Freedom First Society

Posts

Constitutional Camouflage

“Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.” — Thomas Jefferson, September 7, 1803

House rules requiring a Constitutional Authority Statement for every bill submitted have been around for some time. In 1997, the 105th Congress adopted such a rule, imposed on Committee reports. Early on the rules were likely inspired to some extent by outside pressure, but more recently the House GOP merely seems to have discovered a political public relations opportunity.

The current and latest such Rule was adopted by the Bohener-led House in 2011, as promised in the House GOP’s 2010 Pledge to America. The Rule mandated that every bill or joint resolution submitted be accompanied by a statement “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.”

In its January 5, 2011 explanation of the new rule, the House Committee on Rules stated:

“The adequacy and accuracy of the citation of constitutional authority is matter for debate in the committee and in the House. The rule simply requires that the bill be accompanied by a constitutional authority statement upon introduction.”

Unfortunately, the “debates” in the House are generally little more than chest pounding by a lead by proponent from the majority party with equal time allotted to a representative of the minority party. If the measure has bipartisan support, opponents are rarely heard. Moreover, in reviewing hundreds of pages in the Congressional Record, your author cannot recall the constitutionality of a measure ever being challenged on the floor of the House.

As the Rules report further stated: “Ultimately, the House will express its opinion on a proposed bill, including its constitutionality, by either approving or disapproving the bill.” So nothing really changed. The requirement for an accompanying Constitutional Authority Statement has not prevented unconstitutional business-as-usual one iota.

No one should be surprised. Given the tremendous forces behind the centralization of more and more unconstitutional functions in the federal government, it would be unreasonable to expect the House GOP leadership willingly to bind themselves down with “the chains of the Constitution.”

As confirmation of those expectations, let’s look at the abuses of Constitutional Authority Statements that pretend those chains don’t exist. Three clauses in particular have been misinterpreted to portray the Constitution as a blank-check authorization: The “General Welfare Clause,” the “Interstate Commerce Clause,” and the “Necessary and Proper Clause.” These willful misconstructions, supported by activist Supreme Court decisions, have long served as protective coloration for the successful drive to create unlimited government.

The “General Welfare Clause”

Undoubtedly, the most common citation of constitutional authority is Article I, Section 8, particularly the introductory “General Welfare Clause.” Here is a typical such authority statement

“Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, to ‘provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.’”

The “general welfare clause” in Article I, Section 8, is commonly misused to create the appearance that unconstitutional congressional acts are constitutional. In 1987, Notre Dame Law School Professor Charles Rice clarified the misuse of the clause:

“The Constitution created a government of limited, delegated powers. The term ‘general welfare’ in Article I, Section 8, does not confer on Congress a general power to legislate and regulate for purposes beyond those enumerated in the remaining clauses of Section 8. If the General Welfare Clause had been intended to confer an open-ended power to legislate for whatever purposes Congress might consider necessary for the general welfare, it would have made no sense for the framers to have followed it with what would have been a needless list of particular powers that would have been included by implication in the general one. In fact, the clause did not confer a general power to enact legislation at all.

“Instead, it conferred a power only to enact legislation to ‘lay and collect’ taxes and, by implication, to spend the revenue raised by those taxes for the ‘general welfare.’ It was, then, not a general power to regulate the activities of the people, but a power to tax and to appropriate, i.e., to spend, which was limited to the purposes stated in the remaining clauses of Section 8.”

In the Federalist No. 41, James Madison, “the Father of the Constitution,” had also rejected the claim that the General Welfare Clause “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare”:

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

During congressional debate on February 7, 1792, Madison warned:

“[I]f Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress….”

But politicians today still get away with claiming that the clause gives them a grant of power to do almost anything if they can project some benefit for the general welfare. (Our example: How about Congress forbidding families from having more than one child to promote population control or to stop climate change?)

Frequently, Congressional Authority Statements merely refer to the entire Article I, Section 8, and not just its preamble, without identifying any particular power. They thus imply that Article I, Section 8 provides Congress with general legislative authority. But Alexander Hamilton refuted this notion in The Federalist, No. 83 by pointing to the Constitution’s enumeration of specific powers:

“This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”

The “Interstate Commerce Clause”

Statements of Constitutional Authority for unconstitutional acts also cite clause 8 of Article I, Section 8 — the “Interstate Commerce Clause.”  In so doing, they are following creative Supreme Court decisions overturning long-established understanding.

Clause 8 states: “[The Congress shall have Power:] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” [Emphasis added.]

The middle section of this clause was designed to give Congress the power to prevent the states from inhibiting the interstate flow of goods through trade barriers, as they had previously done. In allaying Anti-federalist concerns, James Madison stated that the clause was not designed “to be used for positive purposes,” but was to serve as a “a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves.”

And for many years in our nation’s history this was well understood and observed. “Nonetheless,” as the late Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald observed in his book, We Hold These Truths — A reverent review of the United States Constitution (1976), “more pressures were put on Congress to enlarge its powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause than under any other provision of the Constitution. Commercial affairs, being among the most pervasive and the most profitable of man’s activities, produced many reasons for such pressures.”

The “Necessary and Proper Clause”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, commonly referred to as the “necessary and proper clause,” authorizes Congress to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” [Emphasis added.]

In The Federalist, No. 44, James Madison wrote: “Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.” And a report on the Virginia Resolutions, drafted by Madison, stated that this clause “is not a grant of new powers to Congress, but merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those [powers] otherwise granted are included in the grant.”

Yet despite its clear meaning, the clause has been eagerly misinterpreted as an “elastic clause” authorizing Congress to do virtually anything it decides is “necessary and proper.”

In arguing against the constitutionality of a national bank, Thomas Jefferson further admonished against the creative use of the “necessary and proper clause” (February 15, 1791):

“It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers.”

And One More

The House Appropriations Committee has often cited Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 as authorization for appropriations for blatantly unconstitutional programs and departments.   The clause states: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law….”

Citing this clause as an authorization to spend money is an insult to our intelligence. The clause is akin to a corporate requirement that two officers sign every check.   In no way would such a requirement by itself entitle the officers to write checks at their pleasure.

In Summary

For decades, the Establishment media in “informing” public opinion have conveniently ignored: 1) the federalist principles America’s Founders incorporated in the Constitution; and 2) their vision that the Constitution imposed strict limits on what the federal government could and could not do — it could only properly do what was specifically delegated to it.   With regard to both, James Madison stated in The Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce….”

And in The Federalist No. 14, Madison further commented on the limited purpose of the federal government:

“Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” 

The Solution

America’s Founders intended for the people to control their new government through the House of Representatives. To promote local accountability, they required representatives to stand for frequent elections (every two years) in relatively small districts, and they gave the House the all-important power of the purse. As James Madison emphasized in the Federalist No. 58, a simple majority in the House alone has the power to bring government under control:

“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument … [for reducing] … all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

The reason the House hasn’t exercised that authority in recent times is that no simple majority has, or can acquire on its own, the desire and backbone to do so. Such a majority would have to stand up to the Establishment’s grip on the parties and withstand its dominating influence on public opinion.

Realistically, the necessary backbone must come from an informed, engaged electorate following new leadership, provided through a new channel of communications. Freedom First Society was founded to offer that leadership. See also our online no-nonsense congressional scorecard to find out whether your representative is voting to continue or roll back Washington’s assault on America and our campaign page: Congress: Just Vote the Constitution!

Footnote:  The history of Supreme Court misconstruction of the Constitution is recounted in We Hold These Truths — A reverent review of the United States Constitution (1976) by the late Congressman Lawrence (Larry) Patton McDonald (See Chapter V: A Breach in the Wall).

 

Renegotiate NAFTA? No Way! — Get US out!

“Making good on a campaign promise, the Trump administration formally told Congress Thursday that it intends to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico….

“Last month, White House aides spread word that Trump was ready to pull out of NAFTA. Within hours, the president reversed course and said that he’d seek a better deal first.”
— “Trump administration announces plans to renegotiate NAFTA,” AP, 5-18-17

NAFTA has unquestionably exacerbated U.S. manufacturing and capital flight, with a corresponding decline in quality jobs and middle class opportunity.

However, “trade pacts” such as NAFTA involve much more than lowering tariff barriers to regional trade. They set up governing institutions, contrary to our Constitution. And improving prosperity through increased trade is never the objective.

Indeed, the discussion of NAFTA as a mere trade agreement acts as a smokescreen, obscuring the fact that NAFTA is an Internationalist-designed trap targeting our national independence and freedom.

The national press omits any mention of the real reason that Internationalists worked so hard to have the U.S. accept NAFTA. Although NAFTA was sold as a conservative “free trade” agreement, its real purpose was to erode the sovereignty of independent nations with an ultimate goal of capturing them under a totalitarian world government ruled by elites.   Recall that the precursor stages to the European Union (e.g., the Common Market) were misleading sold as just an economic arrangement.

Progressive Regionalization

Rather than trying to deceive the public into submitting to a world authority in one step, the Internationalists have promoted a “regionalism” strategy, modeled on the successful tactic use to ensnare nations in the European Union. The Fall 1991 issue of the CFR’s [Council on Foreign Relations] Foreign Affairs confirmed that the Internationalists saw NAFTA as following in the EU’s footsteps:

The creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures. After all, international organizations and agreements like GATT and NAFTA by definition minimize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making authority.

Both David Rockefeller (former CFR chairman) and CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger lobbied in the nation’s press for NAFTA, candidly claiming that NAFTA was a steppingstone to something larger. In a 1993 column that appeared in the July 18 Los Angeles Times, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared:

It [NAFTA] will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere…. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.

A few months later, David Rockefeller championed the agreement in the Wall Street Journal: “Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true ‘new world’ in the Western Hemisphere,” Rockefeller enthused, adding “I don’t think that ‘criminal’ would be too strong a word to describe … rejecting NAFTA.”

Submitting to WTO “Authority”

The World Trade Organization is another element of the elitist architecture for ruling the world. A recent news report illustrates how U.S. decision-making has been delegated to a body over which Americans have no control:

Mexico can impose annual trade sanctions worth $163.23 million against the United States after winning a dispute over trade in tuna fish, a World Trade Organization arbitrator ruled on Tuesday….

However, the ruling could be overturned later this year if a subsequent WTO decision finds the United States has stopped discriminating against tuna caught by its southern neighbor. —   “WTO lets Mexico slap trade sanctions on U.S. in tuna dispute,” Reuters, 4-25-17

The “Just Promoting Trade” Deception Continues

The Peterson Institute, a “think tank” named after Peter G. Peterson, Chairman Emeritus of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has long been a driver of “progressive regionalization” under the cover of promoting trade. Indeed, the opening AP report cites comments from Gary Hufbauer, member of the CFR and former VP of the CFR, 1997-98, lending credence to the pretext that NAFTA is just an orderly way to promote regional trade:

Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute, said the United States could seek modest “technocratic” changes, including provisions to update NAFTA to reflect technologies that have emerged since the original agreement was negotiated.

In 1994, Hufbauer had co-authored a study for the Institute, entitled “Western Hemisphere Economic Integration.”

For further explanation of the deceptive Internationalist strategy of “progressive regionalism,” of which NAFTA is a part, please see Chapter 6, “Free Trade Pacts” in our booklet Media-Controlled Delusion. Chapter 6 concludes:

[T]he so-called national debate over trade totally ignores the real purpose of post-World War II regional trade pacts — to create unaccountable regional authorities at the expense of the sovereignty of the nation-state. Our national survival requires that this agenda be exposed, understood, and defeated.

Renegotiating NAFTA is not the road to prosperity. Instead, validating NAFTA through renegotiation strengthens the Internationalist power grab targeting our survival as a free nation.

Repeal and Accept (Big Brother!)

“The firm precept of dialectic materialism, whether expressed as one step backward for two steps forward, or two short steps backward for one long step forward, has always made these concessions to the necessity of deception an absolute requirement and precaution in all Communist progress.”
— Robert Welch, American Opinion, January 1962

To make America truly great again, Americans must force the federal government back under the chains of the Constitution — get the government out of where it does not belong. In just one area — health care — that means completely reversing course, taking Big Brother out of the picture.

As we wrote in Chapter 1 “Socialized Medicine” of our 2015 booklet Media-Controlled Delusion: “Our health care system does need reform — the reform of getting the federal government out.” But that won’t happen until more of the public understands crucial omissions in the so-called health care debate.

 

GOP Control — What to Expect

With the GOP now in control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency, many voters look forward to the GOP delivering on its six-year-old promises to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare.  But those expecting real progress will be deceived, because the media reports and political claims carefully avoid what is essential for the public to understand. We quote from Media-Controlled Delusion:

  1. “First, almost no one dares mention that the Constitution does not permit any federal involvement in health care (other than to provide for the military and its own employees). The once prominent constitutional objections to this usurpation of authority have long been ignored by Republicans and Democrats alike.”
  1. “Next, federal involvement locks in the third-party payer system (where someone other than the patient pays for even routine costs). The third-party payer system bears a good share of the responsibility for ballooning costs. Another primary source of rising costs is the immense federal bureaucracy created to manage the system.”
  1. By far the most serious omission in the health care ‘debate,’ however, is its failure to address the revolutionary organization, the deceptions, and the ulterior motive driving the steady expansion of federal authority….

“The revolutionary socialist network extends back more than a century. The goal of this network is central control of virtually every human activity (socialism) and world government.” [Emphasis added.]

The humanitarian socialist pretext of caring for the downtrodden is just that — a pretext, a pretext for a power grab to make Americans dependent on Washington for their most basic needs.

That huge century-long revolutionary investment in government control won’t be reversed unless there is much greater public understanding of the powerful forces and subversive agenda promoting it. Until that happens, the political hue and cry of “Repeal and Replace” will at best mean a small step backwards while accepting much of the socialist progress of the long ObamaCare step — in short, net progress toward universal government-controlled health care.

“And that points to one of the most effective ways for revolutionaries to overcome resistance to a loss of liberty — gradualism — proceed in stages so that the end result is not universally obvious.”

We strongly urge readers to check out the linked Chapter 1 of Media-Controlled Delusion, acquaint themselves with the crucial media omissions, particularly the history of the socialized medicine drive, and then share this post widely.

What You Won’t Hear on Fox

“A coalition affiliated with the anti-racism Black Lives Matter movement called for criminal justice reforms and reparations for slavery in the United States among other demands in its first policy platform released on Monday….

“The agenda was released days before the second anniversary of the slaying of unarmed black teen Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown’s death, along with other fatal police shootings of unarmed black men over the past two years, fueled a national debate about racial discrimination in the U.S. criminal justice system.” [Emphasis added.]
“U.S. slavery reparations sought in first Black Lives Matter agenda,” Reuters (Yahoo News), 8-1-16

Rather than informing the public, the mainstream media slavishly cooperate with revolutionaries to provide “pressure from below” by reporting their propaganda at face value, even using that pressure and media coverage to suggest there has been a genuine “national debate” (see above).

Of course, the mainstream “liberal” media say nothing about the real agenda driving these movements. But what about the media that portrays itself as providing the other side of the story, designed to appeal to conservatives?

There you will find plenty of discussion of current issues from a conservative standpoint, but discussion primarily restricted to media-managed “common understanding.” The subversive forces and their agendas that are creating our problems are not part of that understanding.

A good example is the reaction of “conservative” media outlets to the revolutionary “furor” over police shootings of blacks. In the argument over whether a particular policeman’s action was justified, you won’t hear what people desperately need to learn in order to preserve their freedom.

The Real Objective — Pave the Way for a Police State

You won’t hear that, in 1961, the Internal Security Subcommittee of the United States Senate published “A Communist Plot Against the Free World Police,” describing a highly organized campaign “directed primarily toward discrediting the police in the eyes of the people.” A principal tactic of that campaign was to charge local police with “brutality” and demand outside oversight, initially by leftist-controlled civilian review boards.

The world Communist movement (supported by the Insiders) developed the campaign to undermine a critical bastion of freedom — independent, decentralized local police, accountable to the communities in which they live. The ultimate goal was, and is, to nationalize our local police. (See also Media-Controlled Delusion, Chapter 2 “Police Brutality.”)

The liberal media emphasize the phony idea that federal oversight is necessary to overcome all kinds of state and local shortcomings and un-American biases. And the conservative media provide stirring rebuttals to engage their audience, but they ignore the real threat. Why? Not because they don’t know what’s going on, but because at the top, they, too, are Insider-controlled.

 

Honest Establishment Newsman Affirms Conspiracy

The story of Herman Dinsmore (1900-1980) demonstrates how it is still possible in our information-rich society for supposedly well informed individuals to be unaware of critical information adverse to the Conspiracy.

For 34 years, Herman Dinsmore worked in the heart of the Establishment’s media organ — The New York Times. For nine years (1951-1960), he served as editor of the International Edition of the Times.

Dinsmore became angry at what he saw at the Times — a deliberate, systematic distortion of the news as a matter of official Times policy. And so, the professor of journalism took up his pen and wrote an exposé of the Times, appropriately titled All the News That Fits.* His critical analysis of the Times appeared in 1969 during the Vietnam War, the Times coverage of which drew special criticism from Dinsmore.

What is particularly noteworthy is what Mr. Dinsmore discovered with further study after leaving the Times. He began to see the big picture. Mr. Dinsmore had every reason to consider himself well informed. As editor of the International Edition of the Times, it was his duty to be aware of every story reported in the paper. However, his further investigation led him to an awareness of important events that had not been reported. With new insight he would acknowledge the existence of a Conspiracy.

In 1974, Dinsmore published a much more enlightened exposé of what was afflicting our nation. In The Bleeding of America, Dinsmore wrote:

The idea that the United States of America was under attack from some of its own citizens developed very slowly in the writer’s mind. It was not until he read Dr. Medford Evans’ The Secret War for the A-Bomb that he became convinced that a genuine effort was under way to establish a global check on this country — to balance other nations against it, to prevent it from winning wars; in short, to clip the wings of the American eagle.

Prior to publication of The Politician, while Mr. Welch’s leaked manuscript was in the form of a private letter, statements taken out of context from The Politician were used to support a withering smear campaign in the nations’ media against Mr. Welch and his Society. After publication, the book was conspicuously ignored. Nevertheless, in total disregard for whatever embarrassment or harassment it might cause himself, Mr. Dinsmore made this statement:

Reading The Politician, which I have just done during December [1969], was for me quite a revealing experience. It is hard for a professional newspaper man to confess that so many things, which he thought were just happening, were actually being made to happen by sinister and conspiratorial forces. But in all honesty the confession must be made. The Politician was a real eye-opener, which caused all kinds of mysterious pieces, of a puzzle that still bewildered me, to fall rapidly into place. I recommend the book emphatically to every patriotic American who wants to understand not only what is now taking place all around him, but also why. This book is the product of historical research of the first order.

Since World War II, the Conspiracy has undertaken many steps to “clip the wings of the American eagle,” as Mr. Dinsmore discovered. The object has clearly been to limit America’s ability to act independently and to increase her dependence on other nations and international authority.

In recent decades, America has suffered from deindustrialization and manufacturing flight. Our steel factories have shut down, while the U.S. has helped to build China’s steel production. America is even importing raw materials from abroad.

Over the last several decades, America has lost military bases in Iran, the Philippines, and at the Panama Canal. In Vietnam, the U.S. built a seaport at Cam Ranh Bay and an air base at Da Nang, and then with our pullout allowed these facilities to fall into Soviet hands. These developments are also summarized in Organize for Victory!

* Herman H. Dinsmore, All the News That Fits: A Critical Analysis of the News and Editorial Content of The New York Times (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969).

More Media “Failure”

Arizona immigration law sparks huge rallies” (CBC News (Canada), May 1, 2010)

FFS:  The above Canadian CBC News report goes even further than the CNN.com story in advancing the strategy of subversive revolutionaries. CBC News allows the demonstrations of “hundreds of thousands of people” “in more than 70 cities” to appear as a spontaneous reaction of diverse Americans to the Arizona law. The planning, hidden objectives, and agenda of the organizations orchestrating the protests are ignored.With this report, CBS News provides a perfect example of Revolutionary Parliamentarianism at work, in which grassroots protestors create the appearance of mass demand for revolutionary government action (in this case President Obama’s promise for comprehensive “reform” of the country’s immigration system.)

Even more shallow is the report’s characterization of the Communist/Socialist May 1st holiday as a “traditional Labour Day in many countries around the world, where rallies are held for a variety of social-justice causes.”

Media Abets Pressure from Below

Los Angeles approves Arizona business boycott” (CNN.com, May 13, 2010)

FFS: Typical of so many media reports, this CNN.com article serves subversive revolutionaries by carrying their propaganda to the public at face value. The organizations sponsoring the boycott, such as the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, and People for the American Way, are not characterized; and the behind-the-scenes revolutionary grip on the Los Angeles City Council is not exposed.

CNN Examines Possible “Right Wing” Threat

“‘Patriots’ dangerous to government?” (CNN.com, April 20, 2010)

In this video clip, CNN’s Drew Griffin interviews “three members of the ‘patriot movement’ regarding their anger toward government.”

Former President Bill Clinton Warns Nation on 15th Anniversary of OKC Bombing

Clinton draws parallels between upheaval of 1995, today” (Video clip:  CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviews the former president for an April 16th edition of CNN’s “Situation Room.”)

Receive Alerts

Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.

This will close in 0 seconds