Tag Archives: Soviet Union

Bill Lockwood: Good-bye American Heritage?

by Bill Lockwood

The inspiring ideals enshrined in the founding documents of our nation include a limited government that allows maximum personal freedom, equality of opportunity, and equal justice under the law. These are founded upon the pillars of inalienable rights, including the fact that all men are created by God as equal. But we have gone about “as far left” as socialist policies can take us if the Democratic debates are an indication of where America will be tomorrow.

“Our job,” Bernie Sanders spouted in the Iowa debate, “is to build the United Nations.” Not surprising from a socialist who has been photographed enjoying toasts with the leader of the old Soviet Union’s gulag communistic state. But frightening that he maintains substantial support in the Democratic Party.

The United Nations has been from its inception a design for socialistic world government. In its most recent COP 25 climate summit in Madrid, Spain, Executive Director Stuart Scott called for the UN to implement drastic population-control policies and “family planning” such as control the Chinese. Other plans include a massive transfer of wealth from “western countries” (read, “United States”) to third world poorer nations in the form of “climate reparations.” The UN is a world dictators’ dream. This is what Bernie Sanders favors. National Socialism is not brave enough—we need International socialism.

It is inescapable, however, that we have already lost so many of our freedoms that have made America the envy of the world. Whether due to taxes, to regulations on our businesses, farms, homes, cars, to our activities, to our speech, and to our abilities to exercise without government interference our religious liberty—our American heritage has dwindled.

So the issue is whether we will preserve even the semblance of our once-cherished ideals of limited government, the sovereignty of the States, the protection of life and property that is so nobly enshrined in our founding documents? Will we maintain any semblance of our freedom over our own health care or will we capitulate to the totalitarian proposals of the Democrats by which the government becomes a monopoly funded 100% by the American taxpayer? Will we continue the path to a more limited government under president Donald Trump or listen to the siren song of socialists?

Samuel Padover edited Thomas Jefferson’s letters in Thomas Jefferson on Democracy. He refers to Jefferson as “the St. Paul of American democracy.” Padover completes his introduction;

“The modern trend is in the direction of greater concentration of power in the hands of government. The problem of individual freedom within the framework of a more or less regulated economy will have to be fought out in our age, just as the question of political liberty and the free market were the issues in Jefferson’s day. … Jefferson felt that without liberty, life was not worth living. …In the difficult years that undoubtedly lie ahead, Americans will have to gather all their moral forces for the preservation of their way of life, their liberties, and their opportunities.”

These words were written in 1939.

E.W. Jackson & Jerome Corsi: The Impeachment Show Trial

by E.W. Jackson & Jerome Corsi

Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler set a very dangerous precedent when they refused to conduct impeachment hearings according to constitutional due process standards. Democrats are so desperate for power that they would overturn the election of a President of the United States based on their biased and partisan interpretation of his telephone conversation with a foreign leader.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was initially reluctant to risk the electoral backlash of impeachment. She finally bowed to far-left pressure, ignoring the President’s astounding economic and foreign policy successes. Her worst nightmare is coming true — rising approval for President Trump and rising disapproval for the Democrat Party and their presidential candidates.

This is because the impeachment process we are witnessing is decidedly un-American. Using secretive, totalitarian-style, one-party interrogations is not due process and is unworthy of a constitutional republic.

Democrats ignored the constitutional standard for impeachment to remove a president:  “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  No unbiased  adjudicator could conclude that President Trump’s telephone discussion with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is an impeachable offense. Far from a “high crime,” the President was carrying out his duty to the people of the United States. He was guarding our treasure and protecting our national integrity. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt nations in the world, and he was right to request an investigation. If taxpayer funded aide was used as leverage to enrich the former vice president’s son, the American people should know.

Instead of thanking the President for his diligence, Democrats in Congress had the temerity to accuse him of committing an “abuse of power.” The Executive Branch of the United States government is separate and co-equal. George Washington University law professor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley told the House Judiciary Committee that it would be Congress abusing power if they try to stop the President from exercising his constitutional prerogatives. Schiff, Nader and Pelosi ignored that unbiased counsel.

They have chosen instead to drag the country through an impeachment process while trampling the constitutional and due process rights of a sitting President. If they ignore his rights, why would they respect those of the average citizen?

