Category Archives: Tyranny

Tom DeWeese: Five Actions to Control HUD’s Tyranny

Five Actions Ben Carson Must Take to Control HUD’s Tyranny – “…the net result is more poor, bigger ghettos and less hope of improvement.”

by Tom DeWeese

After twenty four years of a relentless drive for centralized government power through Clinton, Bush and Obama, finally there is a chance to roll back some of the destruction to our Republic.  Donald Trump has an historic opportunity to fulfill his promise to “drain the swamp,” meaning getting rid of the corruption, the power grabs, and the disregard for Constitutional law.

It’s vital to understand that federal agencies are basically operating without oversight, free to create thousands of rules and regulations that become the force of law. These rules come complete with threats of legal action and intimidation. Much of this enforcement is done behind the scenes, away from the public eye. But the result can destroy property, business, and lives.

To take effective action against this situation and fulfill on his promise, President Trumps must set a very specific priority for federal policy:
1. Assure the complete protection of private property rights for every American.
2. Immediately begin the process of reigning in the power, over reach, and illegal policies of every federal agency. One of the worst offenders of federal overreach and intimidation is fully represented in the day to day operations of the agency for Housing and Urban Development (HUD.)

HUD pretends to be the agency that represents low income citizens to assure they have “fair housing” choices and are protected from discrimination. In reality HUD’s policies do massive damage to the poor and steal away their ability to improve their station. After years of HUD intervention in development policy, the net result is more poor, bigger ghettos and less hope of improvement.

If President Trump intends to end poverty and help rebuild American wealth and restore the hopes and dreams of the poor and middle class, then private property ownership is the single most effective way to achieve it. Welfare and government programs will not do it. The poor simply have no avenue available to build personal wealth. All that is provided to them is a routine government handout which assures lifelong servitude to the government.

Right now HUD is enforcing a program called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) to destroy the property rights and property values of the middle class in communities across the nation. In the campaign candidate Trump promised to end this program. Now he must do it!

Read 
Tom DeWeese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

HUD is using the program for pure social engineering to change the very culture of the nation, and destroy the concept of property ownership. In the process, AFFH is using law suits and intimidation to destroy the founder’s concept of local rule in communities by taking away their freedom of self determination and development.

Now Trump has appointed Dr. Ben Carson as the new HUD Secretary. Many say he’s not qualified to run such a massive agency. Does he understand the problems he faces with this agency’s unrelenting assault on property rights and local home rule? What must he do to reign in this renegade agency?  Here are a few immediate steps Carson can take to stop this assault on property owners and local communities, while actually helping the poor.

First. Stop the grants. HUD and other agencies dangle federal money in front of local communities as a trap to force them to impose the HUD policies. These grants come with specific strings attached that make the communities spend more money and create more rules and regulations. The end result is that local rule is compromised, property rights and values are destroyed and cities are eventually transformed into politically correct, environmentally propagandized stack and pack utopian nightmares.

To help curb this federal assault on local communities Dr. Carson must greatly diminish availability of grant programs and make sure the remaining programs are written in precise, straight forward language clearly outlining the rules for use of the grant.

Second. Stop the drive for the establishment of regional non-elected governments. They force on communities a “one-size-fits all” approach and take government further from the people. Only the representatives chosen by the people should make policy for the community.

Under AFFH rules, HUD is automatically placing communities into specific regions and enforcing a once size fits all policy. Many times local officials are not even informed that they are placed in such regions. Regionalism is the most effective tool for  controlling private property, using rules and regulations from a ruling body no one voted for and no one can challenge or questions its policies.

Third. Work with Congress to write specific legislation that limits the Agency’s ability to create regulations beyond the intended scope of the programs. Over the years Congress has deliberately written legislation in near neutral language, leaving it up to the agencies to make their own rules. This failure to define exactly the meaning and intent of the legislation has allowed the bureaucracy to impose hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations that help to destroy the economy while building the power of the agency.

Fourth. Encourage whistleblowers to report on bad policy inside the agency. Who knows the situation better? Allow them to speak. Reward them for new, workable ideas for cutting costs and streamlining agency practices. Everyone knows that the federal bureaucracy is a mess in inefficiency, overreach and waste. The agency should be rewarded for cutting its budget rather than engaging in the annual “spend it or lose it derby” that encourages waste and spending to avoid budget cuts.

Cut the HUD budget to a point that it can only conduct the programs intended, thereby stopping its over reach, using congressional oversight to assure it remains under control.

Fifth. Move immediately to close down the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule. Federal agencies are to be of assistance to local communities, not a threat. Under AFFH law suits are becoming a way of life for local officials. It is the very definition of tyranny from the federal juggernaut. If Donald Trump wants to drain the swamp, AFFH is the number one alligator to be eliminated. Senator Mike Lee of Utah has already introduced legislation to de-fund it. He is ready, willing and able to work with Secretary Carson to get it done.

