Rogue Government

Rogue Government- Was Donald Trump under surveillance during his presidential bid?”

by Bill Lockwood

As governments tend to grow in size they not only become unwieldy, but oppressive of the very freedoms they are framed to protect. For this reason, the Founders, knowing that the very nature of government is to expand its scope– for it is the nature of man to seek to rule over others, continually warned that the United States Government should remain small and limited at a national level. The powers granted to the Federal government were to remain “few and defined” (James Madison, The Federalist).

Thomas Jefferson reminded us: “Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself.”

Further, he explained, “It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.”

Jefferson then asked, “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun?” The answer: “The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate.” We might add “so also the American Republic.”

The latest “surveillance” revelations apparently made by the Obama Administration on presidential candidate should warn thoughtful citizens that governments that are large enough to take care of you are too large.

Surveillance?

Was Donald Trump under surveillance during his presidential bid? Trump himself tweeted that he was and that Trump Tower had been “wiretapped.” This caused a major explosion among the press as well as members of Congress, Republican and Democrat. Various members of Congress began to investigate.

On Wednesday, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) revealed in a press conference that “US citizens involved in the Trump transition team” were “incidentally” surveilled by the Obama administration. Nunes stated that what his Congressional committee discovered “has nothing to do with Russia,” but “everything to do with possible surveillance activities, and the president needs to know that these intelligence reports are out there …”

Politico reported it this way, “Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during the Obama administration.”

The Daily Wire ran a piece this week which downplayed the significance of the above facts. “And no, nothing Nunes said changed the underlying facts: Team Trump got caught up in incidental collection of information. That’s not the same thing as accusing the intelligence community of violation law in order to target Trump and company.”

Really? Consider the following.

First, The Washington Times reminded us on Monday that according to an NPR report on May 2013 “The Associated Press is protesting what it calls a massive and unprecedented intrusion into its gathering of news. The target of that wrath is the U.S. Justice Department, which secretly collected phone records for several AP reporters last year.” This occurred under Eric Holder’s leadership at the Dept. of Justice. Mass surveillance upon citizens was apparently in the Obama playbook.

Second, the Obama Administration made more than one attempt to get an official government surveillance on presidential nominee Donald Trump. Obama even had the proposed process “converted” in a “national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)” (National Review). The FISA application by Obama was denied. Yet, Obama tried a second time. This again shows Obama was in the spying business, more concerned about potential Republican nominees to the White House than real foreign dangers. The FISA court evidently agreed with that assessment.

Third, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward warned this week that there are persons from the Obama administration who could possibly face criminal charges. The reason is that these individuals illegally “unmasked” the names of the Trump transition team that were in these “incidental” surveillance reports of foreign officials (The Washington Examiner). These names were then illegally passed around by the Obama Administration. This directly answers the Daily Wire claim which said that there was “no violation of law” in incidental surveillance. This is a smoking gun.

As the Examiner reports: Trump and members of his transition team had their identities “unmasked” after their communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials. “The revelation is notable because identities of Americans are generally supposed to remain ‘masked’ if American communications are swept up during surveillance of foreign individuals.”

In conclusion, instead of encouraging everyone to remain calm, as The Daily Wire has done, because there are no apparent “violations of law” in what occurred regarding wire-taps, perhaps it is time the American people awakened to the fact that there is plenty of evidence here to warrant grave concern that our own government has become rogue-enough to spy on its own people with intent to harm.

The real cause of all of this is in the size and scope of the government which we have allowed to grow into unconstitutional mammoth proportions. And this under the siren song that the government can better care for us than we ourselves can. The real issue here is freedom. Will we as a people be able to control our own government or has it grown to such an extent that it now controls us?

John Adams of the Founding generation stated in a letter to his wife in 1775, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” Ominous words these.

RyanCare Does Not Eliminate Government Playing Doctor

RyanCare Does Not Eliminate Government Playing Doctor- …wearing the mantle of Franklin Roosevelt who helped turn America upside down and create a socialistic state…”

by Bill Lockwood

The proposed Republican version of ObamaCare, known as the American Health Care Act (ACHA), is just that– a lighter “version” of the Affordable Care Act—but certainly not a repeal as demanded by voters last fall. It is true that some of the provisions of the ACA, such as the individual mandate, have been cut. However, Republicans have retained their own set of Federal mandates. In the words of Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), “This is not the Obamacare repeal bill we’ve been waiting for. It is a missed opportunity and a step in the wrong direction.” Bottom line: the Republican version of Health Care, the ACHA, fails to recognize that, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “government is the problem.”

First is the AHCA regulation requiring insurers to accept all applicants and charge them the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions. This is known as “community rating.” According to Michael Tennant (The New American, 3-8-17) “community rating” is the cause of the death spiral that health insurance is now experiencing under the ACA. It encourages the sick to buy coverage immediately while the healthy are encouraged to forgo it until they need it. This is why Obama placed individual mandates in the ACA. But free markets are not created by federal pressure, either a Democrat or Republican-controlled Washington, D.C.

Second, RyanCare also prohibits caps on lifetime coverage. According to the government website hhs.gov the current law (ACA) prohibits health plans from putting annual or lifetime dollar limits on most benefits you receive. Previously, “many plans set a lifetime limit—a dollar limit on what they would spend for your covered benefits during the entire time you were enrolled in that plan” (latimes.com).  According to Fortune magazine, “Like Obamacare, ACHA also prohibits insurers from putting an annual or lifetime dollar limit on how much benefits a patient may receive.”

Let’s translate with illustration.

America is plagued with burgeoning health problems, in part caused by such practices as illegal drug use. Young and old alike are flooding into treatment centers because of one type of addiction or another. Many treatments are subsidized by the American taxpayer. This is an “entitlement” pure and simple. Again, no free market and no incentive for personal responsibility.

Third, RyanCare imposes its own mandate known as the “continuing coverage” mandate. Seth Chandler, writing in Forbes online (3-6-17) explains that section 133 of the AHCA requires insurers to charge purchasers a 30% “penalty” if they “obtain coverage in a given year without having had coverage the preceding year.” Individuals are “incentivized” to purchase health insurance “even in those years when they feel the premiums are high relative to their expected costs.”

In other words, the Republicans under Paul Ryan are keeping “mandates”–albeit in a more subtle fashion. “No one will be forced to do so—it won’t be a tax on doing nothing like the ACA imposed—but, if people know about the penalty, it might be fairly effective and feel somewhat less coercive.” It is government coercion just the same.

Fourth, then there is the “tax credit.” The GOP plan retains ObamaCare “tax credits” for the purchase of insurance. These “credits” may sound like tax “cuts,” but in truth they are not. The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon noted, “To the extent that the bill’s modified tax credits are tax reduction … they are the functional equivalent of ObamaCare’s individual mandate.”

This is because the “tax credits” are available only to those who purchase health insurance. Those who do not purchase health insurance must pay more to the IRS than those who do. This is a mandate and another entitlement.

For all the trumpet-blasting by the Republicans as they convene to rid America of the socialistic morass in which the health care industry is now engulfed, they cannot bring themselves to return to a Constitutional concept of limited government where more personal responsibility is required of citizens. Instead, they are wearing the mantle of Franklin Roosevelt who helped turn America upside down and create a socialistic state wherein the workers of America continue to be robbed to pay for more entitlements.