Due process rules are not reserved to criminal trials alone. They are essentially the same in regulatory and administrative hearings. Those rules reach even to private entities operating under “color of law.” To suggest that a proceeding as grave as a presidential impeachment need not follow the same basic procedural rules of fairness is ludicrous on its face.

Hearsay is excluded from evidence in court proceedings because it is notoriously unreliable. Yet Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor were called before the House Intelligence Committee with great pomp and ceremony to offer only hearsay. Defendants always have a right to confront their accusers, yet the “whistleblower” remains an anonymous figure.

Adam Schiff went beyond hearsay to outright falsehood. Speaking on the floor of Congress, he reported that President Trump said to President Zelensky, “I want you to dig up dirt on my opponent and lots of it.” The President said nothing of the kind. Schiff later claimed it was a parody.”  This is the same Adam Schiff who said he had incontrovertible evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia. The only conclusion supported by evidence is that Adam Schiff is a pathological liar.

Democrats also violated the principle that the accused has a right to a vigorous defense. The earliest hearings were closed to Republicans. Information from those inquiries was selectively leaked to the press. Depositions were taken in secret. Rep. Andy Biggs, Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, compared the sessions to Soviet secret hearings. He proposed a resolution on the House floor to condemn and censure Schiff, but of course House Democrats tabled the proposal.

Long gone is the Democratic Party of President John F. Kennedy, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Senators Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn. It is now a party of hardcore leftists, more aligned with Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson. They are now completely driven by extreme leftist ideology.  Lacking evidence that President Trump committed any crime or even did anything morally wrong, they recklessly passed articles of impeachment, with no regard to the great damage they are doing to our Republic. The Democratic Party once had statesmen, but it is now the refuge of demagogues.

Their Stalinist impeachment show trial demonstrated gross disrespect for our elections and the peaceful transition of power. This has been nothing less than an attempted coup d’etat, but these de facto communist revolutionaries will face the wrath of the American voter. Tuesday, November 3, 2020 will be a day of reckoning.

AT: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/the_impeachment_show_trial.html


Bishop E.W. Jackson, retired attorney and Dr. Jerome Corsi, author and journalist are members of the STAND Against Communism Political Action Committee. www.standagainstcommunism.com

 

Bill Lockwood: Socialism: Coming to a Neighborhood Near You

 

by Bill Lockwood

As documented by Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller there are many socialistic organizations that have bypassed around the Congress of the United States and are transforming local American communities into little Leningrads after the likeness of the old Soviet Union. This is all done using the tool of RACE, supported by the “junk science” of leftist Universities. As a matter of fact, there is an entire network of George Soros-backed activist groups that have been pushing these policies at local levels. The catch-word that they use is EQUITY. Everything must be EQUITABLE.

School Redistricting

For example, in many communities across America, local politicians have begun proposing “comprehensive race-based policies such as redrawing school boundaries to dismantle schools with too many white or Asian students.” The justification for this is “Equity.”

Margaret McCreary, a Fairfax County, Virginia, parent noted that the school board members all began using “equity” language to push a proposal that could move her children out of their schools. “It seemed like they were all in cahoots to do something, but at first we didn’t know what to make of it, because we didn’t know what they were talking about,” she told The Daily Caller.

This simply meant that unelected bureaucrats of a socialistic engineering stripe would seek to make the schools more “proportionate” by racial population. Too many whites and Asians congregate together and their parents naturally gravitate toward neighborhoods of similar racial population. These local schools reflect this “racial” imbalance.

The same goes for poorer minority neighborhoods and schools. Socialists like Barack Obama think this an atrocity for the common people to mingle with people with which they have the most in common. Activist busybodies, however, tone down their rhetoric and instead of “proportionate” they now use the word “equity.” A “white middle class” neighborhood is “inequitable.” Socialists need to make it more “equitable” by mixing up the population.

Fairfax was only one of many communities where these policies are being implemented. But these policies are much broader than local school districts. In a recent article, Interrupting the School-to-Prison Pipeline Through Cultural Organizing (9-12-19), radical activist group PolicyLink explained that the Equity projects actually target entire communities, principally through THREE main systems: “education, law enforcement, and juvenile justice, and it centers the perspectives of youth and families who are most impacted on transforming those systems; dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline; and making communities just, safe, and whole.”

