Thursday, March 2, 2017

Sanctuary Leaders May Be Term Limited

Sanctuary Leaders May Be Term Limited
Unbeknownst to some mayors, city and county officials and governors, they may be prohibited from running for any other office because of their promotion of sanctuary cities, counties and states.  Apparently they have not read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution stated below:
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

            It would appear that more than 300 sanctuary movement leaders who are elected officials could be kept off the ballot for another office, by asking them for a copy of their Congressional waiver of disability.  Citizens could accuse these people of insurrection or rebellion against the United States for failure to obey the immigration laws.  They may be required to produce their waiver from Congress to election officials before they are allowed to run for another office.

          Section 3 is generally not thought of when the 14th Amendment is discussed, but it is still part of the Constitution and will be subject to little court interpretation.  This was not a partisan bill passed by a bare majority.  This is an amendment to the United States Constitution passed by two thirds of both the House and Senate and  ratified by three fourths of the states on July 9, 1868. Who will be the first person to challenge Section 3 as not being constitutional?

For more information on election law get my book:

How Voters Can Prevent Election Fraud and Make Elections Fair
Lake Worth, FL

Wednesday, June 8, 2016


How Much Time Do We Have Left for the United States of America ?
By William J. Skinner
Ancient books and documents contain some surprising information.  Scholars in languages, archeology, history of war, religion, and other areas have studied these old sources for many years.  Recently I read several books and viewed some college level and advanced lectures on early Christianity and early Islam.  For over 40 years I have read about Biblical archeology and history.[1]

This article is an attempt to boil these topics down to the essentials, to get everyone up to speed, because I have become convinced now more than ever that we in the USA could lose everything if certain newly laid plans of Islamic leaders are carried out as the Muslim Brotherhood has desired for several decades.

Anyone who says Islam is a religion of peace is ignorant of the facts of life and death.   Islam started as a deceitful massacre of Jews (the “Reds”) and a tribe of Arabs (the “Blacks”) at the first hijra under the leadership of Mohammad to Medina.  Those Blacks who helped the multiple-year takeover of Medina were the next to be disposed of by Mohammad who consolidated his gains with the property of the Jews and other opponents and their successors.

The expansion of land and people under the control of Islam is the purpose of Islam.  Preaching love to these people does no good because their system teaches them to take generations needed to achieve their goals.  Islam teaches to take the easy way and lie, but stay away in enclaves until the Muslims can overwhelm the current occupants of a village, town, county or state.

The Islam ideology grows because some future disturbed or disgruntled grandson or great, great grandson will learn he has not followed the plan and then try to carry it out.  Some call this “self-radicalization.” This and other techniques and strategies have kept alive the sinister flame of Mohammad since 618 CE.  A small (139 pages) reference for more details about the hijra is perpetuated can be found in Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam? by Sam Solomon and E Al Maqdisi[2]

We can see that in the Sudan and Nigeria, for instance, during that past 20 years, the Islamists are organized primarily at the culture level of tribes (if they want to have more children for the next few battles, they go kidnap 300 school girls and rape them) and they want us to all to experience the 600 CE lifestyle under their leadership.  Never mind that the president of the Sudan was indicted for war crimes by the World Court but still enjoys unrestricted travel to and from other countries.

In the United States we are witnessing the first president who promised to transform the country into something other than what it was at the founding and other than what it was in 2008. A growing number of Americans suspect that we are witnessing a political ideology in the Obama Administration that is directed to support more than equal treatment for Islam than it does for Western or Eastern religions.  But our Congress seems powerless to do anything about this favoritism.

Many groups have compiled lists of dozens of official acts of the Obama Administration that somehow benefit the advance of Islam while making it more difficult for the American defense forces to stop ISIL or to stop other related tyrannical Islamo-facists in their quest for power.  The U.S. is allowing or actively importing immigrant refuges, some of which have backgrounds that cannot be vetted.

Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department are lying to a Federal Judge about actions taken by the current Administration to waive deportation and grant work permits.  All of the above concerns are troublesome, but another major change is occurring under our noses.  The Muslim population is growing by leaps and bounds with the support of the taxpayers.

Muslims men are obtaining various welfare payments to help them maintain four wives and they are producing lots of children.  For many years I have been active in civic and political associations.  A Muslim man followed me as president of one civic association.  We became friendly.  He told me that one day Muslim will have produced more votes that the regular Americans and Muslims would take over all elected positions.  The longer I live, the more this prediction looks like it might come true.

Pew Research[3] says:

The world’s Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, according to new population projections by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades – an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

Either way, these factors make a conquest more probable than just possible. 

The Timeline Background
The Christian Church started slowly in about 30 to 34 CE (for Common Era for nonbelievers) or AD (Anno. Domini) upon the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, of the New Testament.  Jesus started his ministry of about three years duration with John the Baptist in the area of Galilee at the age of about 30.  Jesus did not leave writings.

