Tag Archives: Bill Lockwood

Bill Lockwood: This is a Marxist Coup 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Karl Marx insisted that “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it” (Theses on Feuerbach, XI). Chuck Schumer of the Socialist/Democrat Party regurgitated Marx’s mantra: “We are going to change America.” This is what Barack Obama had in mind when he called for the “fundamental transformation of America.” He was not schooled in Marxist philosophy for nothing.

If a Biden presidency indeed occurs America will see why Black Lives Matter, a proud Marxist organization which is about destroying the nuclear family, supported Biden. Now America will see why Antifa, a violent-mongering communist organization, has rioted for Joe Biden. Now America will see what “social justice” really means.  And if this election stands, Trump will be the last conservative Republican to see the oval office.

President Donald J. Trump is the most pro-American, pro-family, pro-Christian, pro-USA and anti-United Nations World Socialist Government president that we have ever seen – or will ever see–in our lifetime. This is why the world socialist leaders controlling the United Nations have been banging the war drums for the removal of Donald Trump.

Consider Jeffrey D. Sachs. He is professor for “Sustainable Development”; professor of “Health Policy and Management” at Columbia University; Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Solutions Network. His works are extensive in which he calls for the complete end of the free-market system. He has served as Special Advisor to three UN Secretaries-General.

Sustainable Development is a top-down controlled economy by which the United Nations will ration goods, services and resources around the globe—in the name of “fairness.” Sachs has continually spoken of the necessity of removing Donald J. Trump from office. It is a World Crisis to the Marxist-Globalists if America cannot rejoin such things as the Paris Climate Accord and pay billions of dollars to foreign nations for Climate Sins. America must help the world become “sustainable.”

Marxism

Marxism has you in its crosshairs. The common-sense American who supports Making America Great Again. But first, the angry party of the Democrats must get Donald J. Trump. This does not simply mean defeating him in the election. According to Business Insider,

Lawmakers armed with subpoena power could also turn up information that federal prosecutors might not know about as the Justice Department under Joe Biden weighs whether to pursue a criminal case against Trump, who as a former president will no longer have immunity from such matters.

Columnist Luis Miguel notes, these are the same hypocritical Democrats who kept our government continually in turmoil with bogus investigations into Donald J. Trump while he was in office and who chirped that it was “inappropriate” for a President to investigate a political rival—remember Hunter Biden and the Ukraine phone call?

Former Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan highlighted the start of a “Trump Accountability Project” intended to “make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.” You can read the article by Daniella Byck at Washingtonian.com.

Sevugan served as national press secretary for the Democratic National Committee and worked as deputy campaign manager for former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. He tweeted last Friday that White House staff had begun looking for jobs and added that “Employers considering hiring them should know there are consequences for hiring anyone who helped Trump attack American values. Find out how at the Trump Accountability Project.”

Their website headlines, “We must never forget those who furthered the Trump agenda … those who took a paycheck from the Trump Administration should not profit from their efforts to tear our democracy apart.” If you wish for peace in America, you must REPENT, according to the Trump Accountability Project.” “Coming together starts with acknowledging the truth: These individuals (Trump supporters, Trump administration officials, bl) have shattered laws and norms that hurt our democracy …”

At the bottom of the page is this headline: “We should not allow the following groups of people to profit from their experience: Those who elected him; Those who staffed his government; Those who funded him.”

Are honest-minded Americans going to idly sit by and allow this to continue? Once they have Trump, they are coming after you. Marxists are throwing down the gauntlet of war here and promising what they intend to do.

You in the Crosshairs

The anger and vitriol from the left knows no bounds. You are the target. The left has been “heathens raging” (Psalm 2:1) ever since the American voter threw into reverse to the Marxist/Socialist final takeover of America by Barack Obama by the election of Donald J. Trump. Now with Joe Biden set to take the presidency, they are back on track—but not without unabashed furor against American patriots for getting in their way.

Jake Tapper promises blacklists against principled patriots. “At a certain point one has to think to only about what’s best for the nation (peaceful transfer of power) but how any future employers might see your character defined during adversity.” Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, not to be outdone, calls for “lists of Trump supporters.” These have had “complicity in the future.” Here the communist barmaid turned power-broker in Congress shows the hand of the left. Trump supporters have destroyed their future socialist plans. Only for a short time, however—but still–complicity.

Neocon columnist of the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin, spells it out. Those who supported Trump should never be allowed to hold public office, serve on corporate boards, or participate in other avenues of society. One Antifa leader is launching a new website with addresses and locations of Trump supporters. Lawenforementtoday.com posts this “URGENT” message. “Website lists Trump supporters and their home addresses just days before the election” is the warning issued by author Chris Elliot. The website is designed to “stalk and harass Trump supporters.”

Then there is the former Obama staffer, Michael Simon who tweeted that he wants “retribution” against anyone who worked for the Trump administration. Add to that actress Jonelle Monae who stated in cursing language that she wants all Trump supporters “to burn.”

The founder of George Soros’ funded Transition Integrity Project, Nils Gilman, actually called for the execution of former Trump national security advisor, Michael Anton. He called him the “Robert Brasillach of our times” who “deserves the same fate.” Brasillach was a French author and journalist executed for “intellectual crimes” against the state.

Too many conservatives shrug this all off by thinking, “they can’t do all that.” Tell that to Gen. Michael Flynn. Tell that to Trump confidant Roger Stone. Tell that to national reporters such as James Rosen whom Barack Obama harassed. No, you just keep your head down, cower in the bunkers of local issues and all will be well. Allow these Marxists to finish their coup for America and keep your mouth shut. That’s the message that is being played.

Bill Lockwood: Red Star of Communism Over the Democratic Party 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

America’s globalist foreign policy-makers have for decades treasonously assisted the rise of godless and murderous communist regimes. Red China’s murderous slave-state has especially received the “most-favored nation” status while friendly nations such as Taiwan received the heel of our boot. This has been the ongoing legacy of America’ foreign policy – until Donald Trump. Trump is the first president with enough backbone to reverse course on these godless suicidal tendencies by our lawmakers. For it, he has received the ire of soft-shell Republicans and the acidic hatred of the Democratic machine as well as the press.