Most importantly, federal government involvement in health care is unconstitutional. Though America is used to thinking of the Constitution in terms of what federal judges, including the Supreme Court, may say it means, those who crafted it were very clear. Samuel Adams, though not of the Constitutional Convention, was Governor of Massachusetts and a delegate to the Continental Congress. He noted,

The utopian schemes of leveling [income redistribution], and a community of goods [central ownership of property], are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”

Benjamin Franklin, the most elderly delegate to the Constitutional Convention, warned us of the collectivist left and its raft of “entitlements.” After living many years in Europe and witnessing redistribution programs first-hand, he had plenty to say about the evils of those systems into which we now have been led. To a friend he wrote, “I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor [in England] is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness.”

Entitlements are the problem. Retaining government mandates and entitlements by RyanCare sustains this unconstitutional system and is why the Republican ACHA is a “step in the wrong direction.” Our politically correct society is churning out young people who have been given subsidized education, food, housing, health care, and even subsidized incarceration. Entitlements incentivize poor choices while punishing responsible choices. RyanCare continues this sad legacy.

 

Obama’s last ditch regulations that devastate 
your property rights

Obama’s last ditch regulations that devastate 
your property rights –In past years, this may not have been problematic since HUD generally left planning up to local communities.”

by John Anthony

In the final days of Obama’s presidency two rules slid under the radar that drive explosive local planning and building costs, transfer control of certain grant-related planning to the government, and render local officials helpless to combat them.

 Federal agencies often enact onerous regulations by couching them in dry sounding names, or titles that appear so munificent only a dark-hearted bean counter would question them.



The first regulation appeared on October 28th of 2016, as Americans focused on the discovery of Hillary-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer. The administration issued a new rule requiring HUD assisted or financed new housing in flood plains to be elevated 2 – 3 feet above the “base flood elevation.”

The rule also applies to “substantial improvements” of existing homes and those covered by HUD’s mortgage insurance. 

The rule, “Flood Plain Management and Protection of Wetlands; Minimum Standards for Flood Hazard Exposure; Building to the Federal Flood Risk Management in Standard,” aligns the agency with Obama’s executive order 13690 which redefined a flood plain to accommodate “climate change.”

Developers argue the rule sharply increases the costs of single and multi-family homes, making home construction less viable. The National Association of Homebuilders notes that President Obama’s EO provides no “scientific or technical documentation”, “no cost-benefit analysis and no floodplain maps.”

In fact, under the order, each agency has the authority to define a flood plain based on its own interpretation of climate change science.

 In their rule, HUD addressed the documentation issue by referencing NOAA’s “2012 Global Sea Rise Scenarios for the United States.” But the controversial report has since been contested and NOAA’s own credibility has suffered from careless documentation and questionable data manipulation.

For homeowners in flood plains, even though HUD’s sources may be unreliable, the consequences for failure to follow the agency’s demands can be hard to escape. Once ensnared in HUD’s grants or financing, there is little local officials can do to mitigate the potentially needless additional construction costs and financial burdens to residents.

The second obstructive rule creates a legal basis for HUD to investigate and potentially sue communities that fail to address climate change in their grant-related planning activities.

 With its tortuous name, “Modernizing HUD’s Consolidated Planning Process to Narrow the Digital Divide and Increase Resilience to Natural Hazards,” the rule forces communities that accept HUD grants under the agency’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation to predict how climate change will affect their neighborhoods. They must then design consolidated plans that reduce the “impacts of climate change on low and moderate income residents.”
 
Like AFFH, this rule fails to define what the agency means by climate change nor how grant recipients are to respond to the increased hazards.

In past years, this may not have been problematic since HUD generally left planning up to local communities. Since 2011, HUD has initiated an unprecedented number of legal actions that have smacked grant recipients including Marin County, CA, Westchester County, NY, Nassau County, NY, Whitehall, PA and many others across the nation for failing to comply with poorly defined demands.

The agency’s actions have led to the loss of grant money, the imposition of massive financial penalties, and the ‘forced’ acceptance of HUD’s “Voluntary Compliance Agreement” that gives the agency even greater control over local land use actions.

 The issue of HUD’s climate change demands in itself is problematic. At best, catastrophic man-made climate change is an idea that has yet to support its originator’s predictions.  At worst, it is a politically driven tool to force socio-economic change based on mass distribution of easily manipulated data.

There is simply no way for a community to plan for a hazard whose definitions are malleable, but whose failure to address them are subject to exorbitant fines and mandates. 

Communities deserve greater clarity about HUD’s climate change expectations, and verifiable data before diving into costly and potentially endless federal campaigns to address a problem that may not exist.

There is good news and a caution. In my report for North Carolina Representative Mark Meadow’s office I did recommend both rules be reversed by the 115th Congress. There is good reason to believe that will happen. Congressman Meadows is the Chairman of the Freedom Caucus, and has included the reversal of these and other regulations as a front-line effort.

Still, this does not relieve our job as community members to work with our local officials and inform them of these rules and begin weaning off federal grant money.

 Call your congressional representatives and tell them to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to remove HUD’s regulations on Floodplain Management (81 FR 74967) and on Modernizing HUD’s Consolidated Planning (FR 5891-F-02.)





About the Author: John Anthony, Founder Sustainable Freedom Lab John Anthony is a nationally acclaimed speaker, researcher and writer. Mr. Anthony is the former Director of Sales and Marketing for Paul Mitchell Systems, Inc.  In 1989, he founded Corporate Measures, LLC, a management development firm. In 2012, Mr. Anthony turned his attention to community issues including the balance between federal agency regulations and local autonomy.

In January 2016, Mr. Anthony was a guest at the prestigious Rutgers University School of Management Fellowship Honoring Dr. Louis Kelso.  In March 2016, he was the keynote speaker on HUD and Property Rights at the Palmetto Panel at Clemson University.

Kathleen Marquardt: Freedom Cannot Exist In an Administrative Form of Government

Freedom Cannot Exist In an Administrative Form of Government “All of the aspects of central planning are scary, but the carbon neutral addition is really scary.”

by Kathleen Marquardt

Freedom cannot exist in an administrative form of government. -H. Lamb

Because so many of us who are trying to stop the theft of our private property and the destruction of local control of our communities have been in this battle for so long, we forget that it is only recently that many American citizens have begun learning of some of the tactics being used just for that.

A few months ago, I took over answering phone and email questions on policy for APC. One of the first emails I responded to was from a couple in Hermosa Beach, California. Hermosa Beach is in the process of finalizing their so-called unique community plan for 2031. I just skimmed over it at first because I am sick of looking at these ‘unique’ community plans that have all the same details, other than maybe one has a beach, one has mountains, and one is pretty much urban. But then I saw the words ‘carbon neutral.’ This is new, but should not have been unexpected.

From their website

You can read for yourself both about the new addition of carbon neutrality and also note that, while the Hermosa Beach plan is not a carbon copy (no pun intended) of every other ‘visioning plan’ across the nation, you’d have a hard time telling them apart if they didn’t put in the little idiosyncrasies of the local terrain.

