Author Archives: Patty Motley

About Patty Motley

I have spent over 19 years trying to teach people about their rights and how they are ultimately responsible for them. https://www.facebook.com/marlenemotley

Death to America; A Biblical Theocracy?

It may come as a shock to most “Christian” Americans but the US Constitution is a secular document and not meant to be a ringing endorsement of Christianity. In fact, it prohibits the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from having any say at all in government.  The first Amendment is the culprit. Yes, it does give you the right to worship God as you see fit, but it also prohibits you from pushing your will on anyone else. And what I see running rampant through politics these days calling itself “Christianity” makes me thank God for that.

I am a Christian and the thought that this faux Christianity could in fact push its way into politics and create a Biblical Theocracy based on a skewed belief system is something every Christian should be concerned about. The Beast of Revelations could be manifesting right before our eyes.

When I see the conservative movement trying to push through legislation based on “religious” beliefs I have to wonder if they know the difference between a Representative Republic and a Theocracy? And whose idea of “Christianity” do they think will end up reigning over them?


Quotes…

9428_104025712942390_100000048867146_111511_3867120_n.jpg

 

“When someone takes your love without giving in return it kills something in your soul as well as theirs.” anon

 

 

“It is usually too late for him when a man discovers materialism and alcohol will never be competitors for a warm and loving heart.” anon

 

 

“Nevermore” The Raven

“I once took love for granted and it went away. I have never regretted anything more because I never knew that love again. What I had feared another taking I alone had given away” Rikki

 

 

Check back for updates…..

 


AGENDA 21 VIA THE ANTI-GOVERNMENT MOVEMENT

Thesis:

Agenda 21 and the environmental movement.

Most of the people in the truth, patriot and freedom movements are well aware of the UNs Agenda 21 , their agenda for the 21st century. Most see it as a wacko environmentalist agenda to steal land and set it aside for the happy little creatures giving them presidence over human life. Well, the agenda is real but has little to do so much with happy little creatures as multinational corporations wanting to take over your land and controlling your use of it. To keep the environmentalists on board they wrap it in these wonderful phrases like “Sustainable development”. They speak of these wonderful green spaces and sustainable energy. Small enclaves of people in sustainable cities surrounded by vast open wilderness where they are rewilding to protect the happy little creatures. They use Federal agencies like the EPA, The Department of the Interior and of course that truly nasty BLM. And most agree this must be stopped. But how and by who?

Antithesis

Enter the anti-government overreach crowd. Sounds good but is it?

“Too much government over reach”, is the hue and cry of the crowd. While this is a true statement and I am as much against the over reach of government as any one I have to look at the route this movement is now taking everyone in. The latest is this push to take back Federal lands and turn it over to the states. There is even legislation out there being pushed to do exactly that. But who is behind it? And why? What is the result they are aiming for?

Synthesis

Model States legislation and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)

