The Capitalism they say they hate, they waste.) They use Voter intimidation, Voter Fraud, and Dead people's names to get what they want.

They have dirtied Americas name in the World and caused us all to forget our foundations by passing lame, and bogus Laws that prevent us from teaching our true history to our children.

These are the very things that Progressives from BOTH parties have been doing to America since the 1850's. While we VOTE them into power they take away our power of the people by shredding our Constitutional God given rights right from under our Nations feet.

Worst of all,We have enabled these monsters to slowly eat away our underpinnings as a Nation, listening to their half-baked lies and Propaganda just as the German people listened to Hitlers lies. How long will we as a people prepare our own coffins and dig our own graves?

Obama in his own words, he's a RADICAL!
 

We allowed our Government to make our kids Stupid so the next Generation would be Compliant to the takeover of the N.W.O. Its time we as a people stood up against it with the full force of  "We The People" the true power of America.

THE TRUTH ABOUT DEMOCRAT RACISM TODAY

THE TRUTH ABOUT DEMOCRAT RACISM

By Frances Rice

Contemptible aptly describes the race mongering by Democrats for partisan political gain.  No issue, from Obama-Care to Voter ID, escapes being demagogue by Democrats with false accusations of racism leveled at Republicans who disagree with Democrats on policy.  

With not an ounce of shame, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz went on the African-American network TV One’s program “Washington Watch” and accused Republicans of wanting to return America to Jim Crow segregation laws, merely because they are seeking to require photo identification to register to vote.   

It takes Weiner-level hubris for Democrats to conjure up the specter of Jim Crow against Republicans since Democrats enacted those discriminatory laws.   The roots of modern-day racism rest squarely in the Democratic Party.  As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s:  slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

  Details about the true history of civil rights can be found in the book “Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats” by Wayne Perryman.  An excellent summary of the issue of civil rights is contained in Chapter 10 of Ann Coulter’s new book “Demonic”, an excerpt of which is posted on the Human Events website and shown below.

Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association.  She may be contacted on the Internet at:  www.NBRA.info 

                               _________________________________________________________

Civil Rights and the Mob: George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus And Other Democrats

by Ann Coulter

June 7, 2011

An excerpt from Ann Coulter's new book, Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.    

CHAPTER 10: CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE MOB:  GEORGE WALLACE, BULL CONNOR, ORVAL FAUBUS AND OTHER DEMOCRATS 

It was the Democratic Party that ginned up the racist mob against blacks and it is the Democratic Party ginning every new mob today— ironically, all portraying themselves as the equivalent of the Freedom Riders.

With real civil rights secure—try to find a restaurant that won’t serve a black person—modern civil rights laws benefit only the mob, not the victims of the mob, as American blacks had been. Just as fire seeks oxygen, Democrats seek power, which is why they will always be found championing the mob whether the mob consists of Democrats lynching blacks or Democrats slandering the critics of ObamaCare as racists.

Democrats have gone from demagoguing white (trash) voters with claims that Republicans are the party of blacks, to demagoguing black voters telling them Republicans are the party of racists. Any mob in a storm.

The liberal fairy tale that Southern bigots simply switched parties, from Democrat to Republican, is exactly wrong. What happened is: The Democrats switched mobs. Democrats will champion any group of hooligans in order to attain power. 

As Michael Barone said of the vicious segregationist (and Democrat) George Wallace, he was “a man who really didn’t believe in anything—a political opportunist who used opposition to integration to try and get himself ahead.”

This is why the Democrats are able to transition so seamlessly from defending Bull Connor racists to defending Black Panthers, hippies, yippies, Weathermen, feminists, Bush derangement syndrome liberals, Moveon.org, and every other indignant, angry mob.

Every segregationist who ever served in the Senate was a Democrat and remained a Democrat except one. Even Strom Thurmond—the only one who later became a Republican—remained a Democrat for eighteen years after running for president as a Dixiecrat. There’s a reason they were not called the “Dixiecans.”

A curious sleight of hand is required to hide from the children the fact that all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats. In history books, such as Robert A. Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson, the segregationists are not called “Democrats.” They’re called “Southerners.”3

Except it wasn’t just “Southerners” voting against civil rights. Not every senator who opposed black civil rights was a Southerner, but every one was a Democrat. 

In addition to the Southern Democrats who voted against putting the 1957 civil rights bill on the Senate calendar, for example, there were five Democrats from nowhere near the South: Democratic senator Wayne Morse of Oregon—a favorite target of Senator Joe McCarthy—Democratic senator Warren Magnuson of Washington, Democratic senator James Murray of Montana, Democratic senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, and Democratic senator Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming.4

According to Caro, the Western Democrats traded their votes on civil rights for a dam authorization on the Idaho-Oregon border.  That’s how dear black civil rights were to liberals—they traded them away for a dam.