Some of the goals:

Goal 2. Hermosa Beach is a Carbon Neutral Community by 2040. Climate change, often cited as the environmental crisis of our generation, poses a threat to the safety, health and welfare of the community. The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to being a leader of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has engaged in a number of innovative efforts to move toward carbon neutrality.

Policies 2.1 State targets and goals. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with State targets and goals, and achieve carbon neutrality as a community no later than 2040.

2.3 Diversify GHG reduction strategies. Pursue a diverse mixture of greenhouse gas reduction strategies across the transportation, energy, waste sectors, commensurate with their share of the community’s greenhouse gas emissions.

2.4 Land use and transportation investments. Promote land use and transportation investments that support greater transportation choice, greater local economic opportunity, and reduced number and length of automobile trips.

2.5 Carbon offsets as needed. When necessary, purchase carbon offsets to achieve the community carbon neutral goal.

2.7 Discretionary projects. Require discretionary projects to substantially mitigate all feasible greenhouse gas emissions, and offset the remainder of greenhouse gas emissions produced to meet annual thresholds.

2.8 Ministerial projects. Encourage ministerial projects to directly offset potential greenhouse gas emissions generated.

The City Council accepted the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan and adopted a goal to be carbon neutral by 2020 for municipal facilities and operations. The Plan identifies a pathway to achieve this goal through a combination of implementation measures and offset purchases.

PLAN Hermosa will set the city on a trajectory for a more sustainable future. To do so, this Plan informs and is implemented by the City’s various ordinances, specific plans, programs, and ongoing activities. It sets the City’s overall policies and priorities for how to use and manage its physical, social, and economic resources.

Hermosa Beach residents will utilize the Plan to understand the predominant community consensus regarding how, when, and where the City should develop and change as a place to live, to work, and to invest. Current and potential business owners can utilize the Plan to understand economic development priorities and available resources, while developers use it to understand the City’s development needs, preferences, and desired physical parameters.  P 9

This is pretty much the same in every consensus plan devised today:
The community’s desire to advance sustainability, enhance economic vitality, and preserve the eclectic beach character, was further reinforced through the Community Dialogue process in 2013 and 2014. The community engaged in setting the vision and defining the unique qualities for Hermosa Beach.

The Community Dialogue process culminated in the creation of a Decision-Making tool that aims to: 1. Enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our government. 2. Identify and optimize opportunities for residents and businesses to improve our quality of life in Hermosa Beach. 3. Create a culture of innovation, so that our challenges become our opportunities and our opportunities enhance our community brand. 4. Ensure the values and priorities of all residents and business owners are considered during the analysis and deliberation of actions. 5. Deliver transparency to the decision-making process so that the public can make informed decisions.

Thus, PLAN Hermosa was developed under a broad sustainability framework that aims to: • Link environmental performance with economic vitality; • Enhance coastal protection and sea level rise best practices; • Leverage collaborative partnerships; and • Advance implementation of sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction legislation. Once adopted by the City Council, PLAN Hermosa will form the City’s overarching framework for decisionmaking, with subsequent plans, programs, and activities designed to carry out the community’s vision, goals and policies.

The updated Plan will guide how the City should develop and change, and where funds and resources for infrastructure, services and programs should be directed in a manner that most effectively achieves the community vision.  P 16

I used the Hermosa Beach plan as an example because it has the added carbon neutral aspect. All of the aspects of central planning are scary, but the carbon neutral addition is really scary. You cannot legislate invention, yet government keeps trying. What Hermosa Beach is doing is getting rid of gas before there are viable, economical replacements. This is insane. Given time, this might work; when this is feasible, communities can move forward with this kind of planning.
An important thing to understand about these ‘visioning’ plans for our communities is that they encompass numerous counties in the plan. Perhaps, like here in Knoxville, TN (planET), they started out with a small number of counties, here 5 Counties, One Vision. After the plan was presented and then supposedly it went away, the powers that be added 11 counties that never had a say-so in the visioning (perhaps I should say, they never had a ‘blue smoke and mirrors’ audition). This is the precursor to declaring the regional planning in the area. What’s wrong with regional planning? Wouldn’t it save money and add benefits to areas?

Let the late Henry Lamb explain it succinctly:

So what’s wrong with regional governance? Nothing – unless you value the republican form of government and individual freedom – and detest autocracy in all its forms. Regional governance evolved as a way to get around the obstacles presented by multiple local governments, all of which may have a stake in the region, but often disagree on what the region needs.

Regional governments, and their initiatives, are driven by government, not by the people. Government, by its very nature, seeks to increase its power and overcome any obstacle of disagreement. Once successful method is Regional Governance, which diminishes the power of local governments by conferring increasing levels of authority on the executive branch, which implements its authority through appointed bureaucrats.
In very short order, it is the unelected bureaucrats who wield the power; elected officials become little more than a rubber stamp whose approval provides “official” respectability to the bureaucracy.

(Citizens) . . . across the nation, should realize that once these regional (plans) are in place, there will be no way to return to the republican form of government that allows citizens to expect their city councilman or county commissioner to consider their wishes. The consent of the governed will no longer be a factor in public policy. Virtually all human activity will be subject to the approval of a professional bureaucracy that first creates a plan it thinks is a utopian community, and then requires every person to live when the plan dictates; to travel in a vehicle approved by the plan, to a job allowed by the plan – whether you like it or not. From Sustainable Development Manual (DeWeese).

To watch an enjoyable and elucidating video on how Hermosa Beach residents responded and how other communities might want to respond: https://youtu.be/Isa5HyLiHwk

APC: http://americanpolicy.org/2017/03/06/freedom-cannot-exist-in-an-administrative-form-of-government/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Jesse Lee Peterson: Racism Does Not Exist

RACISM DOES NOT EXIST Jesse Lee Peterson exposes left’s use of lies – to keep anger alive”

by Jesse Lee Peterson

It’s typical of liberals to misdiagnose a problem and then come up with a false solution. Children of the lie live in darkness, yet they judge others and prescribe complicated answers that do more harm than good.

“Racism” is a perfect example.

Look at the division in the country. We’ve had eight years of a “social justice” president and liberal media churning out fake stories of “racism.” Under a pretense of “open dialogue,” they stirred up a series of black riots under the first black president while lionizing dead thugs and their bad parents. They hamstrung the police, and violence and murder increased in black communities around the country. Meanwhile, the politically correct RINO Republican establishment and morally weak Christians around the country failed to speak out.

I’ve been speaking around the country for 27 years to all races and ages, male and female. Wherever I go, all share the same root problem – it’s not “racism,” but much closer to home. It’s self-righteous judgment – which is anger. If you have any anger within, you love no one. You can’t love your family if you hate your enemy (or vice versa). All hateful people show favoritism and discriminate unjustly, yet they think their anger is justified.

Most blacks hate whites. But they are not “racist.” Rather, they hate whites because they are hateful people. They received no real love from their parents, and they believed a lie (that whites are “racist”) to justify their own hatred. I believe Barack Obama’s mother hated her mother. His white grandmother had a negative experience with a black person. She would speak of blacks in a way that seemed “racist” to young brainwashed Barack. In reality, she was traumatized.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

On my radio show, I interviewed a black man in Seattle teaching preschoolers about “racism.” As a boy, he saw blacks beating up whites in the Rodney King L.A. riots. Seeing this, he said, “I don’t want to be black.” His mother taught him that black anger was due to white “racism.” Now he misleads other children. People think they should hate “racism.” Rather, they should overcome the evil of their own anger. Accusing others of “racism” is like the judgmental man with a plank in his own eye thinking he sees a speck in his brother’s eye.