For those who are unaware ALEC is Legislators, Corporations and other non-governmental organizations who come together to write what they call model states legislation. Legislation tailored to your state. They make these bills sound like a conservative’s dream come true. But take a good look at their members?.
If you have ever been to your state’s Capital when congress is in session you have seen the sea of lobbyists you have to wade through to talk to your congressional representatives. And for the most part these lobbyists are not there on the people’s behalf. ALEC is in a sense these lobbyists writing laws to benefit corporations and other NGOs with your state representatives right there in the mix. The legislators then bring these laws home and with the help of ALEC get them passed.
Not only are the states pushing for this land transfer but also some in the federal government as well. In a  memo entitled “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2016” from the chair of the Committee on Natural Resources , Bob Bishop (R-UT),  sent to the House Budget Committee Rep. Bishop states “The solution is to convey land without strings to state, local, and tribal governments.” . He also asks for  $50 million in taxpayer dollars to cover the transfers.  This all may sound good until you look at what will now become of these lands.
The populations of most western states is relatively small and the people of these states would either face a tax increase that most can’t afford or the states would have to sell off these lands to the highest bidder. Or, worst yet, the local governments will take Federal grants to offset the cost.
The cost of fire prevention and control alone would put a major burden on these state as pointed out in a pdf  by westernpriorities.org. Wildfire suppression in these states cost US taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Ranchers would have to pay higher grazing fees in most of these states if they were even allowed to continue using the land. State agencies would be forced to grow to compensate for the federal agencies that were vacating.
States could also follow the Economic Development route and Industrial Parks could pop up everywhere. And guess who gets to pay for those? Taxpayers. The idea of making the area attractive to potential industries. These parks can sit idle for years. Or the state promises the industries it will provide training of the local population for their needs and offer all types of tax incentives. And once the incentives run out so do the industries.
If forced to sell the land the most likely buyers would be those who can afford vast amounts of acreage, namely multi-nationals and UN based environmental groups like the WWF. The same people who want to use Agenda 21 to take the property in the first place.
If the local counties are told they must keep up the property in their areas, well the best funding is usually Federal grants, generally brought to you by your local COG, with many strings attached. The land has greater Federal restrictions, usually involving some public/private partnership due to the fact these federal grants usually stipulate the fed will cover only part of the cost and the state must supply the rest. The only other option would again be higher taxes. Then there are the “buffer zones”, privately owned land next to the public land where land use is restricted because of its effect on the public land it abuts, thereby reducing the value of the private land but not the property taxes. Again you have Agenda 21 in play. I have covered some of these grants in an earlier article.
Take a look at this article that appeared on the copblock.org  website. Turning Federal lands over to states will bring in more regulations, not less. There are many of these horror stories all over the web.
And who benefits? Take another look at the private companies aligned with ALEC.

 

 


You have a right to Life, Liberty and whatever Lee Bright thinks is moral?

So much for the separation of powers in Lee Bright’s mind. He thinks Congress should be able to control two branches, both the legislative and the judiciary.

I don’t want to choose how other people live their lives and don’t want them pushing their choices on me. Lee Bright, however, wants to tell you how to live your life and feels he should be able to impeach any Supreme Court jurist who doesn’t agree with him. I never knew it was the role of The Supreme Court to decide the morality of a person’s lifestyle. I just thought it was their job to interpret law.

“Congress ought to stand up and do its job and impeach one of these federal judges. And I think when you do that, being a federal judge is a pretty good gig, and I think if you’ll impeach just one, the rest of them will do the right thing. And they’ll do it out of necessity, because self-preservation is an instinct that so many folks have.” Lee Bright at a TEA Party Express meeting in Utah.

Is Sen. Bright saying the Supreme Court needs to be the judge of morality? Whose morality? Even Christ forbade such a judgement. “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Matthew 7:1-2

So, where does all this legislating morality come from? According to his bio he was on the Board of Directors of Palmetto Family Council, an offshoot of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. In Dobson’s book, Dare to discipline, “he places a needed emphasis on discipline by structure,” but he draws from a Skinnerian ideology; i.e., “according to Dobson, a child is to be ‘trained’ as one would train his dog …The presupposition (not stated, but underlying the book) is that man is but another animal,” Excerpted from The Big Umbrella by Jay Adams, pp. 130-131.

I guess this explains also why Bright is a fan of Common Core. School Choice is the back door for common core to infiltrate all education, including private and home schooling. According to Charlotte Iserbyte, “Communist Core is NOT the issue. Those fighting Communist Core better wake up and realize that even if they kill Communist Core, if they do NOT oppose ALL forms of tax-supported School Choice and Charter Schools, they will wake up one day and find that their children in their favorite tax-supported choice private school are required by federal law (regulations) to take the Communist Core assessment (test) they thought they had killed! Why? Because when an education entity (private or public) accepts one penny of federal money it MUST adhere to federal regulations regarding curriculum, testing, hiring, etc., etc. And that is as it should be.”

School Choice is part of Agenda 21. Which begs the question, “Why would Bright sponsor anti-Agenda 21 legislation when he is also sponsoring UN Agendas?” Is it there to keep you from noticing what he is really working for?

Noted by me in a previous article was his attempt to make the office of State Superintendent of Education an appointed office and remove the people’s right to elect same.  He has introduced bills, S 0197 & S 0200, that takes the choice of Administrative Law court judges, Supreme Court justices, Appeals court judges and Circuit Court judges out of the hands of the people and make them appointed offices. Looks like an attempt to remove anyone who doesn’t agree with Bright’s agenda or the agenda of his handlers.

