Tom DeWeese: Why Property Rights Matter Prosperity – Stability – Freedom

by Tom DeWeese

There is an all out assault taking place in nearly every community against private property ownership. It’s being perpetrated at every level of government and funded by taxpayer grants. Yet few property owners raise objections, mainly because today most don’t have the basic understanding of the right of property ownership and its vital place in preserving our nation’s prosperity, economic stability and foundation of freedom.

Most Americans tend to think of private property simply as a home — the place where the family resides, store their belongings and find shelter and safety from the elements. It’s where you live. It’s yours because you pay the mortgage and the taxes. That’s about the extent of thought given to property ownership in today’s America.

There was a time when property ownership was considered to be much more. Property, and the ability to own and control it, was life itself. The great economist, John Locke, whose writings and ideas had major influence on the nation’s founders, believed that “life and liberty are secure only so long as the right of property is secure.”

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

Locke advocated that if property rights protection did not exist then the incentive for an industrious person to develop and improve property would be destroyed; depriving that person of the fruits of his labor; that marauding bands would confiscate by force the goods produced by others; and that mankind would be impelled to remain on a bare subsistence level of hand to mouth survival from fear that the accumulation of anything of value would invite attack.

Homeownership, and the equity it creates, has been the main source of wealth for millions of Americans. It’s the reason the United States was able to build incredible wealth and rise above much older nations. Sixty percent of American businesses were created by homeowners using the equity from their homes. Where private property is disallowed teeming and unrelenting poverty is the result.

Locke’s fears have become reality today through the innocent sounding term called “Sustainable Development. Under that banner, the very concept of property rights is being targeted as unrealistic in a drive to reorganize our communities through strict planning regulations.

Proponents define Sustainable Development as: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  According to its advocates, to achieve that goal requires massive amounts of land and natural resources to be permanently locked away from use; which translates to control, not conservation, as many perceive it to mean.

Sustainable Development requires a complete transformation of American society that will affect our system of justice, our economic system, and our ability to make individual life choices such as careers, family size, and the location of our homes.

The best known form of the Sustainable transformation is called Smart Growth. We’re told this policy is necessary to create the community of the future, to guarantee effective planning, and, most importantly, to protect the environment by reducing our carbon footprint to combat climate change.

Attending a local public meeting where the community‘s new “visioning” plan is being promoted, citizens will be assured that everything has been prepared by local leaders simply to address unique problems and well-laid plan for the future. However, a little research will show, ironically, that almost every community in every state has a nearly identical plan in process, usually ending with numbers like 2030 or 2050. One can also search the Internet and find such plans as Jamaica 2050 and Dubai 2050. They cover the world and most importantly – they are all the same basic plan no matter where they are, nationally or globally. One thing they all have in common – none of them are LOCAL!… CONTINUE READING ON OUR WEBSITE

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/30/why-property-rights-matter-prosperity-stability-freedom/?mc_cid=64f875b2fd&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: Genocide Against the American Indians?

Genocide Against the American Indians?“The term “genocide” was coined in 1944 by a Polish Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959)…”

by Bill Lockwood

Part of the hate-America program designed to erase our cherished ideals of freedom is the continual program that portrays early American white settlers and the United States Government itself as having committed planned genocide against the American Indian. For these “historical crimes” Americans are now being called upon to pay “reparations” to the noble Red Man.

For example, in the DePaul Law Review (2002), appeared a piece entitled The Need for Accountability and Reparation: 1830-1976, the United States’ Government Role in the Promotion, Implementation, and Execution of the Crime of Genocide Against Native Americans, author Lindsay Glauner argues that in the “colonization” of America, our ancestors engaged in one of the most heinous acts of criminality against mankind—Genocide. This “international crime,” Glauner insists, now demands reparation.

Writer S.L.A. Marshall, an acclaimed military historian, reminds us in Crimsoned Prairie (1972), however, that this is all simply vogue. It is the bash-America curriculum fashionable at multi-levels of education. “Not all Indians were virtuous and trustworthy, and not all white men were greedy and unscrupulous.”

It is true that the United States government and individuals many times grievously wronged the tribes of Indians on this continent. But a balanced view of history is not so one-sided. The wars of the West were unavoidable, not because of the greedy white man, but because of a complete clash of cultures. And, far from falling into a category of systematic extermination or even planned genocide, our government had a multi-faceted and changing approach to the West, seeking to adapt itself to an increasing volatile situation.

Genocide?

The term “genocide” was coined in 1944 by a Polish Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959), who documented Nazi government policies of “systematically destroying national and ethnic groups, including the mass murder of European Jews.” The term “genocide” combines the Greek term geno, meaning tribe or race, with the Latin suffix –cide, meaning “to kill.” Lemkin defined the term as a “coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”

Official United States’ policy toward the Indian was never one of planned systematic extermination. Thoughtful reflection on the root causes of the Indian Wars of the West shows that the causes were multiple and on the whole, unavoidable.

Marshall observes that,

The wars were not the poison fruit of bureaucratic negligence, nor were they strictly the evil consequence of white exploiters cheating the Plains Indians of his lawful property, though all too frequently they were given that appearance with Government giving its backing to the exploiters. Rather, violence beset the western frontier and lasted and lasted because the fundamental interests of the two sides were so wholly irreconcilable as to leave little or no room for compromise.

Consider the following.

First, before the coming of the white man to the Great Plains, life was not an idyllic existence and the “spirit of live-and-let-live” did not exist—in spite of what popular opinion may be. Pawnees killed hundreds of Navajo’s, Comanche’s made war on the Apache’s, The Sioux hated the Pawnee and the Crow. The territory of the Northern States occupied by the Sioux and earlier the Blackfeet belonged traditionally to other tribes which they displaced by incessant war.

Intertribal warfare developed out of the desire to dominate the richest game land, enlarge the pony herds, and loot weapons.” The Indian tribes continued aggressively to push one another all over the map. The “ancestral lands” belonging to particular tribes and villages was continually changing. To believe that European settlers introduced wars to the Great Plains and were the Great Perpetrators of violence is to ignore history.

Greedy whites may be guilty of many crimes against the Indian and so may the army, but neither one nor the other may be rightly accused of making warlike the Sioux Confederation.”

Added to that is that the structure of Indian society, frequently misunderstood by the white man, did not lend itself to making treaties. The United States Government was not able to control the flowing population of settlers moving West and neither was a chief of an Indian tribe able to bind braves to a council decision to which the chiefs had agreed.

As a matter of fact, Indian males “achieved status and political importance from their deeds in war or from their feats of as plunderers, either actual or what they could make others believe they had done. For extra claiming and great boasting were expected of them.” These deeds were accomplished on an individual basis. One of the outstanding unusual features of the Oglala Sioux warrior Crazy Horse was the fact that he did not participate in self-congratulation of deeds accomplished. So peculiar was this to Indian society that it is noted by all of his biographers.

Second, official U.S. Government policy continued to change as time moved forward. In the 1820’s, for example, a line of ten small forts was built, “running from Minnesota in the north to Louisiana in the south. These lightly manned and insignificantly armed garrison points were intended to serve as a Western World ‘Great Wall of China.’ Their placement established what was officially termed the ‘Permanent Indian Frontier.’” That it was impossible to maintain this boundary of westward expansion can readily be seen. Encroachment began in earnest in the 1840’s by American moving west, but it was hardly a planned program of Indian extermination which inaugurated it. The country was open country and tribal territory only by force of numbers. There is nothing evil about settlers roaming the West as had the Indians for decades and centuries.

This brings us to a third consideration, which is the fact that the inevitable traffic flow that moved toward the Pacific coast is what caused friction—not government policy. Differences between white and red men were “moving to a dead end.” The clash of cultural concepts in this movement was inevitable. “It was no more possible for Indians to keep their hand off of a carelessly guarded horse corral or a vulnerable herd of cattle,” writes Marshall, “than it was for the white man to abandon the rule that private property was sacred.”

The Indian knew no law against raiding. Horse stealing or the running off of someone else’s beeves was to his mind an achievement, a stroke to his credit, a coup. The two scales of values were as unlike as crimson and cream and totally irreconcilable.” Government bureaucracies may have been blind to these realities, but they were hardly the conniving villains they have been made out to be.

In this clash of value-systems the white settlers naturally called upon the U.S. Government for protection. In turn, deployed protection forces by the United States Army pushed deeper and deeper into Indian territory.

On the subject of flow of traffic across the Great Plains, the Indian culture might be called what Marshall refers to as a “rootlessness.” “It was the freedom of movement, the privilege of ranging far and wide seasonally, that gave his life meaning and dignity. Once that freedom became threatened, his culture, his creature habits and customs, his manner of providing for his family, all of these were imperiled.”

The white man’s way of limiting him to a piece of ground upon which to settle was to suggest “to him the loss of everything that made his spirit proud.” The migratory manner of living being curtailed, it was only a matter of time that this pressure point would explode into open warfare.

In conclusion, Gen. Marshall offers this. “So we are speaking of wars that virtually had to be, though the notion that there is always a viable and less violent alternative is today no less popular than is the theme that the Plains Indians were without sin and were made the victims of predatory whites.”

While I myself lament the Indian Wars of the West it is well to remember that American Western history is not so lopsided as to render the government or the American people as culpable of genocide. Even less to consider the Indian wars on the whole as monstrous crimes against humanity.

Bill Lockwood: Universal Basic Income: Roaring Back to Slavery

Universal Basic Income: Roaring Back to Slavery-“So, who are the slaves?”

by Bill Lockwood

Much is being said today about a “universal basic income.” The concept is that every person ought to enjoy as a “human right” a minimum living wage—no work required. Former President Obama touted this in his recent South Africa speech honoring communist Nelson Mandela.  He explained that the world needs to “’re-image’ our social and political arrangements” in order to provide “universal income.” That is Obamaspeak for finishing off the change of the structure of our government. Make it a dictatorship. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, suggests that “we explore the idea of universal basic income.” Other socialists have begun to openly champion this communistic philosophy—but it is nothing more than slavery.

How is it slavery? Let’s back up for a moment. To begin, in thinking about “universal basic income” we are setting the Bible aside. God’s Word is ignored and ridiculed by major power-brokers and community-organizers of politics. Inspired testimony requires “if a man does not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). God’s order from the beginning has been “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread” (Gen. 3:19). But this concept is ruled out of court before we begin.

Secondly, we are setting aside the Constitution. Issues like basic income are normally discussed in terms of economics and political effects, not the Constitution. Besides, apart from skirmishing over miniscule issues such as “how many terms may a President serve?” or “how often must elections be held?”—the Constitution is defunct. We no longer have a Constitution nor anything that can be accurately described as constitutional law. To test this thesis, consider the issues of the day—government run health care; welfare; education, environmental concerns, etc. Each of these is debated in terms practical costs—can we afford it? Rarely, if ever, is the Constitution brought to bear on the subjects.

Back to our question. How is “universal basic income” a “roaring back to slavery?” Slavery, for all practical purposes is the process by which one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. When a slave produces, that production does not belong to that slave, but to another—his or her owner. This is the basic assumption of the Democrat Party—those who favor slavery.

For example, not long ago, Donald Calloway, Jr., a political advocate for the Democrat Party, objected to “drug testing” those who are recipients of welfare. His objection stated that those who are given a “tax break” by President Trump’s new plan ought also be tested if we are to be equal. Get it. He believes if my taxes decrease from 40% to 20% that is the same thing as the government handing me a welfare check. Keeping my own money is a “government benefit.”

Why? Because in theory Calloway believes all you earn and all of your potential production belongs to the government. Government decides what of your hard-earned money you can keep. It decides how much you must cough up to the “common good.”

This is the bare-bones definition of slavery. All of my production does not belong to me but to another—this time the government. This is slavery.

Government

So, how is the government going to guarantee a basic income of anything for anyone? Look at the definition of government. Govern is “To exercise authority over; direct; control; rule; manage.” Government is the system by which this is accomplished. It is to control the affairs of a state or group of people. Or, as George Washington put it succinctly, “Government is force.”

By definition there is no possible method by which the “system” of organization can provide or guarantee any person anything at all except opportunity for fair play. Government has no money of its own—theoretically.

But how can a weak, small and limited by design government actually provide any person an income? This is impossible. By design its force is negligible. But that is not where we are, is it? Our government now has become so large, unmanageable and confiscatory that it strides like a leviathan over every natural boundary that exists. It therefore pilfers from the producers to give to the non-producers. All things are now possible.

So, who are the slaves? The workers. The producers. The laborers. You and me. Who owns them/us? The government, as seen by the Obama and Calloway-type statements above. Our production is considered government property. Therefore, to provide one person a “minimum living income” that government must confiscate even more from the workers such as myself to redistribute to another. This it readily does and promises to increase that taking at will, or as the mobs demand.

The bottom line is that the workers in America, owned by the world plantation at the United Nations headquarters in New York, or the Washington, D.C. plantation crowd in the nation’s capital, are being used by the slave masters to produce. The slave masters become popular to the non-producers who are now marching in mass on the streets with placards to demand more. President Trump’s efforts to roll back the size and scope of the plantation owners is being met with fierce opposition—by the plantation owners and the beneficiaries of their theft—the welfare class. Only one group has become slaves—the working middle class.

Alex Newman: Democrats Sound Alarm as Far-left Fringe Takes Over Party

Democrats Sound Alarm as Far-left Fringe Takes Over Party –  “On the far-left, though, there seems to be little coherence to the agenda…  “

by Alex Newman

The Democrat Party is cracking up, but there are efforts underway to bring it back from the brink. As socialist-ruled nations across the Americas implode into violence and mass starvation, the fringe left-wing allies and supporters of those murderous strongmen in America are said to be on the verge of taking over the Democratic Party. Democratic Bernie Sanders (shown) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are both offered as examples of the “future” of the party. But after tolerating, encouraging, and flirting with the far-left fringe for years, supposedly more moderate Democrats anxious about an electoral pummeling are finally starting to speak out as a quasi-civil war breaks out in the party.

But with self-described liberals making up less than half the party and just one fourth of the electorate, the ultra-liberal Democrat Party may be too far gone to be salvaged. Consider that Communist Party USA leaders openly brag about how they “utilize” the Democrat Party to advance their totalitarian agenda in America. And consider, too, that a number of known communists and socialists were on the Democrat Party’s Platform Committee in 2016. In short, the party is wildly out of touch with mainstream America — and becoming even more so with every day that passes.

Some analysts have suggested that President Donald Trump now has the Democrats exactly where he wants them: Looking like absolute fools on national television praising the regime in Venezuela, seeking to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), calling for open borders, demanding government-controlled healthcare, behaving like fascist savages or overgrown children while terrorizing conservatives, and more. But as self-proclaimed “moderate” Democrats try to bring the party back from the brink of destruction, it remains to be seen who will win out. Plus, by pushing amnesty and mass migration, establishment Republicans could still save the Democrat Party and destroy their own.

But for now, it does not look good for Democrats. When overconfidence on the part of an incumbent allowed self-styled “Democratic Socialist” Ocasio-Cortez to defeat a longtime congressman in a primary in ultra-liberal New York, the divisions that became apparent in the 2016 Democrat primary came into focus. Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez, for instance, proclaimed that Ocasio-Cortez was the “future” the party. A number of far-left candidates are even bringing Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders in to endorse them, hoping to capitalize on her sudden fame and her improbable victory and Sanders’ status as an outsider.

But then she started talking, making outlandish statements so far detached from reality that even the far-left “fact checkers” have called her out. She also revealed that her positions are more fluid than her comrades believe gender to be; for instance, she went from supporting a two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine to opposing it almost immediately afterward. Conservatives celebrated, hoping to make her the face of the Democrats. “We need more people like her,” Trump ally and Brexit architect Nigel Farage told a group of young U.S. conservatives. “The more loophead socialists, the crazier — the crazier people that they put up for the other party, the better it’s going to be for you guys.”

But after she repeatedly made a fool of herself on national television in the weeks since her win, and after poll results showed three in four American voters would not knowingly vote for a socialist, Democrat bigwigs and the establishment behind them are re-thinking their strategy.

Former FBI boss James Comey, a Deep State swamp creature under fire for improperly protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution, urged Americans to vote Democrat in the mid-terms. But a few days later, he was warning the Democrat Party that they would scare away normal people if they keep acting like kooks. “Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left,” Comey wrote on social media. “This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership.”

In mid-July, a group of “leading moderate Democrats,” as the press described them, gathered in Columbus, Ohio, to argue that the party should quit bashing the free-market system and obsessing over income inequality. The conference, organized by the establishment-backed think tank “Third Way,” called on Democrats to focus more on promoting “opportunity.” The self-styled “center-left” organization, which would have been considered radical left just a few years ago, backs virtually the entire agenda of the globalist establishment and the far-left. But it does it using more deceitful rhetoric.

Congressman Jim Himes (D-Conn.), one of the participants in the Ohio conference, urged “progressives” to tone down the extremism. “It harms us in areas where we need to win,” he was quoted as saying. “To my progressive friends who got excited about Abolish ICE, I understand the emotions, the moral vacuum that is involved in splitting up families. But when you go out there and say, ‘This is who we are,’ you’ve now made life harder for the 60 or 70 Democrats fighting in districts where we need to win if we ever want to be in the majority. Abolishing ICE is not a real political proposal.”

But for many of his increasingly unhinged colleagues demanding open borders and socialism, it is a very real political proposal. In fact, as this magazine documented in 2016, the party’s platform committee was dominated by open communists and socialists, who used their positions to push the Democrat Party further to the totalitarian left than it has ever gone in history. Even radical leftists like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) are no longer far enough left for the communist- and socialist-controlled Democrat Party of California, which endorsed her socialist primary challenger.

In some cases, the radical left wing of the Democrat Party is openly allying itself with mass-murdering communist regimes against the United States. Consider California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, who forged an unconstitutional treaty with communist China, the most murderous government on the face of the earth. The plan: In defiance of the U.S. government, continue implementing a globalist scheme to destroy the state’s economy and further centralize power over everything under the guise of stopping “climate change.” More than a few analysts suggested Brown was committing treason.

On the far-left, though, there seems to be little coherence to the agenda — except in terms of bringing down Western Christian civilization, the U.S. Constitution, and the God-given liberties enshrined in America’s founding documents. As an example of the cognitive dissonance now afflicting the far-left fringe working to take over the Democrat Party, consider a July 23 e-mail by the George Soros-funded MoveOn.org. The message touts two Muslim women running for Congress as “progressives,” Rashida Tlaib in Michigan, an Arab, and Somali immigrant Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, who apparently got involved in Democrat Party politics as a child just six years after arriving in America. Of course, Islam takes a dim view of “women’s rights,” and homosexuality is a capital offense under Islamic law known as Sharia. And yet, the the e-mail soliciting support for the two Muslim women candidates says they will take on unspecified “attacks on women’s rights and the LGBTQ community” by Trump and Republicans.

One of several fringe groups involved in pushing the party even further to the left is known as “Justice Democrats.” After the Third Way “Opportunity 2020” event by supposedly moderate Democrats, the outfit release a statement slamming the “establishment wing” of the Democrat Party for its “losing strategy” that has resulted in “thousands of lost seats across the country.” “We believe Democrats should engage with working class Americans, we believe we have an obligation to mobilize disenchanted voters and give them a political home,” the group said, demanding government healthcare, “guaranteed jobs,” an end to “systemic racism,” and more. The outfit, founded by former staff of Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign, has endorsed almost 80 “progressive” candidates seeking public office.

But there is a growing amount of anecdotal and data-driven evidence suggesting that moving further to the left will decimate the Democrat Party even further. And despite the foaming at the mouth in the establishment media, even the establishment’s propaganda polls suggest Trump is doing just fine. In fact, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey showed Trump’s job approval rating rose to 45 percent, the highest level of his presidency in that particular poll. Among Republicans, Trump remains massively popular, with 88 percent of GOP voters approving of his job so far.

By contrast, at this point in Obama’s term, just 81 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing. Indeed, aside from George W. Bush, whom the nation rallied behind after the September 11 attacks, Trump was the most popular president within his own party of any other on the list, stretching back to Truman. That is bad news for Democrats who hope to peel away from supposedly disaffected Republicans to help win in 2020. And keep in mind, those numbers come despite a constant barrage of fake news and anti-Trump propaganda aimed at the president, something that is increasingly becoming obvious even to the president’s critics.

Ultimately, as readers of this magazine know well, the “establishment” of both major parties cares little about the voters or what they want. Instead, top Republicans and top Democrats are all part of the Deep State Swamp — a network that includes semi-secret organizations such the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg meetings, as well as true secret societies such as the Bohemian Grove and the Skull and Bones society. As such, rather than obsessing over controlled partisan politics, Americans who truly hope to preserve liberty and the Constitution should get involved in educating their communities about the Deep State and other key issues. Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts.


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.


Jesse Lee Peterson: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS EVIL

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS EVIL– Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson warns against ‘godless and angry people’ taking over left

by Jesse Lee Peterson

All Democrats aren’t evil, but the party embodies evil. Party leaders and their followers are not interested in dialogue – they want to muzzle conservatives.

Example, Fox News host and Donald Trump supporter Judge Jeanine Pirro was rudely kicked off ABC’s “The View” by Whoopi Goldberg after she defended the president’s policies in a heated exchange. The segment ended with Goldberg telling Pirro, “Say goodbye. I’m done!”

Goldberg then confronted Pirro backstage screaming, “F–k you, get the f–k out of this building!” Pirro recounted the incident on Sean Hannity’s show, further claiming that, “I was leaving and [Golberg] said ‘F you’ in my face, literally spitting at me.” Pirro added of the incident, “I’ve tried murder cases, I’ve gone against drug cartels. … I have never been treated like that in my life.”

The attack on Jeanine Pirro is just one example of the hatred that leftists harbor toward President Trump and his supporters. Trump supporters are routinely attacked by leftists. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, (aka The Wicked Witch of The West) and others encourage such attacks.

Waters recently told her supporters there should be “no sleep, no peace” for the people who support President Trump and his policies. Waters said, “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. You push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and other leftist groups are carrying out Waters’ orders to a tee. While conservatives are trying to have dialogue, leftists don’t want us to show up to eat at restaurants, to do business, to speak in public or even exist in peace.

Here are recent examples of the Democratic Socialists of America and other leftists harassing Trump administration officials and conservatives. The owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave the restaurant because she works for Trump. DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielson was confronted by the Democratic Socialists of America screaming “shame” and “abolish ICE” as she was dining at a Mexican restaurant in Washington, DC. They also showed up outside her home. White House adviser Stephen Miller was accosted at a Mexican restaurant by a patron calling him a “fascist.” Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren had a drink thrown on her as she was leaving a Minneapolis restaurant. Education Secretary Betsy Devos was nearly drowned out by booing and shouts of “Liar!” at the Bethune-Cookman University graduation ceremony (a historically black university).

These leftists are so blinded by Trump Derangement Syndrome, they can’t see the great things this president is doing for the country. The president signed a major tax cut bill which slashed rates for businesses and individuals. Through tax reform, Trump fulfilled another key campaign promise: repealing Obamacare’s individual mandate. Overall, U.S. unemployment dropped to 3.8 percent, an 18-year low and the unemployment rate for blacks and Hispanics is at an all-time low. Trump also signed an executive order cutting regulations for small businesses. He confirmed conservative Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. And Trump’s decision to ease restrictions on the rules of engagement has allowed U.S. forces to defeat ISIS.

But Democrats reject truth. They believe anyone who supports Trump is a “fascist” or “racist” and must be silenced by any means necessary. And they’ve allowed the party to be taken over by radicals who want to suppress Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and encourage lawlessness.

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

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old former bartender who defeated one of the most powerful House Democrats last month, has become the darling of the Democratic Party. This socialist from New York city has picked up where Occupy Wall Street and Antifa left off; she’s driving the Democratic Party off a cliff. And Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Congress’ only self-identified democratic socialist, recently campaigned with the clueless Ocasio-Cortez.

According to reports, Ocasio-Cortez’s victory has sparked more radicals to get involved in the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Socialists of America — the group that has been showing up to harass Trump officials and supporters – has paid membership on the rise. The group says there are 42 people running for offices at the federal, state and local levels this year with their formal endorsement. They span 20 states, including Florida, Hawaii, Kansas and Michigan.

What do Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic Socialists of America want? For starters, they’re demanding Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, open borders and the eradication of ICE.

The Democrats hard shift to the left and their obsession with destroying Trump indicates they are a party without direction. They are so desperate to win in November they’re willing to allow the party to be taken over by hard-core socialists.

The Democratic Party is made up of godless and angry people. Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic Socialists of America represent the future of the party, and they want to destroy this president and the rule of law. We can’t allow this to happen. We must expose and push back against these enemies of freedom.

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2018/07/the-democratic-party-is-evil/#fdFedIItAzVWyZp4.99

Tom DeWeese: Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?

Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?-“The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell.”

by Tom DeWeese

There’s lots of talk about where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stands on the Roe v Wade abortion decision and if he would vote to rescind it. There is another very controversial Supreme Court decision made just few years ago, supported by the Anthony Kennedy, the justice he seeks to replace. That is the Kelo decision that basically obliterated private property rights in America. So, where does Brett Kananaugh stand on protection of private property rights? With Kennedy or the Constitution?

In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an opinion that shocked the nation. It was the case of Susette Kelo, et al. v City of New London, Connecticut, et al. The issue: “Does the government taking of property from one private owner to give to another private entity for economic development constitutes a permissible ‘public use’ under the Fifth Amendment?”

In 2000, the city of New London saw a chance to rake in big bucks through tax revenues for a new downtown development project that was to be anchored by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The company announced a plan to build a $270 million dollar global research facility in the city. The local government jumped at the chance to transform 90 acres of an area right next to the proposed research facility. Their plans called for the creation of the Fort Trumbull development project which would provide hotels, housing and shopping areas for the expected influx of Pfizer employees. There were going to be jobs and revenues A-Go-Go in New London. Just one obstacle stood in the way of these grand plans. There were private homes in that space.

No muss – no fuss. The city fathers had a valuable tool in their favor. They would just issue an edict that they were taking the land by eminent domain. The city created a private development corporation to lead the project. First priority for the new corporation was to obtain the needed property.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

In July, 1997, Susette Kelo bought a nice little pink house in a quiet fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Little did she imagine that warm, comfy place would soon become the center of a firestorm.

She had no intention of selling. She’d spent a considerable amount of money and time fixing up her little pink house, a home with a beautiful view of the waterfront that she could afford. She planted flowers in the yard, braided her own rugs for the floors, filled the rooms with antiques and created the home she wanted.

Less than a year later, the trouble started. A real estate broker suddenly showed up at her door representing an unknown client. Susette said she wasn’t interested in selling. The realtor’s demeanor then changed, warning that the property was going to be condemned by the city. One year later, on the day before Thanksgiving, the sheriff taped a letter to Kelo’s door, stating that her home had been condemned by the City of New London.

Then the pressure began. A notice came in the mail telling her that the city intended to take her land. An offer of compensation was made, but it was below the market price. The explanation given was that, since the government was going to take the land, it was no longer worth the old market price, therefore the lower price was “just compensation,” as called for in the Fifth Amendment. It was a “fair price,” Kelo and the homeowners were told over and over.

Some neighbors quickly gave up, took the money and moved away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounted. Visits from government agents became routine. They knocked on the door at all hours, demanding she sell. Newspaper articles depicted her as unreasonably holding up community progress. They called her greedy. Finally, the bulldozers moved in on the properties already sold. As they crushed down the houses, the neighborhood became unlivable. It looked like a war zone.

In Susette Kelo’s neighborhood, the imposing bulldozer was sadistically parked in front of a house, waiting. The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell. More phone calls, threatening letters, visits by city officials at all hours demanding they sign the contract to sell. It just didn’t stop. Finally the intimidation began to break down the most dedicated homeowners’ resolve. In tears, they gave in and sold. Amazingly, once they sold, the homeowners were then classified as “willing sellers!”

Immediately, as each house was bulldozed, the monster machine was moved to the next house, sitting there like a huffing, puffing dragon, ready to strike.

Finally Susette’s little pink house stood nearly alone in the middle of a destruction site. Over 80 homes were gone: seven remained. As if under attack by a conquering army, she was finally surrounded, with no place to run but to the courts. Under any circumstances the actions of the New London government and its sham development corporation should have been considered criminal behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their own pockets, or those of their friends, it was considered graft. That’s why RICO laws were created.

The United States was built on the very premise of the protection of private property rights. How could a government possibly be allowed to take anyone’s home for private gain? Surely justice would finally prevail.

The city was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, one of the largest proponents of eminent domain use, saying the policy was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects. However, the Supreme Court had always stood with the founders of the nation on the vital importance of private property. There was precedent after precedent to back up the optimism that they would do so again.

Finally, her case was heard by the highest court in the land. It was such an obvious case of government overreach against private property owners that no one considered there was a chance of New London winning. That’s why it was a shock to nearly everyone involved that private property rights sustained a near-death blow that day.

This time, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer shocked the nation by ruling that officials who had behaved like Tony Soprano were in the right and Susette Kelo had no ground to stand on, literally or figuratively.

These four men and one woman ruled that the United States Constitution is meaningless as a tool to protect individuals against the wants and desires of government. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After deciding that any property is subject to the whim of a government official, it was just a short trip to declaring that government could now confiscate anything we own, anything we create, anything we’ve worked for – in the name of an undefined common good.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who opposed the Court’s decision, vigorously rebutted the Majority’s argument, as she wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Justice Clarence Thomas issued his own rebuttal to the decision, specifically attacking the argument that this was a case about “public use.” He accused the Majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment’s “Public Use” clause with a very different “Public Purpose” test. Said Justice Thomas “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a public use.

Astonishingly the members of the Supreme Court have no other job but to protect the Constitution and defend it from bad legislation. They sit in their lofty ivory tower, with their lifetime appointments, never actually having to worry about job security or the need to answer to political pressure. Yet, these five black robes obviously missed finding a single copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned the new government was to work. In addition, they apparently missed the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It’s obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have reached this decision.

So, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court said that it was okay for a community to use eminent domain to take land, shut down a business, or destroy and reorganize an entire neighborhood, if it benefited the community in a positive way. Specifically, “positive” meant unquestioned government control and more tax dollars.

The Institute for Justice, the group that defended Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court, reported that it found 10,000 cases in which condemnation was used or threatened for the benefit of private developers. These cases were all within a five-year period after the Kelo decision. Today, that figure is dwarfed as there is seemingly no limit on government takings of private property.

The Kelo decision changed the rules. The precedent was set. Land can now be taken anytime at the whim of a power elite. So again, the question must be asked: if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, will he stand to protect private property rights against massive overreach by local, state, and federal governments? Will he support an effort to overturn the Kelo Decision?

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/17/will-brett-kavanaugh-stand-for-property-rights/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth“The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.”

by Bill Lockwood

President Trump this week once more rocked the globalists and internationalists with his renewed criticism of what has been considered one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump’s criticism focused upon the fact that the United States continues to pay the lion’s share of operating costs of the organization, while other member nations pay pittance by comparison.

For 2017, NATO’s military budget is $1.38 billion, the civilian budget is $252 million and its NATO Security Investment Program is $704 million. In this budget the U.S. contributes over 22 percent followed by Germany with a little over 14.65 percent, France at 10.6 percent and Britain 9.84 percent. There are 13 more members of NATO that pay less than 1 percent of their GDP to its budget.

Why Does America Pay the Lion’s Share?

Established in 1949 in the aftermath of WWII, NATO was sold to the American public as well as to the Senate as a necessity to keep the Soviet Union out of Western Europe. But as informed citizens are aware, NATO was specifically structured to be one of those “entangling alliances” to siphon off American wealth, as well as a stepping-stone to World Government. This is easily understood when one considers the roots of NATO.

The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.  The basic 5-point plan for communistic global conquest is summarized in the following four points.

  1. Confuse, disorganize, and destroy the forces of capitalism around the world.
  2. Bring all nations together into a single world system of economy. [The United Nations’ International Monetary Fund as well as the World Bank helped achieve this goal. So also have the so-called “Free Trade Agreements.” BL]
  3. Force the advanced countries [read, United States] to pour prolonged financial aid into the underdeveloped countries.
  4. Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to total world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regionals [such as NATO] can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship of the proletariat. (Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 1942, as quoted by G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations, 1964, p. 68)

One can readily see that the entire design or “regional” organizations was to be “transitional” to world government. More importantly, “regional governments”—or treaties—were necessary to bleed the American taxpayer to bankroll the entire scheme. This is exactly what is occurring and the frequent mantra that today’s world is a “new global community” plays directly into the orientation of Stalinist Russia.

Globalist Founders

Alger Hiss was one of FDR’s top advisors and was an ardent Soviet spy, having been convicted and sent to prison in 1950 for perjury involving statements relating to his communist activities. He was directly involved in the creation of The United Nations. His good friend, and advisor to later presidents, was John Foster Dulles. Dulles also was an avid globalist, pushing the United States towards Lenin’s world dictatorship. When Harry Truman signed America into the UN’s NATO alliance Dulles was enthusiastic. The “treaty” was part of the regional strategy towards globalism.

NATO involves first, a military “entangling alliance.” Article 5 of the NATO treaty binds the United States in an “agreement” that in the case of an “armed attack” against any NATO member other members of NATO, such as the United States, would consider it “as an attack against them all.” This contravenes the U.S. Constitution which assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

But NATO is not simply a military alliance. It is political as well (Steve Byas, article on John Foster Dulles, The New American, 3-5-2018). Dulles told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the treaty should be ratified “not as a military instrument but as a step in a political evolution that has behind it a long and honorable history, and before, it a great and peaceful future.” Note the language. NATO was considered by insiders to be a transitional stage toward a more solid global government.

The treaty itself states that member-states “will encourage economic collaboration between any and all of them.” Clarence Streit, Dulles’ fellow globalist, wrote in 1939 that he recommended the creation of regional groupings with the eventual goal of putting them together into a functioning world government. Streit pushed for the creation of NATO as a regional government within the framework of the United Nations. This is why Articles 51 and 52 of the UN Charter encourage the forging of “regional groupings” and cooperation.

United States Independence has always been in the crosshairs of the globalists behind NATO. In 1960, just 11 years after NATO’s founding, Elmo Roper of the Atlantic Union Committee stated:

For it becomes clear that the first step toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political, and the social … the Atlantic Pact [NATO] need not be our last effort toward greater unity. It can be converted into one more sound and important step in working toward world peace. It can be one of the most positive moves in the direction of the One World. (Quoted by John McManus, in Changing Commands, The Betrayal of America’s Military, p. 20).

Jumping ahead to the Bush Administration of 1991, NATO was “reorganized.” Thousands of American soldiers were for the first time placed under German, British, and other blue-helmeted foreign commanders. Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary for the Administration, termed the move “an important milestone in the transformation of the alliance.” The transformation continues. Republican or Democrat, the goal is a world organization overriding the US Constitution.

Another precedent was established in during the Clinton Administration in 1994 when a British UN troop commander ordered US fighter planes from NATO to attack positions in Bosnia. Neither the British general, nor Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN Secretary-General, bothered to contact President Clinton nor our own Congress. The UN had already been given authority to employ US forces serving in NATO, a UN subsidiary, to utilize American military and money.

Now one can clearly see why Trump’s pressure on European countries to pay equivalent payments to NATO rattles socialist cages. Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are grieved at the hindrance of their globalist designs. But the American people love President Trump, who has been the first president with backbone enough to lay it out for the American public by telling negotiators at the Brussels table that enough is enough.

Tom DeWeese: It Matters How You Stand

It Matters How You Stand“…expose the government’s war on ranchers…”

by Tom DeWeese

Justice has finally been achieved as the federal government’s war against western ranchers and property owners has taken a second major hit.

First, Cliven Bundy and his sons, Ryan, Ammon, Dave and Mel, were released in January, 2018, after three trials that never found them guilty of a crime, yet they spent close to two years behind federal bars, while being physically tortured and abused by cheating and lying Bureau of Land Management (BLM) thugs. As they were forced into solitary confinement, subjected to daily body searches, and other physical abuses, they were labeled by the government and mainstream media to be nothing more than paranoid right-wing loons.

Finally, a judge found that it was the BLM which was dangerous, guilty of perpetrating violence and spreading lies in an attempt to take control of the Bundy Nevada land that had been in the family’s possession since the 1880s. The BLM started the range war against the Bundys, claiming that Bundy cattle were a danger to the desert tortoise. And so, as the BLM openly bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground, they confiscated the cattle from land on which the Bundys had legal grazing rights dating back one hundred years.

Meanwhile, in Southwest Oregon, Dwight and Steven Hammond, also multi-generation cattle ranchers, were imprisoned for allowing a routine controlled-burn fire to leak onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land. It’s a standard practice by ranchers to use the burns to keep down weeds and debris that would feed large forest fires. It also helps keep burnables away from ranch buildings. In short, its just good land management. The forest service does it too. In fact, the accidental spread of the  Hammond fire onto federal land surely helped improve government land.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

The federal government worked to throw the book at the Hammonds, charging them with intentionally and maliciously setting fires on public lands. The Department of Justice actually charged Steven Hammond with lighting the fire to cover an illegal deer hunt on land that was managed by the BLM. It filed a civil suit that cost the Hammonds over $400,000. Meanwhile the government vigorously worked to prosecute the Hammonds to put them behind bars.

Yet the Jury acquitted them on most of the charges and U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, considering the fact that the Hammonds were upstanding citizens,  decided that the usual minimum sentence of five years was too harsh for the supposed crime. Thus, Dwight Hammond received only three months and his son Steven was sentenced to a year and a day. They served that time and returned home to their ranch in Diamond, Oregon.

The Obama Justice Department actually accused the Hammonds of terrorism and demanded more time be served, so prosecutors filed an appeal to overturn Judge Hogan’s lighter sentence. As a result the Hammonds were forced back into jail to complete the full five years.

This injustice by the federal judicial system is what forced other ranchers, including the Bundys, to travel to Burns, Oregon in January 2016 to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The point was to expose the government’s war on ranchers, of which the Hammonds were the latest victims of this massive government overreach.

Once again, the government reacted with massive firepower. This time, as several of the protestors were on their way to a public meeting to explain their purpose and try to work out some sort of solution, federal and state agents arrested Ammon Bundy in a road block. Meanwhile, officials forced the car carrying rancher and protest leader LaVoy Finicum, off the road, into a trap. As LaVoy exited the car with his hands up in an attempt to protect the others still in the car, state police and FBI officers opened fire and killed LaVoy Finicum as they claimed he was going for a gun. Video has proven he was not. His wife, Jannette Finicum has now filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

For decades, ranchers across the American West have endured such intimidation and lawlessness by the federal government. Finally, some of their strong, independent neighbors said enough is enough. All they desire is to live in peace as good stewards of the land. And so, against all odds, they took a stand against the powerful government forces. Frankly, the outcome seemed hopeless. How does an individual gain justice in a rigged system that controls the court rooms and the media?

But a new battle cry is being heard as more and more Americans are beginning to see through the government smokescreen of intimidation and persecution. The Bundys and the Hammonds have led a renewed battle for the very issue that built this nation’s freedom and prosperity –the right to own and control private property.

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018, President Donald Trump fully pardoned Dwight and Steven Hammond and they too are headed home. They and the Bundys endured oppression from an out of control American government unlike anything we could have imagined existed in our nation. They fought an unwavering battle for freedom. And they have won. Now the American public must honor their sacrifice by demanding a full investigation into the lawless behavior of the BLM and U.S. Forest Service. American ranchers must never again be subjected to the tyranny endured by the Bundys and the Hammonds. As LaVoy Finicum once said, “It matters how you stand!”

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/11/it-matters-how-you-stand/?mc_cid=c3a3d7ee9d&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: The Religion of Evolution

The Religion of Evolution- “Either God or evolution.”

by Bill Lockwood

Evolutionists, who believe that man’s origin can be explained by the theory that he has “evolved” from lower forms of life, frequently charge Bible believers with clutching an unfounded “faith” in God and Jesus Christ. This is ironic. Considering the fact that Bible faith is grounded upon historical evidence (Heb. 11:1) and it is the evolutionist who takes giant leaps into the dark, believing what he wishes without support of evidence, it is amazing that the evolutionary theory has become the modern cultural myth in the same vein as ancient legends.  This cultural myth is the modernist religion.

First, many evolutionists classify their own theories as religious faith equaling a myth. In 1925 Louis T. More said, “The more one studies paleontology the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion” (Quoted by Bales, 1976, p. 47).

Philip Johnson, in his devastating review of Darwinism, wrote,

The continual efforts to base a religion or ethical system upon the evolution are not an aberration, and practically all the most prominent Darwinist writers have tried their hand at it. Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth. (1991, p. 133)

Second, evolution as admitted to be only a theory, not a fact. This is not parallel to the Bible’s definition of faith, but it is parallel to the modern misconception of biblical faith in the minds of unbelievers. Michael Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, observed, “Darwin’s model of evolution is still very much a theory and till very much in doubt … it is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science.”

Again, Denton wrote,

Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Like the Genesis based cosmology it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has motivated all the cosmogenic myth-makers of the past …” (1985, p. 358)

If this is not shocking enough, consider what one hardened atheist/evolutionist proposed as to the origin of life.

Perhaps the primordial atom that then exploded was but an episode in the eternal (and perhaps cyclical) career of matter/energy. Possibly the super-sensuous first cause created that atom just before it blew up. Perhaps the primordial atom cane into existence spontaneously, i.e., out of nothingness without any cause (acausally), or perhaps it was self-created, whatever that might mean when applied to a primordial atom bent on exploding. (1993, p. 135).

Each of McKown’s alternatives is very unscientific! This is the material of which myths are made when one is “bent” on refusing to consider that an all-powerful God created the universe.

Third, some evolutionists even propose a god—after their own will. Consider Philip Johnson’s observation regarding Francis Crick. Crick is a Nobel prize winning scientist, a co-discoverer of DNA. Crick toyed with the idea of panspermia—the notion that life was “seeded” upon the earth in the long ago by alien space creatures.

Crick would be scornful of any scientist who gave up on scientific research and ascribed the origin of life to a supernatural Creator. But directed panspermia amounts to the same thing. The same limitations that made it impossible for the extra-terrestrials to journey to earth will make it impossible for scientists ever to inspect their planet … Those who are tempted to ridicule directed panspermia should restrain themselves, because Crick’s extra-terrestrials are not more invisible than the universe of ancestors that earth-bound Darwinists have to invoke. (1981, p. 110-11).

Not only have scientist seriously suggested panspermia, but Darwin himself clothes the process of “natural selection” with the qualities and attributes of an intelligent, creative being such as a “process” that “scrutinizes”, “rejects,” and “preserves.”

Fourth, evolution even proposes miracles—just as long as God is not the miracle-worker. Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheistic evolutionist, has argued that “an apparently (to ordinary human consciousness) miraculous theory is EXACLTY the kind of theory we should be looking for in the particular matter of the origin of life.”

Jacques Monod, an ardent evolutionist of yesteryear, described the “origin of the genetic code” as the major problem for evolutionists. “Indeed, it is not so much a problem as a veritable enigma” he mused. Thomas H. Huxley, who vociferously defended Darwinism, said he believed that “There is no absurdity in theology so great that you cannot parallel it by a greater absurdity in Nature” (Life and Letters, I:259).

Francis Crick frankly admitted that “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

The famous late American astronomer and naturalist Carl Sagan said, …the discovery of life on one other planet—e.g. Mars—can, in the words of the American physicist Philip Morrison, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ‘transform the origin of life from a miracle to a statistic’ (1977, p. 358).

Michael Denton concludes his work mentioned above with a notice of such admissions as Sagan offered with this,

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. (p. 264)

Fifth, evolutionary theory requires an unfounded type of “faith” in order for one to accept it. Robert Jastrow admits as much.

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid … (1978, p, 111-12)

Sixth, one scientist described what he called a “baptism” for those who accept evolution. That scientist was W.R. Thompson who called evolution a “fairy tale for adults.” The baptism to which he referred was the “baptism of ignorance” in which theorems rise to walk in language of “fact.”

Seventh, evolutionists maintain a creed. James Bales, long-time professor at Harding University, observed,

Since it is admitted that it has not been scientifically established, and since it is admitted that drastic changes have often taken place in these fields of study which supposedly sustain evolution, one would think that the majority of evolutionists would not be so strongly wedded to the hypothesis. However, they are and many of the bow down before the sacred cow of evolution and recite the creed: ‘I believe. My faith is the substance of fossils and other evidence which are but hoped for, and the evidence of descent which is not seen in the fossil record, the record in living nature, or the record in the lab. And yet, I do believe that the forces of nature which are now working produced results in the past which we cannot prove they are producing today. I believe in attributing to nature whatever power is necessary in order for nature to do everything which is required to create through evolution. (p. 53)

Eighth, one leading evolutionist of a century ago characterized teachers of evolution as priests. Paul LeMoine, one of the editors of the French Encyclopedia, was he who made that characterization. “Evolution is a sort of dogma in which the priests no longer believe that they maintain for their people (1937, in Bales, 1976).

Ninth, evolutionists practice their own conversion. As a matter of fact, all evolutionists, humanists, atheists, agnostics, and other classes of unbelievers, advocate their views so ardently so as to convert the unsuspecting. Those whom they seek primarily to convert are Christians and those who believe in the biblical account of Creation. This is because the “existence of an intelligent Creator is the only alternative to belief in life being created by matter and physical laws alone” (Taylor, 1991, p. 76).

There is no third alternative. Either God or evolution. However, the concept that of these two choices we have options between a “religious faith” and “science” is a mammoth-sized mistake. Both involve religious faith, but only one has any historical footing—God’s Book, the Bible.

James D. Bales, Evolution and the Scientific Method, 1976.

Francis Crick, Life Itself, 1981.

Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, 1985.

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978.

Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991.

Delos McKown, The Myth-Maker’s Magic, 1993.

Carl Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe, 1977.

Paul S. Taylor, The Origins Answer Book, 1991.

Bill Lockwood: Democratic Machine Showing its Communist Orientation

Democratic Machine Showing its Communist Orientation Maxine wants the masses to “encounter Republican officials from the Trump Administration in pubic” by harassment, yelling, and protesting.”

by Bill Lockwood

The atmosphere in America is highly charged with political unrest. This is entirely of Democrat-Communist making. Maxine Waters is now openly calling for more unrest, social irritation and public anger to spill over against Trump Administration officials. It is not enough that individuals have been so manipulated by the Democratic anger machine so that one of them tried to kill Congressmen while playing baseball or that another became so enraged by the leftist socialist rhetoric that he walked into the headquarters of the Family Research Council to murder employees. Now the call is for more street thuggery.

Maxine wants the masses to “encounter Republican officials from the Trump Administration in pubic” by harassment, yelling, and protesting. Here’s Waters’ statement.

Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.

This is classic communism—which is exactly what the Democratic Party has become. That this mob attack strategy is not owned only by Maxine Waters is shown clearly by Democratic “strategist” Mary Anne Marsh, former Senior Advisor to Secretary of State John Kerry, who refuses to condemn the violence mongers in an interview on Fox News. Deflecting the question on a number of occasions, Marsh continued to harangue about separating families at the border. No condemnation for mob action designed to harass public officials in any social setting. Where is the one Democrat pubic official who has publicly condemned Waters?

Lawlessness. The only strategy remaining for those who are determined to change our culture after they lose the debate in public discussion and in the voting-booth. This is why Cynthia Nixon, an actress who is running for the governor’s office in New York against Andrew Cuomo, is openly calling for the disbanding of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). No borders. No law enforcement. A recipe for communist-socialist revolution. Enflame the masses on the bottom, disarm the enforcement arm on the top.

In a recent speech Nixon labeled ICE a “terrorist organization” and has started a petition called “Abolish ICE.” Yes, Communist philosophy, which has been sanitized by leftists in America for a century by labeling it ‘progressivism’, is on the move.

Communism is nothing but socialism with force. Getting socialists out of their arm-chairs for revolution is the goal of communists and Maxine Waters and her ilk show that that is exactly what they are about.

Class struggle and revolution are integral parts of communism. This is why Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were concerned not simply with “theory” but also with action. Marx said many times he was not interested in merely “understanding” the world, but in “changing” it. This is why anything that develops class antagonisms is good in communist eyes. They must sharpen them to hasten the day of revolution. For this reason, communists insert themselves into every sore spot in society to fester and widen breaches. Where no sore spot exists, they will try to create one. This will bring about the destruction of capitalist society.

This is exactly what was played out in Russian during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Hearing Maxine Waters and the Democrats is reminiscent of what history records regarding Leon Trotsky as he stirred the masses and workers to unite against the Romonov government. The stirring of the masses by officials on the top is now being duplicated by our own elected officials and their associates. There is little difference between the incitement to mob action and illegal activity, which has already resulted in violence, by leading Democrats and what occurred during the Russian revolution.

These linkages to communist revolution is not simply that Waters’ just sounds like a communist or is utilizing communist strategy. Waters has been hard-wired into communism for decades. As documented by Bob Adelmann at The New American:

In 1982 Waters “lent her name to a pamphlet published for a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) group that was led by Angela Davis, Charlene Mitchell, Anne Braden, and Frank Chapman.

In 1983 she participated in a communist rally designed to coincide with the Los Angeles Summer Olympics. In 1984 she spoke at a UC-Berkeley event sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Review, the monthly magazine of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

In 1998 Waters voted for a House resolution that called on Castro’s communist government to extradite fugitive cop-killer Assata Shakur, and then wrote a letter to Castro apologizing for her vote. (Shakur had escaped from U.S. prison in 1979 and fled to communist Cuba where Castro gave her asylum). Instead of referring to Shakur as a convicted murderer, Waters called her a ‘political activist’ who was persecuted for her political beliefs and affiliations.”

Waters is a powerful person in the Democratic wing of Congress. She is openly calling for revolution and there is apparently no public official of the Democratic Party or affiliated members who are denouncing her open incitement to lawlessness. America is on the edge of a huge upheaval against our Constitutional order.

*Since this article was written several Democrats have disavowed the tactics of Maxine Waters, although they have negated their distance from Waters by blaming Donald Trump for “setting the tone” of political differences. This, of course, is clearly another effort to shirk responsibility for the Left’s revolutionary rhetoric since many Democrats and Hollywood elite were calling for Trump’s impeachment before he actively occupied the White House. One even suggested “blowing up the White House.” Blaming Trump for this terroristic threat is ridiculous.

Jesse Lee Peterson: DEMOCRATS DON’T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN – ILLEGAL OR AMERICAN

DEMOCRATS DON’T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN – ILLEGAL OR AMERICAN– Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson targets latest manufactured political crisis

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Every other week Democrats manufacture a new political crisis.

This time, they’re wailing about illegal alien children being separated from their families at the U.S.-Mexican border.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow cried on TV while reporting on this issue. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-MD, feigned outrage during a hearing on this matter. Actor Peter Fonda called for 12-year-old Barron Trump to be ripped from his mother’s arms and “thrown into a cage with pedophiles.”

As if that’s not bad enough, leftists stormed a Mexican restaurant and screamed at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen while she was having dinner. Then they showed up outside her home blasting sounds of Hispanic children crying.

WikiLeaks also released the names and addresses of ICE employees to the public, endangering agents and their families.

The Trump administration isn’t the first to separate adults and children at the border – but it did step up the enforcement after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-tolerance” policy in dealing with illegal aliens who cross into the U.S.

A 2008 anti-trafficking statute dictates that certain minors must be taken out of immigration detention within 72 hours. The administration has also said it was forced to separate families because of the conclusion of a court case known as “the Flores Settlement.” That settlement, reached in 1997, required the government to limit the time it keeps unaccompanied minors in detention and to keep them in the least restrictive setting possible.

The children in HHS/ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) care are treated far better than in Mexico or Central America. They’re fed, given medical attention and educational programs.

But President Trump signed an executive order last week designed to keep together illegal alien families who have been detained at the border, while also retaining his administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy.

Why did the Trump administration step up enforcement in the first place?

According to Homeland Security, the number of people attempting to cross the southern border illegally has increased to more than 50,000 people per month. In June, there has been a 325 percent increase in unaccompanied children coming to the border since the previous year, and a 435 percent increase in families entering the U.S. illegally.

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

According to the White House, the influx of unaccompanied minors coming across the U.S. border is being used by gangs, such as MS-13, to recruit new members; one-third of already-arrested MS-13 members and associates came into the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor.

There are hundreds of thousands of victims every year who are affected by illegal alien crime – homicides, rape, assault, vehicular manslaughter and identity theft.

According to a 2011 government report, the arrests attached to the criminal alien population included an estimated 25,000 people for homicide, 42,000 for robbery, nearly 70,000 for sex offenses, and nearly 15,000 for kidnapping.

In Texas alone, within the last seven years, more than a quarter-million criminal aliens have been arrested and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses.

In 2016, more than 15,000 Americans died from a heroin overdose. More than 90 percent of the heroin comes from across the southern border.

Democrats cry for illegal alien children – encouraged to cross the border by their own parents – but what about the American children who’ve been killed by illegal aliens and permanently separated from their parents? CNN and MSNBC won’t air their stories. But President Trump hosted some of the families at the White House.

Among the “Angel” family members invited by the White House were:

  • Agnes Gibboney, who lost her son Ronald da Silva after he was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant gang member.
  • Juan Pina, who lost his 14-year-old daughter Christy Sue in 1990, allegedly at the hands of a Mexican national who raped and killed her. Her alleged killer was extradited from Mexico last month.
  • Michelle Wilson-Root, whose 21-year old daughter Sarah was killed in 2016 following a vehicular accident allegedly caused by drunk driver Edwin Mejia – who had entered the country illegally and, as a result of “catch-and-release” loopholes, was released into the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor.
  • Ray Tranchant, who lost his 16-year-old daughter Tessa in 2007 to an illegal alien driving drunk.

Democrats don’t care about American children. If they did, they wouldn’t try to hide or dismiss the plight of these families. They would address the issue of black flight from Democrat run cities like Los Angeles and Chicago due to violent illegal alien gangs.

They also don’t really care about illegal aliens or immigrants – they only want their votes. The hysteria at the border is a crisis encouraged by Democrats. They want to emotionalize this issue to give Democrats an issue to run on in the mid-term elections.

Recently, I interviewed Border Angels activist Juan Rosas on my show “The Fallen State.” Rosas believes illegal aliens have the same rights as American citizens.

We the people must apply pressure on Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other RINOs to ensure that they stop the chaos at the border and approve the necessary funding for the border wall. Otherwise, our country will continue to be overrun by illegal aliens, and the border chaos will get worse.

WND: http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/democrats-dont-care-about-illegal-alien-or-american-children/#L9ybqf5vMdisImUk.99

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: The Bible and Illegal Immigration

The Bible and Illegal Immigration  “…those that you let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes, and as thorns in your sides, and they shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell… “

by Bill Lockwood

As illegal immigration assists dragging our culture downward into a more godless, violent and confused society, it is shocking that many preachers, who should be reflecting biblical values, have taken the position that somehow the liberal multicultural goal of open borders is beneficial for evangelism. People are becoming confused as to whether or not America should even have boundaries and borders and whether it is godly to protect those borders.

First, God Himself established borders of nations. In Acts 17:26 Paul, speaking to Greeks in Athens, stated that “God has made of one, every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth; having determined their appointed seasons, and bounds of their habitation.

Note the several elements of the passage. (1) God has made of every nation one—or He made from one every nation of mankind. This is in direct opposition to the then current Greek belief that their own origin was superior to other races. (2) God determined their appointed times, that is, their divinely appointed periods. Nations do not rise and fall without God. It is not a survival of the fittest. (3) Boundaries of nations are divinely fixed. However modern man wishes to understand the providence of God, Paul plainly states that God has a hand in national boundaries.

The classic Old Testament text on this subject is Deut. 32:8. “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance; When he separated the children of men …” The last comment, about “separating” the children of men refers to God’s division between peoples at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:8).

Second, God demanded that Israel respect borders of other nations. As Israel came out of Egypt, the people were to by-pass some of the nations respecting their borders because God had given them that territory. One of those nations was Edom. “I have given Mt. Seir to Esau for a possession,” said the Lord, therefore, Israel was not to enter it (Deut. 2:5). He said the same regarding the country of Moab.

Later (Num. 20), when Israel, under the leadership of Moses, applied to Edom to pass through its territory on their way toward Canaan, Edom said no. After a second application and refusal Israel turned to go another way. A nation has the right to determine who comes into its territory and even God’s selected leader Moses could not violate that right.

On the other hand, God had prior appointed that the territory of the Amorite and Canaanite (Palestine) would be given to Israel (see Deut. 1). This was a divine judgment upon those Canaanite nations (see Gen. 15:15-16) because of their extreme wickedness including child sacrifice.

Consider also the fact that at one point in Genesis history Abraham, God’s chosen, immigrated to Egypt (Gen. 12). Abraham, however, lied about the status of his wife Sarah at one of the checkpoints. When his lie was discovered by the Egyptians he was deported! God did not step in and demand that Abraham and his family be protected at the expense of the Egyptian government.

Third, once settled in Canaan, the Israelites were sternly warned on multiple occasions to “drive the Canaanites out.” Even forty years previously, when Israel was still at Mt. Sinai, God had promised to drive out the inhabitants of the land (Exod. 33:2). Once Joshua took the leadership and conquered most of Canaan, he commanded the cooperation of the Israelites in “driving out” the Canaanites (e.g. Joshua 17:17-19).

The stated reason for driving out the nations that formerly inhabited Israel was to preserve the culture of Israel. The word “culture” itself refers to the religious presuppositions that lie beneath a society.

When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places [of idol worship], and ye shall take possession of the land …” (Num. 33:51,52)

Moses continued. “But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that you let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes, and as thorns in your sides, and they shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell” (v. 55). That Israel did not drive out the Canaanite people from Israel is the theme of the book of Judges (see chapter 1). The rest of the book shows perfectly well what occurs when a culture is not preserved.

As one professor wisely told me, “marriage is not a reformatory school”—so also “open borders is not a missionary program.” It is a recipe for the disintegration and complete annihilation of what is left of America’s Christian culture.

After Israel’s settlement in Canaan each tribe had a sovereign boundary that was detailed in the sacred record (Joshua 15). Not only was tribal territory to be respected in Israel, but private property was considered sacred and one of the sins that was prosecuted was “moving boundary markers” of someone’s property—which is the same as stealing private land. In no text in Holy Writ does anyone find the concept that people are not to own private property or that there is no such thing as Israelite tribal territory or national boundaries.

Fourth, God forbade Israelites from making any personal and marital contracts with the pagan people that formerly inhabited the land. Deuteronomy 7:1-5 is emphatic. If individual Israelites mixed in marriage relationships with the idolaters and pagans known as the Canaanites, the pure religion of Israel would be eroded.

You shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them; … for he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods …” For this reason, God instructed, “You shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.”

God strictly warned the Israelites again through Joshua, the next generation leader: “For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, The Lord will not continue to drive them out, but they will become a share and a trap for you; a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes until you perish from the land” (Joshua 23:12,13).

The point here is not to recommend an induction program for those seeking citizenship in the United States, but to point out that biblically speaking, the concept of sovereign borders is paramount in Old Testament Israel. The idea therefore that America should have no borders, and thereby no border enforcement, is certainly not biblical. There is nothing ungodly about having borders or boundaries around a nation and having boundaries implies that those whose boundaries they are have the right to manage them. Less than this is confusion on the face of the deep.

John Locke pointed out that unless society can provide a code of fixed and enforceable laws, man might as well stayed in the jungle (Skousen, 5,000 Year Leap, 244).

To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.

Is America a sovereign nation? Many on the left apparently disdain that idea and are pushing for open borders. That may be their preference, but don’t come to the Bible with such an agenda.

« Older Entries