Those who are not open to the truth display the anger I’m talking about. They make up excuses and lies; they refuse to answer questions directly. Those who are open can see that the anger within them is wrong. I recently talked with a middle-aged white woman and a young black man – both related to my message in their deep need to forgive.

The black man was originally from Baltimore. His mother taught him about “racism.” He grew up watching slavery movies. He accompanied “friends” to rob and attack whites and Hispanics who they thought were “racist.” He realized anger was the primary issue facing blacks and all people – a lack of love. People claim slavery was “racist.” It was not. It was opportunistic. They say Jim Crow was “racist.” It wasn’t. It was misguided and unjust – like liberal Democrats’ policies today – government-imposed rules based on judgments about people.

Liberals today decry the drug war, “mass incarceration,” “racial profiling” and discrimination. They believe it is all “racism” and “white supremacy.” Liberals excuse black violence by saying blacks have been backed into a corner – but it was their angry, single, black mothers who abused them.

In my book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame and Victimhood,” I point out that Malcolm X was beaten primarily by his mother. He maintained such love-hate (really hate-hate) emotions toward her that he felt he could kill anyone who made a wrong comment about her.

Another Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, had a mother who tried to abort him with a coat hanger. Today, he’s a hate-filled father figure to many black people. He tries to clean up their outward behavior, yet he nurtures their anger with lies about “injustice.”

Farrakhan said, “The white man is worthy to be hated for what he has done.” Quoting the Bible like Satan, he declared, “God hates!” – and he suggested it’s arrogant not to hate! At the recent “Saviors’ Day” in Detroit, Farrakhan blamed white education for black violence, and he talked up a race war if President Trump tries to clean up Chicago violence. He fed anger at white-on-black crime and at police, when black-on-white crime is far more prevalent.

I’ve interviewed many black preachers who won’t admit that Louis Farrakhan is an evil man. They will not tell the truth because they share his hatred, rejecting my message of love and forgiveness. As with Farrakhan and Malcolm X, their anger came primarily from their mothers, not “racism.”

Stop playing along with the false illusion of “racism.” Liberals use the lie to keep anger alive. Anger is evil. It resides in men and women who pass it down to children of every race. Overcome it, or leave your children worse off than you.

WND: http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/racism-does-not-exist/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

The Venal and Oppressive Police State

The Venal and Oppressive Police State- …the highest levels of the FBI have been secretly investigating and “harvesting” highly confidential information…”

by Bill Lockwood

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another [one branch of government], and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” —Thomas Jefferson

Revelations of mass surveillance are pouring out of Washington, D.C. at an alarming rate. Wiretaps, electronic spying, harvesting of information and bugs not only upon members of the Trump Team, but upon all Americans, has become common knowledge—in complete violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, among others. The Bill of Rights has been completely trashed. What is being forged is a Police State where Gestapo tactics are no longer only “in the wings.”

How has this occurred? How have we landed exactly where Jefferson warned us not to go?

Step back for a moment. A prime cause of the American Gestapo is the gargantuan growth of government which has been occurring at an accelerating rate over the past 100 years. From the time of Woodrow Wilson through FDR, who purposefully brought all power to Washington, D.C., to the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama– government itself has now exponentially matured to fearful proportions. Positioning itself as the benefactor of mankind—witness the welfare state—tentacles of government penetrate all corners of society.

We should not be surprised, therefore, that the highest levels of the FBI have been secretly investigating and “harvesting” highly confidential information that is being used as a political weapon—for this is the nature of government itself. A “dangerous fire” but a “fearful master.” The very opposite of the noble principles of limited government, enshrined in our Constitution, upon which we were founded.

Sadly, we must confess that not only Jefferson and the entire Founding generation warned us of a big government, but our own history in America demonstrates the foolishness of listening to the siren song of the state becoming our savior.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that our forefathers on these shores experimented with socialistic philosophies which entails a large government and by nature involves oppression. Our ancestors weighed these ideas in the scales of human experience and found them to be wanting.

Plymouth Rock & Socialism

When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock on a bleak day in December 1620, it was a colony established “for the glory of God.” Seeds of greatness were planted in American soil. But America’s future greatness depended in large measure upon the fact that the earliest settlers at Plymouth, after experimenting with socialism, flatly rejected collectivism (socialistic redistribution) in order to embrace the biblical teaching of “individualism.”

Collectivism is the political theory that encourages people to think about working for the STATE and to consider themselves as part of a “class” which would be granted certain benefits. Individualism, on the other hand, emphasizes that each individual has rights—that these rights are not granted to “groups” or belong to us because we are of a certain “class.”

Pilgrim fathers discovered at Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts that socialism is doomed to fail. William Bradford, in his work Plymouth Plantation, chronicled the rapid deterioration of the colony as a whole as they approached starvation under a socialistic system. The ideas that the “community” owns the goods and that individuals worked for “the company” instead of themselves produced laziness! This in turn caused the goods to be scarce and starvation began.

Most of all, socialism did not and does not today recognize the true nature of man. Because men are sinful by practice they cannot be expected to labor for no personal reward. Bradford even stated that the system of socialism, “If it did not cut relations God established among men, it did at least diminish and take [remove] mutual respect that should be preserved among men.” Almost sounds like a prophecy of streets in America that are today burning. Bradford and the Pilgrims, thankfully, rejected the socialistic model and warned future Americans of its bedevilment.

Jamestown Experiments with Socialism

Almost the same thing occurred at Jamestown Colony, established a few years earlier than Plymouth. Relying on a socialistic system in which laborers worked for “the colony” and depended upon it to “redistribute” the food supply, Jamestown was dying.

James Hamor, the first secretary of the colony, in his A True Discourse, noted that “glad was the man that could slip from his labor.” Instead, under the leadership of John Smith they adopted private property concepts and individualism and Hamor observed that the colony became ten times more prosperous! Discovered was the fact that socialism breeds hunger as workers came to regard it as a form of “injustice” and a kind of “slavery” that they were required to work.

Revolutionary America

Exactly the same principles were at work during the Revolutionary period. Historian Caleb Perry, in The Constitutional Principles of Thomas Jefferson, observed: “Free enterprise, according to all American historians, was the major issue in the American Revolution and, in the opinion of man, the most important issue. Political freedom was regarded as the necessary means for economic freedom. Irrefutably, the American Revolution was a revolt from the highly regulated economy of mercantilism.”

Mercantilism was, like socialism, a protectionist policy enacted by Great Britain, to assist the wealthy merchant class. It provided a monopoly to the mercantile sector of England as government eliminated competition. Thomas Jefferson himself lamented the socialistic system of bureaucratic regimentation which was part of mercantilism.

Famously he noted, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another [one branch of government], and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” This is exactly where we are. The checks and balances seem powerless.

What are we to learn from all of this? Evil forces have been working tirelessly since America’s inception, to destroy God’s blessing of freedom by creating a gargantuan totalitarian state. Flatly repudiating any connection with the Bible and its legacy of freedom, secular collective ideologies such as Marxism, Nazism or Socialism are not only incompatible with God but create an enormous governing apparatus which “attempts to squeeze human nature into unnatural shapes.”

The very essence and character of government, especially out-of-bounds unconstitutional government, will always be “venal and oppressive.” The police-state will flourish in the dank atmosphere we have crafted in America. If Americans do not roll it back now the unlawful surveillance we are witnessing will become the new norm.  

Jesse Lee Peterson: Trump pulls ‘sick’ Obama out of the shadows

Trump pulls ‘sick’ Obama out of the shadows Jesse Lee Peterson exposes ‘silent coup attempt’ by ‘dishonest’ ex-president”

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Democrats are doing everything they can to prevent President Donald Trump from assuming full control of the U.S. government, including approving the building of a “shadow” government under Barack Obama just two miles from the White House. But Saturday, President Trump pulled Obama out of the shadows – he revealed that “sick” Obama tapped his phones prior to the 2016 presidential election. It’s on!
    President Trump made the allegations via Twitter: “How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis replied: “Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”
    Yet radio host Mark Levin, using establishment media sources, laid out a solid case on “Fox & Friends” that the Obama administration indeed had Trump under surveillance prior to the November elections. Is anyone surprised that lawless Obama would wiretap Trump’s phones? If it weren’t for the lapdog and corrupt media, there would be little doubt that Obama’s administration would be known as the most dishonest and treasonous bunch in U.S. history.
    Obama appointees are wreaking havoc across several government agencies and leaking information to the press in an unprecedented attempt to undermine and destroy Donald Trump. Leaks based on fake documents being pushed by fake news outlets led to the resignation of Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser. Now, the Democrats and left-wing media are targeting Attorney General Jeff Sessions with vague claims about supposedly nefarious Russian contacts.
    Reports indicating that Obama tapped Trump’s phones are credible and very serious, yet the mainstream media are dismissing them. Remember, Obama allowed U.S. intelligence to listen to calls from German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone, and reportedly wiretapped our great ally, Israel, during Iran nuclear negotiations.
    The left and the global elites will never accept Donald Trump, and they will do everything possible to thwart his efforts to drain the swamp, reform the government and implement an America-first agenda. As Paul Sperry revealed in a recent report, Obama has set up his well-funded Organizing for Action group to try to stop Donald Trump from succeeding in his efforts to roll back Obamacare and undo Obama’s policies. Obama’s top aide, Valerie Jarrett, is moving into the Obamas’ Washington, D.C., mansion to help manage their efforts to run a shadow government to carry out nothing less than a silent coup attempt.
    Satan operates in the dark, in the figment of our imagination. But when the lie is exposed, it no longer has any power over us. Obama and his underlings operate just like their father, and when they’re fully exposed, as he was, God willing they’ll also be tossed out of their “kingdom.”
    Obama was not raised by his father, and he was surely spiritually damaged by his self-loathing mother, so he naturally sides with the children of the lie. I write about Obama in my book, “The Antidote.” Obama was raised to hate America and whites – the “oppressors.” Obama grew up angry and, therefore, was susceptible to lies. That’s why he identifies with all the angry blacks and left-wing malcontents. In his hatred, he has become weak, so the only way he can “be strong” is to subvert from the shadows.
    In contrast, Donald Trump is very open and direct in his dealings with people and issues. He is one of the most candid and forthright people we’ve seen on the national stage. If Trump doesn’t like something or believes he is being treated unfairly, he has no problem saying so publicly. Just look at how he took the corrupt liberal media to the woodshed over their unfair and fake news reporting. He corrected a room full of reporters with strength and love out in the open. He is doing the same thing with Obama. He’s dealing with Obama straight up and exposing his evil deeds in public.
    The reason Trump is able to do this is because he has a confidence within that comes from God. If you read his book, “The Art of the Deal,” or listen to his interviews where he talks about his upbringing, President Trump says he was very close to his parents – especially his father. This is what gives him the confidence and ability to deal with people with strength and not take things personally. If you love your father, you love God. It’s a simple spiritual principle.
    President Donald Trump has shown us all how to fight against the left and win. Some of these people are our family, friends and co-workers. If you look closely, you’ll notice that those on the left – like Obama – have no real connection with their earthly father; therefore, they’re angry and are disconnected from God. Seeing the cause of their anger will help us deal compassionately, yet firmly, with them.
    Our president has given a clear signal that the shadow war is over. The battle is on! The time is here for us to step out into the light and help “drain the swamp!”

Jesse Lee Peterson: Angry liberals can’t handle truth, shut down my speech

jsakids

Angry Liberals Can’t Handle Truth, Shut Down My Speech Jesse Lee Peterson gets evicted from event during talk about ‘racism’”

by Jesse Lee Peterson

I spoke to the Southern California Junior State of America, or JSA, winter congress this weekend – to a group of about 860 high schoolers, supposedly 60 to 70 percent liberal. I’ve never seen a better-looking group of young people: The boys wore suits and ties, and the girls wore dresses and heels. (Some wore pantsuits.)

My talk followed a liberal California state assemblyman’s speech. I was scheduled for an hour, consisting of a 25- to 45-minute speech followed by Q&A – but I was thrown out before the 25-minute mark. I started out saying my book, “The Antidote,” proves “racism” does not exist, that it’s a lie made up to divide and conquer through anger. Angry people feel like victims, and all victims are pathetic. (Some loved this message.)

I explained how Barack Obama divided the races like no other time in history, because he’s all about politics, power and wealth – liberals do not care about people. Obama pitted blacks against whites and police. They’d been set up to hate by their lying false leaders over the decades. Most who run into trouble with police are criminals – thugs like Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin, whose home lives I described. The high schoolers burst out in shouting and jeers when I told the truth about the two dead icons of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Around 15 minutes into my talk, the JSA governor, high-school senior Justin Wittekind, asked me to begin Q&A early. Immediately, dozens of students lined up on both sides of the room to ask their questions.
My answers to their questions each caused an uproar. Unfortunately, only about four people – all girls – were allowed to state their case and ask questions before they decided to shut me down completely.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Two girls questioned my position that “racism” does not exist. They brought statistics they think prove “racism” does exist. I explained that blacks have created a negative reputation for themselves through dangerous neighborhoods, robbery, rape and murder of one another and of white people. I said liberals are liars, and you can’t trust their “studies” or anything a liberal has to say.

One girl said “LGBT rights” are very important to her, and she described disproportionate “LGBT” suffering with information from Human Rights Campaign. I responded by saying there’s no such thing as “LGBT rights.” Before I could elaborate, the crowd burst in cries of outrage. Justin came to the mic and said, “We don’t agree with that,” and that we should not discuss that topic because we won’t agree, and the crowd wouldn’t be able to handle it. But the crowd wanted to hear it and shouted when he cut off the topic.

Before we moved on, I added that the same laws that protect all Americans protect homosexuals and other “LGBT” people. We don’t need “special” laws for “special” people. Finally, one girl asked: If “racism” does not exist, then what is the purpose of Black Lives Matter – why do we need it? I said Black Lives Matter is an evil, angry, agitated group – it’s worse than the KKK.

At this, the crowd screamed louder than ever. One young man tried to rush the stage. He was being pushed back as he shouted that they killed his great-grandfather. (He later interrupted conservative young guys talking to me to dispute the facts about Trayvon Martin. When we left, he cursed at me and flipped me off. He was so angry.)

The adult program director for JSA, liberal feminist Obama supporter Yvonne England, put her hands on me twice to pull me away from the mic and prevent me from speaking. She did not want me to mention God in my speech or say Obama is the worst president we’ve ever had. She told me I’m “never coming back,” upset that I “made kids cry.” I told her not to touch me.

Despite her assault, I concluded my speech to the young people by telling them, “I want you to start thinking for yourself,” to consider what’s right and wrong and not just accept what they’re told. Yvonne stood there fuming behind me.

Justin told the crowd his heart had never beat so fast in his life. He repeatedly promised students the opportunity to talk and interrogate my ideas outside. Students immediately joined me outside. More than ever, young people lack good fathers. So they hate men and they hate truth. Barna Group reports 59 percent of millennials who grew up in the church have dropped out.

I could recognize the young people who are confident and happy. They love me, they’re conservative and they can handle disagreement. They’re in the minority among insane liberal crowds. I pray that they continue to set the example for the other youth who never saw this strength in their homes.

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

What’s the Problem, Republicans?

ocarebandaid

What’s the Problem, Republicans?- “Turn it around. Repeal ObamaCare now…”

by Bill Lockwood

According to The Washington Post, Republicans have voted a total of 54 times to repeal, revoke, or tweak the ObamaCare (Affordable Care Act) law during President Obama’s tenure in office. Voters continually heard the whining from Republicans that they, at first, did not have enough votes to repeal it completely. Then we gave them both houses of Congress. Whimpering from Republicans took on a new form: “President Obama will just veto our bills.” Now Republicans have both houses of Congress as well as the Oval Office. But, according to multiple media reports, a plan by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) will simply “repair” it. This is deception.

According to Ken Cuccinelli, the president of Senate Conservatives Action, the plan written by the House includes advanceable, refundable tax credits to buy insurance—a costly new entitlement. More empowering of the IRS to write checks to people who pay no taxes is not what the Trump Revolution is about!

Ryan’s plan also includes retaining portions of ObamaCare, including Medicaid expansion. Growth of government. Senator Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), another leading Neo-Con, is poised to accuse the opposition to RyanCare of “blocking repeal”, when in point of fact they are betraying the American Voter.

This reminds me of what President Reagan used to lament: government programs are the nearest thing to eternal life found on this planet. Especially is this the case when Republicans have not the backbone, will, fortitude, or desire to roll back government expansion that citizens might enjoy God-given liberty.

Former Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who now heads the Heritage Foundation, says it just right: “We must and we can repeal ObamaCare now… They should send that same bill to President Trump right now.” I suggest that conservatives take the position of the much criticized Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). She said, “Let’s pass it [ObamaCare] to find out what’s in it.” Turn it around. REPEAL ObamaCare now—then we will worry about what are the effects and what to do about them tomorrow.

Democrats complain that up to 18 million insured will lose their coverage. This argument illustrates that the Democrats are always playing fast-pitch hardball and the Republicans are playing slow-pitch softball. What did Obama “care” that millions would lose their current coverage; pay higher premiums; pay huge deductibles; have inferior plans; be forced to purchase coverages that they did not need; be forced into poorer care?

Costs of coverage under ObamaCare in Arizona have sky-rocketed over 100%. In Oklahoma it is the same as well as numerous other states. Jonathan Gruber, the chief architect of ObamaCare, admitted that they had to LIE to the American people in order to get it passed, which Obama was nimble enough with a compliant media to do. Democrats knew full-well that all of this turmoil would ensue after cramming through mandated medicine. They were simply elated to push us into a more socialized state.

If Republicans cannot get as excited to return to a more limited government by negating the most unpopular expansion of government since the time of FDR—Repeal ObamaCare Now—they will ensure that Donald Trump will be a one-term president.

Ron Hosko: Ignorance Posing as Art: Fanning Flames of Police-Citizen Divide

artviolence

Ignorance Posing as Art: Fanning Flames of Police-Citizen Divide

by Ron Hosko

In January of this year a painting by David Pulphus hangs in a hallway displaying paintings by high school students selected by their member of congress on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Zach Gibson)
pulhuspigpaintingLast week, we learned of separate imbroglios in our Nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., both involving what was depicted as “works of art.”
In one case, American University played host to a 9-foot wooden carving by a person using the moniker Rigo 23 which purported to mimic a self-portrait of American Indian “activist” Leonard Peltier. While few would disagree that the history of the American Indian has been replete with sadness and tragedy, the subject matter, Leonard Peltier, was a disgraceful, appalling representative of that struggle.
Simply stated, Peltier is a convicted killer of two FBI Agents, Ron Williams and Jack Coler on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota on June 26, 1975. The killings of agents Williams and Coler were anything but accidental – their car had over 125 bullet holes and their bodies showed evidence of having been killed at close range by a .223 type bullets. The carnage of that day still stands as one of the FBI’s bloodiest.
Rigo 23’s celebrated subject matter has appealed his conviction on multiple grounds, on multiple occasions, each time, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, failing. So he sits, rightfully convicted, in federal prison, currently desperate for an Obama clemency order that will never come.
While starving-artist Rigo 23 and others who blindly believe in the stream of falsities propounded by Peltier and his allies now complain that their freedom of expression is being muted, American University’s eyes have, albeit belatedly, been opened and the wooden disgrace has been removed from its prominent location.  Law enforcement, particularly the FBI, are deaf to the complaints, knowing that mere removal of a patently offensive idol is far gentler treatment than Peltier gave two FBI agents, which was point-blank execution.
Meanwhile, U.S. Congressman Lacy Clay from Missouri, tried to one-up Rigo 23 in a battle for the Most Ignorant award of 2017, when he hung in the Congressional Annex a painting depicting police as pigs. Reportedly painted by a Cardinal Ritter College Prep graduate, the painting was offered heavy praise in the annual Congressional Art competition.
This is the state of affairs in the “conversation” on American criminal justice today – a prominent university displaying a statue of the cold blooded killer of two FBI agents and a U.S. Congressman anointing as a painting competition winner the depiction of police as farm animals and displaying the winning “art” in the halls of Congress. These are the institutions we presumably look to for knowledge, for righteousness, for wisdom.

Kudos to American University for listening to the rest of the story, as provided by the FBI Agents Association, and kudos to Congressman Duncan Hunter for personally removing the Clay painting, over which law enforcement was outraged. These pieces aren’t art, they are ignorance. They ignore the truth. They ignore the true heart of law enforcement. They ignore the challenging state of law enforcement and citizen relations today that need more ways to come together than divide.

Read Rob Hosko’s Biography

JOHN ANTHONY: HUD NEEDS FAITH INITIATIVES TO SHRINK POVERTY

hudkind

HUD Needs Faith Initiatives to Shrink Poverty –The theory goes that by living in more affluent areas, the success of the well-off will carry over to those who are struggling.

”

by John Anthony

Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has expanded its mandate to enforce these laws by labeling everything that is not equal, from the educational experience and housing, to the relative wealth of your residential zip code, as discriminatory.

HUD, formed as part of President Johnson’s “Great Society,” has assumed the role of lifting the poor from poverty.  A “great” cause perhaps, but one which the agency is ill-equipped to administer.

 HUD employs initiatives like “Move to Opportunity” and “socioeconomic diversity” to pull low-income families out of poverty…by moving them.

The theory goes that by living in more affluent areas, the success of the well-off will carry over to those who are struggling.

 Soon to be HUD Secretary, Dr. Ben Carson, in a 2015 op-ed, compared the Obama administration’s efforts to the “failure of school busing.” He is right.

 Relocating low-income families as if they were hair plugs in a federally funded transplant operation does not grow prosperity.

Just ask the families in East Palo Alto, California where students have been shipped into tony Silicon Valley for nearly a quarter century. At best the results are mixed and decades later, classmates still hang out with their friends from the old neighborhood. 

HUD’s upward mobility programs are bound to fail because they contain no mechanism for helping people build economic success.

Rather than accept the fundamental truth that mental attitude and job opportunities are key to financial advancement, the agency instead uses its own circular logic. HUD concludes that financial lack is the result of discrimination, and reasons it is the discrimination that prevents the poor from living where there is less financial lack. Hence their solution, move them “to opportunity.”

HUD’s anti-poverty approach is reminiscent of Mark Twain’s old truism, “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” To HUD, armed with civil rights law, everything looks like discrimination.

 But communities are already beginning to eliminate poverty using faith based programs that help people get jobs and leave discrimination in the rear view window.

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Pastor Jerome Smith is working with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) to develop the Joseph Project. Sen. Johnson, formerly a successful business owner, knows that good paying jobs are critical if people are to exit poverty. But, good jobs require solid training and emotional fitness.

 The Joseph Project teaches class members from low-income communities the fundamentals of communication, resume completion, and how to present themselves at the hiring interview.

Pastor Smith is a street-wise, high-energy, speaker who connects with students through his emotion-filled messages that include spiritualism, tough love and self-help. Instructor Scott Bolstad ducks his head entering doorways. The big man hammers home the ABC’s of landing that new job with gutsy straight talk and active role-playing that engages the students and brings them back to class on time.  Scott expects no less.

 By the end of a single week, the class is a team.

The Joseph Project has a placement record that would be the envy of most professional job firms. As of this writing, 76% of graduates found better paying jobs than before taking the classes, and once hired, their retention rate is 70%. 

I visited with Ron, Pastor and Scott in February. We will be working together to help launch the Miss Mary Project in Chattanooga, TN.

In addition to interviewing and soft-skills, the Miss Mary Project will also provide training in budgeting, building savings, and financial responsibility. Students learn that property rights include the money they earn and the home they one day will own, and why it is important to be wary of programs that limit the use of personal property.

The Miss Mary Project provides mentors and a long-term follow-up program to help graduates remain committed to their own financial and spiritual success.
 
Finally, we show students why no one can be independent until they are free of the government. For those used to accepting federal help, this is a new message, but one we find they appreciate. By increasing voucher values, food stamps and free programs, HUD does more to institutionalize dependence than to foster upward mobility.

The real key to prosperity is to help people stand on their own so they do not need federal help. 

Programs like The Joseph Project and the Miss Mary Project create real sustainable success that can blossom into prosperity and change lives. If HUD will use their vast communications network to support those community efforts, we will shrink poverty.




About the Author: John Anthony, Founder Sustainable Freedom Lab John Anthony is a nationally acclaimed speaker, researcher and writer. Mr. Anthony is the former Director of Sales and Marketing for Paul Mitchell Systems, Inc.  In 1989, he founded Corporate Measures, LLC, a management development firm. In 2012, Mr. Anthony turned his attention to community issues including the balance between federal agency regulations and local autonomy.

In January 2016, Mr. Anthony was a guest at the prestigious Rutgers University School of Management Fellowship Honoring Dr. Louis Kelso.  In March 2016, he was the keynote speaker on HUD and Property Rights at the Palmetto Panel at Clemson University.

THE NOT SO COLD WAR OF URBAN RENEWAL AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING

d-c-swamp

The Not So Cold War of Urban Renewal and Social Engineering – “Our government has been corrupted for many decades… ”

by Kathleen Marquardt

Tom DeWeese, founder and president to the American Policy Center, has been telling you all the latest with AFFH, HUD, DOT, and the rest of the swamp. That is, the recent part of the swamp that is our federal government. But the swamp is far deeper, far murkier, and far more sinister in its aims than most people are willing to believe. And it is being promoted by the Pope, Mark Zuckerberg, the UN, and the world’s elite.

I am trying to keep this somewhat short, but there is so much background that needs to be exposed to the light of day. If you can’t read it all, scan it; things will pop out and you will be surprised at the evil in our swamp. I was always told that before air conditioning, foreign governments paid their US embassy staff hazardous duty pay above their regular salaries for working in DC because it was built on a swamp. Now I wonder if there was a second reason, a second swamp to be negotiated.

Communitarians suggest a series of measures that would significantly enhance public safety and public health, without endangering basic individual rights and constitutional protections. Often these modifications entail no mare than limited reinterpretations of legal traditions – for instance, of what constitutes reasonable search and seizure, which, of course, the Constitution allows. Such reinterpretations have been taking place continuously over the past two hundred years.

There are those who openly admit that the courts, especially the US Supreme Court, treat the Constitution as a living document that may be modified to respond to the changing times and changes in our moral values. Others argue that the Constitution is to be treated as a sacred text that is unalterable. The latter group of legal scholars does its adjusting of the Constitution by interpreting what they see as the Founding Fathers’ intent. In either case, we are not irrevocably bound by what was written two hundred years ago. Amitai Etzioni, The Spirit of Community – the Reinvention of American Society.

Our changing moral values” and “we are not irrevocably bound by what was written two hundred years ago.” Unless one believes in moral relativity, morality is not readily mutable. But in order to move from individual rights and freedom to socialism/communitarianism, communism and, as Mary Parker Follett says, the ‘state (UN) ‘. . .must be a coordinating agency. It must appear as the great moral leader. Its supreme function is moral ordering,” and individuals be damned.

Urban Renewal

Jo Hindman wrote the following in1966; the only difference today is that there is no international cold war.
Much is written about the international cold war, but little about the incognito warfare on United States soil which public officials and their accomplices are waging to wrest private property from landowners.
The strategy is to make property ownership so unbearable by harassment through building inspections, remodeling orders, fines and jailings, that owners give up in despair and sell to land developers at cut-rate prices. Punitive municipal codes are the weapons in the warfare.

Hindman also wrote, “Planning assistance subsidized by Federal money leads small cities and counties into direct obedience under a regional master plan. Land use rights are literally stolen from landowners when zoning is applied to land.”

Now you might think, so what, there is no cold war and Trump says he is going to rid our country of anything that is evil. Hold on to your hats and your tongues. I want to show you some things from our not too distant history. Our government has been corrupted for many decades; we are not going to get rid of the rot and poison with 500 executive orders. This was written 32 years before the Rio Accord gave us Agenda 21. It is from the Constitution of the American Institute of Planners, the forerunner of the American Planning Association.

The 60s’ American Institute of Planners makes no bones about its socialist stance regarding land; its constitution states AIP’s ‘particular sphere of activity shall be the planning of the unified development of urban communities and their environs and of states, regions, and the nation as expressed through determination of the comprehensive arrangement of land uses and land occupancy and the regulation thereof.’  (AIP {forerunner of APA} Constitution, 1960) The next step – Amatai Etzioni is not hiding what is going on. To make our physical environment more community-friendly, our homes, places of work, streets, and public spaces – whole developments, suburbs, and even whole cities – need to be designed to enhance the Communitarian nexus. Etzioni, p.127

Is that spelled out clear enough? The next texts are from The Ideal Communist City by Alexei Gutnov, et al, published in 1968. It’s a lot, but it is also spelled out clearly with no ambiguity as to how much planning is being done of every aspect of life.

This book was initiated by the architecture-faculty of the University of Moscow in the late fifties. For the Italian edition in 1968 the material was enlarged and revised by the authors, a group of young urbanists, architects, and sociologists, who represent a renewal of ideas and men that is taking place in Soviet Russia, especially in fields concerned with the organization of the physical environment.

Their work is particularly original in its general assumptions, method of inquiry, and choice of models. The authors turn away from the proposition that the city should attempt to restore the habits and appearance of the countryside. This proposition adapted from the bourgeois naturalism of the nineteenth century, contradicted the ideological foundations of communism. Read More

APC: http://americanpolicy.org/2017/02/22/the-not-so-cold-war-of-urban-renewal-and-social-engineering/?mc_cid=8b66a59204&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

 

“We are All Muslim?”

michael-moore

“We are All Muslim?”- Michael Moore says to Donald Trump: “We are all Muslim. Deal with it.”

by Bill Lockwood

National Public Radio website highlighted a “We are All Muslim” rally in New York City’s Times Square this past weekend. Designed to express solidarity with Muslims in protest to President Trump’s executive orders that temporarily suspends immigration from 7 terrorist nations which are predominantly Muslim, the rally was organized by the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. The FFEU is a “coalition of religious groups led by record label founder Russell Simmons, Rabbi Marc Scheider and others…” Simmons decried that the president is intent on being a “wrecking ball … to destroy our nation’s foundation of freedom.”

Barack Obama’s stated goal for this nation was Fundamental Transformation. It appears he was successful at least to this degree: Liberals have fundamentally transformed their own thinking processes so that they have become mindless robots unwilling to examine basic structures of thought and doctrine. The Foundation apparently believes that more “ethnic understanding” will alleviate our problem.

First, Islam itself is a system of slavery. For example, Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani immigrant who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square and was later was sentenced to jail in 2010 defiantly told to the court: “We do not accept your democracy or your freedom because we already have Sharia law and freedom.” Was Shahzad expressing some “extremist view” of Islam? Not at all. In reality, Islam is a system of totalitarian slavery that looks very different from freedom.

Imam al-Mawardi wrote in 1996 that because people reject Mohammed as a prophet Islam law “dictates that Jews and Christians may live in Islamic states, but not as equals with Muslims.” They must not build churches; they may be forced to quarter Muslims; they are subjected to humiliating regulations such as the payment of the “jizya”—a second-class citizen tax.

The Koran itself teaches that “men are better than women” (4:34); that a woman’s testimony in court is only one-half as valid as a man’s because “she is forgetful” and needs another to assist her memory; polygamy is taught only for the man. Chattel slavery itself was encouraged by Mohammed: “Marry women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one or a captive slave that your right hand possesses…” (4:3).

Michael Moore says, “We are all Muslim.” Really? Perhaps he ought remove his little ball cap, sit down and actually read the Koran; stand up like a man and tell us why he defends chattel slavery and expresses solidarity with it. Tell us, Michael Moore, why do you defend Mohammed who declared that women are only one-half as good as men? “We are all Muslim” can only mean you defend that doctrine.

Again, from the Koran: “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered—the freeman for the freeman; and the slave for the slave; and the female for the female” (2:178). The Jalalan Commentary on this verse says, “The same punishment was imposed on believers and what is similar to the act of the crime in the case of a homicide, … A freeman should be killed for another freeman but not for a slave, a female for a female, but a Muslim (even if he is a slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if that infidel is a freeman.”

Slaves are “not equal” with freemen. This is Islam. Michael Moore says to Donald Trump: “We are all Muslim. Deal with it.” Well, according to Islamic doctrine, you, Mikey, are not equal to Muslims. You are only one-half as valuable. Deal with it.

To really get the lesson, let some of these women, including the Muslim women who were wearing “American flag hijabs” in the New York rally and speaking out against Trump—go over to an Islamic nation such as Afghanistan or Pakistan—rally in the street, speak openly and socialize with men. The “equality” of Islamic ideals of which you speak would bring a severe beating and jail-time for public lewdness and daring to think that Islam gives you freedom of expression. Michael Moore is right that “we are all children of God” and should be treated this way, but basic inhuman principles of Islam are those with which we are dealing, and those are carried here by Muslim people.

Second, Islam is a system of totalitarian warfare. The supposed 124 verses in the Koran which teach “peace” are all “abrogated” by commands from Mohammed himself which call for violent war and jihad. All religious Muslim scholars attest to this fact. The last word in the Koran on how a Muslim is to deal with unbelievers is Surah 9:5, “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

According to the Suyuti scholars, “The order for Muslims to be patient and forgiving was issued when they were few and weak, but when they became strong they were ordered to fight and the previous verses were abrogated” (Part 3, p. 61). Ibn Arabi said, “The verse of the sword (9:5) has abrogated 124 verses.”

Samuel Zwemer (The Moslem World, 48) put it succinctly. “The spread of Islam in three continents for well-nigh twelve centuries was due to the power of the sword and to the law moral standards of the new faith.”  This is what Michael Moore and the FFEU are wishing to bring to America. Low moral standards.

Third, the Main Stream Media and liberals do not know what is real Christianity. A couple of years ago Michael Moore was hosted on “Real Time” with Bill Maher and related that the United States is in the “dark ages” because of the Christian right. He then equated “Christian extremism” with “Islamic extremism” (The Christian Post).

What Moore and his ilk refuse to see is that Roman Catholic Church (RCC) of the Middle Ages, which brought us the Dark Ages, is nothing akin to Christianity. The Roman system itself is bold apostasy from pure New Testament Christianity. It is nothing less than a crushing authoritative secular government joined with a few Christian principles. Nothing of the RCC hierarchy, the pope, the cardinals; nor any of its canon laws, its worship practices, its images, its peculiar doctrines or any vestige that makes the Roman Church Roman is found upon the pages of Holy Writ.

The Roman Church herself fielded armies and conquered territories just as has Islam. She persecuted to blood thousands of Christians for translating the Bible into the common vernacular. None of this is defensible biblically speaking. These are actions of a secular government, which is what is the Roman Church. The point here, however, is that it is popular to equate Muslim atrocities with so-called “Christian atrocities” of ages past. Nothing could be further from the truth. New Testament Christianity does not teach nor practice any of this, no more than our Lord Jesus Christ fielded armies to fight against the Romans.

We are not all Muslim. Some of us hold to Christian principles which instill freedom instead of oppression.

« Older Entries