Tag Archives: Government Tyranny

Kathleen Marquardt: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, REDISTRIBUTING OUR WEALTH BY THE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS.

by Kathleen Marquardt

We have been railing against Public/Private Partnerships for many years. This is not a new issue. Many times in the past we’ve tried to inform the public of the dangers of PPPs, but they are complicated and most people today don’t want to take the time to delve deeply into anything that isn’t giving them pleasure. But now is the time to become educated on just one of the ways that we are being bled dry, that our money is being sucked off with huge vacuums and given to those conspiring to destroy America and the great American dream. They are winning because we are too busy, too lazy, too involved in other pursuits to stop them.

In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:

During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”

Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.

Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.

Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:

Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.

Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.

Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.

But again, Tom nails it: Public/Private Partnerships = Government-
Sanctioned Monopolies

It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.

That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.

Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.(Note Randy Salzman’s article below.)

And Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. State legislatures across the nation are passing legislation, which calls for the implementation of PPPs.

Beware. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience. Cute little jingles or emotional commercials can be very useful tools to sell a government program.

It is one thing to spell this out. At least it gives you a foundation for what Public/Private Partnerships are. But until you are exposed to an actual project (or rather the ‘conceived’ project), you cannot fathom the intricacies of deceit, collusion, and theft of taxpayer money with which these entities are swindling us, the people.

In a must-read article from Thinking HighwaysRandy Salzman’s “A ‘Model’ Scheme? is enlightening and frightening. As the lead-in says, “Salzman’s work is most comprehensive look at the dangers of P3s to date. It’s a must read for citizens and policymakers alike.” Please take the time to read it. I offer some key points from his article:

In the media, congress and across the political world, promoters pushing design-build public-private partnerships (P3s) are still claiming that private innovation is saving taxpayer money, creating good jobs and easing congestion.

In wanting to institute an “Infrastructure Bank” to address America’s “crumbling highway infrastructure,” even President Obama, using New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge as a backdrop, recently encouraged P3 construction with a US$302 billion plan. The president had apparently not read Congressional Budget Office research into P3s, nor heard the Tappan Zee contractor speak at a congressional hearing.

In March, Fluor’s senior vice president Richard Fierce bragged that his company was saving taxpayers US$1.7 billion on the new bridge across the Hudson until one congressman offhandedly remarked that he’d heard the Tappan Zee project would cost US$5 billion, not US$3.1 billion as the contractor had claimed.

Salzman points out that the ‘private’ entities “put up tiny bits of equity, though they impy more becaue they borrow dollars from Uncle Sam that they likey will not repay”; that the state and federal taxpayers are ponying up the 95+% of the bill, and we are also stuck with the cost of the bonds when “the P3 goes bankrupt – as they almost inevitably do – about 15 years down the road.”

Media coverage of P3s over the past decade, furthermore, has been overwhelmingly positive, consistently following the contractor line that private innovation is offsetting significant amounts of expense, improving projects and freeing public dollars for other activities. However, the Congressional Budget Office indicates P3s provide little, if any, financial benefit to taxpayers.

“The cost of financing a highway project privately is roughly equal to the cost of financing it publicly after factoring in the costs associated with the risk of losses from the project, which taxpayers ultimately bear, and the financial transfers made by the federal government to states and localities,” the CBO’s Microeconomic Studies director told congress in March. “Any remaining difference between the costs of public versus private financing for a project will stem from the effects of incentives and conditions established in the contracts that govern public-private partnerships.”

In that congressional hearing, Boston’s Michael Capuano reminded congressmen that “people stole money” in prior equivalents of design-build P3s, and that’s why the highway construction paradigm became “inefficiency intended to avoid malfeasance.”

Read the article – it is eye-opening even for those who understand the concept of PPPs. We the taxpayers are having our wealth redistributed in so many ways, but this is one of the most egregious.

Back to Tom’s speech on Public/Private Partnerships and our Republic:

Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market. Witness the drive for solar and wind power, even though the technology doesn’t exist for these alternative energies to actually make a difference.

Yet, the corporations, in partnership with government to impose these polices, have convinced the American public that this is the future of energy. Rest assured that if any one of these companies had to sell such products on the free market controlled by consumers, there would be very little talk about them.

But, today, an unworkable idea is making big bucks, not on the open market, but in a controlled economy for a select few like British Petroleum because of their partnerships with government.

Public/private partnerships can be used by international corporations to get a leg up on their competition by entering into contracts with government to obtain favors such as tax breaks and store locations not available to their competition, thereby creating an elite class of “connected” businesses.

A private developer, which has entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to its competitors.

The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common domain of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined common good.

The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work. The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities lose control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.

Using PPPs, power companies can obtain rights of way over private land, as is currently happening in Virginia where Dominion Power plans massive power towers over private property – against the strong objections of the property owners.

Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities across the nation, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the nation’s highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.

Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.

Of course, it’s not just American companies entering into PPPs with our government. Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, state and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.

As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, “On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years.”

In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a “no-compete” clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC. (note: the TCC is dead, but just recently I’ve heard it is going to be put forward again.)

So why do so many libertarians and conservatives support the concept of Public/Private Partnerships? By their words they profess to uphold the principles of freedom, limited government, individualism, private property and free enterprise. Yet they embrace a policy that eliminates competition, increases the size and power of government and stamps out the individual in the process.

A recent conference held in Virginia, just outside D.C. by such libertarians was titled “Restoring the Republic.” Yet, they called for open borders and “free trade.”

My question is this: What is the Republic? Is it just a notion floating on air? Something we can’t actually hold in our hand. Is the Republic just an idea? Or is it a thing? A place?

Only one nation was created by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: the United States. We were created as that Republic.” The Constitution defines a government that is supposed to have one purpose, the protection of rights we were born with.

It is true that every person on earth was born with those rights based on the principles of freedom. But only one nation was specifically designed to recognize and protect them: the United States.

If there are no borders, then what is the Republic they want to preserve? How can that be done? The Republic is the land of the United States. The laws of the United States. The judicial system of the United States. The sovereign states of the United States.

Our Constitution directs how we create laws by which we live, right down to the local level. It protects our ability to create a way of life we desire. Our resources, our economy, our wealth is all determined by the way of life we have chosen. And it’s all protected by the borders which define the nation – the Republic. And you can’t “harmonize” that with nations that reject those concepts! Canada is a commonwealth tied to the British Crown; Mexico is socialist.

So again, I ask, if you eliminate all of that by opening the borders and inviting nothing short of anarchy – then how do you preserve the Republic?


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/09/09/public-private-partnerships-redistributing-our-wealth-by-the-millions-and-billions/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Jesse Lee Peterson: IMMORAL DEMOCRAT WOMEN MISLEADING THE YOUNG

Jesse Lee Peterson blasts new crop of leftist radicals in government

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Immoral Democrat women have corrupted young people to believe that morality is not important, and now more than ever these women are being elected to run our government. Women, more than men, promote and make excuses for immorality. Real men do not go along with wrongdoing, but beta males abandon morality and follow these women. Such people hate God, hate men, hate the unborn child, and love to promote their immoral false morality.

Nancy Pelosi said that President Trump’s proposed border wall is “immoral.” But she’s immoral – she supports abortion, same-sex marriage and illegal aliens coming in unchecked, putting our country at risk. She makes wrong people feel right. Maxine Waters is also immoral. She wants to impeach the president, pretending to care about children and families separated at the border. But she says nothing about abortion or the broken black family. She makes immoral people out to be “victims” and then blames the moral people!

A new crop of immoral women have taken office, voted in by immoral young Democrat voters. Liberal magazine Vanity Fair put out a photo featuring freshman Democrat “women of color” now in our government. The photo features Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Deb Haaland, Veronica Escobar and Sharice Davids. They set a poor example in their personal lives and would never have been elected when the country cared about morality.

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

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D.-N.Y., is a socialist who falsely calls President Trump a “racist.” She has been living with a boyfriend whom she calls her “partner.” I have had many conversations in my Church and on my radio show with Millennials who have been misled to believe it’s okay to live with a boyfriend or girlfriend and have sex before marriage. (Radical homosexuals and feminists push the term “partner” instead of “boyfriend” or “husband” to dull awareness that men and women are different and not “equal.” They also try to kill people’s consciousness that homosexual relations are abnormal and immoral.)

Ayanna Pressley is celebrated by morally bankrupt people as the first “African American” representative from Massachusetts. But she married a man who already has a young daughter by another woman. This is immoral and selfish – children’s souls yearn for their real parents, and don’t want to compete with a stepparent for attention. Ayanna and her new “husband” have sacrificed his daughter’s soul to satisfy their own desires. This beta male supported his new “wife’s” campaign and has been misleading other young black males a “leader” in Barack Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” program.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is a divorced and remarried mother, and a hijab-wearing Somalian Muslim refugee. She should not be allowed to wear an Islamic headscarf in Congress! She supports socialism and the radical “LGBTQIA+” agenda. She also lied about opposing “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) against Israel. Moral people would never elect such a Muslim to run our government!

Deb Haaland, D.-New Mexico, is celebrated by shallow people as one of the first “Native American” women in Congress. She was a single mother and raised a daughter who came out as a lesbian. After Haaland was elected, she falsely accused President Trump of “rhetoric of erasing trans people in this country” and “ripping children from their parents.” This failure of a parent turned her daughter away from the father, and pretends to care about people confused about their gender and sexuality.

Veronica Escobar, D.-Texas, is a “Mexican-American” mother and politician who officiated the so-called “wedding” of a young “gay couple” who supported her. She claimed Trump “really frightened” her, saying, “I worry about the planet. I worry about immigrants. I worry about women. I worry about the LGBT community.” President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, the sheriff falsely accused of “racial profiling” and “contempt” of court by a liberal judge. In reaction, she cursed and lied, “Un-f***ing-believable! … do you know what message that sends to Hispanics? ‘You don’t belong here.’” She doesn’t belong in office!

Sharice Davids, D.-Kansas, is another first “Native American” female representative – and a lesbian, the “first openly LGBT member of Congress from Kansas.”

Last week I wrote about “the first Palestinian American” Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D.-Michigan. The divorced single mother told one of her young sons of President Trump, “We’re gonna impeach the motherf—er.” She repeated this at a bar at a MoveOn.org event after being sworn into office. I said then that she is a national security threat to the country. She should be focused on setting a better example for her children, not running the country!

President Trump is a moral man. He loves the country. He moved past his errors in life, no longer bragging about wrongdoing. Sinners attack Trump because he says he does not ask God for forgiveness. But he does right today – not wrong. Once you repent and are born again of God, you no longer sin. The hypocrites, like Satan, endlessly bring up Trump’s past to accuse him, when they’re no better.

They don’t care about what’s right, but hate good men. Just look at the immoral women they promote.

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/immoral-democrat-women-misleading-the-young/ 

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Raging War in America is about Morality

by Bill Lockwood

The war in Washington over the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a microcosm of the war occurring in America. It is a religious and moral battle for the soul of our nation. Our Republic was founded upon the one basic principle of the sacredness of life. This is why governments are instituted among men, wrote the Founders in the Declaration. But Democrats and many Republicans hate this honored cornerstone and are willing to bring the entire house of America down to defend the murder of the unborn.

That this is not overdrawn is seen in Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s tweet after her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh last week. “Brett Kavanaugh had no problem saying Roe v. Wade is ‘settled law’ but he refused to tell me if he thought it was correctly decided. His own email shows what he believes about the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn Roe.” Then she finished with this hashtag: “This is #WhatsAtStake, plain and simple.”

Jonathan Zimmerman, writing in USA Today (9-16-18), put it bluntly: “I don’t want Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. Based on what he has said and written, I fear that Kavanaugh will roll back reproductive rights, environmental regulations, and many causes that I hold dear.” Reproductive rights is lib-speak for killing the unborn. They demand the right to kill, but cannot say it very clearly lest the masses wise up.

The News Analysis of the National Catholic Register (9-27-18) headline that “Abortion politics are central to the dramatic and bitter political theater currently playing out in Washington.”

Killing the unborn is paramount to the Democrat Party. In the “Borking” of Robert Bork, then-Sen. Ted Kennedy infamously drew the battle-line. He stated that the America of Robert Bork would be a country in which “abortions would be occurring in back-alleys.” Translation: we are going to kill our unborn, lawful or unlawful; neither we will not give up our sexual immorality that leads to it.

Our Constitution—The Civil Bible of America

A collective statement signed almost a half-century ago by dignitaries such as Herbert C. Hoover, Alfred E. Smith; Mrs. William H. Taft, Mrs. Calvin Coolidge, Mrs. Benjamin Harrison, Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt and others, found in the fronts-piece of Judge Thomas James Norton’s handbook on the Constitution, reads,

Menaced by collectivist trends, we must seek revival of our strength in the spiritual foundations which are the bedrock of our republic. Democracy is the outgrowth of the religious conviction of the sacredness of every human life. On the religious side, its highest embodiment is the Bible; on the political, the Constitution. As has been said so well, ‘The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans.’” (emp. added)

J. Evetts Haley, the late Texas historian, in his A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power, prefaces the text with this observation among many which adequately describe the current populace: a “…healthy, moral people, even when denied the facts of national life—the truth essential to their survival—intuitively sense that something is wrong.”

Indeed, something is wrong. Wrong in America. And it is not Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It is the moral fabric that holds any people together and legitimizes the existence of government. The disunity at the national and local level is “a natural and inevitable result of illegitimate government.” And legitimacy in government can only be restored by principle: “principle based on moral character.” In other words, unless we can restore moral character to our governing principles, America operates with an illegitimate government.

By defalcation of Congress on the one hand and Judicial usurpation on the other [Roe v. Wade, bl]—with the connivance and ready support of the Executive Branch—the Federal Government has been corrupted into a vehicle of vast and unrestrained power over the lives, the effects and the affairs of the American people.

The legitimacy of our government can only be restored by returning to an ethical base. It cannot be restored by “false fronts” such as eradicating “hate” as the cause of national tragedy and stresses between people; or the preaching of peace “while appeasing evil” (see Jeremiah 6:14). These types of propaganda only exacerbate “instead of healing the malady.” America’s derangement can only be healed by returning to God and His moral standard. This fight in Washington and across America is about the sacredness of life.

G. Campbell Morgan was a leading British evangelist who preached from the pulpit of Westminster Chapel in London during the early part of the 20th century. In his summary of the First Book of Kings in the Old Testament he laid out the obvious; every human government that leaves God out is doomed to end in disaster. This is the message of 1 Kings. Even “religious forms and ceremonies are grave-clothes if the spirit be not right with God.”

A nation cannot be governed by insisting that it shall adopt religious forms or ceremonies. Neither can a nation be governed by internal development, or commercial treaties, or ships which ply to Tarshish to bring back apes and peacocks [reference to Solomon’s reign, 970-931 B.C.; see 1 Kings 10:22]….shut God out of the question and democracy will be the most awful tyranny the world has ever seen.

Raging war in America is about moral character. Not Brett Kavanaugh’s—but the people. If Brett Kavanaugh is not confirmed, it will be because we could not find enough substance in our own standards to withstand diabolical onslaughts spearheaded by Democrats.

Guglielmo Ferrero, the Italian historian, in The Principles of Power, captures the essence of the battle.

Authority comes from above … legitimacy comes from below. [This] … explains why democracy cannot be legitimized without an internal spiritual unity if all the people are not in agreement both on the principle of legitimacy and on the great moral and religious principles of life. If that unity does not exist, the right of opposition becomes the battleground for a struggle to the death. [as quoted by Haley].

Times may change, but the motivations of human nature; the moral and spiritual principles upon which the life of our Republic hang, do not.

Corrupting Culture

Corrupting Culture

by Bill Lockwood

The word “culture” is broadly defined as the beliefs, social practices or characteristics of a social group or people. A society shares the same “culture.” This necessarily includes sets of ideas that give society its shape. Culture originates from “cult” [Latin, “cultus”] which was not originally used to describe a bizarre religious system, but simply the act of worship. What is important to remember is that any culture is rooted in its religious presuppositions, regardless of what they may be.

When it is said that America was founded upon Christian ideals, it is never intended to suggest that any official state religion was established. Instead, as the entire Founding generation explained, the free institutions of society were molded and modeled upon Christian concepts. America was crafted to have a “Christian culture.”

Evidences are now so clear that the Christian culture is under tremendous assault in our society. Bibles being banned from the public square and schoolhouse is an index that traditional American values such as belief in God, the Bible, universal moral standards, family values and the sanctity of life are also under attack. As society continues to swoon in sickness there is a vocal minority which does not wish to examine the causes of our loss, but only wish to recommend more slavery to an all-powerful government. Witness also the fact that seldom does one hear about “the truth.” Instead, we bow before the gods of relativism and pluralism in which “all cultures” and therefore “religious concepts” have equal value.

Ancient Israel
When Israel entered the Promised Land of Canaan, God had made it exceedingly clear by repetition that they were to (1) “drive out” the Canaanite people and, (2) leave none of their altars or places of worship standing (See Judges 2:1-5). That they did not follow this mandate caused their society to deteriorate rapidly.

For example, the tribe of Benjamin failed to drive out the Jebusites (Canaanite people) in the environment of Jerusalem, but the “Jebusites lived among the Benjamites” (1:21). The same thing happened in other various communities such as Megiddo. Canaanites, with their culture, were allowed to remain.

Next, the tribe of Naphtali did not drive out the Canaanites from Beth-Shemesh, but in this case, the expressive language of Scripture tells us that the Israelites “dwelled among the Canaanites” (1:33). Dominance in cultural terms is given to the Canaanites. Further decline is seen in the very next verse where the Amorites (another Canaanite tribe) actually drove the Israelite tribe of Dan back into the hill country!

Finally, the sad conclusion is found in 1:36 where the Amorites actually established sovereign borders within the land of Israel! What is the lesson for America? While no one suggests that Americans are under divine mandate to drive out foreigners from our land, the obvious fact is that with uncontrolled immigration plus the lack of assimilation which is occurring our land will no longer reflect any of the cultural norms given by God.

Back to Homepage