Parents should be able to hand the government even more responsibility for raising their children, Democrat U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California believes. To help make that a reality, she introduced an unconstitutional bill that would keep school doors open until 6 PM or later, as well as during the summer months.
Dubbed the “Family Friendly Schools Act,” Harris’ bill would help further obliterate the family, replacing parents with government school officials for almost the entire life of a child. Under the plan, American taxpayers would be forced to provide even more tax money to government “education” so that parents could spend even less time with their children.
If approved, the legislation would start by bribing 500 government schools across America into creating “activities” for children from 8 AM or before until 6 PM or later. The schools, part of a pilot program, would be required to provide “high-quality, culturally relevant, linguistically accessible, developmentally appropriate academic, athletic, or enrichment opportunities” during that time.
That means millions of children would be eating three government-provided meals per day at their government schools, further cementing the government’s role as provider in the child’s mind. Next up: Bed-time stories and goodnight hugs for children from government bureaucrats, so that parents do not have to worry about those parental duties, either.
The Orwellian scheme would also plow over $1 billion — to start with — into creating “21st Century Community Learning Centers” at public schools across America. These institutions would subject some 2 million American children to what Harris’ press release described as “summer programming,” thereby eliminating summer vacation.
While parents typically spend an hour or two with their children on an average day, government has them captive for about eight hours per day, five days a week, for at least 14 years. In total, children who start school in Kindergarten will spend over 20,000 waking hours in government care, compared to around one fourth that much time with their parents.
Harris pointed to her mother working “long hours” as a reason why America needs children to be in government schools for more hours. Apparently “juggling” school schedules and work is a “common cause of stress and financial hardship,” said Harris, who is descended from slave owners and whose own father has lambasted her disgusting “identity politics.”
“But, this does not have to be the case,” Harris continued, because apparently Uncle Sam is going to make it all better by taking even more money from people to somehow help them deal with their “financial hardship.” Proving that she would destroy a proper understanding of justice if elected in her long-shot bid for the presidency, Harris added: “Justice for students and working families is on the ballot.”
Of course, totalitarians have long believed that government ought to play a much larger role in the raising of children. Indeed, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and countless other socialist and communist tyrants throughout the 20th century sought to usurp the role of parents in raising the next generation, always with horrific results.
In America, Big Government mongers have similar dreams. Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan, for instance, openly called for government boarding schools that would have some children 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Hillary Clinton argued two decades ago that it takes a (government) “village” to raise a child. And the Obama administration released a policy document seeking home visits that referred to parents as “equal partners” in the raising of children.
As American children get dumber and dumber — not to mention more immoral — with each passing year in public school, it is incredible that somebody could seriously propose increasing the amount of time spent there. What U.S. children need is more time with their parents and less time as inmates in the government’s indoctrination centers. Harris should be ashamed of herself.
Linda Sapadin, Ph.D, writing for Psychcentral.com, has coined a new term appropriate for too many in our generation. RDD—Responsibility Deficit Disorder. “Our entire culture is plagued with this virus,” she writes. “RDD is prevalent in our society and is a growing problem.”
However, unlike other “clinical” disorders, RDD effects people differently. “Those who have it do not suffer from it. Quite the contrary. The people who ‘suffer’ are those loved ones who must deal with the rat’s nest that is so often dropped in their laps.” How true.
On the lighter side, consider the following real-life excuses people have given to lessen their “responsibility” in motor vehicle accidents. “An invisible car came out of nowhere, struck my car and vanished.” Or try this one: “As I approached an intersection a sign suddenly appeared in a place where no stop sign had ever appeared before. I was unable to stop in time to avoid the accident.” Or this: “In an attempt to kill a fly, I drove into a telephone pole.”
Mothers-in-law will appreciate this one. “I pulled away from the side of the road, glanced at my mother-in-law and headed over the embankment.”
However, in a very real and somber way, Ms. Sapadin is exactly correct about our society and its failure to own-up to responsibility. Not only is it a growing problem, but our political landscape actually encourages RDD. Everything from obesity to “unsocial” behavior to political socialism falls under the umbrella of RDD. Colleges that once taught people how to think now offer “safe spaces” for students who become upset over conservative ideas.
Steve Siebold, writing for The Huffington Post, notes that:
It used to be that hard work was the American way. If you wanted to lose weight, you knew it took a good diet, exercise and a lot of hard work and dedication. If your wanted to make money and achieve the American dream, you worked hard, learned everything you could about your industry and created the life you wanted. Those days are over. Quitting and complacency are the norm. In fact, if our ancestors were alive today—the very men and women who came to this country to fight for the chance at a better life—they would be embarrassed, shocked and devastated at what we’ve turned into.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder
Social Justice is a concept that carries with it RDD virus. This is because “social justice” has very little to do with actual “justice” but focuses upon “outcomes.” Walter Williams puts it this way,
Outcomes of human relationships are often seen as criteria for the presence or absence of justice or fairness. Outcomes frequently used as barometers of justice and fairness are: race and sex statistics on income and unemployment, income redistribution in general, occupation distribution, wealth ownership, and other measures of socio-economic status.
In other words, no attention is paid to any underlying reason for differences, it is simply assumed that different outcomes among people is the result of crass prejudice and favoritism. For example, wealth distribution is uneven among various races of people. Social justice demands the assumption that foul play must be involved. But this must not be spoken out loud. Our political machinery just moves along as if this were true and prescribes mandates based on race—whether it be in job hiring or incarceration rates.
Differences among people or subcultures as a possible cause is never considered because that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do.
The American justice system must be “profoundly racist” according to Bart Lubow of Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative. No examination of personal choices, no time wasted pondering different habits of sub-cultures—simply announce America to be a “racist” culture. This is how Lubow feeds RDD.
In April, 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, Reginald Denny, a white truck driver, was beaten nearly to death by four black men. The attack ended when Damian Monroe Williams took a cinderblock and bashed Denny’s skull, fracturing it in 91 places and causing severe brain damage.
Denny was hospitalized for 33 days with a compound skull fracture, almost 100 broken bones and internal injuries. Doctors said he was only moments from death before being rescued by four good Samaritans. Denny had taken what he thought would be a short-cut off of the Santa Monica Freeway.
At the trial social scientists from UCLA cited “mob behavior” which is “spontaneous.” Damian Williams was found “not guilty” of attempted murder because he had been caught up in “mob mentality.” Williams was “acting out his frustrations, his disappointments.” So argued his defense attorney; so agreed the judge. His only conviction was a 10-year “felony mayhem” sentence—the others were not sentenced at all. Responsibility Deficit Disorder is not only a retreat of the immature—it is encouraged by the judicial system.
The International for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), a world organization with the imprimatur of the United Nations, founded in Stockholm, Sweden in 1995, has as its goal Sustainable Democracy.
Specifically, IDEA pushes “gender quotas” in politics and positions of power. “An increasing number of countries are currently introducing various types of gender quotas for public elections: In fact, half of the countries of the world today use some type of electoral quota for their parliament.” The goal is to have more “gender balance” in governmental representation.
What is the excuse for this top-down pressure to conform? Once again, the assumption that women suffer from male prejudice against women in power positions. Out-of-bounds is the question that there are differences between men and women and that many women may not prefer these roles in society. This is another facet of Responsibility Deficit Disorder. We simply disallow that women have control over their own lives and occupations.
The Gun Debate
The entire Democratic Party is afflicted with Responsibility Deficit Disorder. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Democratic positions on firearm ownership. Witness the recent debates between 20 presidential candidates in Miami and what they propose as solutions to gun violence in America.
Many of the candidates advocate an outright repeal of The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for criminal misuse of their products (Frank Minter, in Freedom, September, 2019, p. 16). These candidates want gun manufacturers out of business. They UNANIMOUSLY refuse to understand that criminals that use firearms have a personal responsibility in their criminal behavior, and that the rest of us should not be punished.
Joe Biden, for example, said “we should have smart guns. No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure can pull that trigger. It’s without our right to do that, we can do that, our enemy is the gun manufacturers, …” Smart guns, but not smart politicians. The gun manufacturers? RDD.
Biden even stated he would be willing for the federal government to confiscate millions of popular semi-automatic rifles from the public. Biden is not constitutionally-minded either.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren claims that “Gun violence is a national health emergency.” She advocates universal background checks and new bans on some guns. RDD. Sen. Cory Booker has the same disorder. So also Sen. Amy Klobuchar. She proposes a forced gun “buyback” program.
Not to be outdone, former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke opined that semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of war” and do not belong on our streets. Sen. Kamala Harris has threatened an unconstitutional executive order if Congress did not pass a new gun-legislation within her first 100 days in office. Sen. Bernie Sanders runs on a platform of “banning assault rifles” as well as “ending the gun show loophole.”
Not one of these candidates cares about the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the God-given rights owned by each citizen of America. They all function with RDD and suppose that you will as well. They will never even address the real issue as to rising crime and gun violence—lack of moral responsibility and moral character in America. That would be getting too close to “religious values” which they disdain.
If we are going to solve the growing Responsibility Deficit Disorder in our nation, begin by taking responsibility for your own actions. Desert any institution that refuses to recognize personal responsibility. Translated, that means, leave the Democratic Party. Because, as Dr. Linda Sapadin advises, “Dream on that the other person will change. He’s got it good—especially if you’re are enabling his dysfunction.” Quit enabling Democratic dysfunction.
With the recent shootings in America liberal politicians have proposed curtailing the God-given unalienable right to keep and bear arms as a method to stem the violence. From presidential hopeful Joe Biden recently telling Anderson Cooper, “Bingo” when asked about the government coming for “guns” to Kamala Harris’ proposal that if she is elected president she will enact “executive orders” to confiscate “assault weapons” when Congress fails to act, the Second Amendment needs to be re-asserted.
It is a historical fact that in nations where political leaders wish to remove properties and freedoms of the citizenry, they always begin by disarming the populace. This normally begins by requiring registration of firearms and imposing penalties when they do not. This is followed in many cases by federal governments deliberately provoking rioting and violence which is then used as an excuse to confiscate firearms.
The Second Amendment—A Prohibition
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The first thing to be noted is that the 2d Amendment is a strict prohibition against the federal government. It is not a declaration of rights, period. The right to keep arms was assumed to be God-given by the founders, but they added the Amendments to ensure that the national government would not touch these freedoms.
The Bill of Rights opens with this bold statement, “Congress shall make NO LAW …” What Joe Biden and his Democrat cohorts propose is unconstitutional on its very surface. Federal government has no say so in the matter. Making “no law” is pretty clear.
Second, there is a popular view today, though erroneous, that the 2d Amendment means that the National Guard should be able to keep and bear arms, but that the guarantee does not extend to ordinary citizens. Those who advance such an argument either have not read the Founders themselves who wrote the 2d Amendment, or hope you do not—or both.
The concern has always been, from the time of the creation of America until today, that a centralized federal government would evolve into a dictatorship or totalitarian state. The framers, with one voice, stated that the only counter measure to such gravitational pull over time was the populace itself. Alexander Hamilton, for example, in The Federalist Papers, asserted that liberty would always be ensured as long as the people were allowed to be “properly armed and equipped.”
James Madison, who authored the 2d Amendment, wrote that under the Constitution “the ultimate authority …resides in the people alone [due to the] advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Joseph Story, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (8112-1845), a foremost Constitutional authority, wrote:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, noted that
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence….From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.
Sam Adams, introduced in the Massachusetts convention the call to ratify the Constitution. In it he said that the “Constitution never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own guns.”
Sir William Blackstone (1725-80), though not a founder of this nation, was one of the top four quoted authorities on Common Law. Lawyers in America until the time of Abraham Lincoln normally carried Blackstone with them. Of the right to keep and bear arms, Blackstone said,
“Of the absolute rights of individuals: the fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject … is that of having arms for their defense …”
He explained that the basis for this right is the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression” (Alan Gottlieb, The Rights of Gun Owners, 1983, p. 6). It is as if Blackstone was mirroring current day America and the push of Democratic and Socialist lawmakers to open our borders to the entire third world, turning our streets into combat zones in some cases.
Still, some cling to the wording of the 2d Amendment which states a “well-regulated militia” is necessary for the security of a free people to insist that this right to keep and bear arms be reserved for a specialized unit which one must join. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most Americans do not realize that they themselves belong to the state militia where they reside. Title 10, section 31 of the U.S. Code defines the militia of each state as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, p. 694).
The United States Congress has weighed in on this topic as well. In 1982 a Senate subcommittee on the Constitution carefully documented the 2d Amendment understanding in a public report. After lengthy pages of history, it noted that in various states after the War for Independence many proposals called it a general duty for all citizens to be armed. Richard Henry Lee, for instance, observed that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them …”
George Mason of Virginia, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted to “disarm the people—that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.” Patrick Henry said that the “great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.”
St. George Tucker, one of the earliest commentators on the Constitution and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, published in 1803 his annotations. He followed Blackstone’s citations (noted above) and pointed out regarding the 2d Amendment that it is “without any qualification.” So also, William Rawle’s “View of the Constitution” published in 1825. He emphasized that,
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
The 1982 Congress summarized some of the above material. First, subsequent legislation in the Second Congress “supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States.”
They went on to add that these persons “were obligated by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.” “There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress … spoke of a ‘militia’, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard.” (Skousen, p. 699).
Second, the prohibition is strict and broad against the federal government or its officers from being able to address the issue of firearms or weaponry in the hands of its citizens. The reason is clear. As Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution put it this way: the right to keep and bear arms is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic.” This is a natural deterrent to tyranny.
So, whether it is Elizabeth Warren, who wants to have the federal government involve themselves in background checks, or Kamala Harris, who has dictatorship-style plans to move unilaterally on guns if elected president, or Joe Biden, who plans to implement bans on “assault weapons” at the federal level, or Bernie Sanders, who promises some type of executive action on firearms—all of these are theorizing in unconstitutional territory. If the federal government can step into this arena—no matter how small a role—history shows that this foot-in-the-door will expand to larger roles as Constitutionally illiterate people pouring out of the colleges demand more federal control. Voters, beware.
Jesse Lee Peterson blasts socialist candidate pushing Americans to back of the bus
by Jesse Lee Peterson
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., was touted as the winner of the second Democratic debate, in part, because she went after Joe Biden accusing him of opposing bussing to integrate public schools and of coddling segregationists. Biden said Harris misrepresented his record.
Biden has been criticized by some for recent comments he made about his ability to get along with Democratic Sens. James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia, both known segregationists. Biden later spoke at Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition in Chicago and defended his record on civil-rights, mostly by talking up former president Barack Obama. He cited that the Obama Department of Justice investigated discrimination by police in places like Ferguson, Missouri.
The Obama-Biden record on civil-rights is awful! For eight years, Joe Biden was part of the most anti-white, anti-police administration in U.S. history. Obama-Biden intentionally divided this country along racial lines with false claims of “racism” and “police brutality” in order to keep blacks on the Democratic plantation. They undermined trust in the judicial system. They politicized and tied the hands of law enforcement while allowing dangerous street thugs to attack cops with impunity.
Kamala Harris played the race card and scored political points. Harris’s campaign reportedly raised $2 million in the 24 hours after the debate. But like Obama and Biden, Harris is a far-left Democrat who promotes racial division and class warfare.
Harris was born in Oakland, California in 1964 to a Jamaican father and Indian mother. Her parents divorced when she was seven and Harris’ mother moved with the children to Montreal, Québec, Canada, where Harris remained until she finished high school. Like Obama, Kamala has no connection to black America’s struggle for civil rights. Just because Harris was bussed to a white school in Berkeley for the sake of integration, it doesn’t make her the modern-day Rosa Parks or a Freedom Rider! Harris is playing the race card to get black votes.
As reported by the Washington Examiner, Harris’s first major political role was an appointment by her powerful then-boyfriend and Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly, Willie Brown (three decades her senior) to a cushy California medical board that paid $70,000 per year! Today, she’s married a successful Jewish attorney.
Kamala Harris will say anything to get votes. A recent example of Harris’s pandering is her support for the legalization of marijuana, which she opposed as California’s attorney general. When questioned about her flip-flop, Harris cited her Jamaican heritage: “Half my family is from Jamaica, are you kidding me?” She said she supports legalization because smoking pot “gives a lot of people joy, and we need more joy.”
Her father, Donald Harris, took issue with his daughter’s use of the drug stereotype as she runs for president.
“My dear departed grandmothers, as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics,” he said in a statement to Jamaica Global.
Harris’s father has also reportedly written about their family ancestry and said that one of his grandmothers was related to a plantation and slave owner while the other had unknown ancestry.
Kamala Harris and Democrats are more committed to taking care of illegals than they are Americans. They are not campaigning to appeal to all of America; instead, they’re trying to pander to illegal aliens, radical LGBT groups and the pro-abortion crowd.
Democrats want to give illegals everything, but they refuse to help American citizens. They promised healthcare for all (including illegal aliens) without offering a way to pay for it. When asked if they’re going to do anything to close the southern border, not a single person raised their hand; but they want to add another 30 million illegals to rely on the government. There are Americans who can’t afford to pay for healthcare as a result of Obamacare. We need to look out for the American people first!
Democrat California lawmakers are working on a proposal to let young illegal immigrants enroll in the state’s Medicaid program (Medi-Cal). Eligible people up to the age of 26 would be covered, regardless of their immigration status. The plan could cost the state as much as $98 million per year! New York State passed a bill that allows illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses. Democrats want to give illegals the right to vote, and issuing licenses is one way to do it.
Kamala Harris and the Democrats don’t care about black people. Blacks have fared much better under President Trump than any other president in recent history. Democrats haven’t done anything to help improve the inner cities – they’ve made things worse. If Kamala Harris and Democrats have their way, they will bankrupt the country with handouts to illegals and push blacks to the back of the bus.
All recent talk coming from the Democrats is about current “reparations” to black Americans for yesteryear’s slavery. White America must begin paying financial compensation for sins of history. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) announced a bill this week to form a commission to recommend “reparations for slavery.” Booker says this could solve the “persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in our country. It will bring together the vest minds to study the issue and propose solutions that will finally begin to right the economic scales of past harms and make sure we are a country where all dignity and humanity is affirmed.”
Beto O’Rourke was against “reparations” when he was in Congress but has switcherooed to favor Booker’s commission. Whatever is vogue is what the Democrats support. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, another Texas Democrat, has supported reparations as well. Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Elizabeth Warren both cannot get on the bandwagon quickly enough.
Reparation talk is growing elsewhere. Black Princeton Seminary students in New Jersey are asking their school for reparations for slavery due to the fact that the early founders and faculty of the University had ties to slavery. A group of black seminarians have collected more than 400 signatures in an online petition calling on the Princeton to “make amends” by setting aside $5.3 million annually—15% of what the seminary uses from the school’s endowment for its operating expenses—to fund tuition grants for black students and establish a Black Church Studies program (Selwyn Duke, in The New American, 3.27.19).
What Shall We Say to These Things?
This is all a tacit admission that Reparations Do Not Work to the End for Which They are Intended.Why?Booker says reparations will “right the economic scales of past harms.” This is exactly, almost word for word, the reason Affirmative Action was instituted in America in the first place.
Consider Pres. Lyndon Johnson, in a commencement address at Howard University in 1965 on affirmative action, who opined this way about Affirmative Action:
You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying, ‘now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair …This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.
We were going to have equality “as a fact and as a result” provided by Big Brother Government in its meddlesome Affirmative Action programs. Compensate for past discrimination and persecution is the “reason.” The original purpose for Affirmative Action in the United States was to “pressure institutions into compliance” with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
According to the clintonwhitehouse2.archives.gov website,
The current scope of affirmative action programs is best understood as an outgrowth and continuation of our national effort to remedy subjugation of racial and ethnic minorities and of women — subjugation in place at our nation’s founding and still the law of the land within the lifetime of “baby-boomers.
Apparently, the government remedy did not take. Instead of a “remedy” affirmative action has exacerbated the racial problem, so much that Democrats are seeking again to “right the economic scales” in America—exactly what Affirmative Action was supposed to do—by government fiat.
There are a few hundred questions we need answered by the Booker’s, Harris’, Warren’s and O’Rourke’s of the world before “reparations” are underway. Just a sampling of those questions are these:
Since slavery is solely of the Democrat Party in America, why not make the DNC pay the reparations?
Since American Indians practiced slavery regularly, and photos exist of Indian tribes holding white captives as slaves, will whites receive payments as well? Will the government “shake down” the Indian tribes for their historical practice of slavery?
Since “slavery” is, by definition, for all practical purposes, the process by which one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another, how is it that modern-day forcible financial re-distribution (slavery) supposed to “right” slavery of the past? Will modern-day slavery via the tax code be repaired? What is the difference in principle between slavery to the government and slavery to a plantation owner?
Is Booker man-enough to note that the Koran teaches slavery and Muslims have practiced slavery throughout the centuries? Shall Muslims in America pay reparations for subjugating populations of Europeans in history? Will those that support Mohammed and the fact that he owned a black slave be forced to disown Mohammed? After all, those theological students at Princeton say that “Restitution is evidence of repentance.”
While thinking of Islam, since each and every black slave that was captured in Africa and sold to English slave-traders originated with Muslim slave-traders in Africa, will those who practice Islam be forced to pay reparation? After all, why target just a few Englishmen involved in slavery? Why not cast a wider net for reparations?
Since “righting past wrongs” is Booker’s game, what about abortion? Since abortion is the taking of innocent life, will the Democrat legislation force those who have aborted children to pay into a general fund for usage by others? Or, is our grievance against sin selective? Only some sins need apply.
And since abortion rates are higher in black communities than in white communities does this mean that more blacks will be paying than whites? Or, is abortion off-the-table as far as discussion is concerned?
Since the black Princeton Theology students tell us that “reparation is evidence of repentance” do they also teach that it is the government’s job to force repentance among the population? Is asking for free-will contributions the same as a government shakedown?
While on theology students, perhaps a biblical passage will help us. Ezekiel 18.
Israelites in Babylonian captivity were self-righteous. They were disposed to shift blame off of themselves and lay it partly upon their fathers and partly upon God. Shifting blame to some other quarter that we might be just and God unjust is still prevalent among men!
Their Illusion is that they were suffering, not for their own sins, but the transgressions of their fathers. Their proverbial statement to that effect was, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and set the children’s teeth on edge.” An old proverb repeated by the modern-day Democrat-Socialist. The prophet dispels this idea in the balance of the chapter.
Ezekiel lays out four cases to illustrate Divine Justice. Number one: the righteous man (v. 5-9) is just (dealings with others) and will live. Number two: a wicked son of a righteous man (v. 10-13). The father will not be held accountable for the sin of the son. Number three: a righteous son of a wicked father (v. 14-18). Here is where liberal idea of reparation rests. Must wickedness of past generations be paid today? The inspired prophet’s answer: NO. The principle is: The soul that sins, IT is the one that shall die! (v. 2).
Number four: Ezekiel has one more scenario (v 21-24). The wicked AND the righteous. If the wicked repents, then he is forgiven. If the righteous apostatizes, he is lost. This involves a change, not in the character of one generation to the next, but in the character of the individual.Such is repentance. Princeton Theology students and the Cory Booker’s of the world notwithstanding.
Jesse Lee Peterson blasts loathsome hypocrisy of Dems
by Jesse Lee Peterson
President Donald Trump delivered a powerful speech at CPAC 2019 (Conservative Political Action Conference) in defense of freedom and promised that America will never be a socialist country.
Donald Trump spoke for more than two hours at CPAC to an enthusiastic crowd of supporters. Trump criticized the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, calling it a “witch hunt.” He blasted Democrats as socialists, and warned about a government takeover of health care. He said Democrats will lose badly in 2020 because they are running on a socialist platform that will turn off most American voters. He is absolutely right!
Trump warned the audience of a “socialist nightmare,” criticizing the “Green New Deal” environmental proposals supported by Democratic politicians such as freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and most of the current 2020 presidential candidates, and mocking the potential of wind power as a source of clean energy. In his speech Trump acted out a scene of man looking outside, saying, “Darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.” The Green New Deal seeks to drastically overhaul the country’s energy and economic policy and cost trillions of dollars.
Sanders talked about “revolution,” “economic justice” and “prison-industrial complex.” He called for “Medicare for all,” a $15 minimum wage and tuition-free public college. Bernie promoted class warfare by attacking big corporations like General Motors and Netflix, and vilified Donald Trump (the Great White Hope!).
Bernie wants to confiscate wealth from the rich to give to the “poor.” Socialist Democrats have no problem being generous with other people’s money, but studies show conservatives are far more generous and charitable than liberals.
As my friend Dennis Prager recently said on Fox News, socialism doesn’t create wealth, it spends what Capitalism creates – and it always deprives people of their freedom by giving more and more power to government.
Bernie Sanders is a multi-millionaire and a closet Marxist. He has been in Congress for 29 years, and has spent very little time, if any, working in the private sector – he got rich growing the government. Yet, 2020 Democrat hopefuls Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others have adopted his extreme platform. And despite their constant attacks on the “rich,” Elizabeth Warren (Pocahontas) is part of the top 1 percent, and Kamala Harris is a millionaire. These Democrats are hypocrites, and the freshman Democrats are tyrannical and lawless.
At a recent closed-door meeting of House Democrats, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-New York), said some of her colleagues could find themselves “on a list” of primary election targets, after they voted for a Republican amendment requiring that undocumented immigrants who try to buy guns be reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Liberal commentator Van Jones is being attacked as a “sell out” for praising conservatives for their support of criminal justice reform during a panel discussion at CPAC. The Democratic Party and its supporters have no tolerance for anyone who utters truth or strays from their socialist talking points.
Democrats used blacks to test socialism, and the results have been catastrophic. Liberal Democrat policies wiped out two-parent black families across the U.S. by encouraging welfare and dependency on government programs. For the past 60 years, the federal government encouraged and rewarded single black female-headed households, and it became the daddy and provider. Today, 77.3 percent of black babies are now born out of wedlock, and most black men are nothing more than sperm donors.
Democrats tricked blacks into trading their dignity and work ethic for government handouts. In 2019, black Americans are not suffering because of alleged “racism.” They’re suffering because they lack good parents and they don’t have moral character.
Bernie Sanders and the rest of the 2020 Democrat hopefuls are trying to seduce and trick the American people using the same failed socialist agenda that destroyed blacks.
Donald Trump has done a tremendous job as president. The president has been terrific on trade, national security and domestic policy. The U.S. economy is booming, and black and Hispanic unemployment rates are at an all-time low.
It was a mistake to allow Democrats back in power in 2018. They have openly adopted socialism as the cornerstone of their party’s platform for 2020. They used socialist policies to destroy the black community, and if we allow it to spread, they will use it to bankrupt and destroy the country. We need to rally behind the president to ensure that never happens.
Prosecution against non-believers in government doctrine. Announcing on March 29 at a press conference in the once-free state of New York in the formerly-free America a group of state attorney’s general promised full-scale “investigations” into any company that denies the official state doctrine that “climate change is real” and is “human-caused.” This belief-system or dogma of Climate Change has the imprimatur of Barack Obama. American businesses who do not accept the tenets thereof will be labeled as heretics and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman spoke in behalf of a group of 17 attorney’s general when he said that companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change and forthwith will be prosecuted. The 17 AG’s, like so many Jesuits of 16th century Spain, have coalesced into a society labeled “AG’s United for Clean Power”—a part of Obama’s enforcement arm. Members include AG’s from California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington State. Included in the list is the AG from the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Harassment investigations against suspected heretic companies have already been launched by Schneiderman himself as well as Kamala Harris, the Attorney General of California. ExxonMobil heads their list. According to The Daily Signal allegations against the suspected oil company include “funding research that questioned climate change.” Exxon has defensively rocked back on its heels denouncing the accusations. Little matter. This is how communism works. Shut down any possible dissenting voice with heavy-handed government threats. One may not question official doctrine. Few patriots will let their voices squeak out against this Obama-driven onslaught.
Recall that our dictator-in-chief already has issued Climate Change proclamations, signaling to the Sustainability Socialists that he was ready to prosecute doctrine-deniers. His ex cathedra dictates followed recent encouragements from one of his colleges of cardinals. In a letter composed by a team of 20 professors Obama was urged to begin prosecuting heretics under the anti-mafia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). A heretic is one who does not believe the “debate is over” and denies that “climate change is real and human-caused.”
In that letter the professors stroke Obama. “We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.” [The people’s representatives are not buying Washingtonian Doctrine]. “One additional tool,” they go on to suggest, “is a RICO investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.” The only disseminator of knowledge must be government sponsored.
The United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch has indicated that the entire Justice Department has already been transformed into Obama’s heresy-hunters in which civil legal actions against climate change deniers are being sharpened. This, of course, explains why Hillary Clinton has not yet been indicted. Real and actual violation of law is not of interest to Obama’s Justice Department. Violation of law is secondary to transgressing the tenets of the King.
To alter the figure, Obama’s Amerika is rapidly taking on characteristics of the communist dictatorships of the twentieth century. Atheism was the “official dogma” of the Soviet Union and anti-religious propaganda was meant to demonize believers while fostering public hostility against Christians. Brainwashing was the recognized technique to soften peoples’ belief-systems and government force used to weaken resolve.
Various “public organizations” sprang up to assist the government indoctrinators. Komsomol, the Young Pioneers, the League of the Militant Godless, and others began linking denial of State Doctrine to psychological disorders which created more hostility against Christian people. Textbooks were composed to evoke contempt for Christianity as well as America. Learning was state-sponsored where real history could easily be “revised” to bring into into communistic line.
The official state dogma in America, conceived in the United Nations, is called “Sustainability.” It is defined as the ideological concept which seeks to curtail economic, political and intellectual liberty through government force resulting in the rationing of resources, goods and finances. Global Catastrophe (Climate Change) is the lever which supposedly makes this oversight necessary. According to the National Association of Scholars “sustainability” has become a discipline of its own in the University. There have been 1,438 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focusing on or relating to sustainability studies. For example, Middlebury College offers 422 courses in sustainability—about 25% of all course offerings.
Over five-hundred universities in the United States report to the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) where they are graded by a rating system. Points for each institution can be earned for such things as “growing organic gardens, subsidizing child care for employees, and offering gender-neutral housing.” Very little science is actually required for these studies. Changing behavior is the goal, not learning truth. That behavior is now moving from the suggestion stage to mandated stage as students are goose-stepping out of the universities chanting the tenets of Sustainability.
With less than a year remaining in office, Obama is “fundamentally transforming” a once-free republic, or what remains of it, into a totalitarian nation. Totalitarian– by definition –means even re-orienting the belief-systems of the people as well as their behaviors. Pressures from below at the educational- level is now beginning to squeeze citizens against the pressure from above—the Justice Department and the “AG’s United for Clean Power.”