Biblical scholars say that Saul of Tarsus, an educated Jew and prosecutor of Christians, became converted as a Jesus follower during a trip to round up Jesus adherents for prosecution.  Saul had a vision and discussion with Jesus and was diverted to Damascus to restore his sight. This event happened about two years after the resurrection of Jesus.  Saul became Paul the Apostle and later wrote the first book of what is now the New Testament, epistle to the First Thessalonians, in 50 CE.  For later writings see   

Paul wrote many letters in the New Testament and there are other documents attributed to Paul or his small group. All the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament are believed to have been written no later than around 150 AD, and a small minority of scholars would date them to no later than 70 AD,  80 AD, or at 96 AD [footnotes omitted.] See

Christians also relied on the Old Testament Torah, the Prophets and other early writings of the Jews attributed to Moses that predated the New Testament.  Prof. Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina says that Christianity was both missionary and exclusivistic.  That is, early Christians promoted Christianity and they believed this was the only true religion.  But there were several competing theologies that occupied leaders of different Christian churches in separate places.

Christianity struggled under several theological banners for about 367 years until Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria put forth a letter setting forth a list of the books found acceptable for the cannon of the New Testament.

The history of the early Christian Church was not written until Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea, described many events in ten small books, now combined in a modern English translation, Eusebius The Church History[4]  by Paul L. Maier, covering the period from the crucifixion and resurrection up to 324 CE.  Maier describes the Christian relationship with the Roman Empire and other detractors, and writes about “internal attacks by renegade religionists who tried to seduce the saints through arcane distortions of doctrine or coral them into schismatic groups that foreshadowed contemporary cults.” Maier at 9.

Islam started small and grew fast.  Mohammad (spellings vary) was born about 570 CE and died in 632 CE.  The beginning of the movement to Medina from Mecca, called the hijra, was in 618 CE. 

Uthman ibn Affan ordered the writing of a standard version of the Qu’ran book for Islam in 650 to 656 CE.  This was done because pockets of Islamic settlements relied on different parts of the writings.  Mohammad claimed that the angel Gabriel appeared to him in visions over many years and the Qu’ran was made up of these various writings and assembled in different orders.  Some of these writings were made before, during and after the hijra.

During the second Caliphate, Umar I, between 633 and 643 CE, conquered the Levant, Eqypt, Cyrenka, Tripoliania, Ferran, and Eastern Anatolia.  In a few more years, Islam became the dominant political power in Spain, Italy, Gaul, the Greek coasts and islands.  Christians served in the Muslim navy to defeat the Byzantine navy in the Battle of Masts in 655 CE.  The Islamic State expanded using war power and fear.   This kind of expansion continued until the turn of the millennium when the Christian Pope began recruiting fighters to counteract the Muslim gains.

Islam was both missionary and exclusivistic.   They promoted Islam and they believed Allah was the only true God.

In the chapter on Lessons from Muhammad’s Migration Migration[5], Solomon and Maqdisi described how “migration is ultimately a conquest and not a migration,” writing:
To understand the point of ‘conquest’ as opposed to ‘migration’ please refer to: “The Islamisation of Britian and what must be done to prevent it by Colin Dye (Pilcrow Press Report September 2007). This report gives practical example of how Muslims have implemented the principles of tamkeen and I’dad in the conquest of the U.K. with gradual progression towards the establishment of an Islamic supremacy, while the host society has remained unaware and all the time thinking that requests have only been for a few religious and cultural needs. In a democratic society the types of requests are seen as valid and legitimate and are ultimately granted.”

Religions are All the Same
A primary question this topic should confront head on is the argument that all religions are the same. Christianity fits the definition of a religion, but Islam is different because it has multiple goals.  Down deep can one answer the question, “Are Allah and Jesus the Same God?”

This is a question that is raised again and again by some of the reference books appended to this article.  The debate is sometimes like the debate about how many angles can fit on the head of a pin. 

My reading has convinced me that Allah is much different than Jesus.  My conclusion is to have faith in Jesus.  Muslims may immediately by pointing out a counter argument that the calligraphy on the Dome of the Rock[6] states: “God has no Son” among other things[7]  The sameness argument continues that if a Christian cannot read the language of the Muslims, they cannot possibly understand Islam.

The same God argument recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 2016 in an article by Stephen Prothero, professor of religion at Boston University. He summarized:

“Islam and Christianity both affirm that there is one God, creator and judge, who speaks through prophets, whose words are written down in scripture. 

  Still, there are not two paths up the same mountain.  Christians do not believe in the divine inspiration of the Quran.  Muslims do not believe that Jesus is an incarnation of God.”[8]

Everyone is not on the same page.  Malaysia is one of the largest Muslim countries. The Islamisation of Mayalsia started 42 years after the death of Mohammad.[9] The Wall Street Journal reported[10] in 2013 that “worries over the religious freedoms of minorities in Muslim-majority Malaysia are growing after Malaysia’s appeals court ruled … that a Roman Catholic publication can’t use the term ‘Allah’ to refer to the Christian God, despite the widespread use among Malay-speaking Christians.” 

The three-judge panel ruled “to allow the Herald newspaper to use the word “Allah” would have been unconstitutional, said Haniff Khatri Abdulla, one of the lawyers of the six Islamic State Councils that oppose the use of the word by non-Muslims.”

Summary of Time Lines
Christianity was founded first.  Jesus worked with 12 disciples, 70 special followers and 500 others to spread his messages for about three years.  Jesus was crucified on a cross by the Romans after instigation by some of the Jews in Jerusalem.

Paul directed his attention to the gentiles around the Mediterrean Sea. The New Testament was written by many people who were said to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Christianity is a religion of faith, hope, and love.

When asked by a lawyer, the Jesus summarized the greatest commandments this way:
Matthew 22:35-40  New International Version (NIV)[11]
35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Footnotes:  Matthew 22:37 Deut. 6:5            Matthew 22:39 Lev. 19:18
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Christianity does not advocate killing wars against others to expand the faith, but it does accept the duty and responsibility to protect vulnerable people from cruelty and acts of terror.

Islam was founded about 300 years after the New Testament contents was settled. Mohammad fought battles against other countries to subdue tribes and cities to control more territory and make slaves for Islam.   Mohammad died in 632 CE and was succeeded by several Califs, some who died killing off one another.   Thus, Islam is a system of political power that uses terror and fear to grow.  Islam is not what Americans and other Westerners think of as a religion.  Establishing Shariah Law will wipe out citizens’ right under the U.S. Constitution and leave all questions for Islamic courts of so-called experts.

These two competing organizations each have founders, doctrines and books, but they have wholly different purposes. 

Both are missionary and exclusivistic.  But look again at the timelines.  What else happened in the 300 year gap?  See a follow-up article in a few weeks.

Was Islam patterned on Christianity with a left-hand twist?  Does history tell the truth?

My answer to the question in the title of this article is Americans have as little as 30 years if we do nothing and as many as thousands of years if they become educated and follow established moral and governmental principles as the Founders did in the middle of the 18th century.  Keeping a Republic where personal rights matter requires better educated voters than we have on June 8, 2016 when this article was posted here.

Read the books listed below and learn more.

Another small book that gives points of view on this subject.
The Next Nightmare: How Political Correctness Will Destroy America by Peter Feaman, Dunham Books, 2012,

Other Books on Muslim Terrorism Read By William J. Skinner

Winter 2003- Summer 2004 Year

Terror in the Name of God, Jessica Stern, Harper Collins, 2003

Persecution, David Limbaugh, Regnery, 2003

Ghost Wars, Steve Coll, Penguin Press, 2004

Holy War, Peter Bergan, Free Press, 2001

American Jihad, Steven Emerson, Free Press, 2002

American Dynasty, Kevin Phillips, Viking, 2004

The Islamic Threat, John Esposito, Oxford, 1999

Unholy War: Terrorism in the Name of Islam, John Esposito,  Oxford, 2002

What’s Right With Islam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, Harper, SF 2004

Preachers of Hate, Kenneth Timmerman, Crown Forum, 2003

9/11 Commission Report, 2004

Fall 2004 to Winter 2005

 Intelligence Matters:  The CIA, Bob Graham, Random House, 2004

 Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War On Terror, Richard Clarke, Free Press 2004

Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush is Winning the War on Terror, Richard Miniter,  Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2004

The Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World’s Fastest Growing Religion, Robert Morey,  Harvest House Publishers, 1992

Islam & Christianity:  The Koran vs. The Bible, A comparison of the Christian Scriptures with the Teachings of Muhammad, Diane S. Dew, 2001,

Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, Kenneth R. Timmerman,  Crown Forum, 2005

Who Is This Allah, G.J. O. Moshay,  Dorchester House Publications, 1994

Islam in the Crucible: Can It Pass The Test?, Riccoldo da Montecroce & Martin Luther,
  Trans. By Thomas C. Pfotenhauer, Lutheran News, Inc., 2002

Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?  Timothy George, Ph.D., founding dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University and an executive editor at Christianity Today, Zondervan, 2002

 The World of Byzantium, Prof. Kenneth W. Harl, Tulane University, 24 lectures, The Teaching Company, 2001

The Life and Religion of Mohammed: The Prophet of Arabia, Rev. J. L. Menezes, Roman Catholic Books, originally published 1912 (no copyright notice in this edition)

More Than A Prophet: An Insider’s Response to Muslim Beliefs About Jesus & Chritianity, Emir Fethi Caner and Ergun Mehmet Caner, Kregel Publications, 2003

The Quranic Treasures, Khurram Murad, The Islamic Foundation, 1997

What Every Christian Should Know About ISLAM, Ruqaiyyah Maris Maqsood, The Islamic Foundation, 2002

Fall and Winter 2006

Blood from Stones: The Secret Financial Network of Terror, Douglas Farah, Broadway Books, 2004

The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, Robert Spencer, Regnery, 2006

Religion of Peace?  Islam’s War Against The World, Gregory M. Spencer, World Ahead Publishing, 2006 
Spring  and Summer 2007

Feaman, Peter, Wake Up, America!, Woodmont Publishers, Inc., 2007

Answering Islam: Countering Terror with Truth, Nadira, Wahlid Phares, James White & Robert Reymond, Coral Ridge Ministries, 2007

Fall and Winter 2007

The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, The West, and the Future of the Holy City,  Dore Gold, Regenry Publishing, Inc. 2007

The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, Dinesh D’Souza, Doubleday, 2007

Honor Killing, Kenneth R. Timmerman, Middle-East Data Project, Inc, 2007

Winter 2009

The Mystery of Islam: A Christian Perspective, Gene Little, Crown of Life Ministries, 2003, 332 pp

The Founders on Religion: A Book of Quotations, James H. Hutson, Ed., Princeton Univ, Press, 2005,  244 pp
Winter 2012-2013

St. Peter’s Bones, Kenneth R. Timmerman, Caseopia Press, 2011, 266 pp and annex
ISBN: 978-0-9797229-1-2
Spring  2015

Shariah: The Threat to America – An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, Report of Team B II, Center for Security Policy, 2010, ISBN 978-0-9822947, 351 pp

The Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement, The Tiger Team, Center for Security Policy, January 16, 2015, In March 2015 this was available on

Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.  Ann Corcoran, Center for Security Policy, March 30, 2015, 78 pages, this is available on

[1] Biblical Archeology Review, Biblical Archeology Society, Washington, D.C.
[2] ANM Publishers, Charlottesville, VA, ISBN: 978—0-9794929-5-2, 2009
[4] Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI. 1999, ISBN 0-8254-3328-2
[5] Footnote 2, Ibid, p. 73
[6] The Dome of the Rock is a shrine located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. It was initially completed in 691 CE at the order of Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik during the Second Fitna. The Dome of the Rock is now one of the oldest works of Islamic architecture. It has been called "Jerusalem's most recognizable landmark," and it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, along with two nearby Temple Mount structures, the Western Wall, and the "Resurrection Rotunda" in the nearby Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Its architecture and mosaics were patterned after nearby Byzantine churches and palaces. The octagonal plan of the structure may also have been influenced by the Byzantine Church of the Seat of Mary built between 451 and 458 on the road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
[7] The inscriptions on the Dome - with a great amount of repetition - are quotations from the Quran that attest to the unity and supremacy of Allah and repeatedly attack the concept of the Trinity of Christianity.
These inscriptions are seven hundred and thirty four feet long in all, amongst the lengthiest inscriptions in the world. In fact it acts as an important item of propaganda - both politically and theologically - for the newly formed Arab/Muhammadan polity. It declares the supremacy of 'Islam' over that of its rival Christianity.
[8] WSJ, January 8, 2016, p A9
[9] ANM Publishers, Charlottesville, VA, ISBN: 978—0-9794929-5-2, 2009 at p 86.
[10] WSJ, October 15, 2013, p A13

Friday, June 26, 2015


By William J. Skinner
The Supreme Court of the United States issued two blows to American traditional values this week with the weasel-worded opinion upholding the Obamacare Act (a/k/a ScoutusCare or RobertsCare) for the second time in 2 years.  Second, the Supreme Court found laws preventing gay marriage unconstitutional, causing many traditional American families more grief.

   Who will want to trust the Supreme Court in the future to interpret laws based on the wording of the laws written by state legislatures and the Congress?

   The necessity to ask the Supreme Court for these rulings was based on the inept legal draftsmanship that resulted in monstrous bills that members of legislative bodies had no time to read, reconcile, and redraft.  These laws were made for the convenience of special interest groups representing small minorities of the population who wanted what they wanted.  The members of legislative bodies got paid with votes and contributions.  The good of the country suffered.  Everyone knows the Congress has been in disrepute for years with low approval ratings.

   Who will want to trust the Congress and some state legislatures in the future?

   During the past six and a half years, the President has expanded the regulations and laws with the help of the growing bureaucracy and his pen and telephone.  In the case of IRS, EPA and immigration law and regulations, even the Congress has lost trust in the President because he has taken over the job of writing laws. 

    All three branches of the US government can no longer be trusted.   What do we do?  What can we do at this tipping point?

   Consider that the Republicans do not hold the Presidency, the Republicans in the Senate do not have the 70 plus members to control the voting and override vetoes, and the House Republicans are not united even though they have a majority.
   If you have the ability to look ahead a few years, you can probably see that Republicans will have a tough time reaching those levels of power to make sure laws are changed for the better.  But we should give another try in 2016 to reach for those goals.  This could be our last chance.

  At the same time, we need to buttress our election efforts by supporting the Convention of the States to set an agenda for writing proposed amendments to the US Constitution.  If general agreement can be made on worthwhile amendments, then each state can adopt them, and if enough states agree, these will be sent back to “We the People” to be ratified.  This will take a few years, but we can straighten out some flaws and improve some of the recent actions.

   Please do not get riled up about a Convention turning wild and changing everything.  Going wild would require too many agreements for that to happen.  Look at Article V of the US Constitution and think this through.

   In summary, we can do two things.  1) Let us give one more try to get elect a Republican President and enough Republican members of the Senate and House to do what has to be done; and 2) Get moving on a Convention of the States.  Please become involved in these efforts to save our country for future generations.

 June 26, 2015  Contact me for more information at

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

JAMES MADISON and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights
By Richard E. Labunski, History Prof. at the University of Kentucky
Summary for Bill of Rights Anniversary, December 15, 2014

James Madison guided the Constitution preparation process, convincing certain key members of the Convention to participate, namely, Adams and Washington.  Madison had help from others.

  The Philadelphia Convention was held in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, finishing a draft made public in The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1787. Washington was been selected to chair the sessions, but only spoke twice during the summer, although he guided the process in private conversations.  Next came the ratification process.

   Madison did not want a Bill of Rights primarily because the enumerated powers doctrine was so clear to him that he was initially not concerned with the Federal government doing things that were not listed in writing.  But many other people wanted an enumerated list of individual rights in the Constitution. 

   Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton began writing the Federalist Papers.  They were in New York attending the Congress and these papers were intended to persuade New Yorkers  to vote for ratification of the Constitution.  Madison received letters from friends in Virginia that indicated ratification was in trouble in Virginia, so Madison went home.

   Madison knew it would not be enough for the Constitution to be ratified by only nine states. New York and Virginia contained almost one third of the residents of the country. George Mason was against the Constitution even though he served as a member of the Convention that wrote it.  If Virginia did not ratify then no Virginian would be eligible for election to the Federal offices. 

    In those days the vote for delegate to conventions and state office were conducted by the County Sheriffs in Virginia.  At the time of the election, the electors came to the voting place, rose and announced who they voted for and when the Sheriff closed the election, the winner was announced.  Closing time was at the discretion of the Sheriff. There was no room for voter fraud with such transparency.

  From all of the arguments, Madison came to the view that the ratification should not come about without a Bill of Rights.  Thomas Jefferson, who was minister to France, was in Paris and wrote several people about adopting the Bill of Rights as part of ratification.

  The arguments continued and a second constitutional convention was considered by Virginians. After the passage of eight months from the adoption of the Constitution eight states had already ratified and only one more was needed while Virginia was arguing about what to do.  Madison became neutral on the Bill of Rights and had not understood why there was so much opposition without an enumeration of rights of citizens and states until he heard these arguments.

  The Virginia convention convened June 2, 1788. After rejecting one amendment, the Virginia Convention adopted 89 to 79 a motion with amendments recommended but not required, as a condition of Virginia’s assent to ratification on June 25.  A few days later the George Wythe Committee submitted 40 proposed amendments and the delegates approved the report without recording the vote.  So Virginia became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution.  The new government was formed.  Everyone involved was called to New York.

  Now what about the Bill of Rights? 

  The new House got a quorum on April 1, 1789.  Finally the Senate was organized. The House allowed visitors.  The Senate did not.  Madison spent time assisting Washington establish the functioning departments of government. He was described as “prime minister.”  Washington’s inaugural speech gave deference to the House and Senate on amendments to the Constitution on April 30.  On May 4, 1789 Madison made a short speech in the House putting the members on notice that on the fourth Monday of the month, he would introduce his package of amendments.

   On May 25, 1789, a scheduled discussion of the amendments was postponed because of other business.  Madison could wait no longer. On June 8, Madison began a discussion at length. Three other members, one from Georgia and two from South Carolina, objected as the discussion would take time from other business. Then others objected as well.  Rep. James Jackson, of South Carolina, moved to postpone discussion until March of the next year.  Later, this motion was withdrawn when Madison agreed that his proposal would be referred to a select committee that would report to the full House in a few weeks.  Madison had the floor and spent several hours trying to persuade the House to have the discussion now.   Hearing the sentiments allowed Madison to propose that if a single day were devoted to the discussion to satisfy those voters who expect something to be done, he would confine his list to those amendments considered intrinsically proper because they are wished for by a respectable number of citizens.

