Tag Archives: big government

Bill Lockwood: The Evil of Socialism

by Bill Lockwood

Socialism in its original form was defined as “government ownership of the means of production.” This is why the Soviet Union confiscated all business, factories, and farms while murdering millions of dissenters and resistors in the process.  However, aside from that classical definition, socialism has always referred to the redistribution of income and properties in the pursuit of equality—whether through the progressive income tax or various institutions of the welfare state.

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of socialistic redistribution and the collectivist drift toward the left by growing government. They all warned against it as an evil that burdens society. Samuel Adams, for example, pointed out that the founders had done everything in their power to make socialism unconstitutional.

The Utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.

Thomas Jefferson warned against our modern welfare state. “If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” Jefferson rightly pointed out the immorality of it simply in the fact that it is unjust for one generation to pass on the results of its extravagance in the form of debt to the next generation. Our current debt of about $20 trillion is almost entirely owing to our socialistic quagmire of government taking care of people.

Jefferson added, “…we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life [expectancy] of the majority.” Plainly, to pass on debt to the next generation, which is part and parcel of socialism, is itself immoral.

In Jefferson’s second inaugural address in 1805, he observed that the redistribution of wealth was a violation of the basic and fundamental right of mankind. “Our wish … is that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good,…equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers.”

In other words, there never will be financial equality among members of a society because wealth and the accumulation of goods is the direct result of one’s own industry—or that of his fathers, as Jefferson put it.

He went on to point out that:

to take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.

Such things as the income tax and the infamous “death tax” come to mind as examples of violations which the sage of Monticello had in mind.

Benjamin Franklin wrote on this topic at length. He told one of his friends in England why America would not adopt a welfare state. “I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness. We have followed your example, and begin now to see our error, and I hope, shall reform it.”

A summary of Franklin’s views on welfare is as follows: (1) Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counterproductive. (2) Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counterproductive. (3) Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counterproductive. (4) Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counterproductive.

Providing the means to increase immoral actions; breeding debilitating dependency; blunting the desire or necessity to work; smothering the instinct to excel—sadly, this is an apt description of America today. Such is the destructive nature of socialism. Franklin added:

To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.

Would that America had paid closer attention, not only to the advice from our founders, but to the structure and prohibitions of the law of the land—the Constitution—which made wealth redistribution illegal. But who studies the Constitution today? Certainly very little in public schools, if at all. And who reads the founders any more?


2 W. Cleon Skousen’s summary in The Making of America, p. 219.

Jesse Lee Peterson: RASHIDA TLAIB IS A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

Jesse Lee Peterson rips new breed of ‘lowlife’ radicals out to destroy America

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Newly elected Congresswoman Mexico (D-Michigan), who publicly declared in a foul-mouthed tirade that the Democrats will impeach “motherf***er” Donald Trump doubled down and is refusing to apologize.

“I will always speak truth to power. #unapologeticallyMe,” tweeted Tlaib.

President Trump said he found Tlaib’s comments “disgraceful” and thought she “dishonored herself” as well as “her family.”

House Republicans were furious over the comments, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., calling on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to act. But Pelosi downplayed Tlaib’s remarks by blaming Trump for the heated rhetoric in Washington.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, defended Rashida Tlaib’s profanity-laced pledge to impeach Trump, vowing to protect her fellow female Democrat and “sis” from what she claimed is “faux outrage” by Republicans.

“GOP lost entitlement to policing women’s behavior a long time ago. Next,” the self-avowed Democratic-Socialist said.

Rashida Tlaib is a Palestinian-American who ran unopposed and became one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress alongside Ilhan Omar, D-MN (a Somali-American elected in 2016). Democrats also elected Kyrsten Sinema, the first openly bi-sexual elected to the U.S. Senate. The newly elected Senator from Arizona refused to be sworn in on a Bible.

Rashida Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Kyrsten Sinema are a new breed of radical Democrats hell-bent on trying to destroy this president. Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez belong to the Democratic Socialists of America – an anti-American group that has no respect for the U.S. Constitution. These extremist Democrats are not interested in working with President Trump or Republicans to end the government shutdown and secure the southern border with Mexico. Their goal is to impeach this president and undermine the rule of law. They want bigger government, higher taxes, open borders, and they embrace radical Islamists and want to weaken the U.S. military. Their socialist agenda is evil, and it’s antithetical to everything that makes America the greatest and freest nation on this side of Heaven. We cannot allow them to succeed!

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

As reported by the Daily Wire, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar openly embraced anti-Semite and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer Linda Sarsour on their first day in Congress. Just imagine the outcry from Democrats and the liberal media if Republicans embraced David Duke; Democrats would riot in the streets!

When one compares these Democrat miscreants to the new freshman Republican lawmakers taking office, the contrast is shocking.

Returning Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida – a combat veteran – recently welcomed two other combat veterans to the U.S. House of Representatives with a tweet that paid homage to the congressmen’s sacrifices during their military service. Mast’s tweet showed a photo of Mast with freshmen Republican lawmakers, Reps. Jim Baird of Indiana and Dan Crenshaw of Texas, on the first day of the 116th Congress.

Mast captioned the tweet: “5 eyes. 5 arms. 4 legs. All American. Welcome to Congress, @ElectJimBaird and @DanCrenshawTX.”

Crenshaw rose to national attention during the campaign season when Saturday Night Live mocked his eye patch (he lost an eye in 2012 when an IED exploded in Afghanistan where he was deployed). Baird served in the Vietnam War where he lost an arm. Mast also served in Afghanistan where he worked as a bomb disposal expert and lost both of his legs when an IED exploded. Between these three patriots, there are three Purple Hearts and four Bronze Stars earned. Amazing!

We’re lucky to have these men in office. If these patriots will risk life and limb for their country, it’s safe to assume that – unlike the Democrats – they will faithfully uphold their oath and won’t sell out their country and their constituents in the halls of Congress.

Democrats are still playing politics with our national security by refusing to fund border security. Only a blind and brainwashed person would vote for socialist Democrats who continue to “resist” this president at every turn. And Trump has vowed to keep the government shut down as long as necessary to get funding for the border wall.

The liberal mainstream media is more concerned about trash not being picked up at national parks than they are about border security. If they reported the truth about the crime and drugs pouring in across the southern border, we could prevent innocent Americans like Cpl. Ronil Singh from being killed. Singh, 33, was shot to death in the early hours of Dec. 26 after he pulled over a suspected drunk driver. The gunman fled, and a two-day-long manhunt led to the arrest of Gustavo Arriaga Perez, an illegal alien who was trying to flee to Mexico.

Newly elected Democrats are more radical than their predecessors. Lowlife Democrats like Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez have no respect for the rule of law. They abhor the constitution and the Judeo-Christian values that shaped this great nation. If we continue electing socialists, Muslims and pro-open border politicians who refuse to enforce our laws and protect our sovereignty – we will lose more American lives and eventually lose our country.

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: An Exciting Time to be a Commie Again

by Bill Lockwood

Communists and socialists rally under ‘Trump Resistance’, write Joshua Delk and Paul Kengor of The American Spectator. “it’s an exciting time to be a commie again.” They are speaking of claimed recent surges in the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America since the election of Donald Trump. However, it is more than that. Our entire cultural landscape is buzzing with socialism as activists attach themselves to one leftie organization then another. Many of these come together in what is known as #The Resistance Movement. But, as Julienne Davis of Fox News observed last year, these Marxist-style organizations are not “battling the establishment.” They are the Establishment.

The Establishment today includes,

Academia. The entire education industry, unconstitutionally wrested from local and state controls by the federal managers, is completely laced with social justice, environmental justice, evolutionism, earth justice, women’s rights (aka abortion), Islamism, and every other propaganda piece that the left may conceive. At the University level open Marxist professors poison the minds of the students.

Entertainment. Few and far between are conservative actors and actresses. Awards programs have featured anti-Trump diatribes dressed up as comedy. Movies and television regularly include liberal indoctrination themes as well as hate pieces against Christianity.

The Media. Main-stream media has become indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. News-casters grow openly vitriolic against conservative values, against the Republican Party, and especially against President Trump. Every tweet of his becomes the occasion for more harangues that remind the viewer more of a rabid dog than an even-handed commentator.

The Main-Stream-Media fosters communistic-style class warfare, dividing the nation along ethnic, religious, political, sexual and every other line imaginable. According to a recent article in The Guardian America’s “identity politics went from inclusion to exclusion.” Reviewing a book by Amy Chua the article states we are at an “unprecedented time” in America. “Political tribalism has reached a new peak” leaving the US “in a new perilous situation.”

The Churches. Especially shocking to many is the fact that many mainline denominations that self-identify as Christian have become megaphones for socialism and World Government under the auspices the United Nations. The website of the National Council of Churches (NCC)  includes preachments for ‘restorative justice’ and “end to death penalty”; public education for all, affordable and accessible health care; social security; “tax and budget policies that reduce disparities between the rich and poor” (read, redistribute wealth); “sustainable communities” (rationing of goods and services); “limits on the power of private interests”; “equitable global trade”; “nuclear disarmament”; “environmental justice among the world’s religions”; and more.

#The Resist Movement

Much of today’s socialism is coalescing behind what has become known as #the Resist Movement. But what is #The Resist Movement?

From their own website they claim roots back to the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960’s. Those who have followed that movement know its communistic-inspired taproot complete with paid agitators, even though the Resist website claims that it has always been a “grassroots” activism that “explodes” across the country. “Resist” is about changing the “unequal distribution of power and money.” That can only come, of course, by Big Government interference.

“Unequal distribution of power and money” has always been communism’s mantra. In other words, all of this socialistic hype about which we hear so much is nothing less than communism in America’s face.

Weekly Standard’s Chris Deaton pointed out that “the progressive grassroots organization Indivisible” “created to ‘resist the Trump Agenda.’” Once more, issues of importance to Indivisible include such liberal bullet points as abortion “rights,” ObamaCare—socialized medicine, LGBTQ rights, and “our democratic institutions”—whatever that may mean. This is a communist-inspired laundry list for re-casting America.

Truthout.org glorifies the Resist Movement showing its alliance with socialistic/communistic organizations such as Earthjustice and MoveOn Civic Action as well as alignment with socialist Bernie Sanders. Earthjustice president Trip Van Noppen, for example, interviewed by truthout.org, warned that upon the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court Americans could “jeopardize” the “ability to rely on the courts to protect their health, safety, and the environment.”

Translated from socialistic lingo, that means the liberals wish the Supreme Court to act as an oligarchy to force working Americans to pay for the health care of others while also submitting to a world governing force that restricts the way we do business so that the “environment” may be protected.

Democratic Socialists of America

That the Resist Movement is a communistic strategy to create chaos in the streets can be seen by listening to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which itself is a communistic organization. Not only claiming a surge in membership in the wake of Donald Trump’s election (18% per David Duhalde, The American Spectator), the DSA has planted itself, alongside the Communist Party, USA, (CPUSA) in the middle of the Resist Movement.

John Bachtell of the CPUSA trumpets “we are not dropping Leninism or the ideas of Lenin.” That, of course means revolution as the goal and blood will be the result. Bachtell plainly warns
“Tens of thousands will die as a direct result of the cruel and ruthless Trump and the GOP congressional policies.”

Ben & Jerry’s

Now comes Ben & Jerry’s ice cream company to join the communistic revolt against America. “Pecan Resist” is their new “flavor” featuring a label sporting a black woman holding a “Resist” sign. “Together we can build a more just and equitable tomorrow. We can peacefully resist the Trump administrations’ regressive and discriminatory policies and build a future that values inclusivity, equality, and justice for people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, refugees, and immigrants. Pecan Resist supports four organizations that are working on the front lines of the peaceful resistance, building a world that supports our values.”

It is plain that the America as we now know it or have known it to be is not what is intended. From top to bottom communism plans to change society. It is also clear from these lefties that the direction of America under former President Obama was considered to be socialism.

The four organizations that Ben & Jerry’s plans to fund are: the black activist group Color of Change; the “nativist/environmental activist effort called Honor the Earth”; the radical feminist Women’s March; and Neta, described as “an independent media platform” led by “people of color along the Texas-Mexico border” (Dave Bohon, The New American, 11-7-18).

Color of Change was co-founded by James Rucker and his self-described communist partner Van Jones. Rucker also serves on the communist-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center. Before that Rucker was a grassroots organizing director at the Soros-funded group MoveOn. Color of Change claims as “partner and ally” Islamist Keith Ellison. Enough said.

Honor the Earth is an “indigenous people” movement connected to environmental legislation. Their website not only glorifies the United Nations, which promotes World Government, but blatantly preaches the complete erasure of property rights. “Rather than treating nature as property under the law, the time has come to recognize that nature and all our natural communities have the right to exist…the eco-system itself can be named as a rights-bearing subject with standing in a court of law.”

All of these rights were “codified”, it is claimed, in the Ecuadorian constitution in 2008. “Soon after, in Bolivia, the World’s People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth drafted the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.”

“Rights of nature is the recognition and honoring that natural ecosystems including trees, oceans, animals, mountains have rights just as human beings have rights.” So, there you have it. Boldly repudiating the biblical concept of man created in God’s image while asserting in pagan fashion that non-animate objects are equal in value as man, Honor the Earth appeals to a World Government to cancel American values.

Support from Ben & Jerry’s for the radical Women’s March is followed by financial contributions to Neta. What is Neta? This organization claims to be “one of the fastest-growing Latinx-run progressive media platforms in Texas and the U.S” based in the Rio Grande Valley along the US/Mexico border. It is intent on “engaging young people of color on important social issues and politics.” Neta launched on January 19, 2017, the day before Donald Trump’s Presidential inauguration.

And which “social issues” are there about which Neta is concerned? Claiming that the “border of the U.S and Mexico” is a “talking point”, Neta is interested in immigration, health care, reproductive justice, LGBTQ, and education.”

Same song; this time the Neta stanza. ‘Immigration’ means simply open borders; “reproductive justice” means socialism in the sense that taxpayers foot the bill for their abortions; LGBTQ and education is another way of saying they plan to indoctrinate all children in government schools along homosexual and queer lines.

So, the Resist Movement is nothing less than old-fashioned communism–now dressed up in ice cream packages, activist organizations for young people, earth-worshipping man-degrading concepts of the American Indian religions—all with one goal in mind. Destroying the America we know. An exciting time to be a communist, indeed.

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

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.

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.

Modern Judas Politicians

Modern Judas Politicians

by Bill Lockwood

The text of John 12 is instructive insight into the distinction between true and false “compassion.” During the last week of our Lord’s life He came to Bethany where was a feast in his honor. At the somber meal, Mary, the sister of Martha, anointed the feet of Jesus with very expensive “pure spikenard.” It was a class of aromatic amber-colored oil the value of which was equal to a year’s wages for the common agricultural worker of the day (12:5).

Judas, the treasurer of the apostolic band, objected to such a lavish expenditure and queried why the ointment had not been sold for 300 shillings and the money given to the poor (12:5). John gives us this editorial note after years of hindsight, “Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and, being the keeper of the treasury, took away what was put therein.” Obama and company cares very little for the poor, in spite of multiplicity of speeches which portray himself as their champion.

It is easy to frame a grasp for power or wealth beneath a cloak of “compassion.” Judas’ words painted him as a one concerned “for the poor” but the reality was quite different. So also today our modern unconstitutional welfare state is driven by the same deceit. One cannot begin discussing, for example, the removing of taxpayer money from even the murderous Planned Parenthood without immediately facing the argument of “compassion” to woman’s needs which they are said to provide. How can we remove money from “the poor?”

The Democratic Party majors in this Judas-style question and the Republicans do their best to catch up by insisting that they are “compassionate conservatives.” But it is easy to be compassionate with others’ money, isn’t it? Added to that is the fact that our gargantuan welfare state, bloated out of reasonable financial responsibility bounds, is unable to even keep track of the billions of dollars flowing through the hands of bureaucrats who are the “keepers of the bag.”

Compassion
There is much spoken of compassion today but seemingly very little known. Some suppose that meeting physical needs of the American populace is to be prioritized over spiritual needs; others think that giving my tax dollars to Uncle Same satisfies the obligation to be compassionate; still others talk of the lack of compassion in those who wish to return to a Constitutional government in which it was illegal to redistribute taxpayer money to various special interest groups or segments of society.

First, true compassion is to be exercised at a personal level. Government programs are no substitute for true compassion. Actually, Uncle Sam’s programs are not really compassionate at all, but destructive to society. Witness the growing minority unrest in the inner city—many of whom are recipients of government handouts provided by other people. No one watching these riots unleash on the cities by destroying private property has the impression that the rioters are thankful for the provisions that have been given them by others. What is the problem? True compassion is a personal matter. In order to discriminate between those who are truly needy and those interested in bilking the system by refusal to work, personal contact is necessary between the given and the recipient.

Sometimes poverty comes upon people through no fault of their own. Fires, earthquakes, crippling accidents, deaths and diseases injure people. Christian charity is called for (1 Cor. 13:1-3). But on the other hand, according to the Bible, sometimes poverty is the due penalty for laziness. “How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, so shall thy poverty come upon thee like a robber, and want (lack) like an armed man!” Solomon insists that work is good for the soul.

The point is, how is one able to distinguish between those truly in need and those who are taking advantage of the system? Only by exercising compassion at a personal level, where people might know. As Marvin Olasky, former professor at the University of Texas at Austin, observes, failure to “establish personal relationships with recipients” means that one cannot “sufficiently discriminate between the needy and the lazy” (The Tragedy of American Compassion, 26).
Government programs absolutely violate this major component of personal contact between the giver and the recipient. And since the nature of mankind is such that man will live of the labor of others if that is possible, government or structural poverty only grows under the oversight of bureaucracy.

Second, true compassion recognizes that man’s most important need is spiritual. At one time, when churches were distributors of goods to the needy and not the government, spiritual emphases were in place. As a matter of fact, Jesus Himself criticized the crowds who came to him interested only in food and not spiritual nourishment (John 6:25-28). Instead of feeding them, He instructed them to “work” for spiritual sustenance. This is a shock to today’s society which lauds the person or agency which provides clean needles to the drug addict or contraceptives to the promiscuous and call it “charity.” This just shows that we have forgotten the true meaning of compassion.

In the end, all government programs accomplish—for poverty rates have remained unchanged since the advent of The New Deal and The Great Society—is accumulating power into the hands of the politicians. Exactly what Judas had in mind.  

Back to Homepage