Tag Archives: Medicare

JESSE LEE PETERSON: SOCIALISM DESTROYED BLACK AMERICA

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!

The president also addressed violence against his supporters and brought Hayden Williams on stage (the conservative activist who was savagely attacked at Berkeley). Trump vowed to sign an executive order that would withhold federal funds from schools that fail to protect free speech on campus. There are hundreds of instances where conservatives have been attacked by leftists, and this attention is much needed.

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

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.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders kicked off his 2020 campaign on the Brooklyn College campus. The self-described Democratic Socialist made his announcement surrounded by disgruntled Millennials and socialist agitators.

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.

https://youtu.be/APm-egYzaUU

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/socialism-destroyed-black-america/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: True Religion Results in Free-Will Giving: Not Jizya or Socialistic Forcible Taxation & Redistribution

by Bill Lockwood

By speaking of the reign of Solomon (970-931 B.C.), which was a foreshadowing of Christ’s kingdom, the Psalmist in chapter 72 depicts the expansive coming reign as being from “sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth” (72:8). During this reign of the Messiah the kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts (10).

Charles Spurgeon, the matchless commentator on the Psalms, observed at these verses,

…true religion leads to generous giving; we are not taxed in Christ’s dominions, but we are delighted to offer freely to him… This free-will offering is all Christ and his church desire; they want to forced levies and distraints [to seize by distress], let all men give of their own free will, kings as well as commoners; …

Free will offerings. This is the only giving known in the New Testament. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:7 “Let each man do according as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly, nor of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver.” For this reason, Paul writes the letter and encourages by persuasion the churches to freely give. How beautiful is this precedent compared to other systems and man-made religions and systems!

Compare Giving to Islamic Jizya

Mohammed absolutely established that people of other religious persuasions must pay a poll tax to Muslims called the jizya. This was specifically that they might recognize they were inferior to Muslims. “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Koran 9:29).

From the religionofpeace.com website:

Traditionally the collection of the jizya occurs at a ceremony that is designed to emphasize the subordinate status of the non-Muslim, where the subject is often struck in a humiliating fashion. M.A. Khan recounts that some Islamic clerics encouraged tax collectors to spit into the mouths of Hindu dhimmis during the process. He also quotes the popular Sufi teacher, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi:

The honor of Islam lies in insulting the unbelief and the unbelievers (kafirs). One who respects kafirs dishonors Muslims… The real purpose of levying the Jizya on them is to humiliate them… [and] they remain terrified and trembling.

The jizya (or extortion) is one of the main cornerstones of the entire system of Islam. It institutionalizes forever the fact that, in the eyes of Muslims, non-Muslims have an inferior status in Muslim nations.

Another example is this that there is no way to live peaceably with Islam. Where it has dominated a culture, it has exacted a forcible toll on all non-Muslim peoples throughout the centuries—without exception. As it develops and engulfs a culture, Islam is designed to extinguish all Kafir civilizations. It is but a reflection of Mohammed himself who did not stop the conquering of Arabia until 100% of his demands were met.

This is just one example that demonstrates that Islam is not a religion of God, depending upon thoughtful reasoning and persuasion by argumentation; but a man-made totalitarian system relying solely upon force. When one comes out of the dank dungeon of Islam, and stands upon the mountaintops of Christianity, he is able to breathe the clean fresh air of a religion of the heart whose founder, Jesus Christ, never used violence or force to subjugate man, but died on the cross for the sins of the world.

Compare Giving to Socialism or Social Justice

Social Justice is not simply doing humanitarian acts of kindness as Buckley and Dobson suppose in Humanitarian Jesus: Social Justice and the Cross. “The Social Gospel asks Christians to be concerned and invested in the world around them” (p. 42). The authors suggest that the entire issue is about whether first to give a tract or a sandwich to those in need? (p. 43) This is ignorance as to what is social justice or socialism.

The great author and thinker Thomas Sowell explains: “Central to the concept of social justice is the notion that individuals are entitled to some share in the wealth produced by society, and irrespective of any individual contributions made or not made to the production of that wealth.” (A Conflict of Visions, 216)

But if all people in society are entitled to a share in that which I produce, how shall this be enforced? For this reason, socialism by definition implies the “expansion of the government domain to produce social results to which particular individuals are morally entitled.”

So states The National Association of Scholars. The term “social justice”, or socialism, they explain, is today understood to mean the “advocacy of egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.”

But state-sponsored redistribution of my production begins with theft. Forcible removing from me of the fruits of my own production to give to others. This is not even remotely associated with the free-will giving taught by Christianity. If it is, why must there be a gigantic state to enforce it?

The French writer, Frederic Bastiat was correct therefore to explain socialism as plunder.

See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. . . 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 plunder. (Bastiat, The Law, p. 17).

That the above has already occurred in America is obvious. The evil is already upon us. A gigantic welfare state.  Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul summarizes it well.

From lower-income Americans who rely on food stamps, public housing, and other government programs, to middle-class Americans who live in homes they could not afford without assistance from federal agencies like Fannies Mae and Freddie Mac, to college students reliant on government-subsidized student loans, to senior citizens reliant on Social Security and Medicare, to billionaire CEOs whose companies rely on bailouts, subsidies, laws and regulations written to benefit politically-powerful businesses, and government contracts, most Americans are reliant on at least one federal program. (Dec. 31, 2018. Ronpaulinstitute.org)

Make no mistake. The Welfare State is nothing akin to the free-will giving of Christianity. Once again, instead of relying on force to confiscate and redistribute, the early church in the book of Acts willingly and freely gave of their possessions to assist others (Acts 2:43-47; 5:1-4). There is a world of difference between the Bible and the systems of man.

Stockton, CA; Another Test Run for Socialism?

Stockton, CA; Another Test Run for Socialism?-“…why should Americans be concerned with continual forays into socialistic experiments?

by Bill Lockwood

Bankrupt Stockton, California is to be the first US city to guarantee a “universal basic income” to low-income residents. Stockton has double the state average of unemployment, and half of those working earn minimum wage, reports G. Edward Griffin in NeedtoKnow News. Michael Tubbs, the 26-year-old Mayor who is leading the plan to give low-income families $500 per month, said “I think it will make people work better and smarter and harder and also be able to do things like spend time with their families because we’re not robots.”

The plan is apparently mostly funded by The Economic Security Project, which is contributing $1 million to the first-year pilot program. Families that receive the money will be monitored to “see what they do with the money” and “how it affects self-esteem and identity.”

The Economic Security Project is co-led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, last year said such a scheme could mark a “new contract” between government and citizenry.

Oakland, CA is also thinking of a broad welfare program. The city plans to give about $1,500 a month to a handful of welfare recipients. The goal is to study how financial health affects low-income families.

What of Guaranteed Income?

Besides the fact that our Constitution absolutely outlawed such a state—but who cares what the Constitution actually says–why should Americans be concerned with continual forays into socialistic experiments?

First, America already is a welfare-state. Close to three-quarters of our federal budget is due to government-run social welfare spending. As a matter of fact, when looked at in total, per capita, America is the second-largest welfare state in the world. Inclusive in this is housing, health care, pension benefits, and public education and a host of other expenditures (Tim Worstall, Forbes, 10-5-2015).

Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, argues similarly. “Contrary to conventional wisdom … noted scholars Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding conclude in Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader? That ‘Welfare state programs are quite large in the United States.’”

According to Politifact.com, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collectively “account for a majority of federal spending.” Added to that is spending on food and agriculture and the percentage continue to rise while military spending, which is the only constitutionally authorized spending among these categories, is 16 per cent.

The point of this is simple. American already is a welfare state—the second largest in the world. Many students in high schools are living in subsidized housing, eating free or reduced lunches, living on welfare checks, bearing or fathering multiple children—all at the taxpayers’ expense.

And the social problems associated with each of these federal expenditures are increasing, not decreasing, because the basic truth is: the more money one throws at a particular problem causes that problem to grow.

Second, guaranteed income ignores man’s ability to make life choices and allowing people to bear the fruit of their choices. This is not to say that everything negative that occurs to people is always the direct result of personal mistakes, for that is certainly not the case. However, God has so constructed the world so that negative consequences are built into the system to encourage better selections in the future.

If two young men in jail for illegal drug use are both on the bottom of the income ladder, what are their choices when getting out? One man, Bob, chooses to continue a life of illicit behavior, perhaps ruining his health, bumping along on the bottom of society with multiple arrests, fathering several children, and looking like he is fifty when he is only thirty.

The second young man, Joe, decides to change his life when he is in his early twenties. He cleans up his life, his associates, and gets a job. A low-income job to be sure—but he is working and living above the law. He studies at night taking courses in college. After several years his sacrifices begin to pay-off. He lands a great job when he is thirty; buys a house, a car, is happily married with children.

There is absolutely income inequality between Bob and Joe. Now comes in Big Brother Government to “adjust” the “inequities” between Bob and Joe. Who will be in favor of forcibly taking from Joe to give to Bob? Their life-situations are primarily due to life-choices. What government cannot do—even in Stockton, CA—is make proper determinations as to why people are in poverty. It may be that Bob needs to suffer his consequences enough to encourage him to take Joe’s route.

Third, Stockton’s pilot program is flawed because it ignores the biblical model of man. It is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine which results when leaders drink from the wells of materialism and atheism instead of God’s Word. God designed work for man in which to find self-esteem and satisfaction—not a guaranteed amount of money regardless of how we spend our time.

Solomon wrote “There is nothing better for a man than he should … find enjoyment in his toil” (Ecclesiastes 2:24). This is “God’s gift to man that everyone should … take pleasure in his toil (3:13). “The best thing for a man was to be happy in his work; this is what he gets out of life” (3:22). Solomon went on to say (5:22) that this is man’s portion (lot or station) in life—to work.

This was God’s design from the beginning; that man should earn a living by the sweat of his brow. The Bible even mentions competition as a motivation to work (Prov. 27:17). “Iron sharpens iron.”

The New Testament is equally as clear. The apostle Paul forbade church financial assistance to those who could and should earn a living for themselves. He declared that people on indiscriminate assistance teaches them to be “idle, going about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies who talk nonsense … “ (1 Timothy 5:13). And as we can easily see from the streets of America, it gives many people not only room to be “busy-bodies” but lawbreakers as well.

What Stockton, CA will learn is that, not poverty, but idleness is a vice. It is a moral disease that is caused by a failure of the will that enslaves a person. Doling out money only encourages it. The final stage is that people will need to be managed like children. Any program that rewards idleness dooms itself in the self-image realm. On the other hand, real self-esteem is found in accomplishment, no matter how little. This is how God has made man.

As Robert Rector put it, “The key to improving self-sufficiency is to increase work … Increased self-reliance will lead to an enhanced self-achievement, a principal component of human well-being.” Only by productive work does man reduce poverty and increase his own happiness.

None of this is to ignore that real Christian charity is found in giving. But a “guaranteed income” monitored by government overlords does not qualify as charity. For this reason, Stockton, CA will see an increase in low-income families as people either re-locate there or quit low-paying jobs to qualify for “guaranteed income.” When California began MediCal in 1967 the initial program included 1 Million people. Within a couple of years the numbers had jumped to 2.5 million. When will California and America learn?

A Little Redistribution?

A Little Redistribution?

by Bill Lockwood

John M. Crisp of Del Mar College of Corpus Christi treats us to a spate of specious arguments that supposedly spell out the benefit, yea, necessity, of a wee bit of socialism and redistribution of wealth. In a 2012 article, What’s Wrong with a Little Redistribution?, he states that we need a little more government, not less. The English professor makes his case for even a Bigger Brother and less freedom—and implies a complete scrapping of the Constitution which was specifically written to prevent overreaching government.

Crisp begins defending socialism: “The term [redistribution, bl] may have acquired a bad reputation, but ‘redistribution’ can be used just as easily to describe what happens when people pool their resources to create the infrastructure of a civilized, secure society. Almost no Americans, including the Democrats, want to bring everyone’s income down or up to the same level. But nearly all of us believe in pooling our money –‘redistributing’ it — for common purposes. Furthermore, most of us believe in some level of progressive taxation to make the process work. This is how we create fire departments, interstate highways and a huge army and navy. It’s how we build dams and safe public water supplies. It’s how we manage to go to the moon.”

First, the very definition of socialism is “an economic principle of the ownership by a community of all the means of production in order to secure to the people collectively an equitable distribution of the produce of their associated labor.” (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 13th edition). Socialism demands big government. Note the reason: “redistribution” of wealth. Less Freedom is the inevitable result and is reason enough to oppose it.

Second, the professor then offers the subterfuge that “redistribution” occurs when people “pool their resources to create” infrastructures in society such as roads, bridges and fire departments. The argument is that since public works already redistributes wealth, opposition to Obama’s “share the wealth” mantra is ill-founded. There is a world of error bound up in those remarks.

By “general welfare” the founders limited the power of taxation to matters which provide for the welfare of the entire Union—such as national defense and the postal system. As Alexander Hamilton put it, “The welfare of the community [of states] is the only legitimate end for which money can be raised from the community.” In other words, does the expenditure benefit all or is it a disbursement that takes from some and rewards others?

Come back to Crisp’s fire and police department example. They are indeed supported by tax dollars, but these are public services that do not benefit one person or group at the expense of another. In other words, all of these services benefit all of us and do not qualify for the socialistic definition of forcible redistribution. Besides, these types of public works are voluntary.

What’s more, forcible redistribution is not only unconstitutional, but immoral–whether ObamaCare or Medicaid. The difference between public services that are available to ALL and private redistribution after the order of The Welfare System is stark. One is an orderly society, the other is THEFT.

Crisp’s second effort is that most Americans benefit from redistributed money, supposedly making hypocrites of all of us.

And, as it turns out, most of us — about 96 percent — also believe in deriving personal, direct benefits from the redistributed money. This is borne out by the findings of a 2008 national survey by the Cornell Survey Research Institute, as reported in The New York Times on Sept. 24 by Professor Suzanne Mettler of Cornell and Associate Professor John Sides of George Washington University. Ignoring the many government initiatives, like highways and safe food, that benefit everyone, Mettler and Sides explored the extent to which individual Americans use any of 21 social policies — student loans, Medicare, housing — that the federal government provides, including social policies embedded in the tax code.”

What is his conclusion to this?

First, nearly all of us, even the wealthy, benefit significantly from the redistribution of wealth that creates and supports our society and improves our private lives. Second, there’s nothing disgraceful about this. And third — I hate to say this — we are going to need more government, not less.”
Our government is so proportionately larger than just a generation ago and so far removed from the legal boundaries set upon it by the Constitution, yet the professor calls for even “more government.” This is where the term “totalitarian” comes to mind.

But what of Americans using “public” policy programs such as student loans or Medicare or federal housing? That may be true. But Crisp and his collegiate socialist friends refuse to see the reason for it. Government planners have made it nearly impossible to operate in America without being involved in public policy programs—for as in all totalitarian systems the “public policy programs” become the only game in town.

Witness how government has taken over the student loan program or subsidized health care costs. Recall how the government initially promised that Social Security would never take more than 3 cents on every dollar you earn, only up to $3,000 per year of income. A big lie. So also, intermeddling in the marketplace for a generation by government do-gooders has shrunk the free market until it is practically non-existent today.

Add to that the fact that the government has been forcibly redistributing my earnings for a lifetime and individuals simply see it as a method to “get back” what the government unjustly took to begin with. “I am paying for this service, I might as well use it” does not equal agreement with the basis of the program.

This is precisely the practice of which economist Frederic Bastiat warned long ago. Once socialism becomes interwoven in society, it forces moral people to choose between two distasteful alternatives: either refuse paying taxes, or, silence your own conscientious objections to socialism and participate in order retrieve some of your own stolen goods. Mr. Crisp, because people utilize the welfare system does not mean they believe it is right or even beneficial to the society as a whole.

Back to Homepage