   During his June 8 discussion, Madison proposed a new preamble to the Constitution and nineteen amendments divided into nine articles. This move was not expected.  Madison wanted the amendments incorporated and not added at the end.  Roger Sherman opposed the insertion idea. Throughout the summer, others agreed with Madison to the insertion.  Drafting committees showed how complicated and unappealing the insertion would be. Gerry of Massachusetts sided with Madison about the need to show some effort to adopt amendments or states like Virginia and New York may call for a second constitutional convention.  Gerry proposed that July 1 be designated to review the amendments.

  Madison’s amendments began to appear in the newspapers after the June 8 discussion in the House.  After further exchanges, July 21 was selected to further discuss the amendments, and the House voted 34 to 15 to send the amendments to a select committee of eleven members, one from each state.  It took only a week to make a report to the House.  Then the House tabled the report.

  Madison asked for debate and after one more postponement, August 12 arrived.  For eleven days members of the House debated.  Madison was losing the argument about placement of the amendments.  Elias Boudinot was presiding over the Committee of the Whole when someone asked if the amendments had to be recommended to the House by a 2/3rd vote.  Boudinot ruled that only a majority vote was necessary and his decision was upheld by a vote of the members.

    The report from the Committee of the Whole was voted on by the House on September 24, 1789 and the Senate voted on September 25 to approve.  Twelve amendments were adopted by Congress and submitted to the states. 

  Some states took little time – New Jersey was first to ratify the amendments. A month later Maryland ratified all 12 amendments. Seeing that ratification could happen, Patrick Henry argued in Virginia that the ratification should wait until the next Congress was elected.  But after being negated by the Virginians, Henry left Richmond for home and gave up the battle.  The Virginia House and Senate were in a standoff, partly because of amendments 11 and 12, but there were other issues as well.

   Virginia took up ratification again in October 1791.  Finally on December 15, 1791, Virginia completed its action to ratify the amendments.  On December 30, 1791, Washington notified Congress that the Bill of Rights had been ratified.  These were added to the end of the original U.S. Constitution.  Labunski’s 2006 book is ISBN: 13: 978-0-19-518105-0.  The PBC Library has 9 copies.

December 15, 2014   

William J. Skinner, Author
How Voters Can Prevent Election Fraud and Make Elections Fair     Available also at &
Lake Worth, FL
Ask the author to sign a copy of the book today.                        Special prices at talks about the book.  Contact the Author    

Read Bill's blog at -                       Ask me about Elias Boudinot
if you want to know how the Democrats suppress  
the Republican vote in South Florida and Orlando
Please E-mail me if your HoA or Condo A restricts political activity where you live.

Saturday, May 3, 2014

The Supreme Court of the United States recently decided that,

There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. Citi­zens can exercise that right in a variety of ways: They can run for office themselves, vote, urge others to vote for a particular candidate, volunteer to work on a campaign, and contribute to a candidate’s campaign. This case is about the last of those options.
The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute. Our cases have held that Con­gress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption. See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 26–27 (1976) (per curiam). At the same time, we have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others. See, e.g., Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 24–25).
   Many people might find those latter objectives attrac­tive: They would be delighted to see fewer television com­mercials touting a candidate’s accomplishments or dispar­aging an opponent’s character. Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America we have empha­sized, the First Amendment “has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).
In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit polit­ical speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. “Ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption.” Citizens United v. Federal Elec­tion Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 360 (2010). They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be respon­sive to those concerns.
Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance. See id., at 359. That Latin phrase captures the notion of a direct exchange of an official act for money. See McCormick v. United States, 500 U. S. 257, 266 (1991). “The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.” Federal Election Comm’n v. National Con­servative Political Action Comm., 470 U. S. 480, 497 (1985). Campaign finance restrictions that pursue other objectives, we have explained, impermissibly inject the Government “into the debate over who should govern.” Bennett, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 25). And those who govern should be the last people to help decide who should govern.
The statute at issue in this case imposes two types of limits on campaign contributions. The first, called base limits, restricts how much money a donor may contribute to a particular candidate or committee. 2 U. S. C. §441a(a)(1). The second, called aggregate limits, restricts how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees. §441a(a)(3).
This case does not involve any challenge to the base limits, which we have previously upheld as serving the permissible objective of combatting corruption. The Gov­ernment contends that the aggregate limits also serve that objective, by preventing circumvention of the base limits. We conclude, however, tha that the aggregate limits do little, if anything, to address that concern, while seriously re­stricting participation in the democratic process. The aggregate limits are therefore invalid under the First Amendment.
For the 2013–2014 election cycle, the base limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), permit an individual to contribute up to $2,600 per election to a candidate ($5,200 total for the primary and general elections); $32,400 per year to a national party committee;1 $10,000 per year to a state or local party committee; and $5,000 per year to a political action com­mittee, or “PAC.” 2 U. S. C. §441a(a)(1); 78 Fed. Reg. 8532 (2013).2 A national committee, state or local party com­mittee, or multicandidate PAC may in turn contribute up to $5,000 per election to a candidate. §441a(a)(2).3
The base limits apply with equal force to contributions that are “in any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an intermediary or conduit” to a candidate. §441a(a)(8). If, for example, a donor gives money to a party committee but directs the party committee to pass the contribution along to a particular candidate, then the transaction is treated as a contribution from the original donor to the specified candidate.
   For the 2013–2014 election cycle, the aggregate limits in BCRA permit an individual to contribute a total of $48,600 to federal candidates and a total of $74,600 to other politi­cal committees. Of that $74,600, only $48,600 may be contributed to state or local party committees and PACs, as opposed to national party committees. §441a(a)(3);78 Fed. Reg. 8532. All told, an individual may contribute up to $123,200 to candidate and noncandidate committees during each two-year election cycle.
The base limits thus restrict how much money a donor may contribute to any particular candidate or committee; the aggregate limits have the effect of restricting how many candidates or committees the donor may support, to the extent permitted by the base limits.
       1There are six authorized national party committees: the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Cam­paign Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. See 2 U. S. C. §431(14).
2A PAC is a business, labor, or interest group that raises or spends money in connection with a federal election, in some cases by contrib­uting to candidates. A so-called “Super PAC” is a PAC that makes only independent expenditures and cannot contribute to candidates. The base and aggregate limits govern contributions to traditional PACs, but not to independent expenditure PACs. See v. Federal Election Comm’n, 599 F. 3d 686, 695–696 (CADC 2010) (en banc).
3A multicandidate PAC is a PAC with more than 50 contributors that has been registered for at least six months and has made contributions to five or more candidates for federal office. 11 CFR §100.5(e)(3) (2012).PACs that do not qualify as multicandidate PACs must abide by the base limit applicable to individual contributions.

 MCCUTCHEON ET AL. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 572 U. S. ____ (2014), decided April 2, 3014.

            I cited this case as an introduction to this blog to give you a feel for what the conservatives on the current Supreme Court can say when the subject is only money and how much money a voter can donate to favored candidates in one election. 

Just imagine what they might say if the subject was access to the political process by registered voters who are being suppressed from participation in those political process rights where they live.  I am not focusing on the suppression of minority voters; I focusing about suppression of Republican voters.

This analysis gives facts that cover Palm Beach County, but it is applicable to any county where the majority of the registered voters are members of one party and the county has a large number of dwelling units that are condos, homeowner associations, or community associations.  Most of these counties are in South Florida.

For example, in Palm Beach County the total population on April 15, 2014 was 1,355,759.  The number of persons under 18 years of age was 20.1%.  So the number eligible to register to vote is reduced to 1,083,253. Of the latter number, there are 235,407 registered Republicans, 366,151 registered Democrats, 234,441 other registered voters, for a total of 835,999 registered voters.   www.pbcelections.orgThis leaves 247,254 census counted people who are not registered to vote.  In other words 23 % of the population in Palm Beach County is not registered to vote.        

Part of the 247,254 are persons counted as living here may be foreign nationals with second homes, undocumented foreigners (illegal aliens receiving US welfare or not), or US citizens living in second homes who vote elsewhere.  But it remains that 23 % of the population in Palm Beach County counted by the census is not registered to vote.  One might ask how the other 77 % can be causing so much trouble.  I will now make a stab at explaining the answer.

If these unregistered voters were allow to sign up to vote with same day registration (registered on the day of election), the major parties could easily be outvoted by the new voters, depending on which turn out to vote. There would be no way to catch or stop them these first timers if they all voted and 25% of the Republican stayed home.. If a large part of the unregistered population were eligible to register and did so on election day, the party in which most of them registered would be on top easily.   Only Democrats like Ted Deutch recommend same day registration.

You probably have not contemplated the voting situation through this lens.  These numbers do not lie and I am not trying to mislead anyone.   But these numbers are not the main point with the voter suppression going on against Republicans.  There is more.

In Palm Beach County there are 1,572 homeowners associations containing 299,286 homes or undeveloped lots within those HOAs.  Palm Beach County has the largest number of HOAs in Florida and has a similar number of condo residents. You probably have not seen those figures before, but the Florida legislature ordered a study in 2013.

Using the 299,286 figure and 2.59 persons per house according to the 2008-2012 Census data,  this means there could be 775,150 persons living within just the HOAs, plus a large number in the condo associations.

According to the Supervisor of Elections for PBC the registered Democrats are 44% and the registered Republicans are 28% of the total registered voters.  Therefore, with distribution across HOAs presumed to be equal county-wide the residents (citizens of Florida or not) the HOA boards are likely to be represented in the same proportion.

  If these assumptions are true, then the Democrats can always out vote the Republicans on the boards or in the communities of South Florida.  In other areas of the state Republicans are not out numberd so much.  HOA boards, consisting of many more Democrats that Republicans can successfully keep other parties from conducting any political discussions with neighbors under the standard covenants that run with HOA property.  These covenants are made into rules by the Boards and homeowners who are the Democrats, a 61% majority.  HOA rules often prohibit political activity.  

Is that is what is going on in Palm Beach County politics?   Some political activists think so.  You may know of cases where you live in South Florida. Some examples.

In Valencia Palms HOA in western Boynton Beach, there was an on-going and functioning Ronald Reagan Club that met for a year or so until the Board of the HOA found out it was a political club.  That Board stopped them from meeting in HOA rooms and will not allow the club to use common space meeting rooms because politics is divisive and tears the community apart.

In Valencia Shores HOA in western Lake Worth, the Republican Committeeman had no trouble delivering literature for elections and talking to Republican voters from 2004 until 2012.  In the summer of 2012 he was warned he was “soliciting” in violation of community rules.  The Committeeman was told in writing that he would be fined by the Board if he did it again. 

The two Committeeman later wrote the Board and asked that the rules be changed for “soliciting” and that elected party committee people be allowed to walk the streets to speak to Republicans at their front door and leave literature if they were not home.  “Soliciting” was something else besides political communication.

The Board then amended the two sentence rule into one sentence rule which still left approval to the discretion of the Board.  The Committeemen then wrote to ask the they be allowed to hang a plastic envelope with printed matter in it on the outside of mailboxes as the Board does for its HOA newsletter or to leave printed matter on the front door stoop in an envelope like the mailman, FedEx, or USP driver does. 

The Board responded that it would then permit hand delivery of documents person to person.  But it “recommended” that no documents be left at the door or mailboxes.  In addition, the Board recommended that the Committeemen mail documents to the addresses or take an ad in the HOA newsletter. These Board decisions apply these same privileges to any newly elected Committeeman or Committeewoman as this part of the Committeemen’s request was not objected to.

Of course, the Committeemen knew they could use the Post Office to mail documents to residents of his HOA.  The two Committeemen in this precinct know well the cost of getting political mail to the voters.  Five times in an election year and the bill would be north of $1,500.  The advertisement offer is another communication method that needs further testing. In the heat of the 2014 and 2016 elections is not the time for lengthy proceedings to change wording in ads.  Will the Board want to change the wording when they see the ad?   Will the ad make politics divisive?  Will the Board charge a higher fee for the political ad?   The uncertainty and the fact that the Board has already threatened fines, means caution is needed.  In court cases, this is called a “chilling effect.”  Do you see what is happening?

In all fairness to Valencia Shores HOA they have permitted one public meeting in October 2012 for candidates of the Republican Party.  They did so after the Committeemen cited the Florida Statute that allows reasonable use of HOA facilities by candidates for office or public officials.

There are probably many other instances like those of these two HOAs across the length and breadth of Palm Beach County.  If any reader has a story to share and will give their name, HOA name and stand by their story, this will be added to the collection of methods that the majority Democratic Party organization uses to control the political activity of Republicans with the resulting suppression of Republican political activity and voting.  Does your HOA allow political meetings in your HOA facilities?  Does your HOA prohibit you from delivering political literature to the door of the homes in your HOA?  If not, what are the reasons given for this suppression of your First Amendment rights. 

If one checks the voting records of Republicans, it can safely be said that the voter turnout is almost usually under 75%.  That means that for 235,000 voters, Republicans can only get 176,000 out in a good Presidential election.   Everyone knows that non-Presidential year elections have only a 10 to 20% turnout.  Republicans are such a small part of the registered voters in Palm Beach County that they need Independents and Democrats to vote for Republicans in order to win elections in Palm Beach County

The Republican vote is being suppressed by a number of things already, including indicted and convicted Republican office holders, turncoat Charlie Crist and his cadre of crooks, and the bitter and nasty pubic arguments between Republican candidates.  That 25% of registered Republicans have sat out on elections for the past 10 years is shocking.  Republicans have to deal with reality and get involved in selecting candidates and advising them to clean up their act.

These negative problems have to be dealt with up front – vetting candidates, being ready for the last two weeks attack from the nasty literature distribution from the Democrats, and having candidates that can speak truth to the lies in an understandable way.  Of course, being ready means having money for campaign materials, cable and TV ads and hundreds of coffees, receptions, meet and greets, and other events.  People who avoid the vote, probably do not give money to candidates. 

I urge you not to surrender your core First Amendment rights to make political speech and that you work to help your elected Committeemen and Committeewomen.  My wife and I signed nothing that agreed we gave up our First Amendment rights to live where we live.  If we could organize every precinct to spread the word about what needs to be done, we could win some elections just by showing up in larger numbers. 

Will you use some time to protect your First Amendment rights in 2014 and 2016, or will you simply go along to get along and send the bill for increases in government spending to your grandchildren?   Help protect what our forbearers gave us in the First Amendment.

                                                                                    William J. Skinner