Social engineering from the top down of which Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Entire Communities

How are entire local communities being radically transformed by these intrusive socialistic meddling policies?

First, academia has provided the so-called research. For example, a group tied to the University of Southern California (USC) called Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) functions to create the research that promises BILLIONS of dollars in economic growth to cities if they adopt certain policies. All government programs will be EQUITABLE.

Second, there are a cluster of “Community Organizing” groups, all primarily funded by George Soros and related magnates, that have set in motion to bring about these “equitable” changes. Some of these “community manipulating” groups include Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP); Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE); Government Alliance on Race Equity (GARE); PolicyLink; Center for American Progress (CAP); Race Forward; Haas Institute for Fair and Inclusive Society; Center for Social Inclusion (CSI); Center for Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII); Partnership for Southern Equity; W. Kellogg Foundation; Annie E. Casey Foundation; Foundation for Open Society; and California Planning Roundtable. 1

An example of how these organizations mobilize by propaganda is a recent article in PolicyLink (9/12/19) entitled Interrupting the School-to-Prison Pipeline through Cultural Organizing. In it we are informed that to “reduce” the “harm of policing” in poorer neighborhoods we need to challenge the “untested assumptions about the value-add of law enforcement.” It asserts that things like “parks equity” will assist to bridge racial performance gaps.

Translated, this means that poorer neighborhoods do not have the nice parks that more affluent neighborhoods do, and that local law enforcement are too involved in minority communities. Local policies will have to shift tax dollars around to change this.

Third, a sales pitch must be activated to bribe and lure unsuspecting local communities into this hole. Here is where academia comes in to play.

Rosiak explains that Fairfax County, Virginia, a wealthy District of Columbia suburb, was sold on sweeping social changes after county employees attended a 2014 conference to a group called the Local and Regional Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE). County officials were sold on making Fairfax County more wealthy. They adopted a program called “One Fairfax.”

GARE, combining efforts with PolicyLink and the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at USC showed Fairfax what was called an “Equitable Growth Profile.” This “profile” found that the county’s gross domestic product would have been $26.2 billion higher in 2012 IF ITS RACIAL GAPS IN INCOME WERE CLOSED. 2 “’One Fairfax’ can only be realized with an intentional racial and social equity policy at its core for all publicly delivered services. A racial and social equity policy provides both the direction and means to eliminate disparities.”

Junk Science Brought In

The promise of billions of dollars that could be the case if equitable policies were adopted is based on: (1) The assumption that if all white people continued to earn the same amount of money as they do now; and, (2) That all racial groups who earn LESS than that could earn the same amount of money as they do; (3) The city’s economy would be larger.

This is less than “Junk Science.” It is foolishness that denies common sense as well as human nature and that not everyone has the same capacity or desire to labor to earn the same amount of money as the next person. It also assumes without a shred of proof that disparity between incomes among different racial groups is due to some sort of ugly racism in the majority white population.

Listen to the same sales pitch by National Equity Atlas, and online tool created by PolicyLink, as it theorizes about Albuquerque, New Mexico. “We estimate that the Albuquerque metro economy would have been $11 Billion large in 2015 absent its racial inequities in income.” This is from PERE’s paper on the Albuquerque.

“Using data on income by race, we calculated how much higher total economic output would have been in 2014 if all racial groups who currently earn less than Whites had earned similar average incomes as their White counterparts, controlling for age.”

This is the core of it. No real science. No real examination of root causes of men’s successes and failures. No reality. Only the unsupported assumption that minority communities are poorer than white communities because of a racist mentality that exists in white America. THIS is the “racism” that socialist engineers are seeking to eliminate by hook or crook under the guise of EQUITY.


1 Luke Rosiak put this list together. See also my article on Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) published on this website.

2 Fairfax’s web-page, as reported by Rosiak.


 

Alex Newman: American Officials Celebrate Slavery and Mass Murder in China

by Alex Newman
The Christian flag is forbidden. But this past week city and state officials in Boston and Philadelphia celebrated the enslavement of China 70 years ago — and the slaughter of an estimated 100-plus million people since then — by holding a flag raising ceremony for the Communist Chinese regime at City Hall. Cities in Canada and Australia also bowed down to the regime. And President Donald Trump even sent “congratulations” to the Chinese dictator on the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, drawing sharp criticism from Republicans in Congress.

The events and statements honoring the mass-murdering regime took place even as the dictatorship in Beijing was brutalizing and killing protesters in Hong Kong. Those protesters, who are seeking to preserve their freedom, have been waving U.S. flags and singing the American national anthem as U.S. officials were cheering on their oppressors. Protesters from both China and America, though, were on hand to make their opposition to the groveling known.

Communist Chinese propaganda organs were thrilled by the events. Xinhua, a Communist Party of China-controlled “news” organization that doubles as an intelligence gathering outfit, celebrated the fact that Philadelphia “honored” China by hoisting its flag at city hall. “A flag-raising ceremony was held Tuesday morning at the city hall to observe the 70th anniversary of the PRC founding,” Xinhua reported, boasting that the mayor had announced “a day to observe ‘The People’s Republic of China Flag-raising Day.'”

Mayor James Kenney also provided some nice soundbites for the regime’s propaganda machine. In a proclamation celebrating the murderous regime’s 70th birthday on October 1, the mayor said his city had been “enriched with many key cultural events and business centers.” He also boasted that people of Chinese heritage — all of whom the regime considers either assets or enemies, according to intelligence experts ” were now active in “all aspects of life including in City administration.”

In Boston, a similar ceremony took place on September 29, and has been occurring for a decade now. Among those speaking at the deeply controversial event was Boston City Councilor Edward Flynn, the son of former Mayor Ray Flynn who also served as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. The politician, who did not return requests for comment, said he was “proud” to be there with his “friends” at the Communist Chinese Party front group behind the event. Also attending was State Senator Joe Boncore, a Democrat from Winthrop.

But the public was less enthusiastic about celebrating mass murder and genocide. As the flag was being raised, activists used loudspeakers playing music used by protesters in Hong Kong to drown out the regime’s anthem. Chants of “Free Tibet, Free the Uyghur People, Free Hong Kong, and Shame on China,” could be heard louder than the speakers. Among the hundreds of demonstrators in attendance were ethnic Chinese people from Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well as Tibetans, Falun Gong practitioners, and others.

One of the protest leaders, Tibet Action Institute Director Lhadon Tethong, spoke out clearly. “The flag-raising here is a real honor, a privilege to be at Boston City Hall, this place where the American Independence was founded,” he explained. “That [Communist Chinese] flag stands for none of the values that this country was founded on.”

Numerous anti-Communist, pro-freedom Americans attended too. Camp Constitution Executive Director Hal Shurtleff, who helped lead the opposition, noted that he was very impressed with the Hong Kong students in attendance at the protests. “They were well organized, young and brave,” said Shurtleff. “One young man whom I spoke with admitted that he will suffer consequences for protesting the event.”

Shurtleff, who has been protesting the Communist Chinese flag festivities for years and sought unsuccessfully to have the Christian flag raised there too, brought a banner featuring the Christian flag reading “Banned in Boston.” He also brought a banner on persecuted Christians with information about Beijing’s brutality toward the believers in China. “We got the banner right in the faces of the communists,” he said, adding that his video of the event went viral and was seen by over 70,000 people in less than one day.

In previous years, Shurtleff distributed copies of Robert Welch’s book Again May God Forgive Us, which outlines the U.S. government betrayal of China into communist slavery. This year, he was “delighted” to see that protesters outnumbered communist supporters. “While there was at least one brief skirmish with an elderly anti-Communist Chinese man and a supporter of Communist China, and angry verbal exchanges, the protest was peaceful,” he said. “We noticed the arrogance displayed by the organizers. One of them walked by the barricades smiling at the protesters.”

Indeed, mouthpieces for the regime insisted that raising Communist China’s flag was entirely appropriate. “We need to learn from each other and understand each other better to promote a more peaceful world,” claimed Suzanne Lee, the founder and president emeritus of the city’s Chinese Progressive Association that worked with the city to bring the ceremony about. “But I think it”s important to keep that information going, rather than hitting head to head. Nothing can come of it when people don”t talk to each other.”

The Communist Chinese flag raising has been going on for a decade in Boston. In 2009, an official City Council resolution by Councilor Michael Ross and signed by the president of the city council extended its congratulations to the “People’s Republic of China” for the 60th anniversary of its founding. Apparently Boston even forged a “sister-city relationship” with Hangzhou, a city with an international reputation for communist barbarism and ruthless persecution of Christians. The city is also notorious for its organ-harvesting operations centered around the Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital.