While Democrats are the party of the mob, Republicans are the party of calm order, willing to breach the peace only when it comes to great transgressions against humanity—slavery, abortion, and terrorism.

After the Civil War, it was Republicans who passed the Thirteenth Amendment, granting slaves their freedom; the Fourteenth Amendment, granting them citizenship; and Fifteenth Amendment, giving them the right to vote. It was Republicans who sent federal troops to the Democratic South to enforce the hard-won rights of the freed slaves.

Then, as now, the Democrats favored the hooligans. The Ku Klux Klan was originally formed as a terrorist group to attack Republicans who had come to the Democratic South after the Civil War to help enforce legal equality for freed slaves.

It was—again—Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867, both signed into law by Re- publican president Ulysses S. Grant. Under the “living Constitution,” the Supreme Court upheld fraudulent “separate but equal” accommodations for blacks in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson.

Republicans kept introducing federal civil rights bills and Democrats kept blocking them—a bill to protect black voters in the South in 1890; anti lynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938; and anti–poll tax bills in 1942, 1944, and 1946.

With a lock on the racist mob vote, Democratic politicians won elections and promptly re-segregated the entire South with Jim Crow laws. In 1913, Progressive Democrat president Woodrow Wilson even instituted segregation in Washington, D.C., bringing Jim Crow to the federal workforce. Wilson summarily dismissed black officials from their federal jobs in the South and in D.C.  

A friend of Wilson said that with him running the country, “Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race.”7 There’s your post- racial Democratic Party.

A crucial part of the Democrats’ victim folklore is that they have been losing the South to Republicans over the past half century because the Democrats stood on principle to oppose race discrimination, while the Republican Party pandered to racists in the South—a region of the country liberals believe is composed primarily of Klan members. 

(That might be your first clue as to why Southerners don’t like liberals.)

The Republican Party’s allegedly racist appeal to Southerners is darkly referred to seventeen times a day in the mainstream media as the “Southern Strategy.”

In fact, it was Eisenhower who broke the Democrats’ hold on the South in 1952, and if anyone was appealing to bigots that year, it wasn’t Eisenhower. Democrat Adlai Stevenson, known to experience “personal discomfort in the presence of Negroes,”12 chose as his running mate John Sparkman of Alabama, a Democrat segregationist.

And yet the Old South—which according to mainstream media accounts voted Republican solely out of racial resentment—suddenly started voting Republican in 1952. Ike carried Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida outright, and nearly stole Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia from Stevenson.

(Eisenhower lost Kentucky by a microscopic .07 percent and lost West Virginia and South Carolina by fewer than 4 percentage points.)

This was just four years after Democrat-turned-Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond won four Southern states. But running with a segregationist didn’t help Stevenson in the South a few years later.

Then, in 1956, the Republican Party platform endorsed the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools; the Democratic platform did not, and would not, as long as Democrats were winning elections by appealing to the racist mob. This led the black congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. to break with his party and endorse Eisenhower for president.

Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School with the state’s National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend. 

In response, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to take it out of Faubus’s hands. Then he sent the 101st Air- borne Division to walk the black children to school and stay with them throughout the day.

Eisenhower implemented the 1948 executive order President Truman had issued—but then ignored—desegregating the military. Also unlike Truman, Eisenhower hired blacks for prominent positions in his administration.

It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights, to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

During the endless deliberation on Eisenhower’s civil rights bill, Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, “Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.”

Senator Sam Ervin, another liberal luminary—instrumental in the destruction of anti-communist Republicans Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon—told his fellow segregationists, “I’m on your side, not theirs,” and advised them to face up to the fact that “we’ve got to give the goddamned niggers something.”14

Until 1964, every civil rights act had presented no possible constitutional problems—those federal laws were fully within Congress’s enumerated powers to enact because they were directed at government officials (Democrats) who were violating the Constitution by denying black citizens the right to vote.

Federal laws aimed at discrimination by government actors are expressly within Congress’s authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Democrats opposed these civil rights laws not because of any questions about Congress’s authority to enact them—they couldn’t care less about the Constitution—but because they wanted to keep discriminating.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was again supported overwhelmingly by Republicans and less so by Democrats. As with the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts, it was Republicans who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act by huge majorities, with a distinctly smaller majority of Democrats sup- porting it. 

In the Senate, for example, 82 percent of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared with only 66 percent of Democrats. In the House, 80 percent of Republicans supported the ’64 bill, compared with only 63 percent of Democrats.