I think it is a question that deserves an answer, Is he just that naïve or is he really working toward implementing Agenda 21 while at the same time decrying it?


Lee Bright…The Next Closet Progressive?

I guess the best replacement for Lindsey Graham should be a guy who wants more government intrusion in your life. A quick look at his site is all it takes to see how much he supports bigger government intrusion into the lives of Americans.

Reading from his site “There are many alternatives that have proven to be successful such as charter schools, real school choice that supports private schools and home-schooling as well as programs where private and public schools work together.
South Carolina needs to attract the type of businesses that will strengthen the state’s economy and in turn improve communities.  This type of economic goal requires nothing short of a school system that produces a competitive workforce.”

Translation, Bright is for government control of private and home schooling as well as public schools. He has tried to introduce legislation (S 0279) to promote tax credits for private schools. Sounds good until you realize a tax credit is the same as receiving money from the government which the Supreme Court has said gives the government control. This would open the door for Common Core in ALL education.

But what is more interesting was his attempt to make the office of State Superintendent of Education an appointed office and remove the people’s right to elect same. That seems to be another goal of Senator Bright, to make several elected offices appointed positions, mainly judges. He has introduced bills, S 0197 & S 0200, that takes the choice of Administrative Law court judges, Supreme Court justices, Appeals court judges and Circuit Court judges out of the hands of the people and make them appointed offices. How better to remove power from the people.

In his bio Bright is listed as a member of the Board of Director for Palmetto Family Council, an offshoot of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, a front group for Federal take over of private education. In an article “Behind The Conservative Curtain” (See link below) we read,

Charter Schools:  Same Old Goals 2000

Charter Schools, and Choice (vouchers & tuition tax credits) have been  incorporated into the GOALS 2000 legislation:

 

Public Law 103-227GOALS  2000: Educate America Act [1994] SEC. 308 State Use of [GOALS 2000] Funding-(b)  Each state that receives an allotment under this title shall(2) use the  remainder of the assistance…to implement the State improvement plan, [for  activities] such as …(I) promoting… public charter schools and other  mechanisms for increasing choice among public schools…(J) supporting  activities [where] schools contract with private management organizations to  reform a school.

It is  important to note that the above sub-section (J) suggests a plan to move public  schools under “private management.”

In my article “South Carolina’s Fed Gun Grab Enabling Bill…S 115 “Constitutional Carry” Act.”  I have shown how Bright has tried to introduce legislation that would enable  Federal agents, as well as officers from other states, free range in SC. He has no problem with pro-gun legislation because he wants to enable the feds to take your guns.

Then there was S 0185 which would put everyone on the government dole. Known as the “Fair Tax” we are seeing Cloward/Piven  rear it’s ugly head. Forget the welfare rolls, let’s get everyone on board with the tax rolls.

Links for better understanding of what is being supported by Lee Bright:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh195.htm

Charter Schools, Character Education & the Eugenics Internationale
Behind the Conservative Curtain:
Pseudo Grassroots Organizations Front
for Corporate/Government Takeover

The Intelligent Student’s Guide to the New World Order
Update:

When I wrote this article I used a link on Bright’s website that
linked to the SC Legislation site to see what bills he sponsored. That link, http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sponsorsearch.php ,
has since disappeared. Does he have something to hide? I also discovered that
the Mace Group designed his
website. Curious.

Update:    I have recently discovered, according to his statement of economic interest with the SC State Ethics Commission, that Bright attended an ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) conference and received travel expenses from Mulikin Law Firm, the state corporate co-chair of ALEC in SC. For those unaware, ALEC is a non-profit where legislators and corporations come together to write model legislation for the legislators to come home and introduce. I also learned ALEC has model legislation in support of TTIP & TTP. Included in these treaties is the investor-to-state dispute settlement (ITSDS). This is where corporations in a state can call for arbitration if any laws are passed that they believe will cost them future revenue. This gets into the billions of dollars.

