If you need to reflect further about whether you wish to support PACA,
you can read the rationale for each step of the PACA Plan below.
This will help you understand
A) Why the PACA Plan is desperately needed,
B) Why PACA is absolutely achievable, and
C) Why PACA will work miracles to restore America to her former Christian greatness.
We only require one of every one hundred devout Christians to lead the effort.
We will require all your prayers.
PACA explanation 1:
Let us be clear from the start. We will no doubt be blasphemed by the anti-Christian media as wanting to implement a Puritan theocracy. Puritanism moderated into a Constitutional Republic implemented by profoundly Christian men. That original Constitutional Republic, slow-dripped high-jacked by non-Christians for the last 100 years, is all we strive to return to; where laws were just when conforming to Christian ideals of morality and were unjust when in contradiction to God's will. We will not allow ourselves to be intimidated to inaction by mere words again.
We are in a run-up to a second American Civil War and the non-Christian propagandists for that war are on a war footing.
Planted into the minds of the left, the MAGA ambitions of Donald Trump paint him as a corporate-Fascist surrounded by white supremacist haters wanting a government “Final Solution” to round up all aliens for heartless deportation to horrible third-world hellholes, which is then magnified into Trump being labeled a neo-Hitler.
But consider this...
Trump was New York City's favorite son. He made his fortunes pleasing the non-Christian ruling class in New York City with the buildings he constructed for them.
Planted into the minds of the right, the Identity Politics ambitions of Hillary Clinton paint her as a anarcho-Communist surrounded by a rainbow coalition of racist antifa, black lives matter thugs and lesbian mafia, trying to have government replace and wipe out all white Christian deplorables in gulag concentration camps, coupled with massive government Grand Larceny justification of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, which is then magnified into Hillary being labeled a neo-Stalin.
But consider this as well...
Hillary did not take her identity politics to become the Senator from Mississippi or even from where she came from, Arkansas. Instead, Hillary was handed the job to become New York City's Senator.
The PACA Plan strives to be between these two NYC-connected, uber-destructive, non-Christian extremes of Stalin, and his counter reaction of Hitler.
The PACA Plan strives to return traditional middle-American Christian values.
In effect, the PACA Plan is in contradistinction to the agenda of non-Christian New York City.
The first Civil War pitted equal parts North against equal parts South.
That was over a hundred years ago.
In just one month in 2017, we passed from attacking the Confederate flag of the South at Charlottesville, and are now attacking the Star Spangled Banner of the North during of all places, football games.
The second Civil War will pit New York City against South, North, West, Southwest and Midwest. Although you would not know this fact, because you will not be fighting non-Christians from NYC, but instead would be fighting NYC's mercenary army of pandered, misguided, underclass, foot soldiers from across the country.
The most powerful force for traditional middle-American values in this country to counter this proposed nihilist war is Christians uniting around Christ.
For we know as Christians that the best life for NYC's pampered, but misguided by Satan, underclass is for them to once again embrace Christian morals. Christians not embracing their religion in the face of this cultural war has caused far more misery and angst that ironically
Or as our motto says...
“A country who prays together, stays together.”
Always remember, as we will get to later, it should only take as little as 1 out of every 100 devout Christians to implement the entire PACA plan.
Christians founded, built and bled for this great land and now are treated as illegal aliens in their own home.
Christian Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to sell a customized wedding cake for a gay couple's union. Jack was a nice guy. He had in the past sold non-controversial goods to the lesbian couple with no troubles, but did not want to be an accomplice to a homosexual wedding, as his Christian beliefs were that marriage is between one man and one woman. The lesbian couple took him to court where a non-Christian federal court ruled against his right of religious freedom; ruled against his right to assemble (or in this case, his right to not to assemble with gays); ruled against his freedom and liberty to conduct his financial and business affairs, secure in his person and effects, without government micromanagement; ruling instead that this federal judge was enslaving him against the 13th Amendment right to be free, forcing him into involuntary servitude to bake that cake for that lesbian couple
Meanwhile, non-Christian mega-communications conglomerates such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and others have decided, entirely on their own, that they will no longer host even mainstream Christians on the Internet simply for holding traditional Christian beliefs such as the beliefs that homosexuality and abortion are sinful. By abusing their stranglehold on communications between Christians, these Internet giant monopolies are censoring the freedom of speech and freedom of the press of Christians across this country, virtually isolating them from Christians they wish to associate with on the Internet, and there is not a judge around to stop them.
Christians are losing both coming and going.
Christians are told they cannot discriminate against anyone and yet everyone is allowed to discriminate against Christians.
Many Christians saw parts they liked on the MAGA side, but MAGA is nowhere to be seen on these matters.
Perhaps in the heat of the next election cycle, we will see measurable action from Mr. MAGA, but as for now, what many Christians thought they elected is once again not what they got. What they were promised when Mr. MAGA needed their vote is not what was delivered when they needed Mr. MAGA’s deliverance of what he promised. And that is not surprising since the non-Christian media deliberately hyped Hillary’s best friend, Mr. MAGA, by saying all last year, “Oh My, there’s nothing we can do to stop his tweets”, as all other 8 candidates melted out of sight the second the non-Christian media graciously gave Mr. MAGA 24/7 coverage during the entire last of the primary election cycle.
This is not the first time Christians have been mislead. Before Mr. Maga was "Read my Lips" and later evangelicals thought they had a kindred Christian spirit in Mr. George "Compassionate Christian" Bush.
Make America Great Again will never happen if Christians continue to depend upon the non-Christian media to deliver them a white knight from on high. That will never be in their best interest. The non-Christian media will happily however rev-up non-Christian Madison Avenue to sell you a Trojan Horse or sell you a Manchurian Candidate like Mr. Maga or Mr. Bush, in order to give you false hope.