Perhaps even more controversial than city and state officials celebrating the enslavement of the most populous nation on earth was President Trump’s message to mass murderer Xi, the regime’s supreme overlord. “Congratulations to President Xi and the Chinese people on the 70th Anniversary of the People”s Republic of China!” the president tweeted on October 1, using the term “president” to describe the dictator.

Responding to Trump’s tweet, even some establishment Republican leaders were clearly uncomfortable. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for instance, slammed the regime. “From the modern gulags used to incarcerate Xinjiang’s Uighurs, to the high-tech firewalls and censorship that control the flow of information, to the state’s extensive technical surveillance, to all of the Communist Party’s other tools of social and political control, Xi Jinping’s China looks disturbingly like a modern version of Maoist China,” he said in response to Trump’s comments.

Leaders among House Republicans, meanwhile, said the 70th anniversary was “not a day for celebration.” Rather, House GOP Conference leaders said, “it is an opportunity to remember the victims, past and present, of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).” Since coming to power, they added, the regime has deprived its victims of fundamental human rights and human dignity. From the tens of millions starved to death, to the students mowed down in Tiananmen Square, to the Uighurs stuck in concentration camps, to the courageous people of Hong Kong, Beijing’s “appalling record of repression is clear,” the leaders said.

“On the anniversary of the PRC, the U.S. stands with the foremost victims of the Chinese Communist Party: Chinese citizens themselves,” said the two Republican leaders. “It is for their future, as well as that of their fellow victims in Xinjiang, in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and beyond, that we rededicate ourselves to ensuring that the Chinese Communist Party is left on the ash heap of history.” The GOP leaders in the House noted that the CCP is waging a campaign of aggression worldwide and that its victims within China are “subject to a nightmarish totalitarian dystopia with the PRC”s ever-expanding surveillance state and social credit system.”

The groveling before the most murderous regime in history was hardly limited to the United States. In Canada, various city governments also celebrated the regime’s enslavement of the vast Chinese nation. However, in Toronto, at least, the mayor very publicly refused to participate, citing “ongoing issues between Canada and China.” Protesters at the event, meanwhile, held signs with pictures of Canadians being detained in horrifying conditions as retaliation for the Canadian government’s role in arresting a leading Huawei executive for U.S. authorities.

In Australia, the Victoria Police disgraced themselves by raising the Communist Chinese flag at the station’s flagpole. Even more horrifying, the officers were forced to sing the murderous regime’s anthem as local and federal officials looked on. But again, there was outrage and criticism.

“Frankly I find it disappointing,” Victoria City Councilor Blair Barker told Australian media after the event, pointing to the brutality being unleashed against protesters in Hong Kong. “We need to be cautious about supporting a foreign regime that does not support our democratic values and principles such as rule of law…. I would have thought our own police force would be a little more judicious when it comes to associating themselves with authoritarian foreign states that have a very different approach to policing its citizens.”

Meanwhile, in Communist China, the dictatorship ordered churches to raise the Communist flag and sing the praises of the Chinese Communist Party for the 70th anniversary. “Many churches in Hangzhou have been required to raise the national flag and sing the national anthem for a long while,” an attendee of a non-government church in Hangzhou dubbed “Mr. Zhou” was quoted as saying in media reports. “Now, China is back to an absurd era, and some regions are even worse than the Cultural Revolution era.” Some churches have also been ordered to replace the Ten Commandments with quotes from dictator Xi Jinping.

Celebrating the founding of the People’s Republic of China is to celebrate over 100 million murders, genocide, torture, barbarism, forced abortions, the harvesting of body organs from dissidents, savage religious persecution, and institutionalized slavery. Raising the flag of Communist China is as disgusting as raising the flag of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany or the Soviet Union. Making the American celebrations even more grotesque, though, is the fact that it was subversives within the U.S. government who betrayed the Chinese people and their leaders so that Chairman Mao could take over. Never again should the flag of Communist China or any other band of mass murderers be raised in the Land of the Free.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/33584-american-officials-celebrate-slavery-and-mass-murder-in-china


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Bill Lockwood: The Evil of Socialism

by Bill Lockwood

Socialism in its original form was defined as “government ownership of the means of production.” This is why the Soviet Union confiscated all business, factories, and farms while murdering millions of dissenters and resistors in the process.  However, aside from that classical definition, socialism has always referred to the redistribution of income and properties in the pursuit of equality—whether through the progressive income tax or various institutions of the welfare state.

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of socialistic redistribution and the collectivist drift toward the left by growing government. They all warned against it as an evil that burdens society. Samuel Adams, for example, pointed out that the founders had done everything in their power to make socialism unconstitutional.

The Utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.

Thomas Jefferson warned against our modern welfare state. “If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” Jefferson rightly pointed out the immorality of it simply in the fact that it is unjust for one generation to pass on the results of its extravagance in the form of debt to the next generation. Our current debt of about $20 trillion is almost entirely owing to our socialistic quagmire of government taking care of people.

Jefferson added, “…we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life [expectancy] of the majority.” Plainly, to pass on debt to the next generation, which is part and parcel of socialism, is itself immoral.

In Jefferson’s second inaugural address in 1805, he observed that the redistribution of wealth was a violation of the basic and fundamental right of mankind. “Our wish … is that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good,…equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers.”

In other words, there never will be financial equality among members of a society because wealth and the accumulation of goods is the direct result of one’s own industry—or that of his fathers, as Jefferson put it.

He went on to point out that:

to take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.

Such things as the income tax and the infamous “death tax” come to mind as examples of violations which the sage of Monticello had in mind.

Benjamin Franklin wrote on this topic at length. He told one of his friends in England why America would not adopt a welfare state. “I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness. We have followed your example, and begin now to see our error, and I hope, shall reform it.”

A summary of Franklin’s views on welfare is as follows: (1) Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counterproductive. (2) Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counterproductive. (3) Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counterproductive. (4) Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counterproductive.

Providing the means to increase immoral actions; breeding debilitating dependency; blunting the desire or necessity to work; smothering the instinct to excel—sadly, this is an apt description of America today. Such is the destructive nature of socialism. Franklin added:

To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.

Would that America had paid closer attention, not only to the advice from our founders, but to the structure and prohibitions of the law of the land—the Constitution—which made wealth redistribution illegal. But who studies the Constitution today? Certainly very little in public schools, if at all. And who reads the founders any more?


2 W. Cleon Skousen’s summary in The Making of America, p. 219.

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth“The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.”

by Bill Lockwood

President Trump this week once more rocked the globalists and internationalists with his renewed criticism of what has been considered one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump’s criticism focused upon the fact that the United States continues to pay the lion’s share of operating costs of the organization, while other member nations pay pittance by comparison.

For 2017, NATO’s military budget is $1.38 billion, the civilian budget is $252 million and its NATO Security Investment Program is $704 million. In this budget the U.S. contributes over 22 percent followed by Germany with a little over 14.65 percent, France at 10.6 percent and Britain 9.84 percent. There are 13 more members of NATO that pay less than 1 percent of their GDP to its budget.

Why Does America Pay the Lion’s Share?

Established in 1949 in the aftermath of WWII, NATO was sold to the American public as well as to the Senate as a necessity to keep the Soviet Union out of Western Europe. But as informed citizens are aware, NATO was specifically structured to be one of those “entangling alliances” to siphon off American wealth, as well as a stepping-stone to World Government. This is easily understood when one considers the roots of NATO.

The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.  The basic 5-point plan for communistic global conquest is summarized in the following four points.

  1. Confuse, disorganize, and destroy the forces of capitalism around the world.
  2. Bring all nations together into a single world system of economy. [The United Nations’ International Monetary Fund as well as the World Bank helped achieve this goal. So also have the so-called “Free Trade Agreements.” BL]
  3. Force the advanced countries [read, United States] to pour prolonged financial aid into the underdeveloped countries.
  4. Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to total world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regionals [such as NATO] can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship of the proletariat. (Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 1942, as quoted by G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations, 1964, p. 68)

One can readily see that the entire design or “regional” organizations was to be “transitional” to world government. More importantly, “regional governments”—or treaties—were necessary to bleed the American taxpayer to bankroll the entire scheme. This is exactly what is occurring and the frequent mantra that today’s world is a “new global community” plays directly into the orientation of Stalinist Russia.

Globalist Founders

Alger Hiss was one of FDR’s top advisors and was an ardent Soviet spy, having been convicted and sent to prison in 1950 for perjury involving statements relating to his communist activities. He was directly involved in the creation of The United Nations. His good friend, and advisor to later presidents, was John Foster Dulles. Dulles also was an avid globalist, pushing the United States towards Lenin’s world dictatorship. When Harry Truman signed America into the UN’s NATO alliance Dulles was enthusiastic. The “treaty” was part of the regional strategy towards globalism.

NATO involves first, a military “entangling alliance.” Article 5 of the NATO treaty binds the United States in an “agreement” that in the case of an “armed attack” against any NATO member other members of NATO, such as the United States, would consider it “as an attack against them all.” This contravenes the U.S. Constitution which assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

But NATO is not simply a military alliance. It is political as well (Steve Byas, article on John Foster Dulles, The New American, 3-5-2018). Dulles told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the treaty should be ratified “not as a military instrument but as a step in a political evolution that has behind it a long and honorable history, and before, it a great and peaceful future.” Note the language. NATO was considered by insiders to be a transitional stage toward a more solid global government.

The treaty itself states that member-states “will encourage economic collaboration between any and all of them.” Clarence Streit, Dulles’ fellow globalist, wrote in 1939 that he recommended the creation of regional groupings with the eventual goal of putting them together into a functioning world government. Streit pushed for the creation of NATO as a regional government within the framework of the United Nations. This is why Articles 51 and 52 of the UN Charter encourage the forging of “regional groupings” and cooperation.

United States Independence has always been in the crosshairs of the globalists behind NATO. In 1960, just 11 years after NATO’s founding, Elmo Roper of the Atlantic Union Committee stated:

For it becomes clear that the first step toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political, and the social … the Atlantic Pact [NATO] need not be our last effort toward greater unity. It can be converted into one more sound and important step in working toward world peace. It can be one of the most positive moves in the direction of the One World. (Quoted by John McManus, in Changing Commands, The Betrayal of America’s Military, p. 20).

Jumping ahead to the Bush Administration of 1991, NATO was “reorganized.” Thousands of American soldiers were for the first time placed under German, British, and other blue-helmeted foreign commanders. Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary for the Administration, termed the move “an important milestone in the transformation of the alliance.” The transformation continues. Republican or Democrat, the goal is a world organization overriding the US Constitution.

Another precedent was established in during the Clinton Administration in 1994 when a British UN troop commander ordered US fighter planes from NATO to attack positions in Bosnia. Neither the British general, nor Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN Secretary-General, bothered to contact President Clinton nor our own Congress. The UN had already been given authority to employ US forces serving in NATO, a UN subsidiary, to utilize American military and money.

Now one can clearly see why Trump’s pressure on European countries to pay equivalent payments to NATO rattles socialist cages. Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are grieved at the hindrance of their globalist designs. But the American people love President Trump, who has been the first president with backbone enough to lay it out for the American public by telling negotiators at the Brussels table that enough is enough.

TAKING AMERICA AND THE WORLD TO IMPOSSIBLE LEVELS

Taking America and the World to Impossible Levels – “As reality takes over and these high speed trains don’t materialize, can you imagine the mess America will be in?”

by Kathleen Marquardt

ICLEI, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, is now called Local Governments for Sustainability so that people won’t know that this is an international organization pretending to be a local one. ICLEI just put out its USA 2016 Report calling for a reduction of global average temperature to just 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Because the Industrial Revolution began around 1760, when the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA ) was just ending, ICLEI and the global elite would have the world reducing carbon output below zero; if we hadn’t had an Industrial Revolution, if we were still living at subsistence levels, we would still be warmer than what they want us to achieve. How do you think they expect to get there?

Toward 1.5

Spurred by calls from the communities most exposed to climate change impacts, the Paris Climate Agreement set the ambitious goal of limiting the end-of-century global average temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

The Paris Agreement includes Nationally Determined Contributions, reductions in GHG emissions by country — which offer this reality: In 2030, global emissions will be 22 gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GT CO2e) higher than the level needed to stay on track towards the 1.5° target and 15 GT CO2e higher than the level needed for a 2.0° scenario (UNFCCC analysis, May 2016). This is roughly equivalent to the emissions produced by 4,400 coal-fired power plants in one year.

The global community must push to peak greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the power sector by 2050, and deploy negative-emissions strategies by 2040 in order to protect the most vulnerable (Climate Analytics, October 2016).”

[ICLEI USA 2016 Annual Report]

How do ICLEI and the global elite propose to reach “1.5”? They have a blueprint for that – Agenda21/Sustainable Development, and tools to achieve their goals. The original tools are found in The Global Biodiversity Assessment, seven pounds of tools. As science advances more tools are added, but let me show you some of those tools.

To Win the War on Cars, San Francisco Weaponizes Real Estate

As Stephen Frank puts it, “The city is now given building permits for condo’s/apartments that do not have any parking spaces, but include bike racks instead.  Imagine the culture of this city if no one owned a car, and Ford/Chevy and Toyota were criminalized?

What San Francisco believes it can do, however, is improve life in the city by making it easier to get around without a car. This week, its Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance requiring developers to stock new residential or commercial projects with more alternative-transport perks than ever before. This is no all-out war on vehicles, but rather an attempt to cut down on the number and length of car trips the natives take each day.”

[Read more]

Wimps didn’t build California: the case for high speed rail

Our vision includes a national HSR Express system connecting cities and states into an integrated system, laid out in phases with an aggressive schedule for full system build out.  Our vision sets high standards for interoperable, state-of-the-art dedicated track, advanced control systems, elegant multi-modal train stations, and top-of-the-line 220 mph trains connecting major cities together.  Our plan calls for a support network of 110 mph trains connecting smaller cities and towns together with the high speed system.”

Their vision is beyond pie-in-the-sky. The first map shows their vision completed; the second, what is now. A very long — and expensive — way to go, yet cities are being restructured to remove cars now. As reality takes over and these high speed trains don’t materialize, can you imagine the mess America will be in?

In the maps of US High Speed Rail, is included this map below showing the plan for a Regional America. Regionalism is the key tool I spoke of above to be used to bring America down – down to 1.5.
The key tool is regionalism.

REGIONALISM IS COMMUNISM

In her article, Charlotte Iserbyt quotes from Dennis Cuddy: “In “The Globalists,The Power Elite Exposed”, page 304, Denis L. Cuddy, Ph.D, says “Most members of the European Union are already members of The Socialist International, and if other nations around the world can be moved toward socialism and regional economic arrangements, then these regional groupings can be more easily merged into a world socialistic government.

This scenario is quite similar to the three-stage plan outlined by Stalin at the 1936 Communist International. At that meeting, the official program proclaimed: “Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries,” after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations.”

Iserbyt goes on to note: “In socialist countries, metropolitan regions enjoy metropolitan regional government and comprehensive planning. Of the many regions on the vast territory of the Soviet Union the Moscow Region commands special attention, for it has been, since the 1917 Revolution, the country’s economic and political center.

The economic and functional efficiencies and the social benefits that comprehensive national, regional and city planning make possible in socialist society explain the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic and social progress. Conversely, our profit-oriented ruling capitalist class makes comprehensive social and economic planning impossible, causing waste and chaos and dragging the entire nation into misery and suffering as its rule deteriorates and declines.”

[Read more]

To close, another bit of Iserbyt elucidation:

The power elite understood that it would be difficult to get the people of the world to accept a world government all at once, and so a gradualistic approach was suggested. Association of Helpers member and Canadian Rhodes scholar P.E. Corbett in Post-War Worlds (1942) wrote: “A world association binding together and coordinating regional groupings of states may evolve toward one universal federal government. World government is the ultimate aim, but there is more chance of attaining it by gradual development.” More recently, at Mikhail Gorbachev’s first State of the World Forum in 1995, Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor) announced that we “cannot leap into world government through one quick step, but rather via progressive regionalization.”

Wanting to get to global government faster, we are now being pressured to undo the modern world – that is, for us. The elite will keep all modern amenities. But we, who must live under their rules, regulations, fees, taxes, penalties, are now told we must go back to a subsistence living – to grow our own food, to live without air conditioning and modern appliances, to be as close to animals as they can manipulate us into being.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2017/04/03/taking-america-and-the-world-to-impossible-levels/?mc_cid=04575abac8&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography