Author Archives: AmLib1

Tom DeWeese: Not One Inch… The Battle Cry For Property Rights

 

Not One Inch… The Battle Cry For Property Rights- “No matter how noble a project may sound, alarm bells should go off when proponents want to enforce their vision in secret.”

by Tom DeWeese

I have been pushing hard lately to let people know that, no matter how big and powerful the opposition, the assault from big government forces can be stopped. That’s why I want to tell you about a recent major victory in Louisiana where a wonderful, determined group of residents rose up and stopped the implementation of the Caddo Lake National Heritage Area. By the way, this is the second NHA we’ve stopped. The Crooked Road NHA in Virginia was successfully shut down by us a few years ago.

National Heritage Areas are one of the most despicable stealth land grabs in the nation. Here’s why. Americans love history. And we love preserving significant places that played an important role in the making of our unique nation. So when we hear of a new plan in our area presented offering a chance to preserve some of our local heritage we are interested and even supportive.

But, in this day of massive government control over so much of our land, our economy, and our basic ability to live free lives, we must be cautious and look at the details of plans, no matter how innocent or well meaning they may seem.

National Heritage Areas are such a concern because they are sold to residents as simply a means to honor historic or cultural events that took place in a specific locale. We are told that they will preserve our culture and honor the past, that they will preserve battlefields where our forefathers fought and died for freedom, and that they will preserve birth places, homes, buildings and hallowed grounds for posterity. Most importantly, we are assured that NHAs will help build tourism and boost local economies.

The residents affected by the Caddo Lake NHA were suspicious because so little information was being released about the project. Who was behind it? Where was the money coming from? Above all, what specific areas were going to be affected?  So some determined residents did their homework. They learned the promises of increased tourism and boosts to the economy were, at best, empty. Rather, they learned NHA’s are little more than pork-barrel earmarks that endanger private property rights and local governmental powers. And a very specific danger is that Heritage Areas have very definite boundaries that come with very definite consequences for folks who reside within them. That’s because funding and technical assistance for Heritages Areas is administered through the National Park Service, a federal agency with a long history of hostility toward private landowners.

Private organizations and planning groups are the actual recipients of most of these funds supposedly earmarked for the Heritage Area. These entities operate as the promoters of the NHA in partnership with the Park Service. Eventually they form a commission or a “managing entity” to enforce the “vision” to implement the Heritage Area.

Typically such commissions consist of strictly ideological special interests groups. In the mix of these groups one will find all of the usual suspects: environmental groups, planning groups, historic preservation groups, all with their own private agendas – all working behind the scenes, creating policy. The managing entity then sets up non-elected boards and regional councils to oversee policy inside the Heritage Area that stretches over numerous communities and counties.

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

In many cases, these groups actually form a compact with the Interior Department to determine the guidelines that will make up a land use management plan and the boundaries of the Heritage Area itself. The management plan is their goal for how they envision the territory inside the boundary to be run. The plan will include guidelines for development goals, energy use, bike trails, undefined conservation controls, tourism, and anything else they want to control.

Now, after the boundaries are drawn and after the management plan has been approved by the Park Service, the management entity and its special interest groups are given the federal funds, typically a million dollars a year, or more, and told to spend that money to get the management plan enacted at the local level.

Here’s how those special interest groups operate with those funds. They go to local county boards and city councils and announce that Congress has passed legislation designating the Heritage Area and that the community is now within those boundaries. They pull out maps and announce the properties they have identified to be significant for preservation.

However, as the managing entity, they dont have the power to make laws but the local elected officials do and so the partnership is born, fed by the federal money. Now the managing entity will help create tools, legislation, guidelines and whatever regulatory procedures are needed to make the management plan come into fruition.

Incredibly, proponents argue that National Heritage Areas do not influence local zoning or land-use planning. Yet by definition this is precisely what they do. Found right in the language of most Heritage Area legislation, the management entity is specifically directed to restore, preserve, and manage anything and everything that is naturally, culturally, historically, and recreationally significant to the Heritage Area.

This sweeping mandate ensures that virtually every square inch of land within the boundaries is subject to the scrutiny of Park Service bureaucrats and their managing partners.

Of course, as with so many other invasive planning schemes, we are always assured that these are local initiatives, and that these are something citizens want in order to bring an honorary federal designation to help drive tourism into their regions. That simply isnt the case. The private, non-governmental organizations and planning groups are the ones who want the plan because they get to enforce their private agendas and then get to live off the grant money as they implement them. As proponents talk about historic preservation inside the Heritage Area, one will also find the catchwords “resource conservation” and “resource stewardship,” for example. That’s the clue to watch for.

It’s all about control. Control of the land, control of resources, control of decision making. How does that fit with their stated purpose of preserving American culture – which, of course, was built on the ideals of free enterprise and private property? In fact, it does the opposite by making government more powerful and dictatorial.

Proponents of NHAs also claim that they are “locally driven” projects. Nothing could be further from the truth. Landowners within the boundaries of proposed Heritage Areas are left in the dark throughout the entire process. For example, the final official map for the Caddo Lakes National Heritage Area, revealing its official boundary, was not to be released to the public until after the actual Congressional legislation was passed.

In addition, Heritage Area proponents refuse to supply a simple written notification to property owners that their land will be inside the boundaries. Seemingly the Park Service and their management “partners” are not too eager to share all the good news with the local citizenry.

I have personally been in meetings with congressional staffers to discuss Heritage Areas. I asked them if they intended to notify affected landowners living inside the boundaries of a specific Heritage Area. They looked at me like I had two heads.

They shuffled their feet and looked down at the table and then said, “There’s no way to do that.” “It would be too costly.” “How could we reach everyone?” I then suggested that they research a little know federal agency called the U.S. Postal Service. Mailmen appear too deliver to each and every one of the homes in the designated area every day.

The fact is, they don’t want to tell you in advance. You might object. And that would disrupt the “process.” No matter how noble a project may sound, alarm bells should go off when proponents want to enforce their vision in secret.

National Heritage Areas depend on federal tax dollars because they lack local interest— and not a single Heritage Area has ever succeeded in attracting that interest throughout their entire infinite lives. The federal money is the villain. If you just wanted to honor an area for its historic or cultural achievements, a simple resolution from Congress and a plaque at the county line could do that. The local Chamber of Commerce could then pick it up from there and build the expected tourism.

But of course, it’s not about that. It’s about control and money – lots of money in the pockets of private groups promoting their own agendas. Including taking control if people’s land.

There are 49 National Heritage Areas across the country so far – with more, now being considered around the country. Caddo Lake NHA, if legislated, would affect 900 square miles of private property, businesses, and whole communities. That’s a massive area to cover.

Along the Mississippi River there are two Heritage Areas, Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area and Mississippi Gulf Coast National Heritage Area. Now here is a region rich in history. There must be all kinds of good things happening along the mother of all rivers in the name of heritage preservation.

Well, today you won’t find people participating in one of the grand historic traditions of the river – living on riverboats. There were once whole generations of river people living on such boats. Talk about American heritage – right out of Mark Twain! Continue Reading

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/09/18/not-one-inch-the-battle-cry-for-property-rights/?mc_cid=29efe6ffac&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: Political Correctness, just one tool in the arsenal of Sustainability

Political Correctness, just one tool in the arsenal of Sustainability- Besides that loss of free speech on college campuses, we have social justice dictating what can, can’t, and must be done.”

by Kathleen Marquardt

At its worst, political correctness is nothing different from Orwell’s Newspeak – an attempt to change the way people think by forcibly changing the way they speak.” Urban Dictionary

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.”    Chester M. Pierce, Harvard psychiatrist, speaking as an expert in public education at the 1973 International Education Seminar.

The “Dear Hillary” letter, written on Nov. 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), lays out a plan “to remold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone,” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”

Tucker’s plan would change the mission of the schools from teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards. Nothing in this comprehensive plan has anything to do with teaching schoolchildren how to read, write, or calculate.

Twenty-seven or eight years ago, I was interviewed by a reporter at the Sacramento Bee about my articles challenging the thinking of animal rights. The reporter said to me, “But they are politically correct and you are not.” I agreed, saying that if anyone ever called me politically correct, it would be time to slit my throat.

Why do I bring this up now? Back then I didn’t realize where p.c. was going; now it is full-force tyranny. Am I exaggerating? Few people who do not back socialist-leaning thought are allowed to speak on our campuses of ‘higher learning’, many sporting bumper stickers pro Trump or Christianity or pro life have their cars keyed or spray painted. You don’t hear about that happening when one has a coexist bumper sticker.

Political Correctness has become a tool, one of many in the arsenal of global tyranny. It is a tool that could not have been used 40 or 50 years ago; most people still had rational, thinking brains. Since my interview with the Sacramento Bee, the road to hell – or global government – or the death of Western Culture — has gotten so steep we may not be able to stop it or even slow it down.

Do I exaggerate? You tell me. Besides that loss of free speech on college campuses, we have social justice dictating what can, can’t, and must be done. Many campuses require you to intuit someone’s arbitrary choice of gender so that you may properly address them (it would take a perfect clairvoyant to achieve this). Let’s move on to the important stuff – academic learning, or the lack thereof.

College students used to take a liberal arts degree in their undergraduate work to give them a well-rounded base. Now that and most other true academic learning has been ditched for social justice studies, sustainable studies, gaming studies – anything that is anti Western Culture, anything that makes one unemployable, anything that dumbs down the next generations.

Textbooks are full of misinformation, propaganda and lies. Classic literature is banned for using outdated words. Books are ignored or shunned for promoting morality, literacy, reason, common sense, and civility. And while our institutes of higher learning preach, “question authority”, they don’t actually teach questioning anything but Western Culture and its values. They certainly don’t teach students to question the professors’ authority. No longer do students debate tough issues; no one wants to take the side of the non-politically correct.

How did we get from the Declaration of Independence to the State of Political Correctness? One major contributor was the book, The Ideal Communist City, (a design for No Child Left Behind, Common Core and all the other aliases of behavior modification of children) said here in public education, “The best opportunity for contact among children of preschool age occurs in the nursery, which is the best setting for developing the child’s imitative powers and individual activities. He expresses his inclinations most freely here, and his egocentricity is least harmfully repressed. The positive value of group activity, of course, is fully realized only when it is organized and directed by educators who have benefited from advanced social training.”

Or look at this from the BSTEP program our government (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) hired Michigan State University to design. “A small elite will carry society’s burdens. The resulting impersonal manipulation of most people’s life styles will be softened by provisions for pleasure seeking and guaranteed physical necessities. Participatory democracy in the American-ideal mold will mainly disappear. The worth and dignity of individuals will be endangered on every hand. Only exceptional individuals will be able to maintain a sense of worth and dignity.”

Let’s not overlook UNESCO, here, “As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness (one-world order) can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism). We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness.” UNESCO publication #356, “In the Classroom: Toward World Understanding”

It took only about half the lifetime of our country to get us here.

In 1918, Mary Parker Follett wrote, in The New State, group organization – the solution of popular government, “The training for the new democracy must be from the cradle – through nursery, school and play, and on and on through every activity of our life. Citizenship is not to be learned in good government classes or current events courses or lessons in civics. It is to be acquired through those modes of living and acting which shall teach us how to grow the social consciousness. This should be the object of all day school education, of all night school education, of all our supervised recreation, of all our family life, of our club life, of our civic life.

“When we change or ideas of the relation of the individual to society, our whole system of education changes. What we want to teach is interdependence, that efficiency waits on discipline, that discipline is obedience to the whole of which I am a part.. . . when we know how to teach social discipline, then we shall know how to ‘teach school.’ The object of education is to fit children into the life of the community.” P.363

So, according to Follett, our lives must focus completely on losing our individual rights and work to subordinate any freedoms we might consider to the cosmic one-ness, the group. The thought of that (if there are thinking minds left) would drive most of us to suicide.

John Dewey, the reformer of the education system, said, “I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.”

“Humanist Manifesto” (1933) co-author Dewey calls for a synthesizing of all religions and “a socialized and cooperative economic order.” [1]

America cannot last under this. Our country is based on Western Culture, Judeo/Christian Values, the Rule of Law, and other rational, reasoning social institutions. As we eradicate morality, common sense, values, attitudes, and beliefs, we become no different than the animals. Look at Venezuela. Do we want that at a magnitude of the nth degree? If not, now is the time to wake up, stand up, and speak out. We don’t have much time left. Look at the streets of San Francisco, Chicago, Nashville, New York, Los Angeles. Is this what we want to call our civilization?

[1] Deanna Spingola, The New World Order, Programming the Masses

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/09/10/political-correctness-just-one-tool-in-the-arsenal-of-sustainability/?mc_cid=8dfab2085a&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Soros-Funded “Beto” O’Rourke Wrong for Texas; Wrong for America

Soros-Funded “Beto” O’Rourke Wrong for Texas; Wrong for America“Beto O’Rourke’s cumulative score on the “Freedom Index” of The New American is a pitiful 27%.

by Bill Lockwood

It ought to be a fair warning to Texans that Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is heavily financed by communist agitator George Soros. But a glance at his ultra-liberal voting record while serving in the U.S. House of Representatives from El Paso seals the deal against him with those who have any respect left for what remains of the United States Constitution, and who value freedom from a Leviathan-Government.

Beto O’Rourke’s cumulative score on the “Freedom Index” of The New American is a pitiful 27%. There is not a big government program that O’Rourke does not like, nor a diminishing of liberty for citizens that he does not favor.

Health Care

He voted against the bill (December, 2017) known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that would cut corporate income tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent, cut individual tax-rates through 2025, and eliminate the tax penalty on Americans who do not purchase health insurance. This last was the cornerstone of the ObamaCare 2010 legislation.

On his website O’Rourke stumps for socialized medicine, using all the left’s fabricated lies to push voters in that direction. “It means,” says Beto, “that every one of us is able to get healthy and stay healthy. It means we have access to the providers, medications and help that keep us on our feet and moving forward.” This is achieved perhaps “through a single payer system, a dual system, or otherwise…”

As Beto knows, the issue has never been about “access to providers” of healthcare coverage—even though this was the patented lie of Obama. The trouble is not access but who is paying for it?  Our Emergency Rooms have been filled for over 30 years will illegals and others who have been funded by the taxpayers. Again, access is not the issue. What is at stake is a federal government program that robs one sector of society (the producers) to pay for others (the takers).

“Healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege,” says his website. Wrong. Healthcare is a service provided by those who have invested much personal time and money into their profession. O’Rourke thinks that by calling it his “right” that these professionals serve him he has created the “right” that that somehow mandates that I must pay for his services. No wonder Soros loves him. Liberals always miss the basic issue as to what a “right” is.

Immigration

Politifact says that it is “mostly true” that Beto O’Rourke wishes to disband ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) as accused by Ted Cruz. According to a Texas Tribune news story (July 2, 2018), at a town hall in San Antonio, O’Rourke was asked about “abolishing ICE.” Politifact writes,

O’Rourke discussed the need to eliminate fear in immigrant communities under Trump and to find a better way to enforce immigration laws. ‘And if that involves doing away with this agency, giving that responsibility to somebody else, changing how this agency performs, I’m open to doing that,’ O’Rourke said.

Yet he went on to flatly answer no when directly asked if he would abolish ICE, explaining that he does not currently know enough about how immigration law would be enforced without the agency.

‘I understand the urgency of this,’ O’Rourke said in conclusion. ‘I just want to make sure that we’re constructive in how we talk about meeting this challenge and that I understand what abolishing ICE would mean in terms of enforcing our laws going forward.’

Stop here a moment. Universal health care in Texas—socialized medicine paid for by taxpayers. No border enforcement, which means open borders. That is a simple recipe to say good-bye to the Lone Star State. Let’s just turn it over to Mexico, as is already being called for by some liberal groups. Perhaps Robert needs to be nicknamed “Reconquista” O’Rourke.

Other Issues

On Abortion, O’Rourke has proved consistent—consistently immoral. He has voted to fund the murder of the unborn with federal taxpayer-supplied funds; when a bill came before him to deny federal subsidies in ObamaCare from funding abortion, he voted NO; when the issue was to limit abortions, he was against that limitation; he refused to defund Planned Parenthood even for one year unless Congress could certify that that “healthcare provider” did not perform abortions. His website claims he wants a “chance for everyone to succeed”—unless, of course, you are a person awaiting birth from inside your mother’s womb.

Beto voted for raising the spending cap during Obama’s presidency; he is pro Common Core; and voted against the Death Tax Repeal which would have put to rest an ungodly law Robin Hood-style system of robbery. He is weak on the 2d Amendment as he promises to “close the gun show loophole.”

Another issue of keen interest to liberty-minded Texans is Beto’s support of the EPA’s “Waters of the United States” rule. As described by one writer, this bill (H.R. 2, May, 2018) was the “poster child of government overreach during the Obama administration” as it gives “unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the power to broadly interpret what is a navigable waterway” under the Clean Water Act. The practice of the EPA was to interpret the rule “so broadly” that “even a puddle in a farm’s drainage ditch could be subjected to Federal regulation.”

This is exactly the kind of kingship government that Beto prefers—an unconstitutional socialistic-style system that lawlessly regulates each patch of dirt in the great state of Texas. Beto is wrong for Texas; he is wrong for America.

Alex Newman: Deep State Mole in White House Boasts of Sabotaging Trump

Deep State Mole in White House Boasts of Sabotaging Trump  “Of course, the globalist Deep State always thinks it knows better than the American people.”

by Alex Newman

A senior official in the Trump administration supposedly admitted in an “anonymous” New York Times piece that he or she, and many other top figures, are deliberately conspiring to sabotage the president’s agenda, an agenda that the American people voted for in the 2016 election. The supposed writer even suggested that members of Trump’s Cabinet had considered calling him crazy and removing him under the 25th Amendment. Assuming the Times is not lying, which is not necessarily a good assumption considering the left-wing paper’s long history of lies, the op-ed confirms once again the existence of a subversive “Deep State” that will defy its own boss — and the American people who constitutionally elected him — to advance a globalist agenda that is unconstitutional and was soundly rejected by voters at the polls. Trump, though, suggested he would be getting the last laugh.

In a series of social-media posts, President Trump responded to the “resistance” op-ed by suggesting there was a good chance it was a fraud, citing the establishment media’s long history of dishonesty and hatred of the current administration. But if it is real, he argued, it is simply evidence that the “Swamp” in Washington, D.C., is desperately fighting back against being drained. It may even be considered treason, Trump suggested. “Does the so-called ‘Senior Administration Official’ really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!” Trump wrote on Twitter. “I’m draining the Swamp, and the Swamp is trying to fight back. Don’t worry, we will win!”

In a televised statement from the White House during a meeting with county sheriffs, Trump also ridiculed the Times and CNN, the discredited cable news network with collapsing ratings amid 24/7 anti-Trump hysteria. “We have somebody in what I call the failing New York Times talking about he’s part of the resistance within the Trump administration,” Trump said. “This is what we have to deal with. And you know, the dishonest media … it’s really a disgrace.” Trump then went through a litany of good news — employment numbers, manufacturing growth, deregulation, ending ObamaCare’s hated “individual mandate,” starting construction on the wall — before taking aim at the Times and the supposed op-ed writer.

The agenda of the Deep State swamp and its media allies, Trump said, is about “open borders,” allowing America to be overrun with “disaster and crime.” Because Trump opposes those things, “they don’t like Donald Trump,” the president continued. “And I don’t like them, because they’re very dishonest people,” he said. “Remember this also, about the New York Times: When I won, they were forced to apologize to their subscribers. They wrote a letter of apology — it was the first time anybody has ever done it — because they covered the election incorrectly. So if the failing New York Times has an anonymous editorial — can you believe it? ‘Anonymous,’ meaning gutless — a gutless editorial.” He also slammed the “Deep State” and suggested that Americans would win the battle against it in the end.

In the editorial, Trump’s self-styled “senior official,” of whom there are hundreds in an administration, boasted that “many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda.” “I would know,” he added. “I am one of them.” While conceding that Trump has already “made America safer and more prosperous” with his policies, the “resistance” activist claims that the president also “continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.” That is why “many” of Trump’s appointees, according to the alleged mole, are working to thwart the president’s policies that they disagree with. As examples of Trump’s supposed bad behavior, the Deep State operative points to labeling the “fake news” media as the “enemy of the people.” And yet, surveys consistently show that almost all Americans realize that most of the mass media is lying to them.

“It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t,” the supposed “senior official” claimed, citing as examples an array of foreign-policy positions Trump campaigned on, such as non-hostile relations with Russia, that the Deep State is working to subvert. “He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.” Of course, the globalist Deep State always thinks it knows better than the American people.

Ironically, the piece goes on to glorify the late neoconservative warmonger John McCain, a fervent globalist and a key operative with multiple Deep State organizations. Even the briefest survey of the McCain-backed foreign-policy disasters of recent decades would suggest that the author of the piece must have been smoking something — or reading too much propaganda in the New York Times. Consider, among the recent examples, that McCain was in Libya in 2009 meeting with dictator Moammar Gadhafi and plotting how to funnel more U.S. weapons and military aid to the brutal regime. Just two years later, McCain switched sides and was openly supporting an uprising against Gadhafi led by self-proclaimed al-Qaeda leaders who had been killing U.S. troops not long before. The disaster in Syria followed a similar course. And Iraq. And Afghanistan. Continue Reading

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.

Jesse Lee Peterson: DON’T LET DEMOCRATS MONKEY UP RED STATES

DON’T LET DEMOCRATS MONKEY UP RED STATES– Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson slaps candidates playing race card to get traction

by Jesse Lee Peterson

American-hating leftists have seized control of the Democratic Party, and they’re hell-bent on impeaching Donald Trump.

Andrew Gillum, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Robert “Beto” O’Rourke are rising stars in the Democratic Party. These “progressives” may appear fresh, but their agenda is the same stale socialism that Democrats have been pushing since the 1960s.

Gillum is mayor of Tallahassee, Florida. He won an upset victory in that state’s Democratic primary for governor with a message of generational “change.” Sound familiar?

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke – a beta male posing as a real Texan – is reportedly gaining on incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz in the Texas Senate race. O’Rourke is trying to pander to Hispanics and blacks by using an ethnic-sounding nickname and speaking in support of NFL thugs kneeling during the national anthem.

Most Americans won’t support an openly socialist candidate, so Gillum and O’Rourke have to lie and resort to playing the race card against Republicans to get traction.

Andrew Gillum and Democrats nationwide are trying to discredit Florida Republican gubernatorial nominee Rep. Ron DeSantis as “racist” because he had the audacity to warn Florida voters not to “monkey this up” by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state by electing a far-left socialist like Gillum.

DeSantis has said his comments were aimed at Gillum’s policies, not his skin color. But Democrats immediately went on the offensive labeling the Republican a “racist.” Democrats know “racism” doesn’t exist, but they use it to silence white conservatives and to instill fear in blacks and motivate them to vote.

Predictably, Democrats marched a handful of useless black pastors in front of the cameras for a press conference denouncing DeSantis. Never mind that Obama and countless other public figures have used the term “monkey things up,” but it’s only “offensive” when a conservative says it.

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

This is a distraction to take the focus off Andrew Gillum and his close associates who are being investigated as part of an FBI corruption probe. Gillum faces allegations of misconduct after hiring investor Adam Corey as the treasurer for his 2014 mayoral campaign.

Gillum is bad news! He wants to abolish ICE. He’s pro-abortion. Gillum wants to raise taxes and supports a $15 minimum wage. He opposes Florida’s stand-your-ground law and wants the voting rights of felons restored. He supports the removal of Confederate monuments. Gillum has also called for the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Gillum is endorsed by Bernie Sanders and has received financial support from left-wing billionaires Tom Steyer and George Soros. Gillum also works with People For The American Way – a far left group founded for the purpose of attacking and discrediting conservative Christians.

On the other hand, his Republican opponent Ron DeSantis is a Trump supporter and a common-sense conservative.

DeSantis attended Harvard Law School, receiving his J.D. DeSantis was sworn into the Judge Advocate General Corps of the U.S. Navy in 2004. He was a military prosecutor for the Joint Task Force-Guantanamo Commander (JTF-GTMO), working directly with detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Joint Detention Facility. He opposed Obama’s plan to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. DeSantis supports the Second Amendment (he received an A+ rating from the NRA). He opposes “sanctuary cities” and is a co-sponsor of Kate’s Law (the Establishing Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act of 2015). DeSantis opposes abortion and has denounced Planned Parenthood. He opposed Obamacare. In 2015, DeSantis was named “Taxpayer Superhero” by Citizens Against Government Waste. He also supports term limits for members of Congress.

Like Obama, Andrew Gillum is a smooth liar who presents himself as a moderate, but his record shows he’s a divisive radical Democrat. The mainstream media will never tell us the truth about these dangerous leftists, so we have to expose them for what they are.

The left wants to silence conservative Christians in the media and in the political square.

Eric Bauman, the head of the California Democratic Party (an openly homosexual activist), recently called for a boycott of the In-n-Out burger chain after a public filing revealed that the company had recently donated $25,000 to the state’s Republican Party.

He tweeted: Et tu In-N-Out? Tens of thousands of dollars donated to the California Republican Party … it’s time to #BoycottInNOut – let Trump and his cronies support these creeps … perhaps animal style! http://www.lamag.com/digestblog/in-n-out-republican/ …”

What Bauman and most of the media omitted is that In-N-Out has donated money to California Democrats and Democratic PACs, in some cases much more than its noteworthy donation to the state’s GOP. The company said in a statement that it supports politicians regardless of political affiliation.

Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media are desperate to flip red states blue. They’ll lie, cheat and are treacherous in their campaign to silence their opposition. Conservatives need to stop allowing the left to restrict their freedom of speech and their actions. We can no longer afford to be slaves to the children of the lie. Don’t give in to their name-calling and lies. If you value your freedoms and want to keep America Great – get out and vote this November!

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2018/09/dont-let-democrats-monkey-up-red-states/#Za0Fk4bYyx3fzYfe.99

Bill Lockwood: Socialists Are Really Digressives, Not Progressives

Socialists Are Really Digressives, Not Progressives “God’s system is not only productive, but is moral and right.”

by Bill Lockwood

Leftist miseducation during the past century has mislabeled “socialism” as “progressivism” to make it more palatable to consumers. In point of fact the Socialist Progressive Movement in American history, which textbooks date from about 1890 to 1920, radically expanded the size of government. This, we are told, that it might become “more efficient” in caring for the lives of citizens. This set our nation on a course toward totalitarianism in which some candidates for political office are even toying with limiting the size of families by government fiat. Ironically, socialism, which is the rage today in the Democrat Party, has dropped the “progressive” label. But it was never progressive at all–but a digression to the failed experiments of the past.

William Bradford was the first governor of the Plymouth Bay Colony, taking office in the beleaguered outpost in April, 1621. He had been a signatory of the Mayflower Compact a month before the Pilgrims landed in December, 1620.

Part of the text of that Compact reads,

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and the Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of King and Country, a voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern parts of Virginia…solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation …

Though honoring God in their declaration, neither Bradford nor the rest of the Pilgrims came to a full realization of the ungodliness of a socialistic system until they tried it to a miserable failure.

As first set up, the Colony set up a system of rationing from a common storehouse to which they labored to contribute their produce from the field. But, as Henry Hazlitt describes it, “a vicious circle seemed to set in. The people complained that they were too weak from a want of food to tend the crops as they should.” After that, though deeply religious, “they took to stealing from one another.” Bradford observed that the general famine that resulted would necessarily continue under those conditions.

Captain John Smith had a similar experience in the Jamestown Colony of Virginia. After the socialistic system was in place, he observed, “When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he that could slip from his labor, or slumber over his task, he cared not how.” Even the most “honest among them” cared little for the increase, “presuming that howsoever the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them, …”

Complaints Harvested from Socialism

It was not long before the complaints began mounting in Plymouth. Bradford says in his Journal Of Plymouth Plantation,

For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.

Injustice it was! And a failure as well. The problem was seeking to circumvent what God had ordered for the welfare of mankind: “If a man does not work, neither let him eat.” They further expressed their dissatisfaction: “And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”

Unjust. Slavery. Failure. Pretty well sums up our own complaints from the middle class who are now forcibly enrolled in America to serve the poor.

The Remedy

Bradford tells us how the Pilgrims lighted on the remedy. The colonists,

Began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length [in 1623], after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular [for himself and his family], and in that regard trust to themselves … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land …

The result of allowing God’s order of things to preside was remarkable.

This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before alleged weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

God’s system is not only productive, but is moral and right. To the extent that America has become a socialist nation of redistribution is the extent of our trouble and misery.

More to the point, however, is the fact that the Democrats do not represent progress by championing the Karl Marx philosophies of confiscation and redistribution—they represent digression. Whether by means of ObamaCare; Section 8 housing, food stamps, disability payments and a host of other handout programs–all of them are doomed not only to failure—but to make America miserable again. Real PROGRESS is moving ahead to freedom and unshackling the machinery of government regulation from the producers in our great nation.

Alex Newman: Atlanta School Ends Morning Pledge of Allegiance to be “Inclusive”

Atlanta School Ends Morning Pledge of Allegiance to be “Inclusive” “The globalist establishment is working overtime to sideline nations, national identity, self-government, and patriotism…  “

by Alex Newman

A tax-funded school in Atlanta, Georgia, announced that students would no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. Instead, the school said students would be expected to recite the “Wolf Pack Chant” that will “focus on students’ civic responsibility to,” among other things, “our global society,” officials said. It was all in the name of “diversity.” But the backlash was fast and furious.

The controversial decision at the K-8 Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School, announced earlier this month, was made “in an effort to begin our day as a fully inclusive and connected community,” elementary Principal Lara Zelski said in a statement. “Over the past couple of years it has become increasingly obvious that more and more of our community were choosing to not stand and/or recite the pledge.”

Apparently, a number of pro football players choosing to protest during the national anthem inspired some of the faculty and students to refuse to participate in the pledge at school. “There are many emotions around this and we want everyone in our school family to start their day in a positive manner,” Zelski continued. “After all, that is the whole purpose of our morning meeting.”

She noted that students would continue to “lead the meeting.” But instead of standing at the meeting to pledge allegiance to their Republic, under God, with liberty and justice for all, the students would participate in the yet-to-be-developed “Wolf Pack Chant.” As part of that “chant,” the students would pledge responsibility to “our global society,” a frequent term used by globalists to refer to the dictator-dominated United Nations. Then the pledge could be said in classrooms if students wanted to.

When the news got out, it caused outrage across Georgia and beyond. “I’m sure our House Education Committee will examine whether taxpayer funds should be used to instill such a divisive ideology in our students,” warned Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, a Republican. Other top officials and political leaders echoed those remarks, citing Georgia law that requires tax-funded schools to have a time set aside for the pledge.

After the statewide and national uproar, the school quietly backtracked. “It appears there was some miscommunication and inconsistency in the rollout,” Board Chair Lia Santos said. “Starting next week, we will return to our original format and provide our students with the opportunity to recite the Pledge during the all-school morning meeting.”

The globalist establishment is working overtime to sideline nations, national identity, self-government, and patriotism in its quest to build what multiple former presidents have described as a “New World Order.” And of course, school children are in the crosshairs. Obama’s “Education” Secretary Arne Duncan boasted repeatedly that the UN and the Obama administration were both aiming “to prepare better global citizens.”

With government schools and the establishment working overtime to demonize America in the minds of children using lies and fake history, it is no surprise that a growing number of students refuse to say the pledge. Those numbers will continue to grow. And fixing this problem will require more than just pressuring schools to continue the pledge.

What is needed instead is a total overhaul of the education system to stop the indoctrination and the dumbing down. In the meantime, parents must do everything possible to protect their children from the anti-American, globalist agenda being force-fed to them in government schools.


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.

Bill Lockwood: How Our Socialist Welfare System Distorts Reality

 

How Our Socialist Welfare System Distorts Reality“It is the fact that socialism itself is immoral.”

by Bill Lockwood

In one discussion after another conservative commentators correctly point out that socialism “does not work.” Charlie Kirk, for example, has absolutely destroyed socialist arguments in one episode after another on YouTube. Reminding the uneducated Millennials that people have fled socialist nations, he highlights the failure of that totalitarian system. Since socialism has proved to be such an abysmal failure, it is a wonder that many young Americans wish to adopt it.

But there is one argument against socialism that needs more emphasis than it is receiving. It is the fact that socialism itself is immoral. It creates an immoral society and to the extent it has has already invaded America since the Progressive Era, it has eroded our value system as well as the concepts of private property.

Only two methods exist by which money may flow from my pocket to yours. Either by my free-will contribution or your theft. The first is obviously voluntary. The second is forced. Socialists of all colors and stripes always are interested in using force to remove my goods to use it themselves or distribute it to others. But it is still theft. The fact that the United States government is now the legislative tool to accomplish this does not change its nature—it is unethical. And, because it is unethical our concept of reality has become distorted.

“Hands Off My Healthcare!”

Our near-socialist system (government theft and redistribution now make up 2/3 of the federal budget) has been ingrained in the populace for nearly 100 years. It has in turn dissipated our thinking. Consider the following.

How many placards have we seen carried by those who love socialistic systems that read, “Hands Off My Healthcare!”? Stop and think for a moment.

When your teenage son or daughter has had an automobile that is paid for by parents; whose insurance is subsidized by mom and dad; and auto-repair bills covered by parents—what would one think if dad said, “I am not paying your insurance or car payments for the next 6 months”—and the child demands, “Keep your hands off of my car!”

The child is so spoiled it has warped his view of reality. “It is not YOUR car, my son.” If you want a car—go buy your own, pay the insurance, buy your own gas and get it repaired yourself.

Exactly. Healthcare is a service that is provided by the taxpayer via government force. Those who chirp, “Keep your hands off of my healthcare!” have lost perspective. It is not your healthcare as long as the working men and women of the middle class are paying for it.

Dulls the Incentives

Hunger and pain are not always bad things. God has built these into the natural world as incentives for us to WORK. Just as pain induces me to keep my hand off of a hot stove so hunger teaches me that idleness is unproductive. This is why God said, “Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Reaping pain encourages me to avoid the same trap in the future.

But what happens when the welfare checks are doled out? Idleness is encouraged. Indolence grows. Instead of being incentivized to work, people are encouraged to avoid it. This is why we now have an entire third and fourth generation of people who are living off of the workers in society. The natural incentives God put into place are re-arranged. Pain has now shifted to taxpayers who frantically search for methods to avoid more pain of paying higher taxes while working longer hours.

Politicians are Compassionate?

From the “compassion” of socialism to the “conservative compassion” of the George Bush’s of the world, we have adopted a skewed view of the world when it comes to helping the poor. Politicians promise nothing to one segment of society that they have not unconstitutionally stolen from another class of people. In other words, it is easy to be “compassionate” with other people’s money, isn’t it?

Our entire system is structured along these lines. Bigger schools, more healthcare, more government housing, more free food, etc. Workers can hardly afford their own insurance because they are busy paying for others’. The politician who promises the most frequently gets elected. But they never give from their own pockets. It is with the licentious tax and spend stick that they take from the “rich” to give to the “poor.” And, just as noted above, once this begins, it snowballs.

Now the receivers have become the majority of the population. In reality, there is no compassion in this model. It is self-enrichment by political animals who maintain power and position by continuing this Robin Hood system.

Re-arranging What is Important in Life

Socialistic welfare spending causes individuals to re-arrange their priorities in life. It is common knowledge that the entire tattoo industry is funded by hand-outs. Casino gambling has become habitual. And much of this occurs with government welfare checks.

So, what is the lesson? Providing people relief in one area of life—giving them money or subsidizing their housing—encourages them to spend money foolishly. And how often have we heard criticisms of the Millennials or Generation X not saving money for retirement?

Why should they save money for retirement? We have handed them a platter full of goodies and they have glutted themselves on other people’s labors.

Only one remedy remains. Get back to the Constitution whereby it was illegal for government to confiscate property of one person to give it to another. The cancer of socialism has grown exponentially, however, and it is a massive tumor burdening our culture.

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.


« Older Entries