The Tea Party could have been great, but was quickly infiltrated and misled into harmless areas.
OK, I’m just trying to be nice. Truthfully, the Tea Party was doomed from the start.
Instead of one well-thought out, coherent Tea Party movement with a dedicated purpose, the Tea Party came into being one day as a knee-jerk reaction to Obama winning the Presidency, and quickly split up into many factions. There were the Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Caucus, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation and other offshoots like Americans for Prosperity, Freedomworks, National Tea Party Federation, etc.
All divide and conquer.
Divided and Conquered is more like it.
Its biggest problem, it was not based upon Christian principles and allowed non-Christian agent provocateurs take it over.
Of course, like most easily misguided national movements, the Tea Party thinks the cancer on this nation starts at the very top with the likes of Obama or Hillary or even traitor McCain, and will be saved by the likes of Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz. In this, they are hopelessly failing in their mission by focusing only at the very top of our government, as if our problems originated at the top.
A Drain the Swamp approach does not work by only going after the top-of-the-food-chain alligators, as the Tea Parties foolishly tried to do.
Truth is our problems originate at the bottom; before the grassroots, underground before even the seed first germinates. You have to have the right fertilizer. And the fertilizer of American politics is Christianity.
The swamp drain you need to pull is at the lowest point in the swamp, not at the highest.
PACA is the fertilizer for the seed which will grow into a mighty oak.
In the primary election when the wrong candidate gets elected into office, that politician then becomes an unbeatable incumbent. Meaning? The problems just cascades upwards from there.
The parable about the seed falling on barren rock.
Non-Christian Obama did not just wake up one day and decide he wanted to be President. What really happened is that his Non-Christian handler, David Axelrod, ran him in a lowly Illinois State Senate seat first before running him as the Senator from Illinois, before finally running him for President. How did Obama win his two Senate seats? Non-Christian Axelrod used Christianity against Obama's opponents, that's how. He opened up closed judicial divorce decrees and used that information to sow seeds of doubts into the minds of Christians having a moral Christian guidepost. So Christians threw out actual "sinful" Christians running for office and elected the one true non-Christian in the race. You see, the problem of Obama did not start with him being President, it started when he ran for a humble State seat.
You actually die from cancer when one of your major organs fail, but organ failure is not the disease. Cancer originates inside the individual cells; at the genetic level; at the seed level of cell division as you may. Have healthy cells and you will not die of cancer.
The only solution is to - Pray America Christian Again.
PACA will work when Christians like you and I decide we have finally had enough.
Again, this will only take 1% of devout Christians participating in PACA, through their participating Church, to protect and defend all Christians, indeed, all Americans.
Lawyers are 1 out of every 300 and they win political office all the time. Should be no problem when Christians come with three times that number at 1 out of 100.
PACA explanation 2:
You complain about politicians being bought by rich powerful non-Christians. You would be surprised how much money could be raised if each Christian gave a little donation unto Caesar in order to defeat Caesar.
In a Republic such as America was conceived, tradition holds that we depend upon the wives to look into the homes only after she has selected a good husband to represent her and her children outside the home; we depended upon the husbands to look outside the homes to select good politicians to represent his family, and lastly, we depend upon our politicians to take care of all of us when we are so busy with other matters.
Failure on any of these accounts and society fails.
Dirty little secret here: Generations of past Christians had little need to follow politics, as they could trust their Christian politician to do the right thing for their family. Hence, they had plenty of spare time for their families, communities, charities, professions and personal life. They elected Christian leaders and could trust the Christian leaders to maintain a high degree of morality in political life through the Constitutional principle of checks and balances.
Removing entirely the “vertical” checks and balances on federal government with the 17th Amendment in 1913 started the demise of our Constitutional Republic.
We will talk later about how the 17th Amendment is to this day unconstitutional, but fact is that the direct election of Senators brought about by the 17th, meant that our States were totally cut out of running the Federal government.
Once the States were cut out of running the Senate, then the non-Christian NYC-based media could get their choices elected as Senator with a little propaganda campaign in their media.
Along with going down the road of electing non-Christians to lead us after that date, has led in turn to a breakdown of the “horizontal” checks and balances of the three branches of government, which now necessitates us to watch their every political move, to the point of even buying guns in anticipation that things are not working out so well.
As a result, today we cannot trust virtually any one of our politicians and this now requires a substantial amount of our attention and time.
So to finish up the first dirty little secret: If we spent a minimal amount of time upfront with PACA in the next two or three election cycles, insuring that Christian men of high caliber and integrity are elected into office, who will re-install the vital horizontal and especially vertical checks and balances of the past, then we could all return to actually making America great again as American Christians had done in the past, because the original checks and balances enacted by the Founders would put everything back into check and place everything back into balance.
This was the real secret to American greatness of the past.
In sum, Christians should spend a little time and money up-front today and live a comfortable, hassle-free life for generations to come; or soon, you will see yourself, your children and your grandchildren living in a dictatorship or engaged in a Second Civil War, or both, if you even survive at all.
The choice is all in the hands of Christians such as yourself and fellow members of your church.
PACA explanation 3:
Political parties have turned the official elections of this country into a shameful sham.
If you are in a suburb of North Texas, the Republican candidate could be any manner of evil you can think of and he will still beat the Democrat on the ticket in the general election. Likewise, if you are in a inner city of Chicago, the Democrat candidate could likewise be any manner of evil and would beat the Republican candidate general election.
Not that I have to point that out on the local level when we see what happens right under our nose in the presidential election. An election which people personally monitored closely for over a year. Neither side of the political debate thought their candidate was little better than horse manure, and yet we faithfully went to the polls to make "our selection". The problem this web site addresses is the fact that, all of us said, "Well if it was my choice, I would have voted for my dogcatcher over either of these two clowns."
It was the reverse of a child wanting candy and his wise loving mother offering the child a healthy choice between an apple or a pear. In our politics, Americans wanted American apple pie, and hateful unloving NYC only gave us a choice between their own Senator, Sweet Tarts Hillary and their own favorite son, Candy Corn Trump.
How about electing a respected member of your church instead?
Lawyer's Dirty Little Secret 1)
The real action is not at the general election, but at the primaries ran by the two political parties. In most voting precincts, winning the Republican primary or the Democrat primary will already insure your fate in the general election.
In fact, in many of the lowly state seats we are most interested in, there is not even a candidate of the opposite party on the ticket in the general election. For this case, if you only relied on voting in November, you have absolutely NO CHOICE who will be representing your family.
Lawyer's Dirty Little Secret 2)
Few people vote in primary elections.
Many never show up even when they see an upcoming battle royal brewing, such as the recent general election between a disgraceful Hillary and a disgraceful Trump. Neither one should have won their primary against good Christians, so this fact should tell you right away that the primary system has been high-jacked.
Even more to the point, look at the recent Alabama run-off for US Senate between Luther Strange and Roy Moore. Little national attention was given to the original primary vote, while massive national attention was given on the Republican run-off race.
Millions and upon millions of dollars poured in from all over America trying to buy the votes of Alabama voters. The Prez weighed in, the Vice Prez weighed in. Tons of celebrities. Who didn't know everything there was to know about this election. The future of the country rested at this moment upon these two Republican candidates.
And yet, the voter turnout for the winner was only 262, 601 out of a population in Alabama of 4,871,547.
Total voter turnout was 480,885 (218,284 for Luther Strange and 262, 601 for Roy Moore)
Sure Roy Moore won 54.6% of the people who showed up for the election, but Judge Roy Moore won with only 5.4% of the population of Alabama.
Less than 10% of the entire population bothered to showed up to vote in this HOTLY contested race.
And Alabama has twice the number of Republicans as Democrats. As in 62% for Trump and only 34.4% for Hillary. Meaning, there are twice as many people in Alabama interested in the outcome of the Republican run-off who should have showed up to vote.
But still, we can't emphasis this enough, only 10% made it to this important election.
Important Side Point:
Former Judge Roy Moore was removed from office as the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court because he refused to remove the 10 Commandments from a public place.
President Trump campaigned against the unabashed Christian in the race.
Remember that when you chant MAGA!
Lawyer's Dirty little secret 3)
Far less voters still show up between presidential elections when most people are paying far less attention to politics than in a presidential election year.
If only 10% show up in an important Senate race for the entire state of conservative Alabama, how many do you think show up for the unknown state senate seat #5 in Alabama, during an off-year election where there is no attention whatsoever?
This is where political careers are started for the scandal class of politicians who sneak into office.
And this is where we will play their game.
Lawyer's Dirty Little Secret 4)
The national-based, non-Christian media can only be counted on praising the divination of democracy only during the Presidential general election when there are only candidates running at the national level they are pushing on both sides, as in 2016, when fates have already been decided at the primary election, and the non-Christian media had little concern for who shows up on election day. Remember the surprise when Hillary did not win? "But no matter, NYC's favorite son will do, we will just have to pretend we are at war with him."
In off-cycle elections, such as in 2018, when there are no national candidates running for President, the non-Christian media keep especially quiet in the run-up to primary day, when real fates are being decided. They do not want the great unwashed deplorables going to the polls on off-cycle elections.
Lawyer's Dirty Little Secret 5)
Even many of the most observant voters only know whose running for President, for governor, or perhaps even for US Senate when they go to the polls.
The more that is covered in the media between their favorites Hillery and Trump, eating up all the oxygen in the room, as they say, the less time national media has to spend covering all the other lower candidates. You know you don't like either Hillery or Trump, and yet have to select one of them regardless, but the national media has not helped you at all telling you about your Senate race or your governor race.
For sure, very few really even know who they are voting for in their own State House race, their own State Senate race or even for their own US House positions. These three positions are exactly the ones which are most important to our needs in PACA.
We will totally ignore these NYC-ran national elections and totally concentrate on the local State candidates we will run for these unknown throwaway positions.
We will cherish the fact that after casting their vote for President, politically uneducated voters are then offered local race seats to vote on.
When confronted by these unknown local candidates, they often cast a ballot for some local simply because they like the sound of his name. Others may vote based upon the number of posters they saw stuck alongside the road, or the style of the poster artwork, or the catchy “I Like Ike” styled slogan on the poster. Others yet may have heard negative campaign ads not knowing if they are true or not. This is where lawyer groups and teacher groups coordinate to win. Christians need to do the same.
Turning aside for a moment, lawyers should not even be allowed to run for legislature positions, as they belong by profession in the judicial branch and that fact inherently violates the principle of separation of branches of government.
Lawyers well know this as a massive conflict of interest, but they run for legislative seats anyway, since after all, whose complaining?
Lawyers should not be allowed to write the laws which will make them rich after they leave office, with the resulting countless lucrative lawsuits, or to make their lawyer friends rich. What part of separation of powers and checks and balances is too hard to comprehend here? And yet, countless people will agree with the argument that, on the one hand. someone who has served in Congress should be a lawyer to understand the laws he writes, while on the other hand, someone who has served in congress not be allowed to switch to the judicial branch – UNLESS, he has a law degree.
Where is this non-lawyer's freedom to work in the judiciary? We give lawyers the freedom to decide to go into law and then the freedom to enter whatever branch of government they so chose. However, you decide on any another profession and you cannot be a judge.
Likewise, teacher unions are public employees of the government and should not morally have a right to vote themselves into office to administer the government school districts which will benefit them financially.
Or make laws which entrench non-Christian public schools deeper.
This built-in conflict of interest should disqualify public school teachers or their spouses from holding office.
If it is hard to fire a bad teacher, rest assured it is because teachers are often the bosses in government school district administrations.
Christians have a moral right to assemble for a election, no matter what non-Christians will tell you. Christians wrote the Constitution, signed the Constitution into law, and filled its offices with Christians such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Anyone who says otherwise are non-Christians lying to you.
If few voters show up at the primary election, then that is where a coordinated effort such as PACA can make a HUGE difference, as there are far more Christians in any district than either lawyers or school teachers.
In fact, teachers unions and lawyers are running a non-Christian form of PACA already, and here is how it works...
Paca Plan: Do as the Lawyers do
Think about the break out of votes in an election cycle. Obviously, in my example below, nothing quoted is based upon actual election returns, as reliable numbers are hard to come by - for obvious reasons - but just to help you understand the concept, you need to understand the basics
The Republican wins!!!!
Translation? If the turnout was a rarely seen record-turnout of 50%, then the Republican won with only half of the half that showed up to vote, or 25% of the total population.
Right here, Christians are well over 50% of any population, so Christians do indeed elect the Republican spouting Christian moral values on the campaign trail, thinking we won. Only we didn’t win because we find out too late, that is, after the election, that the politician intends to always votes with the non-Christians.
So if we win the general election, why again are we losing ???
For that, you have to look at the primary election.
The winner is: Republican #1!!!!
Translation? It is 2018, an off year election cycle, and voter turnout is only 10% of the total population.
Being generous at 10% turnout, as less than 10% showed up for the super-hot Alabama run-off between Roy Moore and Luther Strange talked about before.
However in our fictional account, Democrats also show up to vote, whom in our imaginary district represent almost 50% of the electorate. Which means that the 10% turnout is really split equally between Democrat and Republican voters.
In this case, Republicans only have 5% of the entire population show up on primary day.
The five Republican candidates can split their 5% of the votes equally among themselves in the primary election, giving each of the 5 Republican candidate the possibility of only garnering 1% of the votes in the total population and go on to still win the legislative seat with a greater than 50% haul in the general election.
This is important, so I repeat myself.
You can become a legislator by garnering as little as 1% of the registered voters in your district!
1% of the population gives us our winning candidate.
Very sad! And what makes it even sadder is the fact that groups have found easy ways to manipulate this fact to obtain unrepresentative power for themselves.
Lawyers for one are well known to be over-represented in all legislatures and thus prove the point.
NOW PAY ATTENTION!!
According to the Internet, there is only 1 lawyer for every 300 people in the US.
Lawyers are not even 1% of the population (1/100), they are 0.33% of the population (1/300).
So how are lawyers so vastly over-represented in our legislatures?
There would have to be more than 3 times the number of lawyers in this country, for lawyers to reliably join together as a voting block to win an unbiased election. And yet without these 3x numbers of voters to get to that worst case of 1%, most of our legislative law-makers are indeed also judicial law-deciders.
Our first problem of course being that most of those 300 Americans have been brainwashed into believing that the only one among them qualified to write laws is the one lawyer among them. They believe he is the only one among them who can understand the law; which is exactly the way lawyers want the law to be looked upon; after all, their lawyer ancestors wrote the complicated law in the first place. So many voters have no philosophical problem voting for a lawyer to write the laws they have to obey.
Actually, reality is that we should all be frightened out of our gourds by the number of lawyers who write laws.
So, how do lawyers get themselves elected?
You must concentrate at the primary election level to understand how lawyers, being only one voter among every 300 people, win elections with just a tiny fraction of 1% of the total vote.
Lawyer's Breakdown #1:
There are now 200 million registered voters in our country of 300 million, as not all people are old enough to vote, or registered. As you can easily tell, our original sample should be focused on the 200 actual voters of the totality of 300 people.
There are only 1 out of every 200 registered voters who are lawyers. Here, lawyers are still only 0.5% of the total registered voter population.
Still, it would take twice as many lawyers to win our worst-case primary of only 1% of the vote for the win.
So, lawyers still do not have a chance of winning, right? Wrong!
Lawyer's Breakdown #2:
If split equally between Democrat and Republican, Each will receive 100 votes, split from the 200 registered voters and only one side will win.
Now there are only 1 lawyer for each 100 “winning” registered voter, bringing lawyers up to the required 1% of these winning registered voters. Assuming of course that the lawyer will win.
Our lawyer cannot possibly win with only 1% of the vote, can he?
Lawyer's Breakdown #3:
We have already said that only 10% of those 100 winning eligible voters will actually show up on primary election day. So there will only be 10 voters at the primary of this sample for each lawyer voting.
We are down to only 10 Americans who will vote for the winning candidate among the original 300. Actually, one of those 10 will be the lawyer.
It is easy to see then that the reality is, fully 1 out of 10 WINNING VOTERS on primary election day are lawyers.
You can see then that lawyers automatically are 10% of the winning voters on primary day, while being only 0.33% of the total population.
Now, normally, you think in your mind that the lawyer would need 50% of the primary vote to win. So there is still no chance he can win with only 10% of the vote of his layer buddies. The facts of so many lawyers in legislatures tell you otherwise, and that is because now they play a little trick.
You don't actually need 50% to win a primary election.
Lawyer's Breakdown #4:
During primary elections, it is not as easy as one Republican to vote for and one Democrat to against, as is the situation on hand during the general election.
(In the general election, there may not even be a Democrat on the ballot for the low level uncontested seats, so you have no choice in the matter)
With say, 5 equal candidates in the Winning primary, then each candidate would pull 2 of the 10 winning votes.
The lawyers gets his 2 equal votes from the voters who know no one in the local unknown race, and then his lawyer buddies all vote for him to push him over the top to give him that winning 20.1% of the vote.
They are lawyers, meaning they are crafty. So here is where lawyers "can" cheat, just to insure their victory - and no I can't prove it, nor do I have to.
Lawyer's Breakdown #5:
It does not take a slick Hollywood movie conspiracy plot to conceive that the lawyers do not place just one candidate on the ballot, but perhaps as many as three of their buddies among the five candidates. The three fall guys spout moral Christian values to pull the vote away from the real Christian running in the primary. Obviously the true lawyer candidate also spouts Christian values as well on the campaign trail.
You don’t know any of them, you can’t tell which are lying and which are telling you the truth, in fact, negative campaign ads from the lawyers running in the election all agree that the real Christian candidate is not so Christian for whatever reason they want to say. So you split your Christian vote up 5 ways, actually giving less of the vote to the true Christian.
Meanwhile, the lawyers will not split their vote up at all and all vote for the designated winner. The lawyer candidate gets the 10% lawyer vote, as well as 1/5th or 20% of the Christian vote and with 30% of the vote in total, is declared the winner.
There may be a run-off election, since no one received 50% of the vote, but the runoff is most likely between two lawyers. Either way, the lawyers win.
Lawyer's Brief Summary:
In case your mind is spinning now, I will go over it again with out percentages.
For every 300 average Americans, a single lawyer being one of them, only 200 are registered to vote.
Of the 200 registered voters, only 20 will show up on primary day.
Of the 20 who show for the primary, approximately half will vote in the Democrat primary and the other half will vote in the Republican primary. The only votes cast here which count for anything are the votes for the party which will win in the General November elections. So only 10 of these 20 votes count for anything.
Of the 10 winning primary voters, they may have to decide from among 10 candidates on the ballot.
Equally distributed, only the candidate having more than 1 vote will win, and one of those voters will automatically be a lawyer from the lawyer voting block.
Statistically, since each of the 10 candidates will only receive exactly 1 vote, then the candidate will win that the lawyers vote for, that candidate being a lawyer.
1 vote out of a population of 300 can win the election. Meaning, lawyers can win being only 1 out of 300 of the total population.
In a run-off, one lawyer being a run-off candidate will win the election by obtaining more than 50% of the vote that the other lawyer run-off candidate received.
Does not matter if the lawyer winning is an actual Christian or not, lawyers always win in these scenarios as he will primarily represent lawyers, not Christians.
PACA explanation 4:
Reversing the logic of Explanation 3 above, if lawyers can get themselves elected when they are only 1 of 200 registered voters, then Christians should be able to easily beat them at their own game when Christians are 150 of the 200 registered voters.
Actually, only a dedicated PACA contingent of Christians are required to win the November elections, if they represented more than the 1 of 200 actual voters lawyers have to win with.
With as little as one half of one percent of Christians participating in PACA, Christians could win most State seats.
I like to play it safer though.
Almost doubling the odds of winning means that if only 1 of every 100 registered Christians participated in PACA, Christians would be an unstoppable force to be reckoned with.
For each set of 200 registered voters, 2 Christians beats 1 lawyer every time.
For that low a percentage of participating Christians to win though, it would take using the same tactics of the lawyers.
For instance, if nine PACA Christians register for the same primary (FILING DEADLINES ARE IMPORTANT!!!), and even if the lawyers wised up and only ran their one true candidate, then the normal non-participating, non-PACA Christians would split their vote 10 ways. The 20 primary voters from the 200 registered voters would be split between Republicans and Democrats making the winning vote as low as 10 primary voters from the original set of 200. Since many of these non-PACA Christians don’t even know who the incumbent is in the state races, then each candidate should statistically get exactly 1 votes of the 10 votes cast.
This is an easier win than the lawyers had with needing more than 2 votes cast from 5 candidates.
For each 100 members of the faith of Christ, sending only a single PACA representative will mean that Christians cannot lose.
Send more than one to make a message of unity.
PACA explanation 5:
Who says a State cannot support a candidate to represent its interests in the United States Senate?
The States should be the only entity or interest even qualified to represent the affairs of the state. Or at least the primary interest. That is the way the Founding Fathers felt when the Constitution was written. How could a Supreme Court rule otherwise? So yes, the State legislatures can endorse a candidate for Senatorial office to represent their state.
With a just and moral Christian State legislature, States would select sterling outstanding moral US Senate candidates who could not lose to the typical non-Christian corrupt candidate we have been given in the past.
This Senatorial campaign would have to be accompanied by a massive educational program to remind voters why it is in the best interests of a “vertical” Checks and Balances between the one single Fed power and the power of the 50 diverse States.
The States’ political education of its own voters should explain the importance of the States having a seat at the federal table.
Our Founding Fathers were absolutely right the way they originally created the Constitution to have the States:
I get ahead of myself to say that the direct election of Senators, enacted in 1913 to strip the States of their vote in the US Senate, was sold as a fraudulent bill of goods and has harmed this country to no end.
PACA explanation 6:
Americans were talked into directly electing their own Senators in 1913, and if you don't believe that was a very, very bad idea, let me give you a very eye-opening example of the folly the States fell for in following the Progressives' lies that everything will be better with the people voting for their own Senator.
Al Franken was elected to represent the people of Minnesota in 2008.
Franken did nothing for the State of Minnesota to be rewarded the job of Senator to represent Minnesota in the Senate. All his fame came from being an silly liberal comedian in the national news service called Saturday Night Live in New York City.
This non-Christian who had voluntarily chosen to leave Minnesota to spent his entire adult life in NYC defeated the non-Christian Senator who had spent his entire formative childhood growing up in NYC.
The election campaign money for Senator of this "fly-over" state was covered from one side to the other with money from NYC and NYC's child, Los Angeles.
The entire election media coverage was covered by the NYC news services, but this media did not inform Minnesota of the issues Minnesotans were really concerned about.
In a word, Al Fraken is not Minnesota-First, nor is he even America-First.
What Al Franken really supports is NYC-First.
What Al Franken will support last, is the Christians of Minnesota. That is - the elective majority.
Just like NYC Hillary vs NYC Trump, Minnesota's only choice was NYC Norm Coleman vs NYC Al Franken.
How is that working out for America?
BUT, THE 17th AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
I need to first prove to you that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional on its face.
I know, sounds crazy. "How can an actual amendment to the Constitution be against the Constitution", you ask yourself?
Not even going to get into the fact that the 17th Amendment was not properly ratified, as I don’t need to. The 17th cannot be a lawful amendment even if 50 of the 50 States were to properly ratify it today.
Our Founding Fathers did intend for the Constitution to be amended, and mostly everything in it can be changed, but the Constitution left one thing which is NEVER allowed to be amended. And that one thing which cannot ever be changed is not surprising when you remember that it was the States who wrote the Constitution.
Article 5 of the Constitution is the part which allows modifications to the Constitution in the way of amendments. It reads:
Constitution - Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Do not be fooled (and they will try), when NYC propagandist tell you that after the word "Provided" there is talk about no amendment being allowed before 1808 and that now we are past 1808, no amendments can be made at all.
The talk about the ninth section of the first Article is talk about stopping the international slave trade.
All thirteen states agreed that the slave trade could be stopped, but only after 20 years had passed. That is, 1788 when they created the Constitution to 20 years into the future, or 1808.
Reason for the first prohibition against changing the Constitution
The first of the two prohibited changes to the Constitution dealt with the hot topic of slavery and it was temporary both in the main part of the Constitution and also in the Amendment changing part of the Constitution.
It states: "no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article" -- Hence , any change to Article 1, Section 9, clauses 1 and 4 are prohibited until 1808 (see that Section 9 below).
Would be silly to agree to a Constitution where States signed it with the understanding that Congress could not prohibit the migration or importation of persons prior to 1808, if a simple Amendment would allow it before 1808.
The Southern States knew the sentiment of the Northern States was to stop slavery, so they insisted upon this limitation on Article 5. Yes, they agreed long term to stop slavery, just not so fast.
To be sure, we will show the two clauses iin the Constitution which was not allowed to be changed before 1808.
Constitution, Article 1, Section. 9:
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Reason for the second prohibition against changing the constitution
As stated in Article V, "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" -- is because the States created the federal government and was not about to give up controlling the beast it created.
Not 20 years later, not ever.
Several States were concerned that an Amendment could be created which would remove their vote. They would not agree to the Constitution without this written into the Constitution that they would never lose their vote in the Senate.
Here is the part where the Constitution says the States chose the Senators.
Constitution, Article 1, Section. 3:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
If the States of Texas or Virginia wanted to have a vote in the United States Senate, then the Constitution allows that vote, NO MATTER WHAT!
Citizens have the right to vote for House of Representatives, but they do not have a right to vote in the US Senate, only the States have that right.
The 17th Amendment proposing direct election of Senators, unconstitutionally stole the vote away from the State, and unconstitutionally gave the States’ own unalienable right to vote in the US Senate to a mere plurality of ordinary citizens in the State.
Even the State legislatures of 1913, who approved the 17th Amendment, cannot hold their own State forever to this agreement to give up its right to vote.
If any current State legislature wanted to exercise its right to vote in the US Senate this very day, then the Constitution does not allow anybody or anything, past, present or future, to prevent them from doing so.
The 17th Amendment is null and void on its face.
PACA explanation 7:
Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, State legislatures came under enormous political pressure from the newly created national press conglomerates and the just invented national radio conglomerates. This newly created non-Christian media falsely reported that it was “Just not American” for the Representatives of The People of a State, to prevent the “democratic” vote of The People in their Senate.
No, not true at all.
What was not American was to handcuff the States who created the federal government, so that they had no say in the federal government they created.
This evil-intentioned, non-Christian movement was called Progressivism.
Of course, the newly created non-Christian national media who had the power to threaten and blackmail State legislatures with election loss for not voting for the 17th Amendment, by convincing the people to “vote the elites” out of office if they refused; by default, also had the power to convince those same voting public to also vote for their own proposed anti-Christian Senatorial candidate into office, who would replace the previous Christian Senators.
You always think you are "draining the swamp" but the swamp never goes away, but does gets a more foul smell.
America converted from State-appointed Senators, to media-appointed Senators.
America converted from devout Christian Senators to CINO Senators (Christian In Name Only) and even actual non-Christian Senators.
Not surprising then that all the corruption we see at the federal level can be traced back to the 17th Amendment, as one-by-one, the terms of State-appointed Senator’s ended.
The 1914 elections saw 1/3 of the Senate have to run for election. The 1916 election another 1/3rd. And during WW1, in 1918, the last 1/3 of Senators had to run for election instead of being appointed.
Since incumbents most always get reelected, then for the next 6 years, the Senate was still pretty much ran by the same Christian men who had been appointed by their Christian state.
America was still safe all the way to 6 years past 1918, or 1924.
Then one by one, the NYC national monopoly started to work its devilish ways and good Christian-first Senators started retiring only to be replaced by non-Christian-First Senators
The only branch of government still holding back "progress" after 1924 was the judicial branch. Justices serve for life and many of the Supreme Court justices were fine Christians confirmed by a Senate still filled by Christians appointed by Christian States.
After the 17th Amendment in 1913, each 2 year election cycle, a third of the Senators now had to stand for election. As always, incumbents win easily, so many of the Christian Senators appointed by States in the past would still win a election.
Time was on the side of the Progressives as one by one, these fine Senators passed away.
By 1933, FDR felt he now had enough federal political power to threaten to pack the remaining Supreme Court, still filled with Christian justices confirmed by pre-1913 State-appointed Christian senators, with new Supreme Court justices selected by FDR and confirmed by the new Media-Appointed Senators.
The Supreme Court buckled.
1933 was the year of America's silent coup d'etah.
The non-Christian elements had gained control and were no longer worried in the least from impeachment by a media-appointed Senate, only worried that the voting public may become aware of what damage occurred through the 17th Amendment.
All three branches of government were corrupt as of 1933.
Just to be clear, prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913, some liberal States such as New York (of course!) had virtually enacted a defacto 17th Amendment. Those State legislators had already felt the thrust of the non-Christian Progressive Movement and had already enacted State laws which allowed their citizens to elect the State Senators directly, instead of retaining the indirect appointments through their State representatives.
Indeed, inherent in Article 5 of the Constitution is the fact that a State can VOLUNTARILY give up its right to appoint their own Senators.
Ordinarily, this implied the right of the State legislators to write laws allowing the Governor of the State to appoint an interim Senator when an emergency vacancy came open, until the slow-moving State legislature could reconvene, discuss a replacement, and then appoint the permanent Senator.
This is often called a recess appointment.
But in a sane world, where vertical Checks and Balances were at play, what State would voluntarily give up its right to vote in the federal senate – for all time - by agreeing to the 17th Amendment?
It is imperative that no State again feel the political pressure to be coerced and blackmailed into giving up their rightful vote in the US Senate.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment must dictate, in its repeal, that no State may ever again neglect its official duty to the federal government in running the affairs of the federal Senate.
For good measure, the State-appoint Senators should be increased to three, with the majority of the three being the State's single vote in the Senate. This would fix the problem of a "rogue" Senator voting against the interests of the State or country, as the State's other two Senators would out vote him.
To fix the problem of a Senator dying in office, automatic replacements should already have been decided upon by the State legislators, much as we do if the President were to die in office.
No governor should ever have a recess appointment. He does not represent the people of the State. Only the legislators do.
It was good for small States to have the same voice as a hugely populated New York or a large land mass Texas, and to argue that this was bad politics neglects the beautiful history of this country before 1913 and what we have tragically witnessed since 1913.
Equality of States should be no different than equality of people. If I am rich or more powerful, I do not get any more votes than the poor or the weak. States are the same.
And before naysayers condemn my previous statement about a glorious pre-1913 era, by referring to the tragedy of the Civil War, and no doubt it was just as tragic as was totally unnecessary to eliminate slavery, but let’s also remember that slavery is no more thanks to that pre-1913 form of government.
Then please remember that 60 million baby’s lives have been wiped out with this post-1913 unchristian form of government.
For anyone to argue that the problems besetting this country resides elsewhere is pure deflection meant to get Christians off-target.
Flack received when over target - remember.
Benefits of a State-ran Senate
The 16th Amendment “Give unto Caesar” income tax amendment could easily be repealed with Christian-based State legislatures and their State-appointed Senators submitting its repeal.
The NYC Federal Reserve will not be putting their hands down your back pants pocket any longer.
The federal government should not be prying into citizen's personal financial information with demands to "show me your (financial) papers" and then taxing American workers with an income tax inside our States.
Instead, the federal government should be taxing non-Christian Chinese foreign companies with tariffs on goods coming into our country as imports; a first step to economically protecting our borders and national sovereignty.
The “money-lenders” at the NYC Federal Reserve could be taken care of with Christian-controlled Houses of Congress.
The “money-lenders” of NYC Wall Street who take all your retirement money, bundled into massive collections of 401K funds and pension funds, to buy up strategic American businesses, in order to place their non-Christian NYC crony friends on the Boards of Directors, (to represent your share-holding interest of course) would stop. Also stopped would be these NYC Wall Street appointed board members then placing Muslim prayer rooms next to homosexual work group rooms, as that also would be fixed by a Christian-controlled Congress.
The non-Christian United Nations would no longer be based in the United States, ran like a mafia out of NYC, with a Christian-controlled Congress.
We will address the inequities of the electronics media age in step 8 and how that led to monopolized free speech, which once again, can and will be fixed by Christian-ran governments.
PACA explanation 8:
Pretty evident that the need for PACA implies the non-Christian media conglomerates rule this country with an iron fist and have not been doing so altruistically toward Christians.
Freedom of the Press and Speech became meaningless the second Walter Cronkite’s image and voice could travel across the entire width and breath of this United States, penetrate through walls of the most fortified home, and be viewed by all Americans, every single night, year after year, decade after decade, without a sole American able to give a rebuttal to what was said.
No one else stood a chance to be heard against this monopoly of free speech power.
And the Internet is now being converted to the same monopoly.
The Founding Fathers had no earthly idea that Benjamin Franklin’s electricity could be harnessed to distribute propaganda into people’s homes.
From that point onward, a man standing on a soap box or a man with a tiny Revolutionary Thomas Paine print shop became virtually powerless to affect change.
UNLESS, that electronic media liked what was said and decided to place the man on the soap box onto their airwaves. If you are a Black Lives Matter or an Antifa soap box kind of person, you have a voice. If you are a Christian calling homosexuality a sin, or calling abortion murder, you will never be heard favorably in their propaganda.
The answer is absolutely NOT to give the federal government the right to break up these speech and press monopolies.
Progressives loved using the power of the federal government to break up oil and steel monopolies, and they used the federal government under Teddy Roosevelt to do so. Progressives were the new power in America with their real crippling monopoly on free speech and insured their own media monopoly was one monopoly which was not going to be reported on.
Everyone else would be destroyed to make room for their new Jacobin reign of terror.
A handful of irrelevant young white men show up at Charlottsville to protest taking down a Confederate statute and the non-Christian media turn the event into an American version of the Reichstag's fire, with all the suppression of freedoms which accompany monopoly power.
Congress shall make no law abridging the Right of Free Speech and Freedom of the Press should stand for all time as the First Amendment.
No one wants a centralized federal government determining if the media is over-stepping its authority, for that would mean killing the wolf with a more dangerous bear - a federally owned and controlled media.
The Founders so carefully crafted a Checks and Balances system throughout government for a purpose, as they knew that unchecked power leads to tyranny, as well as unbalanced power leads to resentment and revolt.
Everyone knows about the horizontal checks and balances where federal power is split into three realms, an Executive power, a legislative power and a judicial power.
We have talked in length here about the vertical checks and balances between the power of the States and the Federal government power where the 50 States check and balance the Federal government, by way of controlling the federal government’s Senate.
But certainly, an unquestioned freedom of the press and speech, not balanced and not checked is just as great a danger.
A danger never imagined in the minds of the Founding Fathers.
Rothschild would say, “Let me print the money and I care not who rules”. That meant he could buy off anyone with enough money. Or pay someone enough to eliminate “problems”.
Likewise, today’s corollary is “Let me control the information, and I care not who rules”
Reputations are all a politician has and the one who controls the information is the one who builds and destroys those reputations.
Not thought a problem by the Founders in 1789, as one man’s voice or one man’s printing press traveled only a short distance. But a huge problem in the electronics age, of instant communications across the entire world.
Media monopolies are a new unforeseen problem the Constitution’s Article V Amendment section was actually created to address.
The solution is not to turn to a Fox News to view American values, as it was created by a non-Christian from Australia, who left for England, before leaving for America, whose sons replacing him are liberal anti-Christian.
The solution is not to turn to Breitbart News for America First ideas, as it was created by a non-Christian, with a globalist reach already extending into England and Israel.
For this reason, PACA proposes Christian-based Senators propose an Amendment to the Constitution dictating the diverse and decentralized Christian-based States create an independent-of-the-federal-government Media regulatory entity. Its sole duty would be to check and balance the press.
A secondary function would be as an investigatory power of federal officials, as is currently done in reverse where the FBI investigates state authorities.
Both need transparent disinfectant.
Both are checks and balances on the other.
PACA explanation 9:
Imagine the breakup of the unbalanced and unchecked non-Christian MS media, who spreads fake news propaganda for the entire country, broadcast into every city, of every state, originating from one city, of one state, New York City, where once again Christian morals and ideals are given view; instead of only non-Christian views.
Imagine this one non-Christian city of New York City not having a monopoly on finance, industry, commerce, advertising, culture, banking, theater, as well as MS media.
Imagine the globalists of the United Nations kicked out of New York City.
Imagine presidential elections where the choice was not New York City's Senator Hillary Clinton against New York City's favorite son Donald Trump.
Imagine having far fewer wars but actually winning those wars once again, when the entire country is truly committed to winning the war for a just and Christian cause.
North Korea is a great example. We fought them only to find they have Hydrogen bombs on ICBMs pointed at us; Vietnam is now communist; whereas, between both of these wars, the Castro boys have mocked us from just off our shores for decades and we have done nothing for fear of what after fighting in North Korea and Vietnam right next door to China?; whereas, we bombed Christians in Serbia to protect throat-slashing Muslims in Kosovo, letting Kosovo to be the only one actually free now.
Imagine a Christian-based foreign policy where fellow Christian nations such as newly-freed-from-communism Russia, who insisted on retaining their base in the Crimea, which they fought and won from the blood-thirsty non-Christian Ottoman Turks centuries ago are not given economic sanctions, but non-Christian communist China, who just illegally seized an entire ocean in South-East Asia far from its shores, while training North Korea on nuclear technology and giving them nuclear material, is the one whom we sanction.
Imagine a country who truly treats all citizens as equals, instead of treating some as virtual prisoners outside prison, such as the Christian bakers mentioned at the beginning.
Imagine fewer Great Depressions and Great Recessions, once the Federal Reserve is defeated, which gave us these troubles.
We had mild business cycles before the Fed and was talked by Progressives into creating the Fed who was actually supposed to make these minor troubles go away, not give us “Great” Troubles.
The very year after the creation of the Fed, the Fed ingrained itself into our government. The Fed...
Non-Christian media lie when pointing to the above laundry list of corruption and say, "Thank God for the Federal Reserve to save us decade after decade since its creation”.
Most Christians would look at the list and say, “How much better would America have been without the Fed?”
Imagine where Christian Truth and Christian Justice once again prevails, where citizens once again have faith in their fellow man.
Imagine federal judges issuing well thought out and well researched opinions, as they once did prior to 1913, since they all knew their lifetime appointments could end at any time with an impeachment by Christian Senators.
Imagine a President actually representing the entire country, because he too knew his term could end up impeached by Christian Senators.
Imagine a country filled with liberty and not filled by an influx of millions of non-Christians wanting to kill liberty – and Christians.