he potential for abuse of power by the Executive was foremost in the minds of several of the Founding Fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry and Richard Harry Lee. That was the reason for the 10th Amendment which said: "The powers not [specifically] delegated to the United States [government], nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (The two bracketed words should have been included—in bold face type— in the signed copy of the 10th Amendment because the powers specifically granted by the People to the federal government it created are enumerated, not implied powers.

It was only after Richard Henry Lee added the 10th Amendment that Patrick Henry would sign the Constitution. He was adamantly opposed to the Constitution because he sensed that it would ultimately threaten both States' rights and personal liberty. It was Patrick Henry who engineered the Bill of Rights, specifically detailing a nation's pledge that the specific liberties outlined in the document were inherent, God-granted rights of a free people, and thus were guaranteed that they could not be taken from, or infringed upon, the citizens of this new nation—in perpetuity.

Patrick Henry, like Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee and James Madison, advocated on behalf of the supremacy of the States over the federal authority it created subservient to those States by giving absolute control over the Senate to the States, and the House of Representatives to the People. Only limited power was given the federal system because the President of the United States was the agent of the States, not the people. Gen. George Washington, who was not party to the creation of the Constitution, believed the Union would be no stronger than its national government. In agreement with him was Federalist John Adams who would become the nation's first vice President, and who, when he became the second President of the United States and enacted the Sedition Act of 1798, tried to become America's first elected dictator. And finally, there was the worst of the Federalists: Alexander Hamilton, the aristocrat who believed, like the lords and landed class of England, that only aristocrats and vast landowners were intelligent enough to rule a nation

At the Constitutional Convention Hamilton proposed a strong central government with a subordinate role for the States. He argued that representation in Congress rightly should be based on wealth and property ownership, protecting the vast land grants given to the lords of the manor for financing and equipping the colonial armies ( much like England's House of Lords and the commoners' Parliament was represented by the landed gentry). His idea was soundly rejected although Hamiltonian phraseology crept into the first three articles of the document, and ultimately became the anchor for political correctness in the United States. In addition Hamilton argued for, and was given, a explanatory preamble the preceded the actual Constitution. In other words, the preamble was not intended by any of the Founding Fathers—except Hamilton—to be anything other than a declaratory statement outlining the purpose and intent of the document.

Hamilton knew better. Hamilton, who understood the principles of implied power, was convinced that likeminded Federalists, sooner rather than later, would begin to exercise that implied power, using a non-essential Hamiltonian preamble before the Constitution (and not intended by the Founding Fathers to be part of the Constitution), to erase the 10th Amendment, and with it, the restraints the Founding Fathers placed on its subservient central government.

Anyone with a pre-Jimmy Carter era education (when the federal government violated the Constitution by creating the Dept. of Education on Oct. 17, 1979, and federalizing local education) knows the preamble because that's the only part of the Constitution they were ever required to learn: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice. insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States."

As you read those lines separate from the Constitution itself, very clearly you will comprehend its intent. It's nothing other than a statement which advises us that what follows is the Constitution of the United States. It's merely the explanatory passage which precedes the Constitution's first words: "Article I, Section 1." Remember, Hamilton's preamble, written with malevolent purpose, was penned by Hamilton after the Constitution was written, but before the Bill of Rights was added. Theoretically, it tells us the reason for the Constitution's adoption: was to create an orderly society based on the rule of laws which applied equally to all of this nation's citizens—including those who legislate, administrate and adjudicate those laws.

Yet, under political correctness the federal government exempts Congressmen and Senators from punitive laws that will negatively impact working class citizens. (And you thought, when you began this article, that political correctness only dealt with name calling and discrimination by Christians against male and female homosexuals, abortionists and radical ethnic or religious minorities (but not racism or intolerance of those "in the majority," since everyone knows that racism is always a white-on-black crime, with hispanics classified as "white" if their "crime" is against a black. If the perpetuator is a homosexual and his or her victim straight, the act is never listed as a hate crime. To government, there is no such thing as black racism,. nor are crimes of violence committed by homosexuals classified as hate crimes. You pretty much have to be white to commit a hate crime.)

But we got "off point." Hamilton's preamble was the keyhole into which the "key" of political correctness fits. Who'd thought you could amend the most sacred document in America by simply changing what words "mean" without changing a single word? The social progressive political key will unlock the Constitution and allow social progressive alterations to the meaning of the verbiage without the necessity of changing a single word in the document. What's more, since Hamilton's keyhole fits any social progressive key in any State, county, city or village, since 1989, the Left now finds it much easier to challenge the Right in court. And, generally speaking, the Left usually wins because the courts will bend over backwards to administer communist or Islamofascist social justice. When conservatives sue liberals for violating the free speech rights of Christians by denying them a fundamental, inherent right guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, like carrying a copy of the Holy Bible into a school—even if its never opened; while allowing Muslims not only bring a Qu'ran into school, but a prayer rug as well, mandating that the schools must provide Islamists the right—in the classroom—to unroll their prayer rug and, out loud, pay homage to Allah. Yet, Christians will be expelled from school for not only bringing that unopened Bible to class with them, but just for wearing a T-shirt or sweat shirt emblazoned with a simple cross, or the words, "Jesus Saves"

Since the Clinton years, the word "Jesus"—or any Christian symbol—which appear to cause intense feelings of antipathy in Muslims and atheists alike, the federal courts have now entwined Articles 18 and 19 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights with the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, diluting our inherent 1st Amendment rights—both to free speech and religious freedom—by making them conditioned on when what we say, or how we pray, offends our adversaries and theological or political enemies. Yet, that violation of the constitutional law applies only to Christians and, believe it or not, Mormons. On the other hand, the "constitutional" separation of church and State, which is regularly used against Christians and conservative abortion foes, does not apply to Muslims, who are granted immunity from the "separation clause"—which does not exist anywhere in the Constitution. It was fabricated from whole cloth—in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Ministers Association on Jan. 1, 1802, three months before Jefferson became our 3rd President, complaining that the Connecticut State judiciary ruled that religious liberty was not immutable. In their letter to Jefferson, they raised the question of religious liberty under his administration. In his reply Jefferson assured the Baptists that religious liberty was an inherent right which neither government nor the courts could alter without a constitutional amendment..

The crux of Jefferson's reply to Dodge, Nelson and Robbins was in the form of a metaphor to assure the Danbury pastors that the Bill of Rights prohibited Connecticut from interfering in church business—or the religious affairs of their congregations: "...Believing with you," Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptists, "that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; but that legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson added: "Congress is thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive [is] authorized only to execute their acts..."

In other words, in the "establishment clause" (Reynolds v United States [98 USC 145]) the Left throws that phrase around like its part of the Constitution. But, its not a clause in the Constitution—it's the verbiage in private citizen Tom Jefferson's personal letter of assurance that the government can't trample on anyone's religious rights. The people aren't inhibited. The government is. In this context, the federal courts—which insist it's their right to legislate from the bench (only because they granted themselves that right) are prohibited from infringing on your right to worship God as you see fit. In fact, it is the constitutional role of the federal courts to protect the right of the American people to worship God, not to determine ways they can deny or restrict them because a vocal minority—or, even a majority—disagrees with your beliefs. On the other hand, the courts or the State or federal government cannot grant waivers to themselves by violating the 1st Amendment and creating a favored class of religion by making the theological doctrine of that religion mandatory for students not of that faith. Or, for allowing a "favored class" of people to practice a state-favored religion in school while the religious rights of the "non-favored" are forbidden.

If the United States Supreme Court can, on a politically-correct whim, couple the Bill of Rights with a ham sandwich in order to limit religious liberty whenever the "free exercise of religion" interferes with the politically-correct agenda of government—as it does today with the rise of Islam around the world and its theological quagmire of eliminating the Christian's Jesus which offends Islam, the end of the Union is within sight—and the Second American Revolution is just around the corner.

That provision—the establishment clause—was fabricated and placed in the Morrell Anti-Bigamy Law (12 Stat 50), enacted on July 8, 1862 which did much more than outlaw bigamy. Sold to the American people as a law to end bigamy to gain their support, buried under the Biblical purity was a provision that would allow the Union Army carpetbaggers the right to seize the assets of any church—Mormon or Christian—or any political advocacy group or individual speaking out against Lincoln's war policies. (Lincoln, you may have guessed, was America's second dictator. One of his first acts as our 16th Prsident was to suspend the Constitution. Two more dictators followed him.) [One of them should never have been allowed in the country let alone the White House.]

When Brigham Young protested the Anti-Bigamy Law, Abraham Lincoln agreed not to enforce it in Utah if Young agreed not to side with the South in the Civil War. Young agreed and Lincoln instructed Gen. Patrick Henry Connor who commanded the Union Army garrisons in Utah not to confront any Mormon who violated the law. President Ulysses S. Grant was not as broad-minded as Lincoln. Unlike Lincoln who ordered Gen. Connor not to enforce the anti-bigamy law, Grant had no problem enforcing it. He began enforcing Morrell in 1874 by denying Utah courts judicial jurisdiction over its own citizens by using military courts to try civilians for civilian crimes. (Posse Comitatus [18 USC § 1385], originally at [20 Stat 152] was still 4 years in the future.)

The first Mormon to be tried for bigamy was George Reynolds who was charged with being simultaneously married to Amelia Jane Schofield and Mary Ann Tuddenham in violation of Sec.5352 of the Anti-Bigamy Law of Oct. 23, 1874 by a military tribunal. He was found guilty of the crime of bigamy in 1875. Reynolds was sentenced to two years in prison, and ordered to pay a fine of $500. He appealed. The Utah Supreme Court upheld the sentence.

Hidden in the dusty pages of history is the deliberate politically-correct manipulation of the US Constitution by the United States Supreme Court because they found one aspect of religious freedom "personally distasteful." And, while the First Amendment makes it clear that "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." the high court did so anyway. Today, through political correctness, the government of the United States managed to steal religious freedom without repealing the 1st Amendment by making that "freedom" conditioned on the politically correct whims of whomever holds power at the moment, and the money barons who control the actions of those individuals.

In coupling the Danbury Letter into codified law, the Justices changed the First Amendment of the Constitution, making it easy to justify their ruling that the government can enact laws regulating national uniformity even if those laws conflict with religious liberty. The court defended its erasing a good portion of the First Amendment by saying "...permitting a certain class of people to willfully defy the nation's laws without repercussions in the name of religious liberty would permit citizens to become a law unto themselves, and lead to the existence of a government in name only."

If the federal courts have the legal authority to abrogate your right—and mine—to worship God and pray in Jesus' name as we see fit, then they can also forbid us from speaking out politically. And, they can also ban radio and TV newscasters from revealing the sins of elected officials and most of all, they can ban bloggers from revealing what the licensed broadcast media is afraid to report (over fears that the FCC will not renew their broadcast licenses). The "free" press was taken over by the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business in the first two decades of the 20th century, from 1906 to 1917. The 16th and 17th Amendments, which were both fraudulently declared ratified, removed the States from the equation the federal power on April 13, 1913 when it was declared ratified by Secretary of State Philander Knox.

Only, Knox had a problem. Constitutional law requires every resolution submitted to the Secretary of State to be submitted exactly as it was submitted to them by Congress—with every dot and tittle. One missing comma or semi-colon, one misspelled or changed word, and the resolution becomes invalid and must legally be construed as an entirely different resolution than the one proffered by Congress to the States, or by the States to Congress. The majority of the amendment ratifications from the States, on both the 16rth and 17th Amendments contained enough errors to invalidate both of them legally. However, Knox deferred to President Taft's solicitor General, Joshua Reuben Clark, who rendered a judicial opinion that only the Supreme Court could make because while the Solicitor General is the president's lawyer, he's not a judge and has no authority to make judicial rulings. (Although all of resolutions for the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments which the former Confederate States were forced to sign contained errors, they were nevertheless certified as valid since the terms of their reinstatement into the United States required them to do so.) Therefore, Clark reasoned, the same types of errors in the 16th and 17th Amendments did not invalidate them, either. Not true. As a term of their return to the Union, the Confederate States were obligated to ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. There were no such obligations on the part of the States in 1913.

Logic suggested to a small group of curious citizens who called themselves the Montana Historians, headed by Montana businessman M.J. "Red" Beckman, that both the 16th and 17th Amendments—particularly the 17th—served not the interests of the States that supposedly voted for its ratification, but served only the politicians in the central government of the United States and the wealthy industrialists and bankers who owned them since the States themselves, through the US Senate, denied the bankers the central bank they desired to own since those who own the monetary system of the world owns the world. The 17th Amendment removed the States from the equation of federal power, and allowed the creation of the banker's dream—their own private central bank (which the States had steadfastly refused to enact since 1836. But, more important, the 16th Amendment allowed the federal government to tax the American people and spend those taxpayer dollars for the government's newly defined "welfare clause" that covered everything from quid pro quo "welfare" to political donors to...well...just plain "common folk" welfare.

When Beckman and another Montana Historian, Sam Bitz began digging in 1981, they found enough documents to prove that the 16th Amendment was never constitutionally ratified. In 1983 Beckman testified for the defense in the income tax evasion trial of Alan Buchtra, and produced over 400 documents during that trial as the evidence which proved the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared ratified. Much to their surprise, US District Court Judge James T. Moody suppressed the evidence, then seized it, ruling that the proffered evidence were copies and not the original documents and, therefore, were not admissible. He further told Beckman that if he had "...a problem with the legality of the 16th Amendment, it was a matter for Congress, not the courts." If the courts are not the proper advocate to address, and settle, grievances the American people have with unjust or illegal laws, who does? Is that not what the US court system was created to arbitrate? Grievances between one party and another?

When the princes of industry and the barons of banking began to manipulate right and wrong in the United States "political correctness" was born to justify flipflopping right and wrong. US District Court Judge Moody was the first federal magistrate to deny private citizens their constitutional right to address their grievances with the federal government.

The 1995-forward social progressive (Clintonesque) definition of political correctness is the obligatory conforming to language word-sets and social behavioral practices which do not offend the political sensibilities of social progressives, Muslims and other ethnic groups (excluding Christians and Jews), environmentalists, population-control Mother Earth freaks, and a whole subset of societal misfits who are attempting to revise the past 116 years to fit their perception of a future without pollution and, of course, without people—with the single exception of themselves and 500 million other wingnuts who believe they can live without carbon dioxide (the food plants consume to produce oxygen, a necessary ingredient in water) and, of course, the air we breathe.

Then there is the rich man's definition of political correctness, as well. Possessing vast amounts of money makes the rich man's opinion reality. When you possess the financial liquidity of the world's wealthiest people, lies become truth and truth becomes a fabrication.

If you think I'm wrong, consider this: In 1880, when oil was discovered near the Russian port of Baku on the Caspian Sea, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. controlled roughly 85% of all of the oil refining and oil distribution in the world. By 1884, the Baku oil leases owned jointly by Baron Alphonse Rothschild and the Nobel brothers, Alfred and Robert were pumping as much oil as all of Rockefeller's US oil holdings together. Rockefeller knew if he could not expand his oil holdings into Russia his dominant role as the oil king would end, and the Rothschilds would become the dominant oil barons in the world. Rothschild anticipated Rockefeller's move and warned the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergi Witte, of Rockefeller's penchant for bribing politicians to get the laws he needed to destroy his competition. When Rockefeller applied for permits to bring Standard Oil to Russia, Witte convinced Tzar Nicholas II to ban Standard Oil from setting up any type of operation in Russia.

Rockefeller retaliated in 1902 by collectively paying several European news journalists a $5 million pie to perpetuate the rumor throughout Europe that the European Jews had launched a Zionist conspiracy to control the world. One hundred fourteen years later, every conspiracy-minded wingnut in the United States still believes the myth is true, and will defend that position with both words and fists although there isn't a grain of truth in the rumor. Spend enough of it, and money always converts a lie into fact—especially when the money is paid to the whores of the fourth estate: the social progressive liberal media when they denigrate conservatives, conservative issues and, what there is of it, the conservative media.

The biggest and potentially most devastating politically-correct hoax perpetrated on mankind in the history of the world is global warming—or rather, man-made global warming. Global warming and global cooling (climate change) is as real as night and day. But, as hard as the daylight savings time freaks try to increase the amount of daylight each day, thinking it's somehow cutting the use of electricity throughout the nation, it isn't. You are trading the "placement" of an hour each day. But, you still have exactly the same number of hours of daylight and darkness.

The only time daylight savings time made sense was when Ben Franklin suggested it in 1784 in the Journal of Paris in an essay called “An Economical Project for Diminishing the Cost of Light." Workers, Franklin jokingly supposed, who rose with the sun and retired when it got dark, benefited from the philosophy, comparing them to farmers in the American colonies who rose before the sun, and worked until dark. Farmers, he reasoned, burned the tallow and wicks of their candles while they dressed and had breakfast, using that extra hour of sunlight for an extra hour of work, going to bed shortly after dusk. Today, we live in a 24-hour day society that burns the candle from both ends. Why do we observe daylight savings time when it saves nothing? There are a thousand reasons. But the best one is, because some very rich, politically-correct ecological idiot with enough wealth to enforce his views on everyone else, thought it was a good idea.

Which is why we are now losing the battle on global warming. The idiots in this case were the wealthiest men in the world—the oil barons—who, based on the beliefs of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., in 1860, was convinced that oil was a finite resource. When it was gone, it was gone for good. In the view of the oil industry in mid-20th century America, the world was well past peak. The theory was advanced by a Shell Oil geologist, Dr. Marion King Hubbert who, in the 1950s, based on the mistaken belief that oil was a fossil fuel created from long dead dinosaurs and prehistoric fauna, mathematically calculated that based on known oil reserves in the world, the non-Muslim world would run out of oil sometime between 2010 and 2015; and the Mideast would follow a decade and a half later. His theory, accepted as fact by the oil giants, was called Hubbert's Peak.

Regular gasoline, in the 1950s sold for 10¢ to 15¢ a gallon at the pumps. When Richard Nixon moved into the White House, regular gasoline was selling for 45¢ to 48¢ a gallon. Consumers complained, but Detroit continued to make big cars with powerful engines, and consumers paid more for the luxury of driving them. In 1960 as John F. Kennedy was campaigning for the White House, the oil-producing states in the Mideast formed the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] as an intergovernmental organization with five permanent members: Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The Muslim world's stated intent was to wrest control of oil prices from the western world oil giants, However, while none of their names appeared on the "letterhead," all of the major oil giants owned shares (usually around 49% to 50%) in most of the wells in the Mideast, particularly in Saudi Arabia. And the Big Ten oil giants (many of them formerly part of Standard Oil which was now flying under the more respected name of Exxon-Mobil) were part of the scheme to drive the price of gasoline at the pumps up, and perhaps beyond, $5 per gallon.

How did they intend to accomplish this feat? Through political correctness. They just needed a villain. That villain would be "global warming.". The environmental ecoalarmists created the myth (based on an obvious truth) that global warming is "man-made."

Global warming is caused exclusively by the solar cycles of the sun. The truth? Evil men with malevolent intent (money), have fabricated the myth, thus "the theory that global warming is man-made" is man-made. The attached video, a full-length movie from England gives you the complete "how" and "why." The why is the easy part. Money. Al Gore, who did not invent the Internet, was the catalyst in the 1980s which led to the amortizing of Global Warming. Show men a way to frighten people, and I'll show you how Gore and those of his ilk learned how to profit from that fear. Gore became a very wealthy man, as did the environmentalists originally enlisted by the oil barons to raise the carbon dioxide fears, together with the princes of industry who profited from their doomsday warnings by devising the scheme known as Cap & Trade. Gore, who entered Congress as an average upper middle class American (and who has never held what could be called a "regular job" in his entire life, is today a billionaire from buying and selling carbon credits.

Selecting the environment as his personal charge, Gore went about picking his team. Gore had already picked socialist eco-wacko Carol Browner (who was one of 14 leaders of the communist Commission for a Sustainable World Society when Obama tapped her as his Energy Czar) to head the EPA when he convinced Clinton to bring former US Senator Timothy Wirth on board. Wirth wanted the EPA slot. Gore wanted him as Energy Secretary. When word leaked out that Clinton planned to name Wirth to Energy, a delegation of Senators from both sides of the aisle called Clinton and told him to save the appointment for someone who could be confirmed. Wirth, they told him, was not that person. Clinton named him Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs—a job that did not require Senate vetting. It should have. Wirth, with help from Gore, was the primary author of the Kyoto Protocol in the UN which started the draconian environmental regulations although the US Senate warned Clinton not to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate, because it would be rejected. The resolution sent to the White House passed the Senate on a vote of 99-0.

Wirth, then us Senator [D-CO], together with Sen. John Heinz [R-PA] created what was initially going to be called "Project 88." It was the money baron's first attempt to enact the "Cap & Trade" concept to tax the emission of carbon dioxide in what would be a tax on every living person in the United States and, ultimately, a UN tax on the industrialized world. Project 88 was buried in the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990. The law contained a provision that would allow industries in smog-layered industrialized states to purchase 'pollution credits" from the federal government. The total amount of "credits" sold could not exceed the national "cap" on emissions. Thus, when one corporation purchased emissions credits, another corporation somewhere else lost them. Since purchasing carbon dioxide emission credits would be expensive, only the Fortune 500 companies could afford to buy them.

This will greatly raise the cost of production on small, family-owned businesses with carbon dioxide emission levels adjudged, by the EPA, to be too high—but who can't afford to buy sufficient credits, forcing them to reduce production and lose market share to the transnational industrialists who produce far more pollutants but are financially able to buy carbon credits that "ecologically erase" the affect of their smog by theoretically selling their "smog" to the emerging nations (who actually get get cash and not smog).

The ecowackos would like the rest of us, who breathe the smog that the industrial plants in our cities or States pretend is gone because the factories bought the carbon credits and are now carbon dioxide compliant. And, if they buy even more credits, they will be viewed by the EPA to being even more concerned about the environment. You. of course, will pay a greater consumer tax for their "capping" carbon emissions—which will still cause you to die from some form of pulmonary disease since the emissions blanketing our country will still be there. And the princes of industry will be all the more rich as the middle class slips into the working class, and collectively, they will become just one more commodity of the rich—human capital. National elections will no longer matter because commodities can't vote.

If you haven't yet, you should be grasping the reality of the real definition and absolute power of political correctness. You see, it's not what you thought it was. You thought it was about a bakery denying to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, or four white rednecks chaining a black man to the back of their pickup truck and dragging him to his death, or the White House calling the actions of a Virginia-born Palestinian Islamic radical, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan workplace violence. Hasan, you will recall, repeatedly shouted "Allah Akbar!" while killing of 20 military personnel and one civilian at the Fort Hood, TX Readiness Center on Nov. 5, 2009.

Why would Obama call it "workplace violence?" Maybe, because Major Hasan was on Barack Obama's presidential transition team in late 2008 and early 2009. The White House claimed what Hasan did was not an act of terrorism, but what a tragedy brought by combat stress disorder, even though Hasan, had never in any combat situation anywhere.

Political correctness is a very effective instrument used by governments to indoctrinate its subjects. The practice dates back to the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 by stifling free speech, thought and actions through the creation of infallible standards which would be known as "the truth" (even if they were easily discerned to be falsehoods). When you possess the power to punish those who disagree with you, then your views become unassailable. It doesn't matter if anyone with half a brain knows you're wrong, the political consensus, since you have the power to to enforce your views—even against those who can easily prove you're wrong—will agree that your views are correct, and will swear that 97% of the scientists in the world concur even when less than 13% of actual scientists (all of whom work for the government or leftwing environmentalist think tanks).

To confirm that thought, let's consider how political correctness was applied on March 29, 2016 at a press conference held by New York State Attorney Genera Eric Schneiderman, a member of the newly formed Attorney Generals United for Clean Power, who announced to the assembled media that : "...The bottom line is simple. Climate change it real." (Quite frankly, everyone knows that. Cyclic global warming and cooling is real. No one disputes that fact. What the proponents of global warming argue is that they possess the evidence which proves global warming, and global cooling are man-made. But none of the proponents of global warming has yet to explain how carbon dioxide emissions on Earth impact—in precisely the same temperature departures—on both Venus and Mars. The one thing the environmentalists likely will never be able to explain to those they are trying to convince is how people living on Earth caused climate change on Mars and Venus). Which is why, with former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. standing beside him, Schneiderman continued by saying that climate change dissenters are creating fraud, and for that reason, their "speech" is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Clearly, AGs United fro Clean Power should be renamed "The Flat Earth Society" although proponents of global warming see the non-believers as the Flat Earthers.

California AG Kamala Harris and 14 other politically-correct AGs plus the AGs for the District of Columbia and the Virgin Island joined the attack on climate change dissent. In addition to New York and California, the States now involved the effort, which also includes US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Collectively, they are determined to silence climate change dissent in Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington State.

On Wed., March 6. 2016, Lynch said she was exploring ways to take legal action against dissenters by turning climate change denials into a federal crime. She believes the authority to silence public dissent on the matter of climate change is found in the nullfied Sedition Act of 1798 which President John Adams used to silence criticism of his Adminstration by fining and imprisoning those who spoke out against him or his policies. Before the law was nullified by the States, ten Americans were summarily sentenced to four months in prison and fined $1,000—a virtually insurmountable fine for all except the wealthy (most of whom were Federalists). The lawbreakers were hauled into the Supreme Court and faced Associate Justice Samuel Chase. Many of the lawyers for those accused questioned the constitutionality of the law, which obviously violated the Bill of Rights. Chase refused to listen and even chastised those lawyers for bringing such a flimsey argument into court.

In 1801 the States repudiated the Sedition Act of 1798 with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, taking the federal government to task for violating the Bill of Rights and reminding the federal government that the States held the power to nullify any law written by Congress if it exceeded its narrow authority under the Constitution.The Sedition Act of 1798 was rendered null and void by the States. It has not been the law of the land since 1801. Chase became the first Supreme Court Justice to be impeached. His impeachment, which took place in 1804, was based largely on his conviction of one offender, James T. Callender, but the charges alsoincluded his handling of all of the "political trials" he presided over.

It's impossible to guess what social progressive wingnut in the Attorney General's office or the White House lathed onto the nullified Sedition Act of 1798, but Lynch's position seems to have stemmed from a statement made by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI] at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when he compared to climate change dissenters to the the tobacco industry downplaying the correlation between smoking and cancer (which is also a lie).

Whitehouse triggered Lynch's March 6 remark by asking why the Obama Administration had failed to consider civil action to pursue energy companies in court the same way the Clinton Administration went after the tobacco industry in 1999, using RICO. The tobacco industry settled, but the RICO charges remained. In August, 2006 US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler (a Clinton appointee) found 11 US tobacco companies guilty of 150 counts of mail and wire fraud through "...a continuing pattern of racketeering with the specific intend to defraud the public...".The verdict was upheld on appeal. Yet, no evidence exists, even today, that cigarette smoking causes cancer—of any type. But, don't get me wrong. Smoking will kill you. You will die from a massive stroke, heart attack, or you will suffocate when your lungs become so filled with tar and nicotine that you can't breathe. So why would the government go through a fifty year charade pointing to cancer as the villain, when the truth was worse than the lie? Could it be because many of the pharmaceutical drugs we take to make our fingernails and toenails smooth and shiny cause cancer? Or that a few of the miracle drugs we take for one illness or disease or another, might cause cancer is some people? Are we blaming cigarettes for something that may be caused by Big Pharma, and unleased on the public by a complicit FDA?

Whitehouse’s statements in the US Senate came one month after the U.S. Supreme Court put the brakes on Obama’s climate-change agenda. A 5 to 4 high court ruling on Feb. 9, 2016 halted Obama’s regulations on carbon emissions until a litany of lawsuits by 27 states are resolved. The States argued Obama’s EPA regulations were tantamount to "...an unprecedented power grab." (The four liberals on the high court [Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer], in what was a purely political decision, dissented in the ruling.) That was bad news for Obama and for the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business who are counting on using Cap & Trade to transfer the wealth of the industrial world to the third world. It's important to remember that the princes of industry who intend to be the masters of the universe with all of the world's human capital working for them, have already hired tens of thousands of worker bees and invested several billion dollars (much of which have come from their pockets).

Most people think of political correctness as an exercise in speech ethics and mannerisms dealing with ethnocentrism, theology, sexual orientation and political or economic diversity. What political correctness is not is an exercise in liberty or personal freedom. Rather, It's a one-sided exercise in exclusionism based on government thought control to create societal order based not on constitutional liberty, but rather, on the precepts of social justice where the minority which feeds on the majority is more deserving than those whose collective sweat equity in nation building provided national sustenance to all who call this country home.