Well,  Bright has introduced S 82 (120th Congress)  which lowers the corporate tax base in an attempt to get companies to come to SC, economic developement if you will, which sounds great except for the looming ITSDS that ALEC is pushing. It also begs the question, where does the missing revenue for the state come from? What if no new business comes to town? Why not rid the homeowners of the burden of keeping up infrastructure that sits empty or puts the real strain on infrastructure if occupied? Will these companies or their new employees pay your property taxes if you can’t? Why not look out for all the people of the state, the job he is supposed to do, instead of a select few?  And who gets to pick up the tab if the state loses arbitration?

Sorry, but if it walks like a duck , quacks like a duck and takes money from Bank of America like a duck….

Bright-BOA


The Congressional Two-step with Mick Mulvaney

I always enjoy asking a question and getting an answer that directs the subject in another direction because the person you question doesn’t want to answer the question at hand. This is what appears to have happened when I questioned House Representative Mick Mulvaney about the 5th Amendment. The Congressional two-step begins.

Under the 5th Amendment you are under NO obligation to tell the government anything that they may one day use against you in court so how can congress pass a law that says you have to tell them something? You would think asking a lawyer about this would be a simple question. But No.

Mulvaney starts with “I get this question a lot.” but proceeds to go back to the 2nd Amendment because I used the CWP as an example. My question was about the 5th. When I finally get him to speak to the 5th Amendment he states, “The social convention over the course of the last 200 years is we are willing to make some limitations on our own [rights].” WHAT? “Social convention” is a reason for the government to step on my rights? Where is that spelled out in the Constitution? He continues, “You can waive any of your Constitutional rights”. Actually you can’t but that was an argument for another time. But even if I could where does it say I have to in order to appease government? Because that is now “the social norm”? Really Mick?

Later I questioned him again. And again he dances. This time the question went to the 16th Amendment and the Supreme court ruling that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new taxing authority. He does go into a story about a college professor who said he would give an automatic A on an exam to any student who can show the section of the code that says you have to pay an income tax.

So what does the code say…

“Title 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-03 Edition) (iii) The purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform application of the tax laws by Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum voluntary compliance by informing Service personnel and the public of National Office interpretations of the internal revenue laws, related statues, treaties, regulations, and statements of Service procedures affecting the rights and duties of taxpayers. Therefore – issues and answers involving substantive tax under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service will be published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.”

I have been to several of these Town hall meetings and always leave feeling like I just danced with a master. Is it the lawyer or the politician I just danced with? Is there a difference? But Mick was right. Social convention does allow for a lot of things that an informed populace would stand against. Or at least one would hope they would.

He may not like my questions but at least he is willing to listen and put himself out there.


The 2nd Amendment says what?

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

“…the right of the people…”. Yeah, that is what it says, “the people”. Not the State, not the military, not the police and not even the U.S. Government. Nope, this right is reserved for “the people”. “WE THE PEOPLE…”. “…of, for and by the people.”.

“…to keep …”. Hold or retain in one’s possession. Not to request to keep, pay a fine or a fee or tax to keep, or fill out the right forms, but simply “to keep”.

“..and bear…”. To carry or equip oneself with. Not lock up or store away. Or contract away your right for a piece of paper from the state that says you can bear.

“…Arms…”. Anything one might use in ones defense. Guns, knives, swords, cannons, thermonuclear warheads. Or rocks.

“…shall not be infringed.”. Any law that would in any way deter anyone from owning any “arm” for any reason is a blatant violation of this right. There can exist NO law that would require you to register your arms. NO law that requires a fee or tax for your arms. NO law whatsoever that would prohibit any citizen of the U.S. from owning and carrying in whatever manner they chose the arm of their choice out of fear of reprisal.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”. I have seen this used to say that the 2nd Amendment is for Militias. But it doesn’t say anyone who does chose to exercise their right to “keep and bear” has to join the Militia, just that one is necessary for a free state. It allows an armed populace that can chose to fight to defend their freedom but never makes it mandatory. It is never a stipulation but a statement to the fact that an armed people are more ready to defend the state than an unarmed one.


%d bloggers like this: