The Democrats have a big problem — yuge, as President Donald Trump might say.
Right now the Democratic presidential front-runner is Sen. Bernie Sanders. His views are stark-raving crazy. The things he believes in turn off and frighten average Americans. You know, the ones who aren’t communists and didn’t choose to honeymoon in the Soviet Union.
Elizabeth Warren is trying to outdo Sanders. Recently, she claimed that transgender illegal aliens are the most important issue on the border. I kid you not. She was panicking over transgender people being stuck on the other side of the border because “mean Trump” won’t let them in.
To radical nut jobs such as Warren, it isn’t bad enough that open borders are draining the U.S. Treasury … that illegal aliens are adding hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt … that they’re using up limited resources for welfare, food stamps, education and health care that should rightfully be spent on American citizens. Warren wants to pour salt in the wound. She wants to bankrupt this country even faster. She clearly also wants to spend $150,000 each on illegal aliens so they can have free gender reassignment surgery. She thinks you and I should pay for that.
Then, just days ago, it got worse. Warren said she wants her nominee for education secretary to be vetted by a “young trans person,” apparently referring to a 9-year-old trans child she met at a CNN town hall. To radicals such as Warren, transgender kids are the most important issue in education.
Now, more rational Democrats might say: “Warren will never be the nominee. Everyone realizes she’s too radical. A moderate such as Mike Bloomberg will win the nomination.”
OK. So let’s meet the “moderate” Democratic candidate.
Bloomberg just released his vision for LGBTQ rights. Keep in mind I’m actually enlightened on gay rights issues. I’ve always been a pro-gay rights Republican. I support gay marriage. But Bloomberg’s LGBTQ vision is so far out of the mainstream he might as well be running for president of Pluto. It includes:
• Free sex surgery and hormone treatment for transgender people, thereby costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
• Restricting the sale of health insurance that doesn’t provide coverage for gender-affirming care, including sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, thereby dramatically increasing the cost of health insurance for all. Would you pay double or triple health insurance premiums so Jack can become Jill? That’s Jack’s problem, not ours. Here’s my simple solution: Let Jack work three jobs to pay for his own surgery.
• The right to seek shelter based on so-called gender identity, meaning Bloomberg would allow men who think they are women to stay in homeless and domestic violence shelters for women. This is just insanity and would potentially lead to women being assaulted and brutalized inside these shelters at the hands of men masquerading as women.
• The passage of the Equality Act, which bars governments, schools and sports organizations from recognizing biological/physiological differences between men and women and instead recognizes gender identity, meaning your daughters would be competing in sports with boys who think they’re girls, and showering, using bathrooms and rooming on road trips with boys who think they’re girls.
This Bloomberg agenda is so radical that I can’t even read it without getting physically sick. This isn’t “moderate.”
It’s reckless and dangerous, and it borders on insane. Mark my words: Middle-class America will never, never, never vote for anyone promoting this radical and offensive an agenda.
Please keep in mind that Bloomberg is the moderate candidate of today’s Democratic Party.
The inspiring ideals enshrined in the founding documents of our nation include a limited government that allows maximum personal freedom, equality of opportunity, and equal justice under the law. These are founded upon the pillars of inalienable rights, including the fact that all men are created by God as equal. But we have gone about “as far left” as socialist policies can take us if the Democratic debates are an indication of where America will be tomorrow.
“Our job,” Bernie Sanders spouted in the Iowa debate, “is to build the United Nations.” Not surprising from a socialist who has been photographed enjoying toasts with the leader of the old Soviet Union’s gulag communistic state. But frightening that he maintains substantial support in the Democratic Party.
The United Nations has been from its inception a design for socialistic world government. In its most recent COP 25 climate summit in Madrid, Spain, Executive Director Stuart Scott called for the UN to implement drastic population-control policies and “family planning” such as control the Chinese. Other plans include a massive transfer of wealth from “western countries” (read, “United States”) to third world poorer nations in the form of “climate reparations.” The UN is a world dictators’ dream. This is what Bernie Sanders favors. National Socialism is not brave enough—we need International socialism.
It is inescapable, however, that we have already lost so many of our freedoms that have made America the envy of the world. Whether due to taxes, to regulations on our businesses, farms, homes, cars, to our activities, to our speech, and to our abilities to exercise without government interference our religious liberty—our American heritage has dwindled.
So the issue is whether we will preserve even the semblance of our once-cherished ideals of limited government, the sovereignty of the States, the protection of life and property that is so nobly enshrined in our founding documents? Will we maintain any semblance of our freedom over our own health care or will we capitulate to the totalitarian proposals of the Democrats by which the government becomes a monopoly funded 100% by the American taxpayer? Will we continue the path to a more limited government under president Donald Trump or listen to the siren song of socialists?