The guilt of aiding and abetting Red China’s gulag lies at the feet of both Democratic as well as Republican administrations. From the period of FDR through the no-win wars of Harry Truman, LBJ and Richard Nixon, into the political machinery of the Clinton and Obama eras, America has encouraged the rise of communism around the globe. It is no less with presidential hopeful Joe Biden.

Communism

The core of communism is systematic militant atheism and godless materialism. The latter is a fruit of the former. Vladimir Lenin did not express his own personal view of Christianity when he commented that it was the “opium of the people,” but was giving expression to the nature of the communistic beast itself.

And, Karl Marx, the father of the communistic system, which is responsible for the murders of more human beings than any dictatorship in history, stated, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” Indeed, changing the world has been Marx’s followers mission. Red China alone has amassed a body count of between 34 million to 64 million by 1971.

In 2014 the Global Times published an opinion piece by Zhou Weiqun, director of the Subcommittee of Ethnic and Religious Affairs at the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. In it he emphasized that communism continues to demand that “CCP (Chinese Communist Party) members must not have any religious beliefs and have firmly to uphold Marxism and “materialism.’ One might think that the bloody history of communism and its hatred of God might turn Americans away from that philosophy. Not so. Aiding and abetting murderous regimes is particularly pronounced in the Democratic Party.

Democratic Cooperation

Democratic cooperation with Chinese Communism has a long history. When mainland China fell to Mao Tse-tung’s Communist forces in 1949 and Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalist Army was forced to escape to Formosa (Taiwan), the culprit was the notorious Franklin D. Roosevelt who promised Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1945 the northern Chinese province of Manchuria in exchange for Soviet entrance into the war against Japan.

The Soviet army was supplied with FDR’s lend-lease equipment and was sitting along the Manchurian border. After the atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima, the Red Army of the Soviets invaded Manchuria and captured Japanese arms which they immediately made available to the Chinese Communists. The balance of power shifted in China to Mao-Tse-tung’s army.

It was not merely Joseph McCarthy who stated that U.S. policy-makers lost China, John F. Kennedy did as well. He told the House in January 1949, “The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State.”

After that planned catastrophe, the United States entered two no-win wars; Korea and Vietnam. Curtailed by the globalist President Harry Truman, Douglas MacArthur was forbidden victory. He was denied the right to pursue enemy planes that attacked our own; the right to bomb hydro-electric plants along the Yalu River as well as every plant in North Korea; the right to bomb the extremely important supply center at Racin in northeast Korea. Racin was a staging center utilized by the Soviet Union as they forwarded supplies for the North Korean Army.

America’s foreign policy looks as if it is built on assisting communism around the globe. Indeed, this is what occurred.
Jimmy Carter terminated diplomatic relations with our friends in Taiwan in December of 1978 and established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China on the first day of 1979. Carter betrayed America’s friend, the Shah of Iran, and helped give Iran to the mullahs. And America continues to pay the price for that sabotage.

Bill Clinton

And how about the treasonous actions of President Bill Clinton pertaining to the People’s Republic of China (PRC)? Clinton’s Chinagate scandal involved:

• Receiving enormous illegal campaign contributions into his coffers from Red Chinese operatives in exchange for favorable “foreign policy” decisions

• The appointment of Johnny Huang, a suspected Red Chinese agent to high positions in the United States government whereby secrets might easily be stolen

• Enormous efforts to allow the Long Beach Naval Station to be utilized by the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO)

• The reception from Yah Lin “Charlier” Trie, a member of the Red Chinese-linked Triad crime syndicate, of $460,000 into the Clinton-Gore campaign

• Refusal to impose sanctions on Beijing for its export of military technologies to terroristic states—despite the fact the he was required to do so by law—one that had been specifically written by none other than Al Gore

• The obstruction by Attorney General Janet Reno of any Congressional investigation of the above matters even when pressed by the FBI itself to do so

Barack Obama

Obama was no different.

• The United States saw Chinese troops on U.S. soil for the first time during the Obama years

• Obama pledged a “joint-effort” to “fight global warming” with China despite its ongoing stealing of sensitive government material

• Secretary of State John Kerry promised “more cooperation” with China in spite of the fact that known Chinese espionage had accelerated to a larger degree than ever before. It had reached “unprecedented proportions”

• The Chinese regime’s massive intelligence-gathering apparatus aimed at the United States did not concern Obama. American money continued to flow to China and global “climate change” deals were ratcheted up to siphon off more money to China

Joe Biden

Where is Joe Biden in this equation? Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden is cut out of the same treasonous mold. Having served with President Barack Obama, who never met a communist he did not like, Biden has an impressive resume for favoring the Chinese communists.

• He supported China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 which led to permanent normal trade relations with the United States

• Biden considers China a “developing nation” and has made certain that China has access to Wall Street. For example, “In 2013, the Obama administration allowed Chinese companies to invest in U.S. capital markets without having their books inspected by U.S. regulators” (Epoch Times, quoting Brian Kennedy, chairman of the “committee on the Present Danger: China.” 9/9-15/20).

• Biden continues to desire Chinese “investment” in the United States. So he said at a roundtable meeting in Beijing in 2011.

• This week, emails found on son Hunter Biden’s computer reveal that Hunter Biden would be able to profit to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from the Red Chinese while, according to the text that he wrote his father, Joe Biden would be able to take half of the money.

• Michael Johns, former speech White House speech writer for George H.W. Bush and a Heritage Foundation foreign policy analyst, told The Epoch Times that Joe Biden, throughout his 47-year career in Washington, been supporting … “one of the biggest foreign policy lies ever told: that china’s economic ascent would lead to more moderation and liberalization in its approach with the U.S. and the free world, and in its human rights conditions at home.”

Many Democrats do not wish to be associated with “communism.” However, their own party not only favors socialism in all areas, but openly assists godless communism on its rise over the world. These liberals are marching beneath the Democratic flag that has a red star of communism emblazoned upon it.

Bill Lockwood: It is the Mammoth-Sized Government Which Destroys Lives 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Whatever one may think about the United States’ Government leaders’ involvement in bringing about the 1930’s Depression, the crisis was certainly used by the Democratic left to usher us into an unconstitutional era of Big Government intrusion. And it is this mammoth-sized government which, in the name of assisting the poor, crushes the lives and liberties of citizens.

Amity Shlaes, in her new masterful recounting of Lyndon Johnson’s socialistic Great Society programs, provides ample proof that big government erodes freedom. Her book, Great Society: A New History, documents how the do-gooders of yesteryear in reality “shackled millions of families in permanent government dependence.”

Setting the American people on the course of entitlement dependency – which is dependency upon government confiscated taxpayer money– Lyndon Johnson practically “precluded” a return to constitutionalism. One particular episode perfectly illustrates the destructive force of bureaucracy. It is the formation of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its implementation of “urban renewal.”

Destroying Families

As with its precursor, the Federal Housing Administration, HUD began using public monies to bribe the local communities to establish local housing authorities as receptacles to receive and dispense funds. As with all funds funneled through the federal government, these federal monies now controlled the projects themselves. One can see even today that every element of social and private life is controlled by Uncle Sam.

Illustrative of this is the fact that when massive housing structures such as Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis were built, only “welfare families were entitled to the lowest rents.” But to receive welfare in Missouri a family could have only one parent—normally, the mother. The government itself thus incentivized single-parent families. Where there were two-parent families, a mom and dad, many of these families actually “lost a father” in order to move into Pruitt-Igoe.

“’The stipulation was that my father could not be with us,’ recalled a former tenant, Jacquelyn Williams. ‘They would put us into the housing projects only if he left the state.’” The social workers even policed apartments at night, checking to see if father had secretly returned, grounds for eviction. Williams remembered this all her life. “We’re giving you money, so we have the right to make stipulations as to how you use it.”

Confiscating Private Property—Evicting Citizens

Next, “the only way to make grand-scale building possible [for public housing] was for the authorities to condemn and claim large swaths of private land.” For this they used the old doctrine of “eminent domain.” “Under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this was the taking of private property for ‘public use.’” This was specifically constructed by the Founders for military and other public purposes.

But Johnson “began to bulldoze whole sections of cities, and then hand the land with its rubble to private developers. In Detroit, the violence to old neighborhoods was especially great.”

Black Detroit in the 1940’s and 1950’s lived packed in areas known as Paradise Valley and Black Bottom. The main retail thoroughfare, Hastings Street, was legendary, known the nation over because it was frequented by the singers and agents who later gave the country Motown music. Stores, churches, and homes stood tightly together, sometimes tightly enough to be called ‘slums,’ but often containing a vibrant life, much loved by the inhabitants.

However, liberty is lost in Big Government schemes, and regardless of what was and was not loved by the people who actually lived there, in “the eyes of the government, Black Bottom looked like blight. To the eyes of the auto unions and the Big Three automakers, pedestrian zones were a threat: highways that replaced sidewalks represented not only modernity but job security and high company share prices.”

The bulldozers leveled it all. Room was made for “public housing towers, for [Walter] Reuther’s Lafayette Park and for freeways. “Families had been herded into tall, anonymous apartment buildings, or had simply disappeared.” Hundreds of thousands of Americans, many poor or black, were evicted in this way.

Such grandiose government on the scale of Lenin was taken to court by home and business owners who resented the confiscation of their properties. As a matter of fact, both sides appealed to the Supreme Court. The homeowners and the government. In its decision, Berman v. Parker, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas “stretched the old concept of eminent domain like a rubber band.” His words are remarkable for the disdain of individual rights and the Constitution.

“’Public welfare,’ Douglas wrote, equating ‘public welfare’ with public use, should be ‘broad and inclusive.’ Authorized agencies could make their decisions about what to take freely.”

“’It is not for us to reappraise them,’ Douglas said. Douglas concluded by handing over his rubber band to government authorities. ‘If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the nations’ capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.’”

Shlaes points out that more than 600,000 Americans were displaced by this totalitarian process.

Predictably, Johnson’s socialistic utopia of urban renewal failed. The vacancy rate of Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis was at 23.9 percent and 29.3 percent, much higher than in the free market. Poor maintenance meant that elevators jammed, windows were regularly broken by wild youngsters, gangs of thugs lurked in the halls, and the entire community surrounding it became a sorry joke. Even the architect hired by Johnson, Minoru Yamasaki apologized publicly for Pruitt-Igoe.

In the end one cannot but draw the conclusion that it is the government itself which destroys lives. Pruitt-Igoe a perfect illustration.

Bill Lockwood: Judicial Supremacy? 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Thomas Jefferson warned us that the Supreme Court itself had the potential to distort the original intent of the Founders by using “Judicial Review.” He saw that the Court might begin creating law instead of merely interpreting the laws passed by the legislature and applying them in the cases that came before it. Late in life he wrote:

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

While there are certainly other factors involved in America’s decline from its original constitutional model, Jefferson’s admonition strikes at the heart of the issues involved today.

With the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and President Trump’s constitutional role in filling that vacancy, the war that is shaping up in Washington, D.C. is ominous. Showing complete disdain for our Constitution, the frenzied left is promising such outlandish measures as bringing impeachment charges against our president solely for the purpose of hindering him from doing his Constitutional duty.

Let’s look, however, behind the mayhem to see the foundational issues involved.

Constitutional Nonsense

One rude and reckless blogger posted this on Facebook. “With justice Ginsberg passing today, all my female and minority friends better vote like your life depends upon it … these … Republicans are going to have you barefoot and in the kitchen with zero rights over your genitals and put minorities ‘back in their place’ in society …!!”

It is difficult to imagine a more frantic and ignorant statement than this. But it does highlight some major erroneous thought processes that live on the socialist left. Before noting them it is worth mentioning that the comment above focuses upon the issue of abortion. That is noteworthy because it is the lefties and socialists in America who like to say, “You conservatives are a ONE ISSUE group of people—always mentioning abortion!” In point of fact, that is inaccurate—however, surrounding the war pertaining to Ginsberg’s replacement, just who is riveting attention to one single issue? The Liberal Left.

Judicial Supremacy

Judicial Supremacy is a “radical over-extension”, indeed, perversion – “of the legitimate doctrines of ‘judicial review and stare decisis (‘to stand by matters that have been settled’). In brief, the modern doctrine of “judicial supremacy” is as follows: (1) That the Supreme Court has the authority to construe the Constitution in issues that come before the Court and that that meaning of the Constitution, instead of applying only against the parties that come before the Court, applies against everyone in the country situated in similar circumstances.

(2) That an opinion of the Supreme Court can only be modified or cancelled by a later opinion of the Supreme Court or by a formal amendment to the Constitution.

(3) Nothing can be done to any justice of the Court as a consequence of any opinion handed down, no matter how fraudulent or willfully false it may be.

(4) Most importantly: Judicial Supremacy assumes that the meaning of the Constitution’s provisions are: (i) largely unknown and even unknowable, unless that provision becomes illuminated by the Supreme Court itself; (ii) politically plastic, in that the meaning of those provisions can, and even should, change from time to time as the Supreme Court deems advisable.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

Like liberal views of the Bible, so these views of the Constitution and of the role of the Supreme Court land us in nothing less than an oligarchy whereby we are ruled by a board of nine judges—not the Constitution itself. And in case of a 5-4 decision by the Court, the fate of the nation can be decided by only one single judge. Little wonder therefore, that the Political War of 2020 is heightening.

First, the Constitution had a Definite Meaning Before the Supreme Court was Formed. The Constitution and all of its provisions were well known by the people much before the Supreme Court was formed. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791. However, the Supreme Court was not formed until 1789 and the first cases reached it in August of 1791. In other words, the Supreme Court did not even exist when the Constitution was ratified. Are we to believe that it was passed and ratified by “We the People” but that they had no idea as to its meaning until nine black-robed justices began handing down decisions?

Further, public officeholders have been “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution” and the president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”—no person could honestly have taken this oath before the formation and decisions of the Supreme Court if “Judicial Supremacy” be true.

Second, Judicial Supremacy is Self-Contradictory. Article 3 of the Constitution covers the Judicial Branch. “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 2 describes the cases that come before the Supreme Court. Those who favor the modern doctrine of “Judicial Supremacy” point to this Section to establish it. But that presupposes that we are able to comprehend the meaning of its provisions without Supreme Court clarification.

This is the same fundamental contradiction made by the Roman Church when seeking to establish papal supremacy. Catholic defenders run to Matthew 16:16-18 in an effort to establish the doctrine in the minds of doubters. However, this maneuver assumes that one may read and understand the text without papal assistance. In point of fact, the text actually teaches no such thing as papal supremacy any more than Article 3 gives foundation for Judicial Supremacy.

Third, the Constitution is Self-Defining. One is able to read and understand the meaning of the text without assistance from an “inspired” Court of Nine. If there are challenges to interpretation, one need only read The Federalist Papers, the commentary composed by those who actually wrote the Constitution, to determine its meaning. As a matter of fact, it was upon this basis, by the notes put together in articles by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, that the colonies learned and accepted the Constitution to begin with.

There is a frenzy of activity surrounding the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, but the real reason the Democrat/Socialists of America are waging war is found in the following statement from the Tenth Amendment Center. “Progressives want a living, breathing Constitution because they want to mold society into their own image. They crave power. Originalism restrains power.” Without rule of law, government becomes arbitrary and despotic. Exactly where the Socialists will take us.

 

 

 

Bill Lockwood: “Mother Earth is Angry?” 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, tells Americans that the raging wildfires that have been burning in her home state of California, are due to a cryptic message that “Mother Earth” is sending Americans. “Mother Earth is angry” she warns. “She’s telling us—whether she’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is … that the climate crisis is real and has an impact.”

California, Washington, and Oregon have been recently devastated by wildfires. There are currently 29 major wildfires in the Golden State alone, burning an area of more than 4,800 square miles, the AP reported. As of September 14, 35 people have died in the out-of-control wildfires.

What is of more than passing interest is Pelosi’s personification of “Mother Earth” as being “angry” with America, presumably for being so non-cooperative with the United Nations’ globalist agenda on the Environment.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

First, Climate Alarmism is a Socialist Political Plot to Transfer Wealth from America to Third World Countries.  Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new president, refused to allow the United Nations’ COP 25 conference to be held in his country last December, forcing the global socialists to meet in Madrid, Spain. Brazil’s foreign minister, Ernesto Araujo called Climate Alarmism a “Marxist plot” to undermine the West and build up Communist China.

When one reads the UN “Paris Agreement” that was adopted at the UN COP21 Conference, the “Marxist plot” is plainly visible. Setting up boards for “global governance” while finalizing “rules” for a “global common market,” the UN master plan promises to soak the American taxpayer to help pay people in the undeveloped part of the world to “save the climate.”

The UN Boss, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, formerly of Socialist International, has openly declared that “climate action” offers a “compelling path to transform our world.” This will involve planetary taxes levied by a world government upon the United States because of our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). These monies will not only strangle our own industry, but be put into a slush fund to pay off dictators in underdeveloped countries.

Second, there is little science is Climate Alarmism. Dr. William Happer, an internationally renown Princeton physicist, recently spoke at COP25. He declared “We are here under false pretenses, wasting our time talking about a non-existent climate emergency.” Previously he had stated that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be good for the planet and its population. “It’s hard to understand how much further the shrillness can go, as this started out as global warming, then it was climate change or global weirding, now it is climate crisis and climate emergency. What next? But stick around, it will happen.”

Happer is not the only world-class scientist who warns that America is being fooled. Retired MIT Meteorology professor Richard Lindzen has pooh-poohed the entire Climate Alarmism as having little to do with science and everything to do with politics. Socialist politics, that is, promoted and endorsed by the Democratic Party in the United States.

Steven Koonin, former U.S. Department of Energy Undersecretary, has written that climate science isn’t, in fact, settled and that we lack the knowledge needed to make sound climate policy (The Epoch Times, Sep. 9-15, 2020). In one article Koonin wrote:

The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science. At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researches challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability. At issue were not nuances, but fundamental aspects of our understanding, such as the apparent—and unexpected—slowing of global sea-level rise over the past two decades.

Third, the American Left has been moving more closely to ancient paganism. One of the most remarkably outstanding features of Pelosi’s dire warning as she “speaks” for “Mother Earth” is this: she attributes goddess-like status on the planet which is messaging us about our climate sins. This is plainly a religious movement. And this, from the same crowd which has flagrantly ridiculed Christians for remotely suggesting that such things as the AIDS epidemic is a retribution from God upon America for its embrace of homosexuality. The legs of the lame are not equal.

Pelosi’s Paganism is idolatry. Idolatry is broadly defined as “the worship of idols, or the act of ascribing to things and persons properties which are peculiar to God alone.” The components of pagan idolatry is a View of the Past (A Cosmogony: how we came to be here); View of the Present (How the world works, including a value system); A View of the Future (What is the end game—the goal). Climate alarmists display all three.

One of the ancient pagan religions in the Old Testament was the worship of Moloch. Moloch, or Molech (1 Kings 11:7) was the god of the Ammonite people who lived next door to Israel, just as Chemosh was the god of Moab.

These gods were worshipped at “high places” throughout the Old Testament period. Connected with these gods was the pantheon of the Canaanites who honored Baal as one of their gods. These idolaters considered the seasonal changes as reflecting their ancient myths and consequently worshipped nature. More horrific still was the fact that these pagan religions all practiced child sacrifice, euphemistically mentioned in the Bible as “passing their children through the fire” (Lev. 18:21; Deut. 18:10).

Ahaz, for example, king of Judah in the 8th century B.C., is said to have made “his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations, whom Jehovah cast out from before the children of Israel” (2 Kings 16:3). 2 Chronicles 28:3 confirms the account, adding that there was more than one son whom Ahaz sacrificed. “He burned incense in the valley of the sons of Hinnom (outside the walls of Jerusalem), and burnt his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom Jehovah cast out before the bible children of Israel.” 

Jeremiah, the prophet of God, who would come a bit later, stood at the valley of Hinnom and condemned it in chapter 19 of his book. “Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, that they know now, they and their fathers and the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind …” therefore, “I will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again.”

If “Mother Earth” is angry, Nancy Pelosi, perhaps this question should be asked. “Why has she not already been propitiated by the millions of children aborted in America, encouraged and financed by the Democrat Party?” There is no difference in the slaughter of the unborn, overseen by socialists and High Priestesses such as Nancy Pelosi, and the sacrifice of children to Moloch.

A better question is: Isn’t it past time for America to give up its pagan errors and return to Almighty God? 

Bill Lockwood: Socialism is the Gradual Loss of Freedom 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Private property is an essential element of man’s freedom. Biblical injunctions not to steal (Exodus 20:15) imply the right to private property as an extension of my labor. And, people have a right to enjoy the fruit of their labor. Frederic Bastiat, the French economist and statesman (1801-1850) summarized God-given rights as “Life, Liberty and Property” and noted that these do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, life, liberty and property existed before hand which caused men to make laws in the first place.

Cultural turmoil begins when “the Law” or its enforcer—the “government”–turns into an instrument of plunder to redistribute my earnings to others. This is precisely what has occurred in America. Amity Shlaes, in her new book, Great Society: A New History, recounts that during Lyndon Johnson’s implementation of his socialist welfare-state “Great Society,” one of the modernist thinkers involved with his administration was Charles Reich, a young law professor at Yale and former clerk to the liberal Supreme Court justice Hugo Black.

“To help the poor, Reich turned old property rights arguments on its head…Payments [of welfare] were a right, not a privilege. Reich called what the poor or old received ‘new property.’” In other words, government assumed the right to decree that other people have a right to my private property—the fruit of my labor. This is the essence of the Welfare State.

Bastiat reflected on this perversion—for perversion it is. “It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunders.” This insight reaches right into the current political climate of the American welfare state proudly trumpeted by both parties, Democrat and Republican.

If one doubts that outright plunder is occurring in America fostered by the government itself, just try Bastiat’s test. “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other person to whom it does not belong. See of the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime …”

Our institutions of welfare, HUD housing, Medicaid, Medicare, green energy, public education, suggested reparations, even quota systems in hiring, firing, and punishment–and a host of other programs of which time would fail to list– are all results of plunder by the federal government—and all completely unconstitutional.

Consequences

What are the consequences when this occurs?

“In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”

Exactly. Talk today about “social justice” is nothing but just that—talk. It is not “justice” neither is it sociable.

Second, and most importantly here, this creeping socialism equates to a gradual loss of freedom. When decisions of the individual are supplanted by decisions from the government, this is a loss of freedom. “Powerful government, by its very nature, always has and always will tend to make itself more powerful and more dictatorial” (The Ethics of Capitalism: A Study in Economic Principles and Human Well-Being, Chamber of Commerce of the United States: Washington, D.C., 1960). “When government gains control over the livelihood of individuals, national planning can only be carried out by subjecting the lives of individuals to control or regimentation.”

What inevitably occurs in this type of a climate is the decline of enterprise which entails the loss of inventiveness and improvements. “It means less variety in life, and variety is a large, although often unrecognized, element in a high standard of living.” Like a huge snake coiled around the breast of a person that gradually squeezes out the life, so socialism does to a nation.

In his blockbuster book, The Problem with Socialism, professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo, exposes how this slow fade in the economy worked in Sweden when socialists implemented their plans. “Socialism nearly wrecked Sweden, and free market reforms are finally bringing its economy back from the brink of disaster.”

Starting in the 1930’s, Swedish politicians became “infatuated with fascist-style, socialist ‘planning.’ … Government spending as a percentage of GDP rose from what would today seem a relatively modest 20% in 1950 to more than 50% by 1975. Taxes, public debt, and the number of government employees expanded relentlessly. Swedes were, in essence, living off of the hard work, investments, and entrepreneurship of previous generations.”

America has unfortunately, copied the Swedish model. But what happened in Sweden? The Scandinavians could not avoid economic reality. “It is impossible to maintain a thriving economy with a regime of high taxes, a wasteful welfare state that pays people not to work, and massive government spending and borrowing.”

By the 1980’s, Sweden’s collapse of economic growth and a government attempt to jump-start the economy with a massive expansion of credit resulted in “economic chaos” complete with stock market bubbles that burst, and interest rates “that the Swedish central bank pushed up to 500 percent.” By 1990 Sweden had fallen from fourth to twentieth place in international income comparisons.”

It is a slow road back for Sweden. And the same will be for America. But the point remains that socialism resembles a slow bleeding of prosperity, liberty, and right to property.

Bill Lockwood: Former Army Officers Laying Groundwork for a Military Coup against Trump? 4 (2)

by Bill Lockwood

If Donald Trump refuses to leave office at the expiration of his constitutional term, the United States military must remove him by force …” “the one-unthinkable scenario of authoritarian rule in the United States is now a very real possibility.” The “clock will strike 12:01 PM, January 20, 2021, and Donald Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office.” So write two retired Army officers, John Nagl and Paul Yingling, to General Alexander Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to a news release of defenseone.com.

“The street protests will inevitably swell outside the White House, and the ranks of Trump’s private army will grow inside its grounds. The speaker of the House will declare the Trump presidency at an end, and direct the Secret Service and Federal Marshals to remove Trump from the premises. These agents will realize that they are outmanned and outgunned by Trump’s private army, and the moment of decision will arrive.”

Nagl and Yingling suggest that “U.S. military forces escort the former president from the White House grounds” while urging the senior officer of the United States that his “duty is to give unambiguous orders directing U.S. military forces to support the Constitutional transfer of power.”

America is not only seeing the systematic demonization of law enforcement by the Democratic Party, the gutting of police forces throughout the nation, but now an organized effort is already in the works to legitimize a military coup against President Donald Trump.

Yingling & Nagl

Both Yingling and Nagl are retired Lt. Col.’s from the Army. Yingling fought in the Gulf War and has been deployed to Bosnia. He later earned a degree in international relations from the University of Chicago and taught at West Point. Nagl is a Rhodes scholar from Oxford University, a former instructor at West Point, and is currently the headmaster of The Haverford School for young men in Haveford, PA.

Their letter is addressed to General Mark A. Milley, U.S. Army general and current the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Using the Socialist/Democratic playbook of fearmongering in order to manipulate the public, the retired officers raise the specter of president Donald Trump refusing to leave the White House. “We do not live in ordinary times,” they warn. President Trump “is actively subverting our electoral system, threatening to remain in office in defiance of our Constitution.”

This dire admonition is due to the fact that Trump has questioned the integrity of an election based upon mail-in voting, for which the Democrats are now pressing. However, it was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) who warned in 2004 that paper ballots are “extremely susceptible to fraud.” Now that Trump issues the identical warning it is taken as a secret plot to remain in the White House despite an election. The legs of the lame are not equal.

Trashing the Constitution?

The Army officers worry about Trump ignoring the Constitution. Where were Yingling and Nagl as President Obama single-handedly shredded the Constitution with scores of unconstitutional actions such as the 2011 Invasion of Libya without congressional approval; the unconstitutional full-court press for ObamaCare built upon the grand public lie that “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”; the vicious targeting of Tea Parties by the IRS; the inauguration of public policy called DACA for illegals– solely from Obama’s hand, plus the issuing of work and residence permits despite Congress’ lack of movement on the topic; or Obama’s EPA Cap and Trade orders in 2015 which set limits on carbon dioxide emissions which Congress had specifically rejected in 2009; and a host of other dictatorship actions?

The imperial presidency of Barack Obama did not bother the Army commanders as much as that Trump has expressed concerns with mail-in voting. “Mr. Trump may refuse to leave office,” they gravely warn.

Once again, gentlemen, that was President Obama, whose socialist comrades in Congress supported a repeal of the 22nd Amendment—the removal of the two-term limit set on presidents. This striking move was offered by NY Rep. Jose Serrano in order to allow the dictatorial presidency of Obama to continue.

Yingling and Nagl even wring their hands that to solidify Trump’s unconstitutional stay in the White House, the president has raised a “private army” of “little green men” that will have to step aside for a “good morning’s work for a brigade of the 82nd Airborne.” If the US military remains “inert” the “Constitution dies.”

Once more, Yingling and Nagl have been firing their weapons in the wrong direction on the range. It was former President Obama, while campaigning in July 2008, who ominously called for a national police force.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.” That was no problem with these veterans. But the fiction of a private army of “little green men” that will have to be swept aside by military force is a real possibility.

It is difficult to imagine a greater danger to the Republic of the United States that rogue commanders such as Nagl and Yingling actually floating ideas to the Joint Chiefs of Staff against President Trump. They are evidently laying the groundwork for a military coup against him and should be disciplined in military court. Instead, they will receive backing from the Democrats.

It is a later hour than one might think.

Bill Lockwood: America a Christian Nation 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

When our Founding Fathers referred to this nation, as “Christian Nation,” as did John Jay, one of authors of Federalist Papers, they did not intend that this be understood in the sense that an official church had been established, or that a “Theocracy” was in place, but rather that the principles upon which our republic rests were Christian in origin. Benjamin Morris, a second-generation American, in surveying the mass of material on this topic, summarized:

“Christianity is the principle and all-pervading element, the deepest and most solid foundation, of all our civil institutions. It is the religion of the people—the national religion; but we have neither an established church nor an established religion.”

Some of founders even referred to America as a “Christian Republic.” That generation demonstrated this by the fact that they Morris adorned public buildings with biblical symbols such as Moses crossing Red Sea; or Moses holding tablets of stone carved on the building of the Supreme Court; or the even state papers of the Continental Congress that are filled with Christianity.

One of the formative laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence, which reads more like a theological statement to the secularists of today. Our republic posited that rights come from God and that the single role of government is to protect what God gave us, inclusive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Republic itself is an outgrowth of Christian principles.

Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, one of the most influential of the founders, having signed not only the Declaration of Independence, but the Articles of Confederation as well as the
Constitution. He wrote to Samuel Baldwin in 1790 that “his faith in the new republic was largely because he felt it was founded on Christianity as he understood it.”

Joseph Story, a jurist who served on the Supreme Court during the founding era and wrote the first lengthy Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, commented as follows:

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal sentiment was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

The Supreme Court in numerous cases has referred to this as “A Christian Nation.” Most notable is the 1892 case entitled The Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States. Here the Court packed its decision with a litany of precedents from American history to establish “this is a religious people, … this is a Christian Nation.”

Now it is Different

When speaking of the Bible, one denominational church manual reads, “Now it is different.” Sadly, so it is in the teaching of the founding of America, the Constitution itself, and American civics in general.

Modern Americans have become so ill-educated and misinformed on the subject at hand that even universities and professorships, endowed with tax dollars, argue vehemently against America being conceived as a “Christian nation.” They trumpet loudly that this is a “secular state” and has been from the beginning.

In 2009, for example, the church of Christ where I preach hosted a “Christianity and the Constitution” public seminar, featuring various speakers, establishing that America was designed as a “Christian nation.” Objections by letters to the editor appeared in the local paper, The Times Record News of Wichita Falls. One woman wrote:

…the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution were clearly written as secular documents, with not a single mention of Jesus or the word Christian … [I]t is a fact that the major players in the production of the federal documents were steeped in the Enlightenment: deists, humanists, Masons, and skeptics … [emp. added]

She went on to say that we had “presented discredited information” and “tortured” history to establish the claim that America was a Christian nation.

In answer to that letter, I included the following:

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (cited in the US Supreme Court case [of 1892, mentioned above] said that “Christianity is and always has been a part of the common law.” … The Supreme Court of 1844 (Vidal) said, “It is unnecessary for us, … to consider the establishment of a school for college for the propagation of Judaism or Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.”

It was also noted in response that Noah Webster, who helped ratify our Constitution, wrote that the source of our republican principles “is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or Christian religion.”

Concluding, I added that regarding to “deists” by whom our nation was supposedly founded, that at the time of the Constitutional Convention deists were not even allowed to hold public office! An actual listing of the religious preferences of the delegates to the Constitutional convention of 1787 shows that 55 declared themselves Christians while only 3 called themselves deists. That is about 5%.

Nathan Jun of MSU

After the above exchange in the paper, Dr. Nathan Jun of Midwestern State University came in to help out the secular cause. He wrote:

In response to Bill Lockwood’s April 21 letter: The First Amendment of the Constitution states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’ Both conventional approaches to interpreting the ‘establishment clause’ – the first as well as the more conservative accommodationist approach—strictly preclude any implicit or explicit religious preferences on the part of the Constitution or Congress.

The United States of America is most certainly not a ‘Christian’ nation, and this is a basic and uncontroversial principle of constitutional law. Whether or not a preponderance of the founders of this country were Christians, moreover, is wholly irrelevant. The government they founded is and has been secular in principle, if not always in spirit. The antiquated, anti-Semitic Supreme Court decision that Mr. Lockwood cited (instead of, say, the Constitution) says nothing about the fundamental character of our system of government. It does, however, say an awful lot about Mr. Lockwood and, perhaps, about his particular brand of Christianity—at least to this non-Christian.

The errors in Dr. Jun’s statement are so numerous that it is only possible to note the highlights, which I did in a following letter to the editor.

Dr. Jun: sir, your philosophy is woefully misinformed. The 1st Amendment, according to James Madison, merely forbids the federal government from establishing a ‘national church.’ No one then, nor do I, wish to have an official state church. However, that is far different from speaking of our Christian nation in the sense of recognizing Christian principles being imbedded within its framework and forming the underpinning of our society. As Patrick Henry put it, this nation ‘was founded upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.’ Joseph Story, appointed by Madison to the Supreme Court, said, ‘we do not attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity … an attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation …’

I suppose that these men are too antiquated to know what they are talking about land need modernists from Universities to straighten them out. Not a Christian nation? ‘Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege … of our Christian nation to select Christians as their rulers’ (John Jay, 1st chief justice of the Supreme Court).

Next, I only mentioned that the Founders were Christians in answer to another letter which opined that this country was founded by a bunch of deists and secular humanists—not as proof of a Christian nation. You missed that point as well.

Third, to cavalierly dismiss as ‘anti-Semitic’ the 1892 Supreme Court decision which identified us as a Christian nation bespeaks of dep-seated prejudice by Dr. Jun and a fundamental lack of understanding about the roots of America. It is extremely sad that our tax dollars support this type of radical expression.

In truth, the fact that this was established as a Christian nation infuriates the secularists in our country. Perhaps they ought to be thankful that the only “accommodation” that America made was to the irreligious, allowing them to live freely in a Christian nation without forcing them to support a state-sponsored church.

I am certain that if these professors, of which Dr. Nathan Jun is only one, who personally publishes an “Abolish the Police” signature on his Facebook page, were to live in a Muslim country, they might have a different perspective.

After the above public exchange, I contacted Dr. Jun by email in an effort to engage in a public discussion on Christianity in general. But his contempt for Christianity apparently knows no bounds as he tartly replied, “do not ever contact me again.”

So much for a free society where ideas can be exchanged openly in gentlemanly fashion.

Bill Lockwood: Shelby Steele’s White Guilt-How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era 4.5 (2)

 

by Bill Lockwood

Shelby Steele came of age in the “radical ‘60’s”—when America’s character began to fall apart. Personally moving from a position of “black anger” to a mature conservatism over the years, he presents an incisive and clear diagnosis of America’s most pressing cultural problem—race. (White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era)

Steele begins with personal experiences of segregation in the 1950’s wherein “white supremacy” was the norm and moves the reader through the current morass wherein “white guilt” now controls the narrative in America. “White guilt” is Steele’s characterization of the primary cultural concept that has been absorbed by the majority population. This was because of historical wrongs to black America, such as slavery and segregation.

Steele uses the term “disassociation” to explain how “white guilt” continues to drive the political and cultural agenda in the western world. By “disassociation” Steele references the continuing effort of white America to distance themselves from the racism of America’s past. Everything from public policy to collegiate admissions to housing and social behavior has been dictated by this disassociation or “white guilt.” Unfortunately, explains Steele, this is a complete hijacking of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.

Eisenhower, Clinton, and Johnson

Steele begins his diagnosis with the observation that President Bill Clinton politically survived his sexual immorality with Monica Lewinsky. But that sexual scandal would have destroyed the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. On the other hand, the rumor was that Eisenhower used the “n word” in referring to blacks; but Bill Clinton would never have survived had he done that.

So what changed? Morality has become relativistic in America– but “there is no moral relativism around racism, no sophisticated public sentiment that recasts racism as a mere quirk of character” (p. 5). Even the hint of “racism” is enough to destroy one’s career. Steele finds the answer to all of this in Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. Two years before Johnson launched the Great Society he stated in the famous Harvard University speech, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others.’”

Johnson’s Great Society, however, has had a deleterious if not disastrous effect upon the culture of America. It has embedded the assumption that though there may have been racism against blacks in the past, the white culture continues to be racist and operates upon that reality. Everything occurring now in America is seen by the main stream culture as through this prism.

Effects of the Great Society

What are some of the effects of this assumption? First, responsibility has been removed from black America. Johnson’s “Great Society was … a redistribution plan for responsibility by which he asked white America to assume considerable responsibility for black achievement” (p. 53). At the same time white America lost its moral authority “to enforce a single standard of responsibility for everyone because—by its own admission—it had not treated everyone the same.”

In slavery, blacks were not free, “but they were not entirely responsible for their lives” (p. 46). The Great Society ingrained this same principle into the black community—no responsibility. We are witnessing the results of this on the streets of America today.

Blacks have little or no responsibility to do well in school. Since African-Americans have been victims of injustice in the past, our standards are lowered in academia to accommodate minority achievement. We have included all manner of gimcrack educational ideas, the ‘beauty’ of which was that they always promised to let us achieve great things by demanding less of our students and of ourselves.

We talked of ‘black ways of knowing,’ which, of course, effectively gave all black teachers a kind of racial teaching credential that whites could never have. We devalued rigorous academic work by insisting that black students learned ‘experientially’ and ‘intuitively,’ and by arguing that ‘street knowledge’ was often more valuable than ‘book’ knowledge. There were certainly exceptions to all of this, people who worked earnestly with their students and taught substantive classes. But these serious people found themselves in an atmosphere of black excuse-making and incompetence … (119-20).

Another obvious result of the Great Society is that the concept of diversity is paramount above all other considerations. Campuses, government jobs and private places of business must tout “diversity” or be accused of racism. Diversity has become the god in America, effecting even Supreme Court decisions. Steele offers the landmark University of Michigan Affirmative Action case (2003) as an example. Justice Sandra Day O’Conner’s majority opinion has some “odd reasoning,” to say the least.

O’Conner borrowed “pseudoscientific doublespeak”—“learning outcomes,” “soft variables,” “selection index,” “nuanced judgments,” “critical mass,” and “holistic reading”—O’Conner piles one social science banality on top of another, hoping against hope that we buy her tall tale of ‘diversity’ as so ‘compelling’ a state interest that it justifies racial preferences. Her opaque language is a textbook illustration of George Orwell’s famous critique of political language as words used to ‘obscure’ and hide reality rather than to illuminate it (p. 127-28).

In turn, the god of “diversity” has birthed an entire “quota” system—spoken or unspoken—for almost every system in America, whether it be in education, job markets, and personal associations. African-Americans must be included, regardless of real achievement.

As an illustration of how strong this mantra is, Steele asks us to consider the fact that the very “possibility of racism” is enough to overturn science. DNA testing meant less in the O.J. Simpson case than did the possibility that Mark Fuhrman, one of the investigators in the O.J. Simpson case, had used “racist” terminology to refer to blacks. DNA and science, which should be an open and shut case, was thrown out due to racism.

Ethnic studies in schools is another form “disassociation.” Steele gives a personal illustration from a collegiate campus that included obvious sub-standard literature studies for students simply because the authors were black. He comments that “inclusion” has now become a literary value all its own.

Poverty itself is seen unrelated to personal dysfunction of those who suffer it. Once again, the removal of responsibility. This, in turn, has brought about the “treatment” by government “interventions” and more redistribution of money—of which we can never have enough. “With this ‘blameless’ poverty (poverty that never ‘blames the victim’), the government can be responsible for poverty even as it lacks authority over it.”

Steele explains how this has brought on big government. “So ‘blameless’ poverty is not more than a white ingenuity which allows institutions to steal responsibility for a problem they lack the authority even to honestly define” (p. 122).

In the end, white America is always trying to “prove a negative.” Prove they are not “racist”—which is the given assumption of our culture. But proving a negative is never possible. White America might elect the first black president in Barack Obama, they may have submitted to racial preferences in hiring and admissions for fifty years, they may have financially supported LBJ’s Great Society to the tune of billions of dollars—but that is never enough.

Now our culture is bombarded with efforts to dismantle America entirely. The newly proposed bill sponsored by Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts is a case in point. These Democrat women unveiled this week the BREATHE ACT which de-funds the Police, abolishes surveillance tactics which they say “disproportionately” targets minority communities, ending asset forfeiture, repeal laws that criminalize illegal immigration, encourages states to actually close down detention facilities, and eliminate gang databases while forgiving all fees and surcharges within the justice system.

The bill also demands reparations for mass incarcerations for blacks who have been “caught up in the War on Drugs” or been the victims of police violence and it eliminates federal programs and agencies used to finance ICE.

This is tantamount to a country with no borders, no responsibility required by its minority citizens, and no enforcement mechanism when laws are broken. The only reason such proposals has any legs is due to what Shelby Steele correctly calls “White Guilt.” It is a concept that will completely destroy the fabric of America.

« Older Entries