These guidelines are a good start and should be Carson’s goal for the first 100 days. Then he might want to consider starting a serious effort to eventually abolish HUD completely. It’s a socialist dinosaur and a threat to limited government in a free America.

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: The Anti-Trump Riots are a Smoke Screen!

The Anti-Trump Riots are a Smoke Screen – “The Real Goal – Eliminate the Electoral College”

by Tom DeWeese

Many seem bewildered by the anti-Trump riots and demonstrations. And many keep trying to find a reasonable response. Give it up. You can’t reason with them with words.

Here is my take. They know full well that they aren’t going to overturn the election. These privately funded forces are being used to create pressure to destroy the Electoral College so they won’t have to deal with it next election. This is how the Left operates. Make a big deal over here to force the hidden agenda over there. The plan is to make enough trouble that Congress will move to abolish the EC to get some peace.

For clues on who is behind this effort one only has to watch to see which member of  Congress proposes such action. The answer of course is California Senator Barbara Boxer. It only took a week after the election for her to come to the rescue of the broken and distraught Left. Meanwhile, hidden forces are now meeting with and brow beating members of the Electoral College to get them to change their vote from the true winner of their state and vote out Trump.

The danger is real and gaining ground. But it didn’t start with this election result. A campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and “let the people elect the president,” has been gaining steam for several years. A group called “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ started in 2006, has won commitments from eleven states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. These include, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, California, New York, Hawaii and the District of Columbia. These states control 165 electoral votes. They only need states representing 105 more electoral votes to join and the Electoral College will be a thing of the past. Meanwhile, such legislation is under consideration in Missouri, Oklahoma and Arizona, to name a few.

When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral votes would have to pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any state’s bill could take effect.

As usual, it’s easy to get people to join this cause – yet another sound bite based on emotion rather than knowledge or logic. “Let the people decide.” “It’s the American way.” “It’s Democracy at work.” Yep, that’s why America was never set up as a democracy. Here’s another sound bite for you – “Democracy is a lynch mob.” Here’s another one – “Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.” Majority rule violates the rights of minorities. It’s not a good thing.  Get the picture?

The United States was created by the individual sovereign states. They were already free and independent governments on their own. As they came together to create a central government they feared it would grow too strong and overpower the states, making them subjugated to the central government. So, to prevent that, the states created the Electoral College to make the election of the President a STATE election.

Read 
Tom DeWeese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

Throughout history, certain factions have challenged the legality of the Electoral College. Opponents point out that our President is actually elected by 538 virtually unknown people who are members of 51 small delegations in fifty States and the District of Columbia. Moreover, in most states the electors are not even bound to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. In fact, many Constitutional scholars believe that’s just what the founders intended, 538 independent thinkers, bound to no one. There is reason and logic behind the idea.

The Founding Fathers, particularly those from small States, were very concerned that they would be smothered by the larger states. Under the representative republic (not a democracy) established by the founders, the United States is made up of fifty sovereign States. Under the Constitution, except for limited powers specifically defined for the central government, power for the rule of law is intended to reside in the States.

To deal with the problem, the founders decided on a compromise that would establish two chambers for the Congress; the House of Representatives, whose size would be dictated by the population in each state and the Senate in which every state would get two representatives, regardless of its size or population. You see, in the beginning, the states appointed Senators to be their representatives in Congress. But, like these so-called scholars of today who want to wreck the Electoral College, previous “experts” came up with the idea that Senators should be elected by the people – “It’s only fair,” went the mantra! The result is an imperial Senate that answers to no one but their own elite club members. That’s what happens when you mess with the real genius of the Constitution.

The same problem arose in deciding how to select a President, the one nationally-elected official. Here again there was the fear that election by popular vote would overwhelm the will of smaller States. Again, compromise was reached to address the issue in a fair and equitable manner in order to maintain the power of the states. Each state was assigned a number of presidential electoral votes equal to its representation in the House and the Senate. In each state, the electors would vote for a President and Vice President. The candidate receiving the largest number of electoral votes would be elected.

Under the plan, the connection to the popular vote was the selection of state electors. The popular vote was to be used to select individuals trusted by the people to select the President. Each presidential candidate has a slate of electors committed to them. As the people vote for a candidate, they are actually electing his/her slate of electors. Again, the selection of electors goes directly to local control of the process. Under the Constitution, even the smallest state was assured at least three votes in the process. To provide a further check to protect the smaller states, in the event no candidate won a majority of the electoral vote, the names of the top five would go to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation would cast one vote for one of the candidates. In this process each state, again, is equal.

To understand the Electoral College one must realize that the Founders considered the states as the dominate power in the nation. Election of the office of President was a bit like the selection of the Chairman of the Board, with the states serving as the board of directors for the nation. The great mistake Electoral College opponents make is to believe the President was supposed to be elected by the people. It was never the plan.

There are fundamental and often regional differences in how Americans view the role of government and the leaders they elect to run it. Little wonder those who seek to strengthen the power of the central government prefer that elections be decided by the popular vote. It’s a great sound bite- but the results will not give “the people” the “fair” result they desire.

Such a move will eliminate the power of individual states in favor of elections decided by the population of large, politically liberal cities. I’ve actually heard it said by residents of California, San Francisco, in particular, “why do we even let people in Ohio and Iowa vote?” Such elitism is behind the “National Popular Vote” movement which apparently believes that only the East and West Coasts count. The rest is just flyover country.

Keep these facts in mind as we watch the enforcement of Sustainable Development policies that lead to Smart Growth cities. The stated plans of such ideas are that most people will eventually be ‘persuaded” to leave the rural areas and migrate to the cities. In addition, we now are witnessing the invasion of illegal immigrants who normally land in such communities and swell their size.

The “feel good” propaganda of the National Popular Vote movement insists that a popular vote would not change the face of the nation. However, by design or not, the fact is their scheme plays right into the hands of the Sustainablists who openly seek top down control through the establishment of mega cities. By forcing the massive majority of citizens into such areas, a majority vote in just a few will drown any other area in the nation.

In such a planned agenda for the 21st Century, individuals living in the majority of the nation’s territory will quickly learn how little their “popular vote” counts if the Electoral College is abandoned by the “National Popular Vote” scheme. Those smaller states (and therefore their votes) may have no impact on the election of the President, just as our founders feared. Control by a few over the many can only be defined as tyranny.

The abolishment of the Electoral College would, in fact, establish an election tyranny giving control of the government to the massive population centers of the nation’s Northeastern sector, along with the area around Los Angeles. If these sections of the nation were to control the election of our nation’s leaders, the voice of the ranchers and farmers of the Mid and Far West would be lost, along with the values and virtues of the South. It would also mean the end of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.

Not happy to even let the states decide if they want to support the idea of the National Popular vote or not, the hard Left has manufactured the unrest in the streets to pressure a fast solution. Senator Boxer has answered the call with immediate legislation to end the Electoral College. Her bill masquerades as the answer to the people’s unrest. And the deal is done. Just like that. In the end, the result will have nothing to do with Donald Trump. He is just the convenient excuse.

Allow that to happen now and the great silent majority of middle America in this nation will never again have a fair say in who is elected our president. And that is the true goal of today’s unrest.

Read Tom Deweese’s Bio

The Wild Wild West of News

The Wild Wild West of News –“Remember, Obama has actually bragged about lying to the American people…”

by Bill Lockwood

True to his Marxist roots President Obama, in the waning days of his tenure in office, decries what he calls the “wild wild west” of news while suggesting that some agency should have a “curating function” to filter what is “approved” for public consumption. Speaking at a Pittsburgh conference last week, comrade Obama even proposed that “we are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to.” REBUILD? “We”—collectively?

A “curator” calls for someone or agency who is “in charge.” Sometimes it is used for “a guardian” to oversee a minor. This is exactly how Obama sees Americans. The free-flow of information is harmful to minors who need be spoon-fed government-approved information.

Continued the lying dictator-in-chief: “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.” Remember, Obama has actually bragged about lying to the American people —“If you like your doctor, etc.”

Another government bureaucracy added “to sort” through internet, television, radio, and printed material to apply basic “truthiness” tests. This does not simply sound like the Hitler’s and Stalin’s of the world, it is precisely what their programs of totalitarianism enacted.

As unbelievably astounding as Obama’s proposal is, he continued unfazed: “The way I would like to see us operate is, yes, significant debate and contentious debate, but where we are operating on the same basic platform, same basic rules, on how do we determine what’s true and what’s not. Everything on the internet looks like it might be true. And so in this political season, we’ve seen — you just say stuff. And so everything suddenly becomes contested. That I do not think is good for democracy, and it’s certainly not good for science, for progress, for government, for fixing systems.”

A government-sponsored media-organ would not be “censorship” Obama schmoozed. “But it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.” Only within certain parameters will “vigorous debate” be allowed.

Thomas Jefferson

Respect for the law of the land as well as basic components of liberty is something completely alien to Barack Obama as well as Hillary Clinton. There is an amendment of the Constitution that expressly, in so many words, declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

The core concept of the Bill of Rights is that people enjoy liberties because they are bestowed upon us by God Himself and that the government created for Americans is forbidden by the people to even touch the hem of the garment of these liberties.

As Thomas Jefferson observed, the fact that several liberties were enumerated in the First Amendment means that “whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others” and that “The liberty of speaking and writing … guards our other liberties.”

This election is about liberty. Will we enjoy what remains of that which God has given us in America? Much of it has already been eroded by the government. Or, will we succumb to the comrades of the Democratic Party who would love nothing more than to control you from cradle to grave?

Freedom-loving Americans resent the notion which lies behind all of these Big Brother proposals. It is the assumption that we need government to decide for us what political and religious information we will consume and what we will not. No thanks, Barack, we would rather live in the wild-wild-west of conflicting information and sort it out ourselves than be locked into government-sponsored “safe zones” being fed crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table.

Back to Homepage