The only reason Democratic majorities were beginning to support civil rights for blacks was that by 1964—thanks to Republican voting rights acts—more blacks were voting. Democrats couldn’t keep winning elections in some parts of the country by appealing to the racist mob.

As Democratic senator Carter Glass of Virginia had explained years earlier, “Discrimination! Why that is exactly what we propose,” saying the Democrats sought to “remove every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.”  The Democrats’ position on civil rights depended on where the votes were.

Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee. 

Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like many other conservatives opposed to a living, growing, breathing Constitution, Goldwater actually opposed only two of the seven major provisions of the bill—those regulating privately owned housing and public accommodations. 

But there were other provisions he would have made tougher. For example, Goldwater wanted to make it mandatory that federal funds be withheld from programs practicing discrimination, rather than discretionary, as President Kennedy had requested.

Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation. He was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona, donating the equivalent of several thousand dollars to the organization’s efforts to integrate the public schools. 

When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated the state Guard before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S. military. As the Washington Post said, Goldwater “ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”

But he was also a believer in limited government. It was, after all, racist Democratic politicians in the South using the force of the government to violate private property rights by enforcing the Jim Crow laws in the first place. As Sowell points out, it wasn’t the private bus companies demanding that blacks sit in the back of the bus, it was the government.

Goldwater not only had personally promoted desegregation, he be-longed to a party that had been fighting for civil rights for the previous century against Democratic obstructionism. Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate. But by the time he became president, he had flipped 180 degrees. Appealing to regional mobs wouldn’t work with a national electorate.

Unlike mob-appeasing Democrats, Goldwater based his objections to certain parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on purely constitutional principles. Along with other constitutional purists in the Republican Party, Goldwater opposed federal initiatives in a lot of areas, not just those involving race. 

By contrast, segregationist Democrats routinely criticized the exercise of federal power and expenditure of federal funds when it involved ending discrimination against blacks—but gladly accepted federal pork projects for their states.

It would be as if, after fighting the Democrats for a hundred years over the issue of abortion, Republicans finally got Roe v. Wade over- turned, and then, out of pure political calculation, Democrats jumped on the bandwagon and demanded a federal law outlawing abortion. 

Some pro-life Republicans would probably object that federal law outlawing abortion is not one of Congress’s enumerated powers.

On the basis of Republicans’ constitutional objections, Democrats would then reverse the entire history of the pro-life movement and start claiming the Democratic Party alone fought to end abortion in America. That is exactly what they have done with the history of civil rights.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Slander, Treason, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Godless, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America, and the forthcoming Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.

The Truth about WHY the Indians were treated the way they were and BY WHOM!

 HAVING AMERICAN INDIAN IN MY BLOODLINE I THINK IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH A BIG ISSUE CONCERNING THE EARLY WAYS IN WHICH WE AS A NATION DEALT WITH INDIANS.

Celebrating Thanksgiving in America

December 1621 to thank God and to celebrate with their Indian friends 11 – America's first Thanksgiving Festival. Ninety Wampanoag Indians joined the fifty ...
www.wallbuilders.com/downloads/.../CelebratingThanksgivingInAmerica.pdf

Issues and Articles - God: Missing in Action from American History?

John Marrant, the first African American to evangelize successfully among American Indians; the Rev. Richard Allen, who gained his freedom from slavery, ...
www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=100

Much of our history is filled with opportunism WITHOUT self control or God's leading being a part of that exploration, this is NOT God's fault but ours as a nation. So it is important to understand that many historical settings were plainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL in nature AND UNGODLY in their viewpoint, the USEFUL IDIOTS of the time being used by the powers that be. 

When we look at the circumstances surrounding certain happenings in history its very important that we UNLIKE those who have a personal agenda, like the useful idiots, use our heads to get to the bottom of the WHY of history.

The American Indian was FAR FROM INNOCENT and very far from being God fearing people, while some of their practices can be traced to biblical practices they were after all "Pagan institutions" developed over Centuries of practice! The further away from their biblical roots the more polluted with "Pagan ideas" their lives became.

 The useful idiots love to develop story lines of Christian vs Indian practice and surrounding that with Land grabbing and murder, because that sells press not the MANY STORIES of Christian and Indian cooperation. The MANY years of peace mean little to the idiots that serve bad press.

It must be understood that as long as God's Love and Laws were obeyed within the confines of history there was peace and understanding and when those rules were broken for ANY REASON - war and death followed and NO NATION ON EARTH WAS OR IS EXEMPT.

History must be tempered with PROPER background, and that background must be tempered with PROPER facts tempered by THE TRUTH OF GOD. Those who USE History as their "personal agenda creator" are the worst kind of people. 


They look at issues in history like "Slavery or Indian affairs" and superimpose upon them a "Modern mindset of agendas" that did not exist then, this is changing history IN ANOTHER TIME PERIOD to serve an agenda NOW IN THIS TIME. Not to avoid repeating the issue, which would be a Nobel idea but to make the modern issue seem worse than it really is.

Ask yourself the question, have "Indian Affairs" been helped by these useful idiots or has it been rendered as more of the same. They've created a certain view of history and then mirrored that same FALSE idea throughout our history to make America seem less of what she really is.

The problem is, its FALSE HISTORY that is the basis of every idea that we now use to deal with the Indians, the Blacks, the Hispanics and others including Whites. All peoples have been badly represented by these "idiots" who use history to bring down nations and governments for their Socialist, Communistic agendas. The Muslims have rearranged history in their favor many times and are doing as we speak.

Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?

Apr 10, 2009 ... repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He ..... in which Indian lands were wrongly being taken for timber, minerals, and other ...
www.wallbuilders.com/.../IsPresidentObamaCorrectIsAmericaNoLongeraChristianNation.pdf

America’s Founding Fathers

The Treaty of Tripoli

The Origins of Separation of Church and State

The Founders and Slavery

The Founders and Freemasonry

The Bible and Church in America

Revisionism

 

"How Congress Took Control of Indians’ Lives" 

by Rob Natels

Just as Congress has stretched its Interstate Commerce Power into authority over the entire national economy, so it has used the Indian Commerce Clause to justify micro-managing the lives of American Indians and of their tribes.

It wasn’t supposed to be that way.

The Articles of Confederation gave Congress power over Indian “affairs,” but in practice the states also continued to exercise authority over Indians. States passed trade laws, regulated Indian land transactions, and in some cases exercised a general police power over Indians within their boundaries.

When the Constitution was adopted, the federal government was granted some control over dealings with the Natives. However, this was one of the very few areas where the Constitution actually granted the new governmentless authority than Congress had enjoyed under the Confederation.

Instead of sweeping power over Indian “affairs,” the Constitution granted 

(1) to the President-and-Senate, power to make treatise with the Natives, 

(2) to Congress, power over federal property and territories (where many tribes lived), and 

(3) also to Congress, the power to “regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian tribes.”

The Treaty Clause (II-2-2) empowered the President-and-Senate to govern the details of Indian relations, but only with the consent of the affected tribes, since both sides must agree to a treaty.

The Territories and Property Clause (IV-3-2) granted Congress power to regulate tribes, but only on federal land. The Indian Commerce Clause (I-8-3) gave Congress control over mercantile trade and certain related activities.

The specific model in the Indian area consisted of state Indian trade statutes and a Confederation ordinance that addressed such matters as preventing fraud, licensing merchants, and regulating prices.

Also part of the constitutional settlement was that the states retained their general police power over Indians within their borders, subject to pre-emption by congressional regulations of commerce and by treaties.

This system began to break down in the 1870s with the announcement by Congress that the federal government would no longer make treaties with the Indians. How Congress could bind the President-and-Senate this way was never adequately justified or explained.

Congress then began to regulate Indian affairs on the basis that doing so was part of its “inherent sovereign authority”—supposedly unenumerated authority outside the Constitution.

The theory of “inherent sovereign authority” is complete jurisprudential nonsense, and contradicted by both the intent and words of the Tenth Amendment. Although the Supreme Court rejected the theory in Kansas v. Colorado (1907), it continues to surface from time to time.

Also cited as justifying wide congressional authority was the “trust relationship” between the federal government and the Indians. But trust rules do not grant power; they merely set standards by which power is to be executed.

In modern times, the favorite justification for congressional omnipotence over the tribes is the Indian Commerce Clause. Apologists resort to some of the same tricks used to justify congressional omnipotence over the economy—including the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, which I discussed in my last post.

In the area of Indian commerce, moreover, apologists for Congress often go even farther, claiming that congressional authority over Indian affairs is exclusive—that states have no jurisdiction over Indians at all. There is little justification for this theory, and it has proved unworkable in practice.

In 2007, I researched and wrote an article called The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause.

During the research, I found that the state of the commentary on the Indian Commerce Clause was even more dismal than in most other areas of constitutional law. Most of articles on the constitutional background consist of interventions by activists and others with little knowledge of the Founding Era or of originalist methodology.

Bottom line: Reading the Constitution according to its real meaning shows that, although Congress was to have a significant say in Indian affairs, its rightful power is far from absolute. Both Indians and non-Indians need to inform Congress of this much more often.

In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. 

(See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution(Tenth Amendment Center). 

After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

If you enjoyed this post:


Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter