My Message To All Americans

My Message To All Americans

Tulsi Gabbard

 

Oct 10, 2026

Tulsi Gabbard's powerful message at the Texas Youth Summit, warning about threats to our freedom, constitutional rights, privacy, and the future of our republic. She calls on the next generation of Americans to stand up, speak out, hold leaders accountable, and defend the freedoms that make America great.

National Reform and the Rights of Conscience (with text) | A. T. Jones

 

National Reform and the Rights of Conscience (with text) | A. T. Jones

EllenWhiteAudio - English

Sep 16, 2026  Pamphlets – A. T. Jones Audiobooks

National Reform and the Rights of Conscience, by A. T. Jones (1889), answers the National Reform movement, which sought to amend the United States Constitution and set up a so-called Christian government. Jones shows that such a scheme would shut every honest dissenter out of citizenship while rewarding hypocrisy, and that the "liberty" it promised is the same kind the Papacy and the Inquisition were willing to grant. A clear, timely defense of religious liberty and of every person's right to worship God according to conscience. This edition shows the full text on screen, so you can read along as you listen.

📖 Listen to more pamphlets by A. T. Jones:

   • Pamphlets – A. T. Jones Audiobooks  

💝 Help us make more materials:

https://www.aplib.org/donate/

🎧 Listen online or download this and other audiobooks to your device at:

https://www.ellenwhiteaudio.org/

📱 Follow us on our social media:

• Facebook:   / ellenwhiteaudio  

• Instagram:   / ellenwhiteaudio  

📚 To know and learn more about our pioneers, visit:

https://www.aplib.org/

Alonzo Trevier Jones (1850–1923) was a prominent Seventh-day Adventist minister, editor, and theologian who played a central role in the 1888 Minneapolis Conference. Known for his powerful preaching on righteousness by faith and religious liberty, his writings remain an important part of the Adventist theological heritage.

Matthew McConaughey drops new hint about politics after meeting Pope Leo XIV Story by Eren Waris

Story by Eren Waris

Matthew McConaughey drops new hint about politics after meeting Pope Leo XIV

Matthew McConaughey drops new hint about politics after meeting Pope Leo XIV

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: Actor Matthew McConaughey said he could see himself “adding to or working on” a constitution built around common ground among religions.

McConaughey, who calls himself an aggressively centrist Christian, has previously been asked about running for office, including governor of his home state.

The comments came in a USA TODAY interview, published on Saturday, August 15, after his meeting with Pope Leo XIV in Vatican City.

Actors Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey speak onstage at Nokia Theatre LA Live on August 25, 2014 in Los Angeles, California (Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

Matthew McConaughey says religion could inform politics

McConaughey said he sees common ground among religions as something that could inform a political system.

“There’s still a constitution out there to be written that all religions could agree on,” he told USA TODAY. “There's so much commonality.”

He said he was interested in the possibility of “adding to or working on” such a constitution, calling it “a great thing to share.”

Pope Leo XIV waves as he leaves after his weekly general audience in St Peter's Square at The Vatican, Wednesday, June 3, 2026 (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

McConaughey also drew a line between religious teachings and the separation of church and state.

“Even though I agree with the separation of church and state, the values of those should bleed down into the values of any political system,” he said.

Americans’ role in the surveillance state

Paul Engel

Sun Aug 9 The Constitution Study

The United States is quickly becoming a surveillance state. While this rightly concerns many people, I don’t think they realize how much of a role they play in this trek toward a dystopian future.

People are concerned about Flock and other license plate readers, never considering that it’s our desire for government to keep us safe that is driving the need for surveillance. To make matters worse, many are hoping the federal legislation will help protect their privacy. I guess many Americans are willing to trade a federal government with limited and enumerated powers for protection against the nightmare they created.

Meanwhile, cities and states across the nation are passing gun-owner control laws, forgetting that it is often lawful gun-owners who are saving the day while others wait for the police to show up. Maybe, if more people defended themselves and their family, police wouldn’t need all this surveillance tech.

The Constitution Study with Paul Engel on America Out Loud Talk Radio can be heard weekdays at 4:00 p.m. ET. Listen on iHeartRadio, our world-class media player, or our free Apple, Android, or Alexa apps. Listen to other episodes of The Constitution Study, which are available on podcasts.

Transcript Summary of this podcast episode ⤵

Full Transcript (Auto-Transcribed)

Americans are being told that more surveillance is the price of safety. License plate readers, body cameras, digital IDs, car kill switches, and age verification rules are all sold as common-sense protections. The pitch sounds comforting. Trust the system, and it will keep you safe.

But safety without liberty is not security. It is submission.

The Constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not promise freedom from being recorded in public. The real danger comes later, when data is stored, shared, searched, and used without meaningful limits. That is where the line is crossed. A camera on a street corner is one thing. A searchable database of everywhere you have been, every plate you passed, every movement logged and cataloged, is something else entirely.

The same problem appears in other forms. Government wants to decide when your car may start, what your child may see online, and which shoppers qualify for subsidized food. Each plan is wrapped in concern for public welfare. Each one shifts power away from families, property owners, and citizens, and toward distant officials who know little about your life.

That is the trade many Americans keep making. We ask government to protect us, then act surprised when it starts controlling us. We want crime prevented, children shielded, and order restored. Those are worthy goals. Yet every new layer of control teaches the public to depend less on themselves and more on force from above.

A free people do not survive by outsourcing responsibility. They survive by taking it back.

If liberty means anything, it means ordinary citizens must defend their rights, train their children, watch out for one another, and demand real limits on government power. Otherwise, the surveillance state will keep growing, not because it was imposed on us all at once, but because too many of us welcomed it one convenience at a time.

Source

Sharia Vs. the Constitution: Can Muslims Be in Government?

 

Mamdani forgot he’s just a mayor. The State Department had to remind him

Story by Anthony Maranise, Washington Examiner

Mamdani forgot he’s just a mayor. The State Department had to remind him

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration recently scheduled a meeting between his commissioner of international affairs and Iran’s U.N. ambassador. The meeting was only stopped after the State Department intervened and ordered it canceled.

Mamdani says he didn’t know about it. That is not a defense. It is an admission that either his office is freelancing foreign policy or he sees nothing wrong with it.

He is a city mayor. Nothing more. The fact that he leads the largest city in the country does not grant him authority to conduct diplomacy with a regime that actively works against U.S. interests. Foreign policy belongs to the federal government. Period.

Local officials exist to handle local problems: crime, transit, housing, and basic services. They do not get to insert themselves into matters of national security and international relations. When a mayor’s team attempts back-channel contact with Iran’s representative at the United Nations, it is not bold leadership. It is arrogant overreach.

This episode fits a pattern. Mamdani ran on a platform that treated the mayoralty as a platform for progressive ideology rather than competent local governance. Now, his administration has demonstrated the same confusion of roles in practice. While City Hall dabbles in foreign affairs that it has no business touching, New Yorkers continue to deal with failing infrastructure, strained public safety resources, and a city government that too often prioritizes symbolism over results.

Catherine Austin Fitts: The Nightmare of Programmable Money

The American Papacy

The American Papacy.

SINCE the year 1856, a book entitled “Our Country” has been largely circulated, and it has excited a great deal of attention throughout the United States. The book was written for the American Home Missionary Society, its object being to present “facts and arguments showing the imperative need of home missionary work for the evangelization of the land.” In a startling as well as splendid array of facts, it presents the growth, the size, the resources, and the perils of our country.

Among the perils to our country, the author rightly places Romanism, and by many excellent quotations proves that it is indeed a peril. We quote a passage or two:—

“There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our Government with those of the Catholic Church.

“The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is clearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX., in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: ‘The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience, are a pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a State.’ The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematizes ‘those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,’ also ‘all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.’”

Sec. Hegseth’s "Spiritual Readiness" Push Sparks Constitutional Debate

 

"Spiritual Readiness" Push Sparks Constitutional Debate

Defense Now

Department of War | Pentagon Press Secretary Drops Major Announcement | US Senate Armed Services Committee

The Story: Today's Pentagon Prayer Service Today's event—scheduled for 12:00 PM EST in the Pentagon Auditorium—is the latest in a series of monthly "Christian prayer and worship services" instituted by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. 

The Angle: The core tension surrounding today's service is the invitation list. Recent emails were sent not only to active-duty personnel but also to U.S. defense contractors. This has drawn immediate scrutiny and formal complaints from watchdog groups like the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), who argue the outreach violates the separation of church and state. Several contractors have anonymously expressed feeling caught between a "rock and a hard place," fearing they might miss out on networking or government work if they don't attend. 

In response, the Pentagon maintains that the services are 100% voluntary, attendance is not tracked, and the gatherings are constitutionally protected events meant to boost morale and "spiritual readiness."

Is Leftist Rage About to Turn as BLOODY as the French Revolution?! | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 277

 

Sunday Rest Proposal Raises Troubling Religious Liberty Concerns

A response by the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists

January 18, 2026

Columbia, Md.



A proposal by a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization to legally recognize and enforce a “uniform day of rest” represents a disturbing disregard for the religious freedom of all Americans. The Heritage Foundation’s document, “Saving America by Saving the Family,” calls for states and local municipalities to restrict commercial activities on Sunday as a way to promote spiritual engagement and provide a regular day of relaxation for American workers.

Seventh-day Adventists believe all people have been created in God’s image with the freedom to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. For more than 160 years, the Church has forcefully advocated against any form of Sunday law. Adventists have always understood these laws — whether at a local, state, or federal level — as attempts to compel conscience, even when they are defended on pretextual secular grounds such as promoting the health of communities and families.

This new proposal for a “uniform day of rest” is irreconcilable with America’s rich heritage of protecting the religious freedom of all its citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs or nonbelief. It represents a dangerous desire to use state power to advance religious objectives. Restricting commercial activities on Sunday also raises serious practical concerns for members of those faiths that do not worship on Sunday, including Seventh-day Adventists and Orthodox Jews.

Sunday laws run counter to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which preserves religious freedom for all Americans by requiring the government to remain neutral between different religious faiths. Our church leaders in the North American Division and the union conferences will continue to uphold the banner of truth and religious liberty, firmly opposing this proposal and any similar measures.

Source

Attempted coup d'état in Benin: Foreign minister says situation under co...

How The New York Times article "The Constitution is Sacred. Is it also Dangerous?" is a prime example of left leaning media bias

Ethan Justice
Sep 2, 2024

The New York Times article titled "The Constitution is Sacred. Is it also Dangerous?" can be seen as an example of left-leaning media bias due to its framing, selection of sources, and overall narrative. The article critiques the U.S. Constitution by suggesting that it has become a barrier to true democratic governance and even implies that it might be dangerous in the modern context. This perspective aligns with a broader progressive argument that some constitutional mechanisms, like the Electoral College and the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices, are outdated and undemocratic.

Critics of the article argue that it reflects a left-leaning bias because it predominantly highlights viewpoints that question or criticize the Constitution, often linking its perceived flaws to current right-wing political successes. The article also references scholars and authors who propose radical changes to the Constitution or even suggest its abolition, which aligns with progressive critiques of the Constitution as a tool that reinforces minority rule and systemic inequities. Furthermore, the article’s focus on issues like the role of white men in drafting the Constitution and its connections to slavery can be seen as reinforcing a narrative that the Constitution is inherently flawed, a viewpoint more commonly associated with progressive or left-leaning ideologies.

These elements contribute to the perception that the article is biased, as it gives significant weight to critiques of the Constitution without equally presenting counterarguments that defend its relevance and adaptability in modern times. This kind of framing is often cited as evidence of the New York Times' left-leaning bias in its coverage of foundational American institutions​.

To offer a more balanced view of the Constitution's relevance today, it's essential to include counterarguments that defend its enduring value and adaptability.

SCOTUS silently preserves church-state boundary in Catholic charter school case, but won’t say how justices voted

Elura Nanos May 22nd, 2025, 12:34 pm



Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

As some court watchers predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 ruling Thursday that preserves the distinction between church and state — for the time being. Despite the eight participating justices having been vocal during oral arguments just three weeks ago, however, the Court issued its ruling without a single word of opinion, guidance, or information as to the lineup of votes.

“A robust Catholic education”

The case, stylized as Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond, was a contentious one in which the justices heard several hours of exhaustive oral arguments over whether a virtual Catholic charter school has a right to operate despite Oklahoma’s requirement that its charter schools be nonreligious. The St. Isidore of Seville school — named for an unofficial patron saint of the internet — aims to provide a “robust Catholic education,” and is open to both Catholic and non-Catholic students. The school, which would operate entirely online, projected an initial enrollment of 500 students with the expectation of reaching 1,500 students by 2028, half from lower-income families.

Although Oklahoma’s charter school board initially approved St. Isidore’s application for the 2024-25 school year, Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general and current gubernatorial candidate, Gentner Drummond, opposed the school’s participation in the charter program on the grounds that under both Oklahoma law and the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, all public schools in the state are required to be nonsectarian.

Carter Ledyard’s Latin America Practice Will Present To ITESO, Universidad Jesuita De Guadalajara

PRESS RELEASE
20 February 2025

Carter Ledyard’s Latin America Practice Will Present To ITESO, Universidad Jesuita De Guadalajara

CL
Carter Ledyard & MilburnMore
Bryan J. Hall, Alexander G. Malyshev, and Edmundo Elias-Loyola of Carter Ledyard’s Latin America Cross-Border practice will speak...

United States


Bryan J. Hall, Alexander G. Malyshev, and Edmundo Elias-Loyola of Carter Ledyard's Latin America Cross-Border practice will speak at ITESO, with a presentation entitled "Balance of Power in the U.S. Government: The U.S. Constitution, Federalism and Executive Orders" on February 25th, 2025.

For more information, please contact Jennifer Topper (topper@clm.com)




Source

----

P.S.

AI Overview

In February 2025, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP's Latin America practice presented at the Universidad Jesuita de Guadalajara (ITESO). The presentation was titled "Balance of Power in the U.S. Government: The U.S. Constitution, Federalism and Executive Orders".

Explanation
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP is a law firm that offers a variety of legal services, including trusts and estates, litigation, and Native American law. The firm's partners provide legal and business advice to clients.


Carter Ledyard's Latin America practice

Carter Ledyard's Latin America practice presented at ITESO as part of its Cross-Border practice.
The presentation was given by Bryan J. Hall, Alexander G. Malyshev, and Edmundo Elias-Loyola.

Carter Ledyard's practice areas
Trusts and estates
The firm helps clients develop estate plans to ensure their assets benefit their intended beneficiaries.

Litigation
The firm handles a variety of litigations, including those involving trusts and estates, unfair competition, and antitrust.

Native American law
The firm's Native American Law practice focuses on corporate finance for Native American tribes.

The Truth About Birthright Citizenship

Voters Approve State Constitutional Amendments to Enshrine Abortion Rights

11.06.2024

Measures to protect abortion access approved in Colorado, Arizona, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York.

©Eric Kayne/AP Images for the Center for Reproductive Rights


Yesterday, millions of people voted to enshrine the right to abortion in their state constitutions, approving amendments in seven of 10 states where measures were on the ballot.

In the states with abortion bans and severe restrictions, the amendments will provide a basis for challenging those limitations. In other states, where abortion is legal, amendments will prevent the threat of future interference by state and local governments.

Win in Missouri Could Provide Access Point in the Midwest, While the Southeast’s Abortion Desert Remains

An especially critical amendment approval came in Missouri, where abortion is banned—marking the first time voters in a state with a total abortion ban have successfully amended their constitution to protect reproductive freedom. “This is an especially historic win for Missouri. . . Voters have demanded the return of the essential human rights and freedoms they lost after Roe was overturned,” said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

In Florida, which bans abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, the measure received 57% of the vote, just short of the 60% threshold needed to pass. As a result, Floridians “must continue to live with the fear, uncertainty, and denial of care caused by the reversal of Roe,” said Northup. “So too will countless women in the southeastern U.S., which will remain for now a virtual abortion desert.”

Collectivism poses a threat to America's constitutional and unalienable rights

April 2024 

Thesis 

Collectivism poses a threat to America's constitutional and unalienable rights 

The global shift towards collectivism and political consensus will limit America's freedom of speech by restricting dissent and discouraging individualism. The rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence are inherent and not granted by the government. 

The signers and framers of the Declaration of Independence believed in natural law, but their interpretation was not based on Catholic Social Doctrine, but rather on the Protestant tradition of individual ethics. The founders of the emerging American identity established a form of government that valued the principle that "all men are created equal," which allows individuals to follow their conscience instead of a nation governed by the Common Good, which can be seen as communitarian and tyrannical. 

There is a growing trend towards limiting speech by left-leaning, politically correct progressives. The only rights progressives believe in are the ones they make up to suit their agenda of social justice. All other rights, especially natural ones, are to be trampled into the dust. Human beings are not all "atoms" or individuals with equally intrinsic rights, but unequal cogs in a hierarchy of social-justice groupings, to be managed by the state. (Holmes 2022). Modern progressive ideology aligns with cultural Marxism, deconstructionism, and race theory. The intellectual forerunners of the contemporary progressive ideology are Nietzche, Gramsci, and other Marxists. 

Protesters Clash With Police After Storming Mexico’s Senate Over ...

 

 ---------------------------------

   

Sovereignty Coalition Holds Summit on ‘Global Governance’ Treaties...