Tag Archives: Social Justice

Bill Lockwood: Restorative Justice 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

“Restorative Justice” is the modern American socialist methodology whereby we refuse to deal with criminal or misbehavior in society. While “social justice” is the government disallowing us to enjoy the fruits of our own labor because of forcible confiscation and redistribution, “restorative justice” is a quasi-legal philosophy that allows perpetrators of criminal behavior to avoid the consequences of that behavior. Social justice spreads the earned benefits of society to the undeserving; restorative justice spreads the resulting misery to law-abiding citizens.

See how it works in Philadelphia for a case-study.

Philadelphia

During the “George Floyd riots” in May and June of 2021, over 900 businesses were damaged or burglarized in the city of brotherly love. Business owners and big corporate chains sustained millions of dollars of damage during the mayhem. Some of the lawless violence included blowing up ATM’s, burglarizing stores with U-Hauls, carrying entire bags of merchandise from stores such as Rite Aid or passing merchandise out of a Walgreens in a “human assembly line.”

According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, seven Foot Lockers were absolutely cleared out, the loss estimated at over $800,000. Clothing retailers such as Live in Color, and numerous other stores never re-opened because the loss was so tremendous.

But these criminal looters and rioters who were arrested, numbering more than 500, will not face the consequences of their misdeeds. The new innovative plan is called “Restorative Justice,” which is designed to keep the “poor” blacks out of the justice system, regardless of their criminal activity.

The city’s district attorney’s charging supervisor, Lyandra Retacco, said that the city is offering a new program called “Civil Unrest Restorative Response.” It is designed as a “restorative model” that allows the perpetrators to avoid prosecution. District Attorney Larry Krasner said it was a “creative” response because of the “unique motivation of the crimes”—after all, the damages occurred during “a historic moment of protest against the police killing of George Floyd.”

Instead, these ruthless hordes who ransacked the city of Philadelphia, will be offered “counseling sessions,” referrals to job opportunities and/or education. Troy Wilson, a defense attorney with Up Against the Law, said he was “tired and angry” after years of “watching poor marginalized people get dragged ever deeper into the legal system.”

“Let’s come up with a system that’s never been done before. We can take the cases back in some respect to the community so the community can itself resolve some of these cases through education, mediation, confrontation, reconciliation, and most of all healing.” This socialist philosophy is called Restorative Justice.

Wilson is assisted by the “Rev. Donna Jones of the Metropolitan Christian Council of Philadelphia” who runs a “restorative-justice network in Philadelphia called the Restorative Cities Initiative.” She will run the “restorative-education session for all participants. Those who opt in will in will join restorative circles, where defendants, businesspeople, and community members will be able to voice the harm they experienced and what is needed to repair it.”

Jones went on to say that her “restorative-circles” have already been quietly rerouting incidents away from the legal system.”

What About Restorative Justice?

First, restorative justice is not justice at all. This is all about not holding grown people accountable for their criminal activity. And when there is no accountability, crime will grow. This is precisely why crime is exploding across America. Our legal system is fraught with naïve do-gooding socialists who wish to keep lawbreakers out of legal trouble and shift the burden of punishment onto the innocent.

As the article in the Inquirer states: “Philadelphia prosecutors … challenge the basic ideas about how justice is served.”

In other words, we have become so “educated” that we are re-tooling the concept of “justice” to allow criminal activity to flourish without punishment. Meanwhile, the store owners who suffered damage can simply lump it. Some business owners interviewed refused to give their names for fear of retaliation from the same rioters that destroyed their businesses to begin with. The city, however, is more concerned with protecting the offenders.

When the poor black neighborhoods witness the fleeing of businesses the intrusive government will have the solution. Pay potential business owners to open stores there; after all, the American taxpayer can bear the brunt of the those costs as well.

Second, the consequences of lawless activity is forcibly shifted by the city to the business-owners. Just as social justice disallows one to enjoy the fruits of his labor because the long arm of government confiscates and redistributes those fruits, so restorative justice forces the rest of the population to endure the consequences of misbehavior by the few.

Assistant defender for the city, Jonathan Strange said, “a lot of people are really relieved that there is a pathway for them to exit out of the criminal justice system and avoid a conviction.” Loot with impunity. Let other people pay for their crimes.

Those business-owners who were run out of business after losing their entire life-savings and work will just have to understand the “historic nature of George Floyd protests.” They will certainly appreciate that, at least.

What about deterrence from future rioting?  Will not the poor black communities be emboldened to once again to take to the streets to create chaos? Maybe a law-school educated whiz kid will be able to “justify” other “historic moments” of rioting. Foolish Americans.

We thought a DA’s job was to administer the law. No, it is to dream-up possible motivations for crime and sympathize with the criminals. America has left the realm of common sense which teaches that punishment and consequences is what dissuades people from committing illegal activities.

Can “lack of education” the root cause of rioting? Taxpayers have been footing the bill for free education in the inner cities for decades. The social justice warriors just refuse to see that a basic lack of morality will not be resolved with more education.

Instead of looking at the socialistic welfare system that has created these inner city jungles where most black children grow up without a father in the home, our bright lights that manage the cities are conjuring up deeper socialistic schemes called “restorative justice” which neither “restores” property or communities and is no justice at all.

Tom DeWeese: SOCIAL JUSTICE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND GOVERNMENT TYRANNY 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Tom DeWeese

You are a poor minority living in a government housing project called “Affordable.” It’s all paid for by the tax dollars of mostly middle-income Americans. Included in still more government programs are monthly checks and coupons to supply food, free healthcare, free education, and let’s also throw in free cell phone.

Does that not make us a generous nation? Are not the poor well cared for and satisfied? Aren’t the taxpayers proud of their contribution to the common good?

The answer to every one of these questions is NO!

First, consider these facts about that stipend income from the welfare check. Originally, it was called “assistance” and the purpose was to help out when the paycheck wasn’t quite covering needs. Then that system was changed and the welfare check means you can’t hold a job as you are collecting that monthly check. If a recipient even tries to put some away in savings, just an attempt to get ahead, it is confiscated and possibly the welfare check stops. It’s no longer “assistance” during hard times. Now it’s control.

Then there is that public housing situation. Here’s what it’s like to actually live in those government projects. In many cites these neighborhoods are drastically rundown in disrepair as lights, air conditioning, and appliances fail to work. The roof leaks, windows are broken, and the plumbing backs up. Trash around the grounds is in ever-growing piles, is rarely, if ever cleaned and hauled away. Don’t even think about any kind of yard work to create a place for the children to play. Worse, the residents live in fear of gang elements like MS-13 that have taken over the neighborhoods to rule as their territory. Pimps, pedophiles, and drug dealers prey on the children. And no matter how many times residents may ask for repairs, it never happens.

Why are the conditions so bad in this government-controlled housing? Government is a monopoly that has no incentive to be efficient. The taxpayers are forced to pay and the money rolls in so the politicians can puff out their chests over how generous THEY are in helping the less fortunate. Meanwhile, the management of these properties is by government bureaucrats with no personal stake in the projects. Their paychecks keep rolling in, no matter what happens to the properties they manage. Only private owners care about the condition of their property.

In such an atmosphere, the inherent hopelessness leaves little room for making future goals for their lives. There is no way out once the system has a hold on you. By herding African-Americans, other minorities, and low-income families like cattle, the government is committing them to a future worse than poverty. They have lost their rights, their choices, and their ability to excel through self-determination and personal growth.

Yet, proponents of government’s fair housing want you to think that those favoring the programs are the compassionate ones, helping minorities to survive in an oppressive capitalist world of the rich. Essentially, fear is the common tactic used to keep minorities in their programs. Anyone who opposes their system of control and, instead, argues sound economics and a system of equal opportunity, is accused of heartlessness and racism, determined to pull the plug on their lifeline.

To promote the fear and division, politicians, the news media, and the public education system continually drive home the message that our nation’s founders created an oppressive society in which Whites got all the goodies and minorities are deliberately oppressed. In addition, goes their propaganda, the free enterprise system is designed to take the money from the poor and put it in the rich man’s pocket. The result is strife, jealousy, and hatred between the races.

This, then, is the announced mission of today’s Democrat party and the official policy driving the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Biden administration. They are determined to be the saviors of the oppressed. Government oversight, redistribution of the wealth, and social justice are the chosen tools to enforce equality.

However, it’s interesting to note that the U.S. government has been on a drive to artificially enforce “equality” since Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” in the 1960s. Trillions have been spent as government size and power has mushroomed, and a whole segment of the population has come under its control, all in the name of compassion. Yet, the only true result has been the massive growth of poverty.

Now this current failed government housing model is being prepared for all of us.  

The new drive is to eliminate single-family home zoning protection. Our new controllers insist that such policy is really designed as a means for wealthy homeowners to “self-segregate” themselves from those they don’t want living in their neighborhoods. Specifically they charge that private property ownership is racist. To establish true “FREEDOM” in America, they tell us we need to open these “white privilege neighborhoods” to allow federal fair housing programs, including high rise government rental units in every neighborhood. They claim single family home neighborhoods contribute to a growing housing shortage. Why, don’t you know, we could put ten families in the area where only one now lives in those neighborhoods. It’s only fair!

Baltimore, Maryland became one of the first cities to feel such pressure and threats as the NAACP sued Baltimore over alleged housing segregation. The NAACP argument was that Section 8 subsidized housing programs “bunch people together, and that it only fuels more crime and other problems.” Not fair!

The solution, says the NAACP, is to “integrate the poor among wealthier families.” Outrageous as it sounds, such social justice mongers actually accuse those living in affluent neighborhoods of “self segregation for white privilege.” Racism!

The pressure from these groups, has resulted in Baltimore being forced to agree to spend $30 million of tax-payer dollars over the next ten years to build 1,000 low-income homes in affluent neighborhoods.

The result will be a destruction of property values and the loss of equity for the homeowners. In short, destruction of earned wealth, leading to destruction of the middle class.  More poor. It’s a growth product.

In Portland, Oregon, the infamous “poster child” of federal Smart Growth development policies, the city council unanimously approved a new tax to raise $12 million per year to pay for “affordable housing.”

Says Portland Commissioner Dan Saltsman, “The lack of affordable housing is the greatest crisis facing our city right now.” Perhaps he should take a long look at the twenty-year Smart Growth history of Portland in which massive amounts of land were locked away to limit the “sprawl” of the city. This led to land shortages, which led to bans on single-family homes, which led to the need for massive high rise apartment buildings, all of which led to higher costs and shortages of homes. Now, Portland has a “crisis “of low-income housings. Their solution is another tax on construction, driving up housing costs even more.

These same attacks on private property are growing across the nation. The Biden Administration is backing the bans on single-family home zoning as part of its official policy. Landlords are being labeled the new boogey men of our day, as taxes, rules, regulations, and even a ban on their ability to qualify potential renters as to whether they can afford to live in the building. Such policy is the destruction of private property rights, targeting an entire industry.

Of course, the government doesn’t say it that way, preferring to pretend that denying people who can’t afford to pay the rent to live in your property is “discrimination.” And how can the landlord survive and provide his property for housing if the tenant can’t pay? The only result will be fewer landlords and fewer choices for housing. Housing shortage, indeed!

All of these policies, instituted in the name of social justice and redistribution of wealth, will very quickly lead to one final solution. Private homes, privately owned rental properties, and the individual owner’s ability to prosper, will disappear. That means the rule of law is dismissed in favor of “fairness.” Social Justice is purely based on redistribution of wealth. Your wealth. That’s money you worked for, saved, invested, and protected for YOUR needs; YOUR dreams; YOUR future.

Eventually – and very soon – the only source of housing will be from government. Take a good look at the destroyed neighborhoods now under government control and see your future. Property rights and personal ownership is an equal opportunity for everyone to build wealth and freedom. It’s how the United States quickly became so prosperous. Government destroys personal choice, incentive, and the wealth created from it. It’s the reason we are now plummeting into poverty.

Kathleen Marquardt: THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION = PLANNED DYSTOPIA 5 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

Klaus Schwab has been someone in the background of global machinations for many decades. He is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) which he formed in 1971 (fifty years ago) as an International NGO (one of the way too many “civil society” partners of the United Nations). The majority of these NGOs are there to promote and embed Agenda 21/2030/The Green New Deal into every country, no matter how small, in the world. Schwab’s WEF was set up to push Public-Private Cooperation, in other words, fascism, across the globe.

Kimberly Amadeo, President of World Money Watch defines fascism as: “a brutal economic system in which a supreme leader and their government controls the private entities that own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. A central planning authority directs company leaders to work in the national interest, which actively suppresses those who oppose it”.[i]

To simplify and clarify what Public-Private Partnerships PPPs) are:

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.

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.[ii]

For fifty years the WEF has been using these PPPs to cancel any liberty, individual freedom, and take property rights from individuals. Agenda 21! The Public Private Partnerships are a big tool in relieving us of our property, liberty, and control of our nation. PPPs and Regionalism, with its unelected governing bodies, work hand in hand to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law.

As society breaks down, the globalists welcome the anarchy, chaos, and general social unrest. Next, they need a defining event.

What drew Schwab to set up the WEF?

“The most influential group that spurred the creation of Klaus Schwab’s symposium was the Club of Rome, an influential think tank of the scientific and monied elite that mirrors the World Economic Forum in many ways, including in its promotion of a global governance model led by a technocratic elite. The Club had been founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish chemist Alexander King during a private meeting at a residence owned by the Rockefeller family in Bellagio, Italy.”[iii]

The Club of Rome spelled out what they view as the true enemy:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.[iv]”

Realizing that back in the ‘70s, when the above was written, the masses weren’t yet dumbed-down enough to accept that they needed to join VHEMT, the voluntary human extinction movement. The globalist Marxist Left decided a New Ice Age would fit the bill of a major crisis that only they could fix. Oops, it didn’t happen. So, let’s flip it to Global Warming (to go along with the hole in the ozone. Of course, the Earth wasn’t warming. Tweak that, voila, Climate Change. Ignore the fact that the climate changes four times a year, and sometimes daily.

No matter the science. We are facing an apocalyptic threat.

Maurice Strong, former Undersecretary General of the UN, Sec. Gen. of UN Conference on the Environment, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, was called a visionary and a “pioneer of global sustainable development. He was the secretary-general of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit which unveiled Agenda 21, the culmination of decades of scheming, planning, and cajoling to bring about a global government via the UN. He was also a close friend of Klaus Schwab, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and many of the rogues’ gallery of One-World government advocates.

In interviews that Strong did with two reporters in Canada wanting to write about their golden boy, both times he talked about his vision of the future. The early vision focused on the WEF:

“Each year, the Word Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics, gather in February. to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.

 What if a small group of these world leaders were to form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse? It’s February. They are all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered a panic using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies. They’ve jammed the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries . . . I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”[v]

Does this sound familiar? Sure sounds plausible to me. In his second theoretical vision, Strong dreams, “what if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive those rich countries would have to sign an agreement, reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no”. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, a group decides ‘isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse’.”[vi]

It’s in the works now; it has been for decades. But a statement that most overlook, but it shows that the people on the Left, the globalists, the Fabians, the cultural Marxists, the Communists are all looking for the right bait, the right evil foe to attack.

Strong and Klaus Schwab were good friends; they were also close with David Rockefeller. They were (are, in Schwab’s case) members of that not so secret, secret society, the Bilderburg Group. The Bilderburg Group is approximately 130 political leaders from Europe and North America who meet once a year for informal discussions about major issues. “The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”[vii]

According to Schwab, the fourth Industrial Revolution provides the potential “to robotize humanity, and thus compromise our traditional sources of meaning—work, community, family, identity.[viii]” He also predicts that it will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness.[ix]” And it will “upend the existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering”. That was a statement from 2015, so don’t think he hasn’t been pushing this for a long time. Now his edicts are getting more definitive, “Even our thinking and behavior will have to dramatically shift. We must have a new social contract centered on Social Justice. We need a change of mindset, moving from short-term to long-term thinking, moving from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder responsibility (ed. note: PPPs). Environmental, social and good governance have to be a measured part of corporate and governmental accountability.”[x][xi]

While Schwab is predicting that his Industrial Revolution will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness”, Dr. Anthon Mueller, a German professor of economics, wrote, “The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030 —because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.”

Johnny Vedmore at Unlimited Hangout writes, “At the Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in January 2021, Schwab stressed that the building of trust would be integral to the success of the Great Reset, signalling a subsequent expansion of the initiative’s already massive public relations campaign. Though Schwab called for the building of trust through unspecified “progress,” trust is normally facilitated through transparency. Perhaps that is why so many have declined to trust Mr. Schwab and his motives, as so little is known about the man’s history and background prior to his founding of the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s.”

The Global Technology Governance Summit (GTGS) of the World Economic Forum, meeting in Tokyo (and virtual) the first week of April 2021 has a number of documents to be discussed. One, Harnessing new technologies, states:

“Industry transformation: No industry has been untouched by the global response to COVID-19. The world can no longer operate as it has, and as such markets will have to respond to its new and evolving needs. To survive, every business in the world will have to become a technology company. – Government transformation: The transformation of government will be front and centre in the area of digital infrastructure as technology services become an essential public utility comparable to electricity, water or roads.” In simple terms, Pubic Private Partnerships. The government controls, the businesses follow government orders.

In one of the best articles I’ve read on the Great Reset, Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Great Nonsense of “The Great Reset”, is this:

[S]ocialism . . . is . . . the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with . . . the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment . . . . [C]apitalism must be monitored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism.”    Robert Heilbroner, “After Capitalism,” The New Yorker, Sept. 10, 1990

The above quotation by socialist economist, the late Robert Heilbroner, was written in the context of an article that lamented and mourned the worldwide collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. The great debate between capitalism and socialism was over, he said, and Ludwig von Mises was right about socialism all along, said a man who had spent the past half century promoting socialism in his teaching, speaking, and writing. But do not despair, he told his fellow socialists, for there is one more trick up our sleeves, namely, the Trojan Horse of achieving socialism under the guise of ‘environmentalism.’

“The basic strategy was then, as it is now, to constantly frighten the gullible public with predictions of The End of the World from environmental catastrophe unless we abandon capitalism and adopt socialist central planning. This has always been the one constant theme of the environmentalist movement (not to be confused with the conservation movement which is actually interested in the health of the planet and the humans who occupy it) since the 1960s.  It ignores the fact that the twentieth-century socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China had by far the worse environmental problems on the planet, orders of magnitude worse than in the capitalist countries.”

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller at a 1994 UN Dinner

Can a combination of two fraud emergencies, COVID and Climate Change, be the crises that will usher in the globalist dream of a New World Order? If so, and if the inhabitants of what remains of the free world do not get off their duffs and wake up to this threat, Klaus Schwab et al will have achieved the “global transformation” they have spent 100+ years to achieve.

I for one want to see them fail. We, the useless eaters, the nobodies, can stop them. All we have to do is turn over the rock they are under and let the sun shine in. Most people, if they see the truth, will start thinking.

The World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:

  1. People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
  2. The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
  3. Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
  4. Meat consumption will be minimized.
  5. Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
  6. To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
  7. People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
  8. Western values will be tested to the breaking point.

I cannot believe even half of the American people want to live like that.

We must take back our country a city and a county at a time. All the while, we must get our lesser magistrates to ignore unconstitutional federal laws, throw the bums out of office, and we must educate our children with truth, reason, and sound science.

[i]  Amadeo, K. thebalance.com/fascism

[ii]  Americanpolicy.org/public _private_partnerships

[iii]  Unlimitedhangout.com Schwab

[iv]  Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, p. 85

[v]  Wood, Daniel, West magazine May 1990.

[vi]  Johnston, Jim, British Columbia Report 3, no.22 (May 18,1992).

[vii] Bilderburg Meetings.org

[viii]  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-h         ow-to-respond/

[ix]  Ibid.

[x]  https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/06/the-great-reset-a-unique-twin-summit-to-begin-2021

[xi]  https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/12/26/german-economist-great-reset-will-cause-a-crash-worse-than-1930s/

Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.

Bill Lockwood: Bart Lubow and Social Justice 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Bart Lubow has been a left-wing radical for many years. Once a member of Students for Democratic Society (SDS), a front-group for communism which terrorist Bill Ayers helped to found, Lubow was even at one time deported from the Philippines for attempting to distribute communist anti-government literature. However, like the ascendency of other Marxist-oriented agitators during the current White House Administration, Lubow, having directed the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) for the Annie E. Casey foundation since 1994, is becoming influential in states such as Texas. The JDAI program is to “require states to work to reduce the disproportionate representation of minority juveniles in secured facilities.” Plainly, the goal of the JDAI is the revamp the detention and incarceration procedures in the United States along “social justice” lines.

Social Justice

Social Justice has little to do with actual “justice” but focuses attention upon “outcomes.” Decrying disparities in society, social justice advocates cry continually about unequal distribution of properties, of monies, of college degrees, and even jail sentences in America. As Walter Williams puts it, “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 distribution in general, occupational distribution, wealth ownership, and other measures of socio-economic status.” In other words, no attention at all is paid to any underlying reason for differences, it is simply assumed that different outcomes among people is the result of crass prejudices or favoritism.

If, for example, wealth distribution is uneven among various races of people, “social justice” demands the assumption that foul play must be involved. So also, if as is the case, a greater percentage of a minority population is incarcerated than is the case with white America, the automatic conclusion among socialists is that injustices have been committed by “white society” against people of color. Differences among people or subcultures as a possible cause is never considered as that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do. The underlying assumption by Lubow is that the American system of justice is “profoundly racist” given the statistics. And for socialists on the rise, that is all that is required—show disparity in statistics. No examination of personal choices, no study of various cultural differences between races, no time wasted pondering divergent habits or pressures among minority populations—simply announce that America continues to be a “racist” state.

For obvious reasons Lubow does not seek to show that disparities between races in other areas are also caused by “white racism.” For example, the out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008 was just over 40%. The breakdown of that statistic shows that among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent while among Hispanics it was 52.5 percent and among blacks the figure jumps to a startling 72.3 percent. Consider abortion. In 2005 the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is almost 5 times that for white women. Similar “disparities” are found in almost every measurable statistic. It is clearly evident that minority cultures are fostering immoral lifestyles to an alarming degree. Yet, when it comes to discrepancies among incarceration rates, Lubow wishes us to believe that sub-culture has nothing to do with it, but that it is the result of “white racist attitudes.” That is what a good communist would do. Drive that “racist” wedge.

Lubow on “Structural Racism”

In a 2007 speech before the Chicago Council on Urban Affairs, Lubow laments the “grossly disproportionate representation of people of color” in the criminal or juvenile justice system. That 30% of African American males born “into this society will spend part of their lives in prison” should be reason enough to infuriate Americans, says he. “More than two-thirds of youth confined in secure detention nationally are youth of color” is demonstration to Lubow that our nation “mocks our claims to freedom and justice for all and, therefore, undermine[s] the very fabric upon which this society is supposedly founded.” “White people,” Lubow pontificates, “have been and still are the purveyors of racial injustice.” The blanket indictment against white society is that “white people accrue and rely upon” privileges “by virtue of skin color.”

To remedy racist America, JDAI has begun to implement core strategies “through racial equity lens.” In other words, force diverse population representation in incarceration facilities. Further, like the communist strategy of manipulating American citizens to their own demise, Lubow preaches that it is “white responsibility” to take on the issue with great fervor to change the system. We must create a “level playing field.”

So, for the citizen who thought that racial hiring quota’s were an assault on real fairness and individual responsibility, not to mention a vast overreach of federal government, much more seems in store regarding incarceration rates, if Lubow and the Annie E. Casey foundation have their way. And if Americans thought that the financial market fiasco, caused in part by federal officials leaning on lending institutions to provide loans to low-income persons who would not otherwise qualify, was a total disaster to the Housing Market, wait until our streets become more populated with criminal elements because of “racial quotas” that govern incarceration. Chaos in the streets is what socialists have always wanted. Old SDS members have not changed their stripes.

Bill Lockwood: The Evil of Socialism-Part Two 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Dennis Prager, founder of the conservative PragerU, conservative talk show host, made an excellent observation regarding socialism while on Fox & Friends this past Tuesday. He was there to advertise the newest instalment of his 5-part popular commentary series on the Torah.

He noted that the founders were distrustful of human nature, and that therefore one’s personal liberty is best secured when as little control as possible is placed in the hands of leaders. Socialism, on the other hand, by definition, entrusts tremendous power over the lives of others in the hands of a very few. The contrast could not be more stark. Let’s explore it a little.

Distrust of Human Nature

The founders were optimistic about human nature, but they were realistic as well. Alexander Hamilton expressed the optimism, but at the same time the realistic view of human nature. “There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty, that makes human nature rise above itself, in acts of bravery and heroism” (The Famer Refuted, Feb. 23, 1775).

But it was James Madison, the father of the Constitution, that succinctly explained in Federalist No. 55 why limited government oversight was necessary:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.

George Washington expressed the same sentiment in a letter to John Jay in 1786. “We must take human nature as we find it, perfection falls not to the share of mortals.”

Again, Madison outlined in Federalist No. 51 the importance of checks and balances in a government by viewing human nature.

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man, must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?

The sole theme of the Constitution is to protect people from the concentration of power in the hands of a few government officials.

Illustrative of this skepticism of human nature to aggrandize power in the hands of the few is Article II, sec. 2 which pertains to the Electoral Vote of the states. The states considered collectively are the Electoral College. “Each state shall appoint …a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled.”

However, the founders added this caveat: “but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

What is the meaning of this negative note? “All human history … has demonstrated that concentrated government power is the greatest threat to individual freedom and states rights.” (1)

“Protecting the electoral system from conquest and occupation by the agencies of the federal government was the purpose of this provision.”

In other words, the only manner in which mankind could achieve happiness and liberty was by self-government. And this can only be gained by maintaining a system of limited government. But limited government would be surrendered if those in power could manipulate the system in their favor.

Socialism—Social Justice

Consider the contrast with socialism, by which we mean redistribution of wealth in the pursuit of so-called “equality.” The National Association of Scholars (NAS) defines “social justice”—socialism in a new dress—as “Advocacy of more egalitarian access to income, through state-sponsored redistribution.”

But what does this demand? In order to accomplish any state-sponsored redistribution, the state must be invested with more control over the lives of its members. This demands massive government power—power at the top.

Max Eastman, an elitist American in Woodrow Wilson’s time who became infatuated with socialism and actually traveled to the Soviet Union to learn how to implement it, later recanted. Would that our modern-day socialists of the Democratic Party would be as honest as Eastman.

Eastman’s book, Lectures in the Failure of Socialism, contains this definition of socialism: “A state apparatus which plans and runs the business of the country must have the authority of a business executive. And that is the authority to tell all those active in the business where to go and what to do, and if they are insubordinate, put them out.” It is all about power. Continuity of control.

(1) W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, p. 526.

At the root level, it amounts to the relinquishing of our sacred rights into the hands of the few at the top whom we have entrusted with gigantic levers of authority over our lives. Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, presses for socialized healthcare. What is that? This is to say that he wants the entire healthcare industry to become a government-run monopoly financed entirely by taxes.

How opposite the founders! It all begins with a wrong view of human nature as modern progressives consistently hold. This is the legacy of the so-called Progressive Era—a skewed, unrealistic view of mankind. A refusal to recognize that man’s problem is sin, not lack of material possessions. (2)  This is the evil of socialism.

And to pretend that we have a “Constitutional Crisis” on hand because Attorney General William Barr refuses to break the law and hand over federally-protected testimony to raging Democrats in the House boggles the mind.

There is a Constitutional Crisis in America—has been for over 100 years. It is the complete disregarding of constitutional barriers that forbids the federal government from intruding into the private lives of citizens via the tax code, welfare, government housing, education, health care, and a thousand and one other items. The Democrats are simply trying to lock evil socialism into place by the healthcare proposals of “Medicaid for all.”

(2) The Bible is emphatic, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 6:23).“God saw that the wickedness of man was great … and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was on evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). This is why the founders did not trust their freedoms, liberties, and rights into the hands of a few elitists.

Bill Lockwood: True Religion Results in Free-Will Giving: Not Jizya or Socialistic Forcible Taxation & Redistribution 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

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.

Bill Lockwood: An Exciting Time to be a Commie Again 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

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

The Establishment today includes,

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

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

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

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

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

#The Resist Movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Socialists of America

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

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

Ben & Jerry’s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom DeWeese: Barbarians at the School House Door 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Barbarians at the School House Door – “The technocrats will argue that the World Wide Web contains vast knowledge for the taking with the right tools. They argue that printed books are limited.”

by Tom DeWeese

The barbarians have finally broken down the school doors and are now plundering knowledge. Books are their target. Banning them is the goal.

In New York City, administrators at the Life Sciences Secondary School have ordered all textbooks rounded up and removed. Books, they say, are antiquated. Instead, technology is to be the new god of learning.
Of course the excuse is that books are expensive. The schools complain that the kids lose the books or that they wear out and there is no budget to replace them. And more importantly, using iPads means they can be automatically updated with the latest information, scientific discovery and technology.

So the schools need to keep up with all the latest developments to keep the kids on top, they say. It’s a wide, wonderful brave new world! Aren’t our children lucky to live in these times?  Everything in today’s school house is apparently designed for the comfort and ease of the children. No stress. No demands. No expectations.

And so the books were piled up in the hallway of the school. Next stop – the trash bin. Most were in good condition, including hundreds of math, algebra, geometry and various English literature text books. Also strewn around the floor were copies of Romeo and Juliet and A Street Car named Desire.

The technocrats will argue that the World Wide Web contains vast knowledge for the taking with the right tools. They argue that printed books are limited. That printed text books soon become antiquated. And so the future of learning is achieved by opening up this super highway of knowledge in the class rooms so every child has access. Thus, throw away the books and unchain their minds.

The incident at the middle school in New York is not isolated. It’s a growing trend. Cushing Academy, a private prep school in Massachusetts, just dumped its 20,000 library books. Instead, the library has been revamped into pseudo Internet café. Here the students can watch the three television flat screens or just sit and talk.

Say schools officials, “The library is trading its 20,000-volume collection for a database of millions of digital books. All of the students can read any of the books, either through the 68 Amazon Kindles cycling around the campus or in the laptop that each of the school’s 450 students is provided.”

Said Headmaster James Tracy, “If I look outside my window and I see my student reading Chaucer under a tree, it is utterly immaterial to me whether they’re doing so by way of a Kindler or by way of a paperback.”
Actually it does matter. First, traditional libraries were always ordered to be quiet areas because students were absorbing information, researching or writing papers. The atmosphere now is loud with lots of talking taking place.

That doesn’t provide a learning atmosphere. Second, printed books cannot be changed. The content in iPads can be changed and controlled by outside forces. In short, one can’t trust the content to be accurate. Third, those same outside forces can actually control what information is available. They can control knowledge.

Read Tom Deweese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

Today we are a divided society. Freedom verses control. Can anyone deny that there are powerful forces that seek to change how we think in order to fulfill a revolution to literally change our entire society? We have observed massive changes in our culture over the past ten years. Free enterprise is racist and evil. Private property ownership is a social injustice. Individual thought is dangerous. Marriage and sexual orientation are in great turmoil. Free speech is a threat. The mere mention of a certain presidential candidate can send college students into turmoil requiring therapy and major thumb sucking.

Do you think these changes are just happenstance? No, they are the result of a carefully orchestrated takeover of the public education system with the specific purpose of creating a new kind of citizen for the future. One that doesn’t challenge authority and official dictates. How do you create such a product? Keep them ignorant of history, philosophy and contrary ideas. If you don’t know there is even a question then you will never ask it.

Printed books can be dangerous as they can’t be changed. If allowed to remain they can be discovered by future generations. In printed version, their message remains intact, ready to spark questions to a hungry mind.

The Founding Fathers studied all kinds of government styles and philosophies before deciding on our Republican form. They wanted one that would protect the freedom of thought, movement and our ability to benefit from the fruits of our own labor. Individuality, private property and free enterprise were the roots of the government they chose. To keep the freedom which these policies created, the Founders fully understood that knowledge was key. Thomas Jefferson said, “If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”

Today, the revolution in our classrooms has robbed the children of the philosophy behind our founder’s actions. They have never been taught that private property ownership is the only true way to eradicate poverty. They have no idea that free enterprise is the true system that gives then freedom of choice and control over the quality and quantity of products and services we purchase.

And as they color their hair purple, dress in outrageous fashions, and take on the usual youthful defiance to claim their individuality, they slavishly cling to their public school teachings that individuality is selfish and must be controlled. They do so automatically because their ability to think and reason has been removed through lack of knowledge.

Behavior modification, social justice and an all out assault on attitudes, values and beliefs have replaced academics in the public education system as it churns out the perfect global village idiots. Leaving old books and their anti-revolutionary ideas lying around is a danger to their revolution. Soon, books with contrary ideas will not be available in your favorite E-book. Google will not provide the answers in a search. Facebook will censure contrary postings. Oh, wait, all of that is already happening.

I read the report on this trashing of books with great interest because such action was a major part of the plot of my recent political thriller ERASE. In my fictionalized world an evil force called LEAP was systematically taking over the publishing industry, slowly eliminating outlets for printed books and replacing them with their own E-book version. LEAP even made a massive gift to the schools across the nation by giving every school kid a LEAP iPad to replace their school books. The only problem was that now LEAP controlled the content and could change it at will.

I wrote ERASE to be fiction. I didn’t intend to provide the forces of evil with a “How To” manual! Yet, now my fiction has certainly become reality and it’s growing in schools across the country. In one scene of ERASE a teacher asks the question, “How do they think they can stop knowledge, it’s there, no matter what? The answer came back to him, “They stop knowledge by banning it.” In our modern age, controlled by technology, book burning is no longer a necessary tool for tyrants. All they need to do is press a button and knowledge, history, indeed entire societies disappear in an instant.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2017/07/10/barbarians-at-the-school-house-door/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Bible Basics, Social Justice and War on Poverty 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bible Basics, Social Justice and War on Poverty

by Bill Lockwood

The Heritage Foundation wrote, “In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, ‘This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.’  Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.”

The Washington Times reported similarly that the poverty rate has only decreased in America by 2% since Johnson’s War on Poverty began in 1965. “Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he [Obama] took office. “The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.

“About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.” Obama’s Socialism or Social Justice will never effectively reduce the poverty rate. Forcing businesses to raise the minimum wage will not do it either. No amount of government FORCE—the only thing Obama knows—will solve the poverty problem.

Why Will Socialism Not Work?

The reason is because the entire structure of socialism is built upon a grand lie, a false world-view about the nature of man and life itself. Instead, social justice sears the conscience of America as to what is real justice while hardening the once-freedom-loving Americans into allowing the government to experiment on us socially.
To understand why this is the case, we need go back to real basics of life—Bible basics of freedom.

First, Life. Life is a gift of God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7). A worldview that begins with “In the beginning God…” is the only viable option that truly recognizes the dignity of man. Since God created man, it stands to reason that what is required to preserve life is also a part of God’s created purpose. Life cannot sustain itself alone. Thus, Jehovah gave us marvelous faculties with which to extract the resources He placed in or on the earth that sustains our lives.

These faculties include my liberty of action. I am free to choose to labor. Hunger assists me in making that choice. Additionally, if I have not freedom to sustain my own life, then what benefit is life? And, if I cannot by my own labor provide and even accumulate goods (that would be my “property”) that are necessary to sustain my life or provide for my future, again, what good is life? There is no benefit to having life from God if I am not able to sustain it.

Second, Law. What is law? Law is the “rule of action” that recognizes that I have not only the right to provide, but to protect my person, liberty or property. Since life is sacred, I have the right to use force to protect it as well as the property that I have accumulated. The Mosaic code of the Old Testament makes this emphatically clear. It is also the basic concept of Natural Law.

It also follows that if I have a right to defend myself and my property, then groups of persons may do the same. This organization to defend ourselves from THEFT is what is known as LAW.  Man-made secular law is nothing more (or should be) than the organization of the natural right by groups of persons to defend what God gave them (Romans 13:4,5).

This is why James Wilson, a Founding Father that signed both the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution, reflected on the law of man and the law of God: “Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into each other… All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human… But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God… Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.” Man’s laws need to reflect God’s.

Third, The Nature of Man. Man is a mixture of “sunshine and shadow,” as one Founding Father put it. This was but a reflection of the biblical exposition of man. By “sunshine” is meant the propensity to do well and be a blessing to others.  It is a great quality that we need to encourage in ourselves and others.  On the other hand, there is also a “shadowy” portion of man. It is a desire to do wrong, which, when acted upon, is what the Bible calls SIN.  Sin is a violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4).

Reflecting this part of man, history is littered with examples of men who wished to live at the expense of others. They do this by overt robbery or, they take the God-given concept of law (protecting ourselves and our goods) and convert it to enrich themselves. Instead of robbing us at gunpoint, they pervert the purpose of LAW that they might steal your possessions. Politicians do this on a regular basis. Promising more goodies to various classes of people ensures their longevity in office and positions of power. But the end—confiscation and redistribution—or socialism, is exactly the same as a gunpoint robbery. Force is used and LAW becomes the source of evil and wickedness.

That the above occurs in America, not only with frequency, but as a part “our system,” is a source of sadness and shame. Law no longer serves its God-given purpose to protect the rights, goods, and persons of individuals in society but it has become the instrument of PLUNDER of many by the few. Obama’s social justice is exactly this. The overturning of what men innately know to be right. That churches, which should be standing for principles of justice, favor it simply shows to what immoral depths we have now descended in America. But these atrocities God will not overlook forever. Poverty will continue to plague us in astronomical proportions and working people will chafe more and more under a yoke of bondage. Perhaps that is what Obama wants all along.

Back to Homepage