“The modern trend is in the direction of greater concentration of power in the hands of government. The problem of individual freedom within the framework of a more or less regulated economy will have to be fought out in our age, just as the question of political liberty and the free market were the issues in Jefferson’s day. … Jefferson felt that without liberty, life was not worth living. …In the difficult years that undoubtedly lie ahead, Americans will have to gather all their moral forces for the preservation of their way of life, their liberties, and their opportunities.”
Which side are they on? The answer to that is clear.
Democratic presidential contenders Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) are slated to host a conference call with an Iranian-American advocacy group that has been accused of lobbying on Tehran’s behalf.
Along with Reps. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) and Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), Sanders and Warren are scheduled to speak Wednesday evening with members of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The group played a central role in what former Obama national security adviser Ben Rhodes called the administration’s pro-Iran Deal “echo chamber,” spinning journalists, lawmakers, and citizens.
The Democratic candidates’ willingness to engage with NIAC—a group that aggressively pushed the accord and has strongly advocated against U.S. sanctions on the Islamic Republic—reflects their desire to see America reenter the nuclear deal, which released up to $150 billion in cash to the regime. Much of that money has gone to fund Iran’s regional terror operations, including recent attacks on American personnel stationed in the region.
NIAC has deep ties to Iran’s regime, including senior officials like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Zarif worked closely with NIAC founder Trita Parsi, who, in turn, consulted with the Obama administration.
Parsi lobbied Congress against sanctions on Iran in 2013 and met with Obama administration officials at the White House dozens of times leading up to the nuclear deal’s signing in 2015. Multiple U.S. officials and senior congressional sources informed the Washington Free Beacon that Parsi helped the White House craft its messaging as it tried to sell the nuclear deal to the public. The NIAC chief met with Rhodes, among other top officials, during multiple visits throughout the Obama era.
Rhodes delivered a keynote speech at the 2016 NIAC leadership conference.
NIAC was ordered to pay more than $180,000 in 2013 to the legal defense fund of Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian-American writer, after a failed defamation lawsuit. Daioleslam had accused NIAC of failing to disclose its clandestine lobbying efforts to undo sanctions on Tehran, the Free Beacon previously reported. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said Parsi’s work was “not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime.”
MADRID — To deal with the alleged “climate emergency,” reducing the number of people on the planet is high on the agenda among activists and speakers at the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit. The growing extremism and even paranoia among population-control advocates, who worry that more people will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, is reaching deafening levels. But the establishment media is largely keeping silent.
The advocates of population control and population reduction are divided, though, on what particular peoples and groups should be targeted most heavily. One key speaker at the UN summit said “white men” and especially Americans and Swedes must stop having babies. An exhibitor promoting “sustainable development,” meanwhile, argued that Africans and Asians ought to be the key target of the depopulation. Others think all of the above.
What means should be used was also a subject of debate. Some activists and speakers promoted propaganda, indoctrination, tax-funded contraception, abortion, ubiquitous birth-control availability, and even coercive population-reduction measures. Others say even more drastic means are needed to deal with the “emergency.” One UN speaker went even further earlier this year, suggesting that actually “killing” people could be on the table.
A major speaker at the UN summit, Oscar-winning director Michael Wadleigh (shown above) of “Woodstock” fame, minced no words in an interview with The New American. “Don’t have children — and I’m looking at you, white man,” he said on camera, speaking in a deep voice, echoing comments he made in high-profile official speeches at the summit.
The reason why it is so important to reduce the population of Europeans and their descendants is because their nations are more developed and they consume more resources, he said. Even Scandinavia and Sweden, which have a “clean” image, are destroying the planet, Wadleigh continued, warning that average Swedes consume 40 times more than average Tanzanians. Even socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is not radical enough on these issues, he said.
“If you were into population control or population reduction, which is good idea worldwide, you should go to Sweden, because if your efforts resulted in one less baby in Sweden, that would be equal to your efforts to go to Africa and reduce populations by 46 percent, sorry, by 46 people in Africa,” said the director turned population-control activist, who spoke just a few hours prior on the same stage as former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
Wadleigh, who has one child and works closely with the UN, crunched the numbers and became convinced. “So where does it make sense to start your population reduction efforts? Start with the people who are the highest per capita emitters, if your goal is to reduce climate change and unsustainable development,” he explained, without noting that the environment in more developed countries such as Sweden, America, Switzerland, Japan, and so on is generally far cleaner than in Third World nations.
Prominent population-control advocates such as neo-Malthusian Paul Erlich of “Population Bomb” fame and Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren have offered radical ideas on this subject. In their 1977 book EcoScience, the duo — who at the time were peddling “global cooling” alarmism — discussed mandatory abortions and adding “sterilizing agents” to the water supply as potential tools for bringing population levels under control.
When asked if those ideas might be going too far, Wadleigh smiled and responded: “You haven’t heard me talk yet!” The ultra-left-wing UN speaker, a fan of communism, did not elaborate on how much further he would be willing to go to reduce human numbers, before going on to speak about what he sees as over-consumption.
In one of his UN talks from one of the most prominent stages in the entire convention, Wadleigh emphasized the need for government coercion to achieve his vision. One of his main messages was the need to drastically reduce consumption. “We can no longer do this voluntarily,” said Wadleigh, pining for a global government that he said did not yet exist. “Make it a law, not a voluntary action.”
A few hours later, former Senator Kerry took the same stage to bad-mouth America and lie about all sorts of things. Among other “climate whoppers,” he claimed that solar energy was now cheaper than traditional forms of energy “by every metric.” If that were true, everybody would be using it, of course.
Rather than targeting Western nations — virtually all of which have birth rates at less than replacement levels — others in Madrid for the COP25 proposed targeting Third World populations. Alejandro Moran Rodriguez, for example, a UN volunteer at the COP25, was manning a booth promoting the UN’s controversial “Sustainable Development Goals.” He told Rebel News that countries in Africa and in Asia should be high on the list for population-control, because they do not have “that culture.” And so, governments must “manage their population,” he said, calling for UN enforcement of contraception.
Another UN speaker also veered into the highly controversial and sensitive area. Self-described “Eco-Social Strategist” Stuart Scott with the group Scientists Warning, who gave almost a dozen talks and press conferences throughout COP25, spoke on topics such as “Too Many Of Us.” “It is undeniable that humanity’s footprint is the number of us times the consumption,” he said, adding that concerns over upsetting religious people were holding back necessary discussions on how to limit the number of human beings on the planet. The Christian Bible, for example, calls on people to “be fruitful and multiply.”
But Scott does not think that is a good idea at all. Pointing to Project Drawdown, Scott suggested that “educating females” and making tax-funded “family planning” available to them would be among the top three ways to reduce CO2 emissions if combined into one package. “The topic [of population control] needs to be part of the negotiations,” he argued. “We are making tiny progress…. Our request — it should be our demand, but I’m not the one making the demand — is that the UN put it on the agenda.”
Of course, Communist China’s coercive population-control regime literally includes kidnapping pregnant women and killing their pre-born children. When asked if the regime had gone too far in its efforts, Scott did not say. “Even though China relaxed its one-child policy, it’s birth rate has not gone up the way they thought it would,” he said, hopefully, suggesting that fears about climate change were causing women not to have children.
While controversial, Scott’s efforts have been endorsed by everyone from prominent global-warming scientist James Hansen and neo-Malthusian Ehrlich to organizations such as 350.org, Friends of the Earth, and Citizens Climate Lobby, which has former Secretary of Treasury and State George P. Schultz on its advisory board. Erlich, one of Scott’s supporters, has been one of the most vocal advocates of reducing human numbers. Scott even spoke on a panel with Hansen during COP25.
This zealotry for reducing the number of people on the planet has become a common theme at UN gatherings. Earlier this year, at the 68th UN Civil Society Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, one speaker went further than most would dare to in public. After speaking on a panel with UN Assistant Secretary-General Satya Tripathi, Global Initiative for Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP) Executive Director David Michael Terungwa dropped a bombshell. “We can’t kill them all,” he said, twice, laughing.
Before that, at the COP24 in Poland last year, Al Gore trumpeted the theme. Among the solutions to the supposed “climate crisis,” Gore touted more and stricter population-control policies by government. Perhaps oblivious to the ghoulishness of his words, Gore praised the population-control regime operated by the government of India, which has been widely condemned as abusive and coercive. Showing a graph of China’s population, he also celebrated the policies of the mass-murdering dictatorship in Communist China.
However, showing a graph of Africa’s population, Gore suggested that Africans were still having far too many babies for planet Earth to sustain in the face of supposed “climate” change. Despite lip-service to the pope and Catholicism, Gore demanded, among other tactics, that contraception be made “ubiquitously available” all over the world. The goal: Help reduce the number of children, and especially Africans.
The New American asked Democrat presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for his desire to have Big Government disarm you and regulate everything from Big Gulps to salt content in food, for his thoughts on the population-control subject. “Thank you, have a nice day,” he responded with a strange grin. His handlers promptly rushed in — “he’s not taking interviews right now” — before his armed security, looking grumpy, whisked him away.
Children are already being bombarded by UN propaganda at school and in official UN publications. The goal: convincing students that having babies is bad for the planet. The the 1994 UN-produced book Rescue Mission: Planet Earth : A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21, the UN’s self-styled “education” agency teaches children that “the planet groans every time it registers another birth.” And that is just the start of what critics say is the anti-human, anti-Christian, anti-freedom propaganda that has been peddled by the UN to children for decades now.
During the recent debate on a whether or not to declare a “climate emergency,” German Members of the European so-called Parliament expressed deep unease over the declaration. The reason is that the German term for emergency, der Notstand, is associated with a Nazi law adopted by Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party to consolidate power.
The UN summit, led by international socialists such as Antonio Guterres, appears to be hoping for vast new powers to deal with this supposed “climate emergency.” And at the top of the list will be reducing the number of people on the planet, by any means that they consider necessary.
Linda Sapadin, Ph.D, writing for Psychcentral.com, has coined a new term appropriate for too many in our generation. RDD—Responsibility Deficit Disorder. “Our entire culture is plagued with this virus,” she writes. “RDD is prevalent in our society and is a growing problem.”
However, unlike other “clinical” disorders, RDD effects people differently. “Those who have it do not suffer from it. Quite the contrary. The people who ‘suffer’ are those loved ones who must deal with the rat’s nest that is so often dropped in their laps.” How true.
On the lighter side, consider the following real-life excuses people have given to lessen their “responsibility” in motor vehicle accidents. “An invisible car came out of nowhere, struck my car and vanished.” Or try this one: “As I approached an intersection a sign suddenly appeared in a place where no stop sign had ever appeared before. I was unable to stop in time to avoid the accident.” Or this: “In an attempt to kill a fly, I drove into a telephone pole.”
Mothers-in-law will appreciate this one. “I pulled away from the side of the road, glanced at my mother-in-law and headed over the embankment.”
However, in a very real and somber way, Ms. Sapadin is exactly correct about our society and its failure to own-up to responsibility. Not only is it a growing problem, but our political landscape actually encourages RDD. Everything from obesity to “unsocial” behavior to political socialism falls under the umbrella of RDD. Colleges that once taught people how to think now offer “safe spaces” for students who become upset over conservative ideas.
Steve Siebold, writing for The Huffington Post, notes that:
It used to be that hard work was the American way. If you wanted to lose weight, you knew it took a good diet, exercise and a lot of hard work and dedication. If your wanted to make money and achieve the American dream, you worked hard, learned everything you could about your industry and created the life you wanted. Those days are over. Quitting and complacency are the norm. In fact, if our ancestors were alive today—the very men and women who came to this country to fight for the chance at a better life—they would be embarrassed, shocked and devastated at what we’ve turned into.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder
Social Justice is a concept that carries with it RDD virus. This is because “social justice” has very little to do with actual “justice” but focuses upon “outcomes.” Walter Williams puts it this way,
Outcomes of human relationships are often seen as criteria for the presence or absence of justice or fairness. Outcomes frequently used as barometers of justice and fairness are: race and sex statistics on income and unemployment, income redistribution in general, occupation distribution, wealth ownership, and other measures of socio-economic status.
In other words, no attention is paid to any underlying reason for differences, it is simply assumed that different outcomes among people is the result of crass prejudice and favoritism. For example, wealth distribution is uneven among various races of people. Social justice demands the assumption that foul play must be involved. But this must not be spoken out loud. Our political machinery just moves along as if this were true and prescribes mandates based on race—whether it be in job hiring or incarceration rates.
Differences among people or subcultures as a possible cause is never considered because that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do.
The American justice system must be “profoundly racist” according to Bart Lubow of Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative. No examination of personal choices, no time wasted pondering different habits of sub-cultures—simply announce America to be a “racist” culture. This is how Lubow feeds RDD.
In April, 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, Reginald Denny, a white truck driver, was beaten nearly to death by four black men. The attack ended when Damian Monroe Williams took a cinderblock and bashed Denny’s skull, fracturing it in 91 places and causing severe brain damage.
Denny was hospitalized for 33 days with a compound skull fracture, almost 100 broken bones and internal injuries. Doctors said he was only moments from death before being rescued by four good Samaritans. Denny had taken what he thought would be a short-cut off of the Santa Monica Freeway.
At the trial social scientists from UCLA cited “mob behavior” which is “spontaneous.” Damian Williams was found “not guilty” of attempted murder because he had been caught up in “mob mentality.” Williams was “acting out his frustrations, his disappointments.” So argued his defense attorney; so agreed the judge. His only conviction was a 10-year “felony mayhem” sentence—the others were not sentenced at all. Responsibility Deficit Disorder is not only a retreat of the immature—it is encouraged by the judicial system.
The International for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), a world organization with the imprimatur of the United Nations, founded in Stockholm, Sweden in 1995, has as its goal Sustainable Democracy.
Specifically, IDEA pushes “gender quotas” in politics and positions of power. “An increasing number of countries are currently introducing various types of gender quotas for public elections: In fact, half of the countries of the world today use some type of electoral quota for their parliament.” The goal is to have more “gender balance” in governmental representation.
What is the excuse for this top-down pressure to conform? Once again, the assumption that women suffer from male prejudice against women in power positions. Out-of-bounds is the question that there are differences between men and women and that many women may not prefer these roles in society. This is another facet of Responsibility Deficit Disorder. We simply disallow that women have control over their own lives and occupations.
The Gun Debate
The entire Democratic Party is afflicted with Responsibility Deficit Disorder. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Democratic positions on firearm ownership. Witness the recent debates between 20 presidential candidates in Miami and what they propose as solutions to gun violence in America.
Many of the candidates advocate an outright repeal of The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for criminal misuse of their products (Frank Minter, in Freedom, September, 2019, p. 16). These candidates want gun manufacturers out of business. They UNANIMOUSLY refuse to understand that criminals that use firearms have a personal responsibility in their criminal behavior, and that the rest of us should not be punished.
Joe Biden, for example, said “we should have smart guns. No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure can pull that trigger. It’s without our right to do that, we can do that, our enemy is the gun manufacturers, …” Smart guns, but not smart politicians. The gun manufacturers? RDD.
Biden even stated he would be willing for the federal government to confiscate millions of popular semi-automatic rifles from the public. Biden is not constitutionally-minded either.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren claims that “Gun violence is a national health emergency.” She advocates universal background checks and new bans on some guns. RDD. Sen. Cory Booker has the same disorder. So also Sen. Amy Klobuchar. She proposes a forced gun “buyback” program.
Not to be outdone, former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke opined that semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of war” and do not belong on our streets. Sen. Kamala Harris has threatened an unconstitutional executive order if Congress did not pass a new gun-legislation within her first 100 days in office. Sen. Bernie Sanders runs on a platform of “banning assault rifles” as well as “ending the gun show loophole.”
Not one of these candidates cares about the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the God-given rights owned by each citizen of America. They all function with RDD and suppose that you will as well. They will never even address the real issue as to rising crime and gun violence—lack of moral responsibility and moral character in America. That would be getting too close to “religious values” which they disdain.
If we are going to solve the growing Responsibility Deficit Disorder in our nation, begin by taking responsibility for your own actions. Desert any institution that refuses to recognize personal responsibility. Translated, that means, leave the Democratic Party. Because, as Dr. Linda Sapadin advises, “Dream on that the other person will change. He’s got it good—especially if you’re are enabling his dysfunction.” Quit enabling Democratic dysfunction.
Dennis Prager, founder of the conservative PragerU, conservative talk show host, made an excellent observation regarding socialism while on Fox & Friends this past Tuesday. He was there to advertise the newest instalment of his 5-part popular commentary series on the Torah.
He noted that the founders were distrustful of human nature, and that therefore one’s personal liberty is best secured when as little control as possible is placed in the hands of leaders. Socialism, on the other hand, by definition, entrusts tremendous power over the lives of others in the hands of a very few. The contrast could not be more stark. Let’s explore it a little.
Distrust of Human Nature
The founders were optimistic about human nature, but they were realistic as well. Alexander Hamilton expressed the optimism, but at the same time the realistic view of human nature. “There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty, that makes human nature rise above itself, in acts of bravery and heroism” (The Famer Refuted, Feb. 23, 1775).
But it was James Madison, the father of the Constitution, that succinctly explained in Federalist No. 55 why limited government oversight was necessary:
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.
George Washington expressed the same sentiment in a letter to John Jay in 1786. “We must take human nature as we find it, perfection falls not to the share of mortals.”
Again, Madison outlined in Federalist No. 51 the importance of checks and balances in a government by viewing human nature.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man, must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?
The sole theme of the Constitution is to protect people from the concentration of power in the hands of a few government officials.
Illustrative of this skepticism of human nature to aggrandize power in the hands of the few is Article II, sec. 2 which pertains to the Electoral Vote of the states. The states considered collectively are the Electoral College. “Each state shall appoint …a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled.”
However, the founders added this caveat: “but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
What is the meaning of this negative note? “All human history … has demonstrated that concentrated government power is the greatest threat to individual freedom and states rights.” (1)
“Protecting the electoral system from conquest and occupation by the agencies of the federal government was the purpose of this provision.”
In other words, the only manner in which mankind could achieve happiness and liberty was by self-government. And this can only be gained by maintaining a system of limited government. But limited government would be surrendered if those in power could manipulate the system in their favor.
Consider the contrast with socialism, by which we mean redistribution of wealth in the pursuit of so-called “equality.” The National Association of Scholars (NAS) defines “social justice”—socialism in a new dress—as “Advocacy of more egalitarian access to income, through state-sponsored redistribution.”
But what does this demand? In order to accomplish any state-sponsored redistribution, the state must be invested with more control over the lives of its members. This demands massive government power—power at the top.
Max Eastman, an elitist American in Woodrow Wilson’s time who became infatuated with socialism and actually traveled to the Soviet Union to learn how to implement it, later recanted. Would that our modern-day socialists of the Democratic Party would be as honest as Eastman.
Eastman’s book, Lectures in the Failure of Socialism, contains this definition of socialism: “A state apparatus which plans and runs the business of the country must have the authority of a business executive. And that is the authority to tell all those active in the business where to go and what to do, and if they are insubordinate, put them out.” It is all about power. Continuity of control.
(1) W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, p. 526.
At the root level, it amounts to the relinquishing of our sacred rights into the hands of the few at the top whom we have entrusted with gigantic levers of authority over our lives. Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, presses for socialized healthcare. What is that? This is to say that he wants the entire healthcare industry to become a government-run monopoly financed entirely by taxes.
How opposite the founders! It all begins with a wrong view of human nature as modern progressives consistently hold. This is the legacy of the so-called Progressive Era—a skewed, unrealistic view of mankind. A refusal to recognize that man’s problem is sin, not lack of material possessions. (2)This is the evil of socialism.
And to pretend that we have a “Constitutional Crisis” on hand because Attorney General William Barr refuses to break the law and hand over federally-protected testimony to raging Democrats in the House boggles the mind.
There is a Constitutional Crisis in America—has been for over 100 years. It is the complete disregarding of constitutional barriers that forbids the federal government from intruding into the private lives of citizens via the tax code, welfare, government housing, education, health care, and a thousand and one other items. The Democrats are simply trying to lock evil socialism into place by the healthcare proposals of “Medicaid for all.”
(2) The Bible is emphatic, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 6:23).“God saw that the wickedness of man was great … and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was on evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). This is why the founders did not trust their freedoms, liberties, and rights into the hands of a few elitists.
Jesse Lee Peterson blasts loathsome hypocrisy of Dems
by Jesse Lee Peterson
President Donald Trump delivered a powerful speech at CPAC 2019 (Conservative Political Action Conference) in defense of freedom and promised that America will never be a socialist country.
Donald Trump spoke for more than two hours at CPAC to an enthusiastic crowd of supporters. Trump criticized the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, calling it a “witch hunt.” He blasted Democrats as socialists, and warned about a government takeover of health care. He said Democrats will lose badly in 2020 because they are running on a socialist platform that will turn off most American voters. He is absolutely right!
Trump warned the audience of a “socialist nightmare,” criticizing the “Green New Deal” environmental proposals supported by Democratic politicians such as freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and most of the current 2020 presidential candidates, and mocking the potential of wind power as a source of clean energy. In his speech Trump acted out a scene of man looking outside, saying, “Darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.” The Green New Deal seeks to drastically overhaul the country’s energy and economic policy and cost trillions of dollars.
Sanders talked about “revolution,” “economic justice” and “prison-industrial complex.” He called for “Medicare for all,” a $15 minimum wage and tuition-free public college. Bernie promoted class warfare by attacking big corporations like General Motors and Netflix, and vilified Donald Trump (the Great White Hope!).
Bernie wants to confiscate wealth from the rich to give to the “poor.” Socialist Democrats have no problem being generous with other people’s money, but studies show conservatives are far more generous and charitable than liberals.
As my friend Dennis Prager recently said on Fox News, socialism doesn’t create wealth, it spends what Capitalism creates – and it always deprives people of their freedom by giving more and more power to government.
Bernie Sanders is a multi-millionaire and a closet Marxist. He has been in Congress for 29 years, and has spent very little time, if any, working in the private sector – he got rich growing the government. Yet, 2020 Democrat hopefuls Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others have adopted his extreme platform. And despite their constant attacks on the “rich,” Elizabeth Warren (Pocahontas) is part of the top 1 percent, and Kamala Harris is a millionaire. These Democrats are hypocrites, and the freshman Democrats are tyrannical and lawless.
At a recent closed-door meeting of House Democrats, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-New York), said some of her colleagues could find themselves “on a list” of primary election targets, after they voted for a Republican amendment requiring that undocumented immigrants who try to buy guns be reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Liberal commentator Van Jones is being attacked as a “sell out” for praising conservatives for their support of criminal justice reform during a panel discussion at CPAC. The Democratic Party and its supporters have no tolerance for anyone who utters truth or strays from their socialist talking points.
Democrats used blacks to test socialism, and the results have been catastrophic. Liberal Democrat policies wiped out two-parent black families across the U.S. by encouraging welfare and dependency on government programs. For the past 60 years, the federal government encouraged and rewarded single black female-headed households, and it became the daddy and provider. Today, 77.3 percent of black babies are now born out of wedlock, and most black men are nothing more than sperm donors.
Democrats tricked blacks into trading their dignity and work ethic for government handouts. In 2019, black Americans are not suffering because of alleged “racism.” They’re suffering because they lack good parents and they don’t have moral character.
Bernie Sanders and the rest of the 2020 Democrat hopefuls are trying to seduce and trick the American people using the same failed socialist agenda that destroyed blacks.
Donald Trump has done a tremendous job as president. The president has been terrific on trade, national security and domestic policy. The U.S. economy is booming, and black and Hispanic unemployment rates are at an all-time low.
It was a mistake to allow Democrats back in power in 2018. They have openly adopted socialism as the cornerstone of their party’s platform for 2020. They used socialist policies to destroy the black community, and if we allow it to spread, they will use it to bankrupt and destroy the country. We need to rally behind the president to ensure that never happens.
Democrats Sound Alarm as Far-left Fringe Takes Over Party –“On the far-left, though, there seems to be little coherence to the agenda… “
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.
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.
CAN WE TAKE BACK OUR ELECTION PROCESS AND MAKE THE PARTIES LISTEN TO US –Something new. It says “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”
by Tom DeWeese
The clamor is growing louder every day. “They don’t listen.” “We have no real choice of candidates.” “The system is rigged for the elite.” “There’s no difference between the two parties.”
You hear it every election. Endless talk about the need to create jobs, build the economy, make the nation a “better place to live for our families,” and, my favorite – “restore trust!” Who’s not for those wonderful things! The slogans work for Democrat and Republican alike. These so-called issues are interchangeable. They are, in fact, nothing more than empty rhetoric.
Meanwhile, do we hear a discussion about our money becoming more worthless every day from government spending and rampant inflation? What about the destruction of our education system as it is used for behavior modification while true academics are eliminated for the curriculum? Does any candidate dare mention the hopelessness taking over our inner cities as federal welfare policies are enslaving whole generations to the ever-expanding government plantation? And of course there is the fear campaign in every city in the nation about the need to control development and population, leading to the utter destruction of private property.
None of these issues are ever mentioned in local, state or federal campaigns. Any candidate who tries is immediately labeled an extremist! So our political parties choose for us candidates that are “acceptable,” middle of the road, not rocking the boat, and not too extreme. In short, we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
Election after election the drone goes on. And what are we to do? These are the candidates those in charge have chosen for us for city council, county commission, state legislature, Congress and President. Yes, we have primaries to choose, but I think we all know those are pretty much rigged to assure the powers in charge get whom they want – just ask Bernie Sanders.
Is it any wonder that there are millions of Americans who don’t vote or participate in our nation’s debate because they think it doesn’t matter anyway? The “average voter” increasingly feels that the decisions have been made for them.
Those who hold conservative points of view that our nation should live within the Constitution now believe socialism is inevitable, so why bother going to the polls.
The poor think they are simply pawns in a vice grip between big money and special interests which control the elections. Why bother? Helplessness now rules the world’s greatest representative democracy. As people stay home or trudge to the polls to unenthusiastically vote for the next lesser of two evils, 93% of incumbents are routinely returned to office – year after year after year.
The instant a candidate is elected and joins the ranks of the incumbents he/she begins the dance. Get the money for the next campaign. How? Special interests groups, corporations and foreign interests flood into their offices to make deals, promote their personal agendas and show the way to fame, fortune and perpetual office – if only the incumbents go along. They have the whole process well in hand. Campaigns become little more than big PR projects, promoted in positive platitudes, specifically designed to assure nothing negative sticks. Just get through it and keep the gravy train running.
Above all, do not talk about controversial subjects like dollar values, global trade or immigration; just stick to issues like health care, and the environment – coincidentally, two issues bought and paid for by the special interests. See how it works?
So year after year, we officially hold elections and politicians pontificate about how our going to the polls is a revered right, a valued tradition, the underpinning of a free society. And they wonder why there is such division in the nation. How did we end up in such a mess? We voted for these guys. But did we enjoy it? Are we satisfied with the results? Would we like to demand a do-over?
So is it hopeless? Is there any way to change it? Do you want the people to, again, have control of the election process and of the choice of candidates offered? Do you want to force the power elites to listen to you? I’ve got a solution.
Don’t despair. Don’t give up. There is a logical, effective way out of this. But it won’t happen by depending on political parties to lead the way. We have to take things into our own hands. We need an effective, binding form of protest to say “NO” to bad candidates. There is such a way.
Imagine going into the voting booth and looking down the list of candidates offered. None really appeal. None seem to offer satisfaction as an answer to the issues that concern you. If only there was something else you could do. A write in won’t help. It would take such a difficult, expensive effort. It rarely works.
Then you look further down the ballot. Something new. It says “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” It’s a final choice after each of the candidates in every category, from president, to congress to city council. What does it mean?
It means you have the power to decide who will hold office – not the power brokers. When the votes are tallied, if “NONE OF THE ABOVE” gets a majority of votes over any of the candidates listed, then “NONE OF THE ABOVE” wins. And that means none of those candidates will win the office. The office will remain vacant until a new election is held. To set up another election and fill the spot would work exactly like the process provided in the Constitution when an incumbent dies or resigns, and a special election is held. Now new candidates will have to try to win the public’s support.
Fixing the election process could be that simple. You, the voter, would be completely in the driver’s seat with the power to reject candidates, forcing a new election with new choices. The political parties would be forced to provide candidates the people want — or face being rejected. They would have to talk about real issues – or face being rejected. Incumbents would have to answer for their actions in office – or face being rejected. “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” Period. The power of labor unions and international corporations would be broken.
Think of the consequences. No longer would voters have to settle for the lesser of two evils. If all the candidates are bad – none would be able to force their way into office. It would mean that powerful special interests could no longer rely on their money to buy elections. They could buy all the ads they wanted, spend millions on “volunteers” going door to door and sling their dirt, but if the voters aren’t buying, none of it will save their candidate from being rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”
Moreover, the power of entrenched incumbents who have been unbeatable because of their massive war chests and party ties would be broken. Picture John McCain or Nancy Pelosi unable to run for office because they were rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”
However, in order to work, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” would have to be binding. It would have to have the power of law behind it. It cannot be just a “protest” vote that has no other meaning. “NONE OF THE ABOVE” is completely non-partisan. There is no way to control its outcome. There is no need for a massive campaign chest to support “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” although it could certainly be done. But the option, once permanently placed on the ballot, would always be there. America’s representative system would be restored.
To get the job done, activists in every state would have to begin a campaign to demand that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” be given a permanent spot on the ballot. It would not require a Constitutional Amendment. It would have to be done state by state. Some states have ballot referendums and initiatives using petition drives to get an issue on the ballot so the people can decide. It’s difficult and expensive to do, but popular ideas have a chance.
In other states, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” advocates would have to find a friendly state representative or senator to introduce the idea before the state legislature and then get enough votes to pass it in both houses and then have it signed by the governor. The main drawback to that effort is that, if the effort is successful, then every one of those legislators is an incumbent who will have to face “NONE OF THE ABOVE” on the ballot for their re-election. They probably won’t be too excited about the idea.
So why would they support the idea? It would be only because supporters succeed in creating a strong movement of voters which demand it. No one is saying this will be an easy process. But such movements have succeeded before. For example, local activists could begin by demanding that candidates support the measure much like they now sign “no tax” pledges. In short, they would support it because there is strong popular support and they simply have no choice.
Of course, one of their main objections to the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” idea would be the requirement for holding a new election, should it win. Too expensive, our responsible public servants would say as they dismissed the idea. However, if it means getting better candidates, isn’t it worth it to hold a new election, especially considering how much a very bad candidate would cost us if he actually got into office?
The fact is, such a need for a new election would probably not arise often once political power brokers began to understand that they must offer candidates acceptable to the people rather than to the special interests. That’s all they really have to do. It’s all we want. It only takes a couple of “None of the Above” victories to see that the electorate is back in charge.
The idea of “NONE OF THE ABOVE” has been around for a long time. Over the years, most states have had some kind of legislation introduced supporting the concept. Nevada actually has it on the ballot – but it is not binding. It doesn’t force a new election. It is just a measure of protest. That’s not good enough to make it effective.
One of the reasons it has not been successful is because there has never been a serious national drive to promote the idea. However, with the growing dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the lack of quality candidates seeming to get worse every election, perhaps there has never been a better time to start a national discussion on the issue.
The best part is that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” isn’t a conservative or liberal idea. It’s not a Republican of Democrat proposal. In fact, Republican leadership might see it as a good way to break the back of big labor’s influence over elections. Equally, Democrats could see it as a way to stop the power and influence of the Republican’s big business money. However the parties want to look at it, the bottom line is that the voters win.
This will be a long-term process and is primarily aimed at local, state and congressional candidates. While it should certainly be used in presidential elections as well, the real power comes from rejecting the lower level candidates.
But all of that depends on the voters. Do you want to take back control, or are you satisfied to have your choices made for you behind closed doors? Because that’s what we have now. How’s that working for you?