Tag Archives: The U.S. Constitution

Bill Lockwood: The Evil of Socialism-Part Two

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: 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.

Jesse Lee Peterson: LET’S DECLARE MAXINE WATERS AND DEMOCRATS CRAZY

Jesse Lee Peterson slams politicos more concerned about welfare of illegal aliens

by Jesse Lee Peterson

MoveOn.org and other left-wing agitators have planned demonstrations across the U.S. for Presidents Day in response to Donald Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency for border wall funding.

“Donald Trump has declared a #FakeNationalEmergency – an illegal power grab from an unhinged man to push his racist, dangerous policies,” MoveOn.org states on its site.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), “The Wicked Witch of The West” with the low IQ, went on MSNBC and called on Americans to protest across the country to send President Trump a message that his declaration of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border is “fake.”

As President Trump predicted, Democrats have become unhinged by his move to fund the border wall. In addition to their protests, Democrats have filed lawsuits to slow or block attempt to allocate funds towards a border wall by challenging the president’s declaration of an emergency.

Trump did everything possible to work with Democrats before declaring an emergency. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., refused to negotiate in good faith, and Democrats left the president no choice.

The Constitution gives Congress sole authority for appropriating funds when it passes budgets. But Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976, giving the president vast powers in the event of a national emergency. The declaration will allow the president to divert billions of dollars of federal money towards the wall. The White House said it has identified up to $8.1 billion, including over $6 billion from the Pentagon, that will be available to fund the border wall now that the emergency is declared.

Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – along with Republican Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush – have declared national emergencies prior to Trump’s declaration.

Democrats are insane, evil or both. No rational person or group would knowingly encourage the invasion of their homeland. Maxine Waters and Democrats opposed to the border wall are playing politics with the lives of the American people, and they pose a serious threat to our national security.

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

Waters called the president’s national emergency declaration “fake.” The only thing fake is her concern for the black Americans who live in her district. Maxine Waters has been in Congress for 28 years. Most of her district is crime-ridden, impoverished and overrun by illegal aliens. Waters doesn’t live in the district she represents, so she doesn’t understand the plight of her constituents. She lives in a multi-million-dollar mansion in a very affluent part of Los Angeles.

Waters’ 43rd Congressional District consists of 697,985 residents. It ranks 37th out of 436 other congressional districts in the U.S. as to the number of foreign-born residents; as of 2012, that number stood at 31.6 percent of a population. Of those, 36.6 percent were categorized as white and 23.9 percent were categorized as black. Of these, 46.9 percent were counted as Hispanic or Latino. Therefore, those counted as white – not Hispanic or Latino – represented 14.4 percent of the district. No wonder she’s advocating for illegal aliens!

The illegal alien population in California is estimated at 3 million. Illegal aliens create an enormous financial burden on Californian residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for illegal aliens is $25.3 billion. Nearly half of those expenditures ($12.3 billion) result from the costs of K-12 education for the children of illegal aliens. According to the Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR)), billions more are spent on public assistance services, administration of justice functions, and general governmental services for illegals.

According to a Pew Research Center study, there were 12.0 million immigrants from Mexico living in the U.S. in 2016 (just from Mexico alone!).

In addition to the financial burden, the drugs and crime flooding across the southern border is wreaking havoc on American towns and cities. Every day, 130 Americans die due to opioid overdoses. Ninety percent of the heroin that reaches America comes through Mexico. Almost 25 percent of federal inmates are illegal aliens.

Maxine Waters and Democrats are more concerned about the welfare of illegal aliens than they are about American citizens. The Democrats’ support for open borders and the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is threatening our national security and allowing dangerous criminals and drugs to flood across the border.

Border security is the most important issue facing our nation. The mass invasion by illegal aliens and the crime and drugs that follow hurts all Americans. It’s especially devastating to low-income Americans who are forced to compete for jobs, education and healthcare services with illegal aliens. Inner city blacks and those living in border states are hurt first and foremost.

Maxine Waters and the Democrats are out of touch with the American people. Waters doesn’t care about blacks – she only cares about power. The Wicked Witch of The West must go!

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/lets-declare-maxine-waters-and-democrats-crazy/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: Democrats: The Anti-God Party of Karl Marx?

by Bill Lockwood

Several recent agendas pushed by the Democrat Party indicate that they are not only the anti-America Party which pushes for Open Borders and a larger socialist confiscation/redistribution program than already exists, but are aggressively adversarial when it comes to belief in God. From chiding judicial nominees who believe in God to removing ‘so help me God’ from oaths—the Democrat Party is adopting the mantle of atheism.

Sen. Cory Booker, for example, recently asked judicial nominee Neomi Rao if she believed that same-sex relationships were immoral. Rao has been nominated to be on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She would replace Brett Kavanaugh if confirmed.

Booker pressed her. “So you’re not willing to say here … whether you believe it is sinful for two men to be married, you’re not willing to comment on that?”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Amy Coney Barrett, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” in a 2017 hearing. Barret was then a nominee for the 7th Circuit Court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said to Barrett in that same hearing: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.

Brian Buescher was nominated to be on a district court in Nebraska. His membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus was something that brought out the hostility of Democrat Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). The thought patterns of these prominent Democrats is obviously that any sort of Christian belief is a hindrance to public service.

Removing “So Help You God”

Next, as reported by The Hill, the newly-minted Democrat-led House Committee on Natural Resources is seeking to have the words “so help you God” removed from the oath cited by witnesses who testify before the panel. The proposal was originally obtained by Fox News.

The rules proposal states that witnesses that come before the committee during its hearings would be administered the following oath: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help you God]? According to Fox News, the “so help you God” phrasing is in brackets in red in the draft and indicates that the words are slated for removal.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) probably summarized this Democrat-led move with the best critique: “It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of the first acts in the majority…They really have become the party of Karl Marx.”

Art. VI. Sec. 3–No Religious Test

Some may suppose that these godless Democrats are in line with the Constitution at Art. VI, sec. 3 which forbids a “religious test” for public officers in government. But this is ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution gives Americans several General Provisions. One of them involves an “Official Oath” that is to be required of Senators and Representatives and all “executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states.” They shall be “bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

First, there is to be an ‘oath’ of office. What seems to have escaped the modernist anti-theism approach is that the very nature of an oath assumes that the one giving that oath believes in God. By definition an oath is a solemn “calling upon God to witness the truth of what one says.” In effect it is to say: If I am not telling the truth then I call upon God to strike me down or to punish me

This is why Washington, when taking the first oath of presidential office, added “so help me God.” In the Old Testament an oath was to be taken in God’s name for the same purpose. To “take the Lord’s name in vain” (Exod. 20:7) then, is making a profession in “God’s name” and failing to live up to that profession. Primarily, this involved a legal oath. By extension the command meant “You shall not use the name of God, either in oaths or in common discourse, lightly, rashly, irreverently, or unnecessarily, or without weighty or sufficient cause” (Matthew Henry).

Obviously, by the flippant and irreverent manner in which Americans misuse the name of God has muddied their thinking about Deity and the very nature of an oath. And none are more confused than the Democrats who press for an “oath” without realizing the nature of it.

Second, the oath is itself is a recognition of God. James Iredell, a Justice of the State Supreme Court of North Carolina (1751-1799), during the founding period, commented on Article VI in the following manner.

According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a ‘solemn appeal to the supreme being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which will bind his conscience most.’ It was long held that … none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded…Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a supreme being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments…. Indeed, there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all.

We have reached the point at which the “barbarians” are now running the government from the Democrat side. Iredell explained further pertaining to the oath:

…it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it [the oath] believes in a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury would not be dreaded.

Third, what then of the No Religious Test? Article VI also states that “there shall be no religious test.” Many of the colonies were established by groups of people who subscribed to certain tenets of various faiths—that is, branches of Protestantism (see Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States, 183-84). Their state oaths would automatically exclude at a state level those who had contrary views.

But when it came to the federal government these same delegates insisted that it had no jurisdiction over religious matters. They were particularly fearful that a “federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments” (David Barton, “A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore,” Wallbuilders.com). In other words, the framers believed that religion was a matter better left to individuals and to their respective state governments, not to the federal government. No religious test primarily referred to the various exclusive doctrinal tests at the state level and kept the federal government in a neutral position.

However, whether one believed in God or did not subscribe to general biblical principles was far from what was intended in Art. VI, sec. 3. The idea that America might one day become a “godless state” as the current Democrat Party embodies was not in the framer’s minds. As Richard Dobbs Spaight (1758-1802), a representative from North Carolina to the Constitutional Convention, put it: “I do not suppose an infidel or any such person will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.”

This is what makes the comments of the Cory Booker’s and Dianne Feinstein’s so distasteful. They are not even in a “neutral position.” Their anti-God agenda, which is reflected across the board in the Democratic Party, is open hostility against Christian principles. Little wonder then that the socialism of Karl Marx appeals to them. It begins upon an atheistic platform.

Jesse Lee Peterson: RASHIDA TLAIB IS A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

Jesse Lee Peterson rips new breed of ‘lowlife’ radicals out to destroy America

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Newly elected Congresswoman Mexico (D-Michigan), who publicly declared in a foul-mouthed tirade that the Democrats will impeach “motherf***er” Donald Trump doubled down and is refusing to apologize.

“I will always speak truth to power. #unapologeticallyMe,” tweeted Tlaib.

President Trump said he found Tlaib’s comments “disgraceful” and thought she “dishonored herself” as well as “her family.”

House Republicans were furious over the comments, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., calling on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to act. But Pelosi downplayed Tlaib’s remarks by blaming Trump for the heated rhetoric in Washington.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, defended Rashida Tlaib’s profanity-laced pledge to impeach Trump, vowing to protect her fellow female Democrat and “sis” from what she claimed is “faux outrage” by Republicans.

“GOP lost entitlement to policing women’s behavior a long time ago. Next,” the self-avowed Democratic-Socialist said.

Rashida Tlaib is a Palestinian-American who ran unopposed and became one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress alongside Ilhan Omar, D-MN (a Somali-American elected in 2016). Democrats also elected Kyrsten Sinema, the first openly bi-sexual elected to the U.S. Senate. The newly elected Senator from Arizona refused to be sworn in on a Bible.

Rashida Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Kyrsten Sinema are a new breed of radical Democrats hell-bent on trying to destroy this president. Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez belong to the Democratic Socialists of America – an anti-American group that has no respect for the U.S. Constitution. These extremist Democrats are not interested in working with President Trump or Republicans to end the government shutdown and secure the southern border with Mexico. Their goal is to impeach this president and undermine the rule of law. They want bigger government, higher taxes, open borders, and they embrace radical Islamists and want to weaken the U.S. military. Their socialist agenda is evil, and it’s antithetical to everything that makes America the greatest and freest nation on this side of Heaven. We cannot allow them to succeed!

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

As reported by the Daily Wire, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar openly embraced anti-Semite and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer Linda Sarsour on their first day in Congress. Just imagine the outcry from Democrats and the liberal media if Republicans embraced David Duke; Democrats would riot in the streets!

When one compares these Democrat miscreants to the new freshman Republican lawmakers taking office, the contrast is shocking.

Returning Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida – a combat veteran – recently welcomed two other combat veterans to the U.S. House of Representatives with a tweet that paid homage to the congressmen’s sacrifices during their military service. Mast’s tweet showed a photo of Mast with freshmen Republican lawmakers, Reps. Jim Baird of Indiana and Dan Crenshaw of Texas, on the first day of the 116th Congress.

Mast captioned the tweet: “5 eyes. 5 arms. 4 legs. All American. Welcome to Congress, @ElectJimBaird and @DanCrenshawTX.”

Crenshaw rose to national attention during the campaign season when Saturday Night Live mocked his eye patch (he lost an eye in 2012 when an IED exploded in Afghanistan where he was deployed). Baird served in the Vietnam War where he lost an arm. Mast also served in Afghanistan where he worked as a bomb disposal expert and lost both of his legs when an IED exploded. Between these three patriots, there are three Purple Hearts and four Bronze Stars earned. Amazing!

We’re lucky to have these men in office. If these patriots will risk life and limb for their country, it’s safe to assume that – unlike the Democrats – they will faithfully uphold their oath and won’t sell out their country and their constituents in the halls of Congress.

Democrats are still playing politics with our national security by refusing to fund border security. Only a blind and brainwashed person would vote for socialist Democrats who continue to “resist” this president at every turn. And Trump has vowed to keep the government shut down as long as necessary to get funding for the border wall.

The liberal mainstream media is more concerned about trash not being picked up at national parks than they are about border security. If they reported the truth about the crime and drugs pouring in across the southern border, we could prevent innocent Americans like Cpl. Ronil Singh from being killed. Singh, 33, was shot to death in the early hours of Dec. 26 after he pulled over a suspected drunk driver. The gunman fled, and a two-day-long manhunt led to the arrest of Gustavo Arriaga Perez, an illegal alien who was trying to flee to Mexico.

Newly elected Democrats are more radical than their predecessors. Lowlife Democrats like Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez have no respect for the rule of law. They abhor the constitution and the Judeo-Christian values that shaped this great nation. If we continue electing socialists, Muslims and pro-open border politicians who refuse to enforce our laws and protect our sovereignty – we will lose more American lives and eventually lose our country.

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: To Alec Baldwin: What are You Waiting For?

by Bill Lockwood

Communists of Antifa riot in Portland and call for more revolts across the country. Republican members of Congress are receiving “death threats.” Soros-funded mobsters disrupt the Kavanaugh hearings. James T. Hodgkinson, animated by Democrat anger, shot Rep. Steve Scalise. Floyd Lee Corkins II, motivated by leftist rhetoric of the socialist-oriented Southern Poverty Law Center, shoots a security guard at Family Research Council headquarters.

Instead of denouncing these lawless rampages, Democrats continue to stoke the smoldering fires. Maxine Waters yells to crowds to “get in the faces” of Republicans and scream “You are not welcome here, or anywhere!” Now actor Alec Baldwin publicly advocates the “overthrow” of the Trump Administration. “We need to overthrow the government of the United States under Donald Trump,” Baldwin said.

Baldwin will slyly complain: “I said ‘not violently’”—but he knows the leftist insurrectionists and anarchists are already plunging into violence and the “overthrow” language is clearly added incitement.

What I want to know is: what are you waiting for, Alec? Lead your revolutionaries. Stop agitating impressionable college kids and angry nobodies and do it yourself. I am sure you will be joined by Hanoi Jane Fonda who recently screeched “We have to get in the streets—Nobody should work. We should shut down the country. Shut it down!” Gather your leftist comrades in Hollywood, Alec; shoulder your weapon; get at the head of the Fifth Column and head to Washington, D.C.

Be sure to march through Texas as you go.

The problem with these blow-hard actors and actresses is that they are childish weaklings who sit within posh security-enforced mansions and want other people—the ignorant minions of the  brainwashed masses—to do their dirty work for them. Baldwin is all bark, no bite. He is a wind-bag of vitriolic treasonous speeches. Jane Fonda is no better.

Do I personally desire a revolution? No, I do not. But I grow weary of communist-inspired leftists who continue, ever since the Obama Administration emboldened them, to threaten to remove our God-given right of self-government. It is disgusting that they wish to destroy our constitutional system that has given us a peaceful country.

I know that the Alec Baldwin’s and Jane Fonda’s of the world love dictatorships—and Obama would have loved to have been yours, Alec. But it is getting to the point of absurdity for these pinkies to continue to threaten us with revolution.

Vogue Writer Maya Singer

Gabriel Hays of MRC Newsbusters exposes another socialist who tries to stoke a revolution from her armchair. Maya Singer wrote an opinion piece in Vogue Magazine entitled Who’s Up for Burning It All Down? With the acidic ink of an anarchist she begins, “I am going to try to write this calmly. I want to remain calm because I want to remain lucid. Also, if my hands are shaking with rage I cannot type.”

Maybe Alec Baldwin will hold your hand, Maya. Perhaps you both can begin your march to the nation’s capital. “If you’d asked me,” she wrote, “before last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings… where we were on the road to revolution, I’d have said we were somewhere around ‘the people are very mad but they’re working within the system.’”

But now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed on the Supreme Court, Maya Singer says the dynamic has changed. Women might begin the firebombing, she wrote. “I really wouldn’t be surprised if millions of American women spend the weekend Googling, ‘how to make Molotov cocktails.”

“They’ll have no one to blame but themselves if we riot,” she added. So, Baldwin has another volunteer to join his riotous army—unless she, too, chooses to stay seated behind her computer. The communists about which generations before us have warned are upon us. They are the very Hollywood celebrities, columnists of slick-covered magazines, opinion-writers of a fawning press, and self-confessed communist professors who lecture from taxpayer-paid podiums.

The trouble with all of these public figures is that they are so deluded with their own inflated sense of importance and power and so devoid of character that they care not about the rights of the common people who are paying the taxes. That the common man will lose his liberties under God—which is what big government always does—is nothing to them. After all, they are the wealthy elite who despise “we the people.” But this is why we have selected Donald J. Trump to roll back Big Government.

Tom DeWeese: The Anti-Trump Riots are a Smoke Screen The Real Goal – Eliminate the Electoral College

by Tom DeWeese

Many seem bewildered by the anti-Trump riots and demonstrations that have covered the nation since the 2016 election. And many keep trying to find a reasonable response. Give it up. You can’t reason with them with words.

Here is my take. They know full well that they aren’t going to overturn the election. These privately funded forces are being used to create pressure to destroy the Electoral College so they won’t have to deal with it next election. This is how the Left operates. Make a big deal over here to force the hidden agenda over there. The plan is to make enough trouble that Congress will move to abolish the EC to get some peace.

For clues on who is behind this effort one only has to watch to see which member of Congress would propose such action. The answer, of course, was California Senator Barbara Boxer. It only took a week after the election for her to come to the rescue of the broken and distraught Left.

The danger is real and gaining ground. But it didn’t start with the 2016 election result. A campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and “let the people elect the president,” has been gaining steam for several years. A group called “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ started in 2006, has won commitments from eleven states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. These include Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, California, New York, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Connecticut. These states control 172 electoral votes. They only need states representing 98 more electoral votes to join and the Electoral College will be a thing of the past. Meanwhile, such legislation is under consideration in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arizona, to name a few.

When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral votes would have to pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any state’s bill could take effect.

As usual, it’s easy to get people to join this cause – yet another sound bite based on emotion rather than knowledge or logic. “Let the people decide.” “It’s the American way.” “It’s Democracy at work.” Yep, that’s why America was never set up as a democracy. Here’s another sound bite for you – “Democracy is a lynch mob.” Here’s another one – “Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.” Majority rule violates the rights of minorities. It’s not a good thing.  Get the picture?

The United States was created by the individual sovereign states. They were already free and independent governments on their own. As they came together to create a central government they feared it would grow too strong and overpower the states, making them subjugated to the central government. So, to prevent that, the states created the Electoral College to make the election of the President a STATE election.

Throughout history, certain factions have challenged the legality of the Electoral College. Opponents point out that our President is actually elected by 538 virtually unknown people who are members of 51 small delegations in fifty States and the District of Columbia. Moreover, in most states, the electors are not even bound to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. In fact, many Constitutional scholars believe that’s just what the founders intended, 538 independent thinkers, bound to no one. There is reason and logic behind the idea.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

The Founding Fathers, particularly those from small States, were very concerned that they would be smothered by the larger states. Under the representative republic (not a democracy) established by the founders, the United States is made up of fifty sovereign States. Under the Constitution, except for limited powers specifically defined for the central government, power for the rule of law is intended to reside in the States.

To deal with the problem, the founders decided on a compromise that would establish two chambers for the Congress; the House of Representatives, whose size would be dictated by the population in each state and the Senate in which every state would get two representatives, regardless of its size or population. You see, in the beginning, the states appointed Senators to be their representatives in Congress. But, like these so-called scholars of today who want to wreck the Electoral College, previous “experts” came up with the idea that Senators should be elected by the people – “It’s only fair,” went the mantra! The result is an imperial Senate that answers to no one but their own elite club members. That’s what happens when you mess with the real genius of the Constitution.

The same problem arose in deciding how to select a President, the one nationally-elected official. Here again, there was the fear that election by popular vote would overwhelm the will of smaller States. Again, a compromise was reached to address the issue in a fair and equitable manner in order to maintain the power of the states. Each state was assigned a number of presidential electoral votes equal to its representation in the House and the Senate. In each state, the electors would vote for a President and Vice President. The candidate receiving the largest number of electoral votes would be elected.

Under the plan, the connection to the popular vote was the selection of state electors. The popular vote was to be used to select individuals trusted by the people to select the President. Each presidential candidate has a slate of electors committed to them. As the people vote for a candidate, they are actually electing his/her slate of electors. Again, the selection of electors goes directly to local control of the process. Under the Constitution, even the smallest state was assured at least three votes in the process. To provide a further check to protect the smaller states, in the event no candidate won a majority of the electoral vote, the names of the top five would go to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation would cast one vote for one of the candidates. In this process each state, again, is equal.

To understand the Electoral College one must realize that the Founders considered the states as the dominant power in the nation. Election of the office of President was a bit like the selection of the Chairman of the Board, with the states serving as the board of directors for the nation. The great mistake Electoral College opponents make is to believe the President was supposed to be elected by the people. It was never the plan.

There are fundamental and often regional differences in how Americans view the role of government and the leaders they elect to run it. Little wonder those who seek to strengthen the power of the central government prefer that elections be decided by the popular vote. It’s a great sound bite- but the results will not give “the people” the “fair” result they desire.

Such a move will eliminate the power of individual states in favor of elections decided by the population of large, politically liberal cities. I’ve actually heard it said by residents of California, San Francisco, in particular, “why do we even let people in Ohio and Iowa vote?” Such elitism is behind the “National Popular Vote” movement which apparently believes that only the East and West Coasts count. The rest is just flyover country.

Keep these facts in mind as we watch the enforcement of Sustainable Development policies that lead to Smart Growth cities. The stated plans of such ideas are that most people will eventually be ‘persuaded” to leave the rural areas and migrate to the cities. In addition, we now are witnessing the invasion of illegal immigrants who normally land in such communities and swell their size.

The “feel good” propaganda of the National Popular Vote movement insists that a popular vote would not change the face of the nation. However, by design or not, the fact is their scheme plays right into the hands of the Sustainablists who openly seek top-down control through the establishment of megacities. By forcing the massive majority of citizens into such areas, a majority vote in just a few will drown any other area in the nation.

In such a planned agenda for the 21st Century, individuals living in the majority of the nation’s territory will quickly learn how little their “popular vote” counts if the Electoral College is abandoned by the “National Popular Vote” scheme. Those smaller states (and therefore their votes) may have no impact on the election of the President, just as our founders feared. Control by a few over the many can only be defined as tyranny.

The abolishment of the Electoral College would, in fact, establish an election tyranny giving control of the government to the massive population centers of the nation’s Northeastern sector, along with the area around Los Angeles. If these sections of the nation were to control the election of our nation’s leaders, the voice of the ranchers and farmers of the Mid and Far West would be lost, along with the values and virtues of the South. It would also mean the end of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.

Not happy to even let the states decide if they want to support the idea of the National Popular vote or not, the hard Left has manufactured the unrest in the streets to pressure a fast solution. In 2016 Senator Boxer answered the call with legislation to end the Electoral College. Such demands to end it masquerade as the answer to the people’s unrest. If achieved the end, the result will have nothing to do with Donald Trump. He is just the convenient excuse.

Allow that to happen now and the great silent majority of middle America in this nation will never again have a fair say in who is elected our president. And that is the true goal of today’s unrest.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/10/15/the-anti-trump-riots-are-a-smoke-screen-the-real-goal-eliminate-the-electoral-college-2/?mc_cid=f77acaef68&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: How Our Socialist Welfare System Distorts Reality

 

How Our Socialist Welfare System Distorts Reality“It is the fact that socialism itself is immoral.”

by Bill Lockwood

In one discussion after another conservative commentators correctly point out that socialism “does not work.” Charlie Kirk, for example, has absolutely destroyed socialist arguments in one episode after another on YouTube. Reminding the uneducated Millennials that people have fled socialist nations, he highlights the failure of that totalitarian system. Since socialism has proved to be such an abysmal failure, it is a wonder that many young Americans wish to adopt it.

But there is one argument against socialism that needs more emphasis than it is receiving. It is the fact that socialism itself is immoral. It creates an immoral society and to the extent it has has already invaded America since the Progressive Era, it has eroded our value system as well as the concepts of private property.

Only two methods exist by which money may flow from my pocket to yours. Either by my free-will contribution or your theft. The first is obviously voluntary. The second is forced. Socialists of all colors and stripes always are interested in using force to remove my goods to use it themselves or distribute it to others. But it is still theft. The fact that the United States government is now the legislative tool to accomplish this does not change its nature—it is unethical. And, because it is unethical our concept of reality has become distorted.

“Hands Off My Healthcare!”

Our near-socialist system (government theft and redistribution now make up 2/3 of the federal budget) has been ingrained in the populace for nearly 100 years. It has in turn dissipated our thinking. Consider the following.

How many placards have we seen carried by those who love socialistic systems that read, “Hands Off My Healthcare!”? Stop and think for a moment.

When your teenage son or daughter has had an automobile that is paid for by parents; whose insurance is subsidized by mom and dad; and auto-repair bills covered by parents—what would one think if dad said, “I am not paying your insurance or car payments for the next 6 months”—and the child demands, “Keep your hands off of my car!”

The child is so spoiled it has warped his view of reality. “It is not YOUR car, my son.” If you want a car—go buy your own, pay the insurance, buy your own gas and get it repaired yourself.

Exactly. Healthcare is a service that is provided by the taxpayer via government force. Those who chirp, “Keep your hands off of my healthcare!” have lost perspective. It is not your healthcare as long as the working men and women of the middle class are paying for it.

Dulls the Incentives

Hunger and pain are not always bad things. God has built these into the natural world as incentives for us to WORK. Just as pain induces me to keep my hand off of a hot stove so hunger teaches me that idleness is unproductive. This is why God said, “Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Reaping pain encourages me to avoid the same trap in the future.

But what happens when the welfare checks are doled out? Idleness is encouraged. Indolence grows. Instead of being incentivized to work, people are encouraged to avoid it. This is why we now have an entire third and fourth generation of people who are living off of the workers in society. The natural incentives God put into place are re-arranged. Pain has now shifted to taxpayers who frantically search for methods to avoid more pain of paying higher taxes while working longer hours.

Politicians are Compassionate?

From the “compassion” of socialism to the “conservative compassion” of the George Bush’s of the world, we have adopted a skewed view of the world when it comes to helping the poor. Politicians promise nothing to one segment of society that they have not unconstitutionally stolen from another class of people. In other words, it is easy to be “compassionate” with other people’s money, isn’t it?

Our entire system is structured along these lines. Bigger schools, more healthcare, more government housing, more free food, etc. Workers can hardly afford their own insurance because they are busy paying for others’. The politician who promises the most frequently gets elected. But they never give from their own pockets. It is with the licentious tax and spend stick that they take from the “rich” to give to the “poor.” And, just as noted above, once this begins, it snowballs.

Now the receivers have become the majority of the population. In reality, there is no compassion in this model. It is self-enrichment by political animals who maintain power and position by continuing this Robin Hood system.

Re-arranging What is Important in Life

Socialistic welfare spending causes individuals to re-arrange their priorities in life. It is common knowledge that the entire tattoo industry is funded by hand-outs. Casino gambling has become habitual. And much of this occurs with government welfare checks.

So, what is the lesson? Providing people relief in one area of life—giving them money or subsidizing their housing—encourages them to spend money foolishly. And how often have we heard criticisms of the Millennials or Generation X not saving money for retirement?

Why should they save money for retirement? We have handed them a platter full of goodies and they have glutted themselves on other people’s labors.

Only one remedy remains. Get back to the Constitution whereby it was illegal for government to confiscate property of one person to give it to another. The cancer of socialism has grown exponentially, however, and it is a massive tumor burdening our culture.

Alex Newman: Democrats Sound Alarm as Far-left Fringe Takes Over Party

Democrats Sound Alarm as Far-left Fringe Takes Over Party –  “On the far-left, though, there seems to be little coherence to the agenda…  “

by Alex Newman

The Democrat Party is cracking up, but there are efforts underway to bring it back from the brink. As socialist-ruled nations across the Americas implode into violence and mass starvation, the fringe left-wing allies and supporters of those murderous strongmen in America are said to be on the verge of taking over the Democratic Party. Democratic Bernie Sanders (shown) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are both offered as examples of the “future” of the party. But after tolerating, encouraging, and flirting with the far-left fringe for years, supposedly more moderate Democrats anxious about an electoral pummeling are finally starting to speak out as a quasi-civil war breaks out in the party.

But with self-described liberals making up less than half the party and just one fourth of the electorate, the ultra-liberal Democrat Party may be too far gone to be salvaged. Consider that Communist Party USA leaders openly brag about how they “utilize” the Democrat Party to advance their totalitarian agenda in America. And consider, too, that a number of known communists and socialists were on the Democrat Party’s Platform Committee in 2016. In short, the party is wildly out of touch with mainstream America — and becoming even more so with every day that passes.

Some analysts have suggested that President Donald Trump now has the Democrats exactly where he wants them: Looking like absolute fools on national television praising the regime in Venezuela, seeking to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), calling for open borders, demanding government-controlled healthcare, behaving like fascist savages or overgrown children while terrorizing conservatives, and more. But as self-proclaimed “moderate” Democrats try to bring the party back from the brink of destruction, it remains to be seen who will win out. Plus, by pushing amnesty and mass migration, establishment Republicans could still save the Democrat Party and destroy their own.

But for now, it does not look good for Democrats. When overconfidence on the part of an incumbent allowed self-styled “Democratic Socialist” Ocasio-Cortez to defeat a longtime congressman in a primary in ultra-liberal New York, the divisions that became apparent in the 2016 Democrat primary came into focus. Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez, for instance, proclaimed that Ocasio-Cortez was the “future” the party. A number of far-left candidates are even bringing Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders in to endorse them, hoping to capitalize on her sudden fame and her improbable victory and Sanders’ status as an outsider.

But then she started talking, making outlandish statements so far detached from reality that even the far-left “fact checkers” have called her out. She also revealed that her positions are more fluid than her comrades believe gender to be; for instance, she went from supporting a two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine to opposing it almost immediately afterward. Conservatives celebrated, hoping to make her the face of the Democrats. “We need more people like her,” Trump ally and Brexit architect Nigel Farage told a group of young U.S. conservatives. “The more loophead socialists, the crazier — the crazier people that they put up for the other party, the better it’s going to be for you guys.”

But after she repeatedly made a fool of herself on national television in the weeks since her win, and after poll results showed three in four American voters would not knowingly vote for a socialist, Democrat bigwigs and the establishment behind them are re-thinking their strategy.

Former FBI boss James Comey, a Deep State swamp creature under fire for improperly protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution, urged Americans to vote Democrat in the mid-terms. But a few days later, he was warning the Democrat Party that they would scare away normal people if they keep acting like kooks. “Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left,” Comey wrote on social media. “This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership.”

In mid-July, a group of “leading moderate Democrats,” as the press described them, gathered in Columbus, Ohio, to argue that the party should quit bashing the free-market system and obsessing over income inequality. The conference, organized by the establishment-backed think tank “Third Way,” called on Democrats to focus more on promoting “opportunity.” The self-styled “center-left” organization, which would have been considered radical left just a few years ago, backs virtually the entire agenda of the globalist establishment and the far-left. But it does it using more deceitful rhetoric.

Congressman Jim Himes (D-Conn.), one of the participants in the Ohio conference, urged “progressives” to tone down the extremism. “It harms us in areas where we need to win,” he was quoted as saying. “To my progressive friends who got excited about Abolish ICE, I understand the emotions, the moral vacuum that is involved in splitting up families. But when you go out there and say, ‘This is who we are,’ you’ve now made life harder for the 60 or 70 Democrats fighting in districts where we need to win if we ever want to be in the majority. Abolishing ICE is not a real political proposal.”

But for many of his increasingly unhinged colleagues demanding open borders and socialism, it is a very real political proposal. In fact, as this magazine documented in 2016, the party’s platform committee was dominated by open communists and socialists, who used their positions to push the Democrat Party further to the totalitarian left than it has ever gone in history. Even radical leftists like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) are no longer far enough left for the communist- and socialist-controlled Democrat Party of California, which endorsed her socialist primary challenger.

In some cases, the radical left wing of the Democrat Party is openly allying itself with mass-murdering communist regimes against the United States. Consider California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, who forged an unconstitutional treaty with communist China, the most murderous government on the face of the earth. The plan: In defiance of the U.S. government, continue implementing a globalist scheme to destroy the state’s economy and further centralize power over everything under the guise of stopping “climate change.” More than a few analysts suggested Brown was committing treason.

On the far-left, though, there seems to be little coherence to the agenda — except in terms of bringing down Western Christian civilization, the U.S. Constitution, and the God-given liberties enshrined in America’s founding documents. As an example of the cognitive dissonance now afflicting the far-left fringe working to take over the Democrat Party, consider a July 23 e-mail by the George Soros-funded MoveOn.org. The message touts two Muslim women running for Congress as “progressives,” Rashida Tlaib in Michigan, an Arab, and Somali immigrant Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, who apparently got involved in Democrat Party politics as a child just six years after arriving in America. Of course, Islam takes a dim view of “women’s rights,” and homosexuality is a capital offense under Islamic law known as Sharia. And yet, the the e-mail soliciting support for the two Muslim women candidates says they will take on unspecified “attacks on women’s rights and the LGBTQ community” by Trump and Republicans.

One of several fringe groups involved in pushing the party even further to the left is known as “Justice Democrats.” After the Third Way “Opportunity 2020” event by supposedly moderate Democrats, the outfit release a statement slamming the “establishment wing” of the Democrat Party for its “losing strategy” that has resulted in “thousands of lost seats across the country.” “We believe Democrats should engage with working class Americans, we believe we have an obligation to mobilize disenchanted voters and give them a political home,” the group said, demanding government healthcare, “guaranteed jobs,” an end to “systemic racism,” and more. The outfit, founded by former staff of Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign, has endorsed almost 80 “progressive” candidates seeking public office.

But there is a growing amount of anecdotal and data-driven evidence suggesting that moving further to the left will decimate the Democrat Party even further. And despite the foaming at the mouth in the establishment media, even the establishment’s propaganda polls suggest Trump is doing just fine. In fact, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey showed Trump’s job approval rating rose to 45 percent, the highest level of his presidency in that particular poll. Among Republicans, Trump remains massively popular, with 88 percent of GOP voters approving of his job so far.

By contrast, at this point in Obama’s term, just 81 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing. Indeed, aside from George W. Bush, whom the nation rallied behind after the September 11 attacks, Trump was the most popular president within his own party of any other on the list, stretching back to Truman. That is bad news for Democrats who hope to peel away from supposedly disaffected Republicans to help win in 2020. And keep in mind, those numbers come despite a constant barrage of fake news and anti-Trump propaganda aimed at the president, something that is increasingly becoming obvious even to the president’s critics.

Ultimately, as readers of this magazine know well, the “establishment” of both major parties cares little about the voters or what they want. Instead, top Republicans and top Democrats are all part of the Deep State Swamp — a network that includes semi-secret organizations such the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg meetings, as well as true secret societies such as the Bohemian Grove and the Skull and Bones society. As such, rather than obsessing over controlled partisan politics, Americans who truly hope to preserve liberty and the Constitution should get involved in educating their communities about the Deep State and other key issues. Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts.


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.


Calloway’s Socialism & Slavery

Calloway’s Socialism & Slavery “His “poor class” that is simply “down on their luck” everyone knows will not fare very well.

by Bill Lockwood

Donald Calloway, Jr., former Democratic state representative from Missouri, was pitted this week in a short interview-style debate with Star Parker on Fox & Friends regarding the Trump Administrations’ proposal to drug-test recipients of public welfare. Parker logged in favorably to the proposal, but predictably, Calloway opposed it. No drug testing ought to be conducted on those who receive “public benefits,” Calloway said. He offered several arguments as to why he believed drug-testing ought not be conducted. Examining his “arguments” reveals a shocking and skewed view of the world and of reality itself, which seems to be Democratic stock-in-trade.

Calloway’s First Argument

Calloway’s first argument, repeated several times in the course of a few minutes, was that this “vilifies the poor” and if we wanted to be equal we would drug-test all those corporation-heads and household-heads that have just received a tax cut from the Trump Administration! Get it: Calloway the Democrat believes that tax cuts equate with government hand-outs to the poor—hand-out money that has been confiscated from the middle-class. If my taxes decrease from 40% to 20% that is the same thing as the government handing me a welfare check. Both are “benefits,” Per Calloway– Unbelievable.

Well, Donald Calloway, bring it on! For argument’s sake: do it– drug-test every single person in the country; those that fail will receive nothing. No tax cuts, no welfare, no write-offs—nothing. His “poor class” that is simply “down on their luck” everyone knows will not fare very well. The average person of common observation ability knows that illegal drug use is rampant among the poor, among the minority-classes, and among those who receive government welfare. In every community the story is the same. I’ll take that challenge, Calloway!!

More to the point, however, Calloway gives Americans a glimpse into the Democratic view of the world. There is no such thing as “individual rights” before God. You are nothing but a cog in a society wheel to be utilized at the leaders’ discretion.  Everything you make; every penny you earn belongs to the government—and when the government lowers taxes “allowing” you to “keep” more of what you earned—you need to realize that 100% of it belongs to the government to begin with. You are a slave to the state and are to kiss the hand that feeds you. Nothing belongs to you. Period. That is the underlying assumption of Calloway.

The only way that an educated person could possibly equate government taking from some and re-distributing to others (welfare) with lowering your taxes and allowing you to keep what you yourself have earned is on the assumption mentioned above. I wonder if this is what is taught at Alabama A&M where he majored in Political Science and English?

But this is common belief among Democrats. Listen to Nancy Pelosi who tweeted this unbelievable comment last week—before taking it down.

I am disgusted with ‘President’ Trump allowing people to keep more of the money they earn. It is this type of wide spread theft of public resources that keeps America from being great, ‘Mr. President.’”

There you have it again. Keeping money you earn is a “theft of public resources.” Individuals are a “public resource” to be utilized as the managers of society see fit. How these people ever get elected to office can only be explained on the grounds that the constituents they represent must have their own head in drug-induced clouds. It also explains the wickedness of Socialism. No individual human rights—at least not to the reward for your own labor.

Calloway’s Second Argument

Calloway’s second argument was that drug testing has constitutional hurdles because of the Goldberg v. Kelly Supreme Court decision of 1970. Here, the Warren Court decided that the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment requires a hearing before a public beneficiary of government handouts may be deprived of them.

Here it is important to see that the Court held that welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlements for persons who are qualified. The majority stated that welfare benefits is the private property of the recipients of which one cannot be deprived without “due process” of law. Food, housing, clothing, and medical benefits paid for by others and forcibly redistributed by the state actually belong to the recipients! This is the definition of entitlement.

Due Process simply means that no one can confiscate your private property or deprive a person of his life or liberty without due process of law. Calloway’s second argument may be on target with the Goldberg decision, but just as in the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which Supreme Court ruled that “blacks were not citizens” of the United States but were considered “property”—the Goldberg decision is simply wrong and unconstitutional to boot. It is interesting also that Roger Taney, the chief justice at the Dred Scott decision, relied upon the “due process” clause of the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment. Slaves were private property of slave owners and these could not be removed “without due process of law.” How would Calloway answer this?

Anyone with just a smattering knowledge of the Constitution recognizes at once Calloway’s error. It is the same as Roger Taney’s mistake.

That welfare benefits are “private property” of the recipients is clear violation of Natural Law. Government has no right by nature to steal from one segment of society and give to another, period. So all the founders who wrote the Constitution believed and encoded into law. 

But the New Deal period turned this common law maxim upside down and theft of private property and redistribution to others by an all-knowing government became commonplace. Then came the extreme “decision” (Goldberg v. Kelly) that this confiscated money actually belongs as private property to the recipient of welfare benefits! Calloway and the Goldberg decision is wrong just the same as Taney and the Dred Scott decision was wrong.

Calloway’s Third Argument

Calloway’s third and final argument was that “drug testing” of welfare recipients is “unchristian.” Here Calloway’s argument becomes a farce. Like all socialists, he misuses and abuses the Word of God.

That there are biblical injunctions to care for the poor is common knowledge. However, all of these commands are either individual mandates or apply to local churches of Christ. Not one of these biblical commands has even the remotest equivalence to government taxation and redistribution.

As a matter of fact, if Calloway wants Bible, let him see 1 Timothy 5 where the apostle Paul set forth criteria by which the young evangelist Timothy might help leaders of churches decide which persons ought to receive financial benefits and which ones should not. Even inspired Paul put forth a test. In the words of our Lord, Calloway needs “go learn what this means.” Paul forbade assistance to those who did not meet certain standards, going so far as to say that assisting those who should and could be working causes people to be idle, busybodies (involved in ungodly activities) and, saying things they ought not (v. 13). Exactly the point.

Far from being “unchristian”, setting out certain criteria, namely drug-testing, by which welfare distribution might be determined, is a common-sense beginning to cutting down our out-of-control spending in America. And if the Democrats of the country like Calloway and Pelosi want real constitutional reform—let’s go back and re-establish the Original Intent of the Founders. Public welfare as we know it would disappear in a heartbeat.

American Oligarchy

American Oligarchy- “America is already in the chartered waters of an unconstitutional oligarchy.”

by Bill Lockwood

Oligarchy means that governing powers of a state belong only to a few persons. The concept carries the idea of despotic rule, the very opposite of a “We the People” system. Our Charter of Liberty, the Constitution, organizes power from the bottom up—this in order that free people might maintain that freedom by controlling their servants—the government. Two hundred thirty years after our founding, however, Americans find themselves ruled by a top-down federal oligarchy called The Supreme Court by which every law or expression of freedom might be negated as “unconstitutional.” Instead of tracing the course of how we arrived at this point, Americans need to begin contemplating how to rid ourselves of this despotic monstrosity.

To set the issue clearly, hear the words of President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Chief Justice John Marshall. “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Jefferson added that judges are not subject to “elective control” and noted that “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

Prophetic powers Jefferson did not possess, but he, as well as the entire class of founders in that generation, understood the nature of liberty, the nature of man, and the constructs that were necessary to guard our own freedoms.

Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, argued with Jefferson that “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere” and that the Supreme Court was that arbiter. Marshall voiced the feelings of the entire class of modern attorneys now battling in various courts for favorable rulings. “Whatever the court decides is constitutional” is the doctrine. Jefferson answers Marshall’s “there must be an ultimate arbiter” argument: “True, there must; but does that prove that it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States.”

If the Constitution is what it purports to be, the power rests with the people acting through their elected representatives, not a High Court. What is WRONG with the Supreme Court being the “final arbiter” of the meaning of the Constitution?

Judicial Supremacy?

First, the Constitution itself does not erect such a tribunal. Is the Constitution, or the Supreme Court’s decisions the ultimate law of the land? Jefferson made this very point against John Marshall. “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal …” Exactly. How is it that the Constitution itself gives to the Judicial system a certain limited number of jurisdictions, eleven types of cases to be exact, and “judicial review” is not one of them?

The same battle is found in religion. Is the Bible, the Word of God, or the Roman Catholic Church and its “Holy See” the final arbiter of what is God’s truth? Or, to put it more basically, do “the people” have the right and authority to interpret the Bible for themselves, or does that prerogative belong only to the Roman Church?

The Catholic Church asserts itself as the “final arbiter” as to what is or is not “scriptural.” But the God nowhere gives to the Roman Church such authority. People can read and understand the Word of God for themselves. It is only the Roman Catholic Church that arrogates to itself the authority to determine God’s Will.

In the same way The Supreme Court makes its own high-handed brazen assertions of its supposed authority. This position itself is not Constitutional.

Second, the doctrine of Judicial Review has been perverted into Judicial Supremacy. Judicial review simply posits that the Supreme Court has the authority to construe the Constitution in certain cases that come before it. But this opinion of the Court necessarily applies to the particular facts and parties of the case—not to everyone else or to the entire country. A case in point. Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court in 1973 supposedly found a “right” in the Constitution which allowed a woman to kill her unborn child. That was flagrant enough. Then the Court overturned 200 years of history and all 50 state laws that protected the life of the unborn. This is not law. It is lawlessness as the Supreme Court imposed its godless will upon an angry populace.

Instead of “Judicial Supremacy” our nation was founded upon the concept of “Constitutional Supremacy.”

Third, the Constitution is a contract, drawn up between the People and its Representatives in the Federal Government. That being the case, how has it occurred that only one party in that contract maintains the sole authority to interpret the terms of that contract? St. George Tucker was professor of law at the College of William and Mary during the Revolutionary period. Writing a commentary on the Constitution he noted that it was a “compact” to which the states were parties with the federal government and that this “compact” limited the role of the federal government.

The very nature of the Union is a compact or a contractual form of government. If each side of the contract is equal, why cannot both sides to the contract, the states and the federal government, each have equal ability to assess the meaning of the Constitution?

Fourth, the Constitution was ratified by the People several years before the Supreme Court was appointed. Every provision of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (1788, 1791) had clear meanings to the people who ratified them. This is why the Founders, unlike the clandestine legislators today who wish to pass bills to “find out what’s in them,” argued every clause in the newspapers at the time. It was a People’s law. All was settled long before there came a Supreme Court to make determinations. The Supreme Court was organized in 1789 and did not convene until 1790.

If it is the case that the Supreme Court “determines” the meaning of the Constitution how was it ratified by the people who were ignorant of its meaning? How can officeholders take the oath to uphold the Constitution if they cannot know what it really means until the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the clauses?

A few more questions: What if the Supreme Court takes up the liberal notion that a “militia” of the 2d Amendment is an organized National Guard unit and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is limited to government appointees? What if the court system defines “Treason” as opposition in writing such as this article? Far-fetched? Who would have supposed that The Supreme Court would take in hand to “define” our cultural practice of marriage to include a union between two homosexual persons? Where is that authority bestowed in the Constitution? Finally, why did the American people have to wait for The Supreme Court to “overturn” a lower court’s opinion that had halted President Trump’s Travel Ban—a prerogative clearly given to him by the United States code?

America is already in the chartered waters of an unconstitutional oligarchy. The battles now raging will only continue as long as the American people allows the Federal Government, The Supreme Court specifically, to act illegally by assuming “undelegated power.”

A Constitutional Crisis & Typhoid Mary

A Constitutional Crisis & Typhoid Mary- “…the man to whom she reported and conversed on a daily basis—was Barack Obama. ”

by Bill Lockwood

Disdain for the United States Constitution. A complete and utter contempt for the Constitutional rule of law which protects citizens from the strong hand of government. This is the only description of the Democrat Party that is appropriate at this point in American history. Not ignorance of the Constitution; not stupidity; not untutored; not uneducated in freedom principles—but a deep-down scorn for the Fourth Amendment of our Charter of Liberties. This is where we are—and if the Republicans in Congress and in the White House do not take things in hand, we have lost it all.

The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights declares that it is the “right of the people” to be protected against the government from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” No invasion of privacy is to occur unless a “warrant” is issued by the proper courts, and that only based upon “probable cause” or evidence of a crime. It is “unreasonable” to open your mail, tap into your telephone conversations or put a citizen under electronic surveillance. With the recent Obama Administration, however, the Constitution be hanged.

This has to do with former National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s deliberate felonious electronic spying on innocent Americans on the Donald Trump team for political purposes. Following this it was the “unmasking” procedures of innocent individuals that she herself initiated and detailed spreadsheets that she requested have been described as “felonious” by Michael Doran, a former senior director at the National Security Council. “A tremendous abuse of the system.” And her one and only boss—the man to whom she reported and conversed on a daily basis—was Barack Obama.

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, as reported in The Washington Times, likened Rice to “Typhoid Mary” on a radio show hosted by Hugh Hewitt. Typhoid Mary was the woman who spread disease around New York in the twentieth century. “Every time something went wrong [in the Obama Administration], she seemed to turn up in the middle of it—whether it was these allegations of improper unmasking and potential improper surveillance, whether it was Benghazi or many of the other fiascos of the Obama administration…”

Unmasking names of raw intelligence reports are more than mere “fiascos”, however.  Normally, when U.S. intelligence agencies are surveilling foreigners, the names of U.S. individuals who are involved in the conversations with those foreigners are “redacted” or edited out of the summaries to protect their innocence. Rice, instead, wanted the real names of the persons and made several requests to have this done on detailed spreadsheets.

One unnamed U.S. official stated that the reports contained “political information” such as with whom the Trump transition people were meeting; the views of Trump’s foreign policy aides; and what plans were being made by the incoming Trump administration, as reported by Steve Byas (The New American).

The Timeline

To catch the full impact of this lawlessness, consider the following timeline.
•  In March, Susan Rice denied involvement in the entire scandal of unmasking. On PBS Hour she said bluntly: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.” She was referring to Representative David Nunes’ (R-Calif.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee, reports to the media that after investigating the Obama White House Spy Scandal there was much that bothered him.
•  The “unmasked names” were turned over to officials, during the Obama Administration, at the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, the CIA, and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence for Obama.
•  Obama’s Deputy Secretary of Defense, Eveyln Farkas, bragged that she encouraged her colleagues to “get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves.” This was on March 2 with MSNBC. She later tried to walk this back.
•  Congressional investigations continue to discover who it [or they] was that apparently unlawfully unmasked the names of Trump’s transition team. Finally, Susan Rice’s name pops up to investigators. U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova charges that “What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals.”
•  Susan Rice now remembers her unmasking requests. She tells MSNBC this week, however, that it’s “absolutely false” that she or any other Obama administration officials unmasked names of Trump’s presidential campaign and transition team members “for political purposes.”
•  Retired Colonel James Waurishuk, who had worked for both the National Security Council as well having served as director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, insists that others have to be involved. “The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency. They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies, says, ‘We’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask,’” reports Steve Byas. Waurishuk goes on to say, “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.” He calls this a “Constitutional Crisis.”

Questions

•  If this was all innocence on the part of Susan Rice and Barack Obama why did they wait until her name was finally discovered as the source of the unmasking before Rice comes out publicly to profess her innocence? In other words, if there never was any wrong-dong on the part of the Obama Administration here, and the news cycle has been filled for the past 6 weeks on the question of “Who possibly could have done the ‘unmasking’ of innocent names”—why did Rice not come out earlier and simply confess, “Sure, I did it, and it was all innocent”? The fact that she remained silent and the former president has said nothing—which is not his habit—until revelations were made that Rice was the culprit, smells like guilt.
•  Even more telling: Why did Susan Rice LIE to the American people about her lack of knowledge of any of this on PBS Hour? She knew nothing, she claimed about any of it; but all of the sudden she “remembers” and by the way, nothing irregular here—just routine government work. Who can believe it? Especially in view of the fact that she is a certified liar.
•  Why did Susan Rice, who answers to Obama alone, “investigate” the Trump transition team to begin with? This is not her job description. Susan Rice is not an investigator. As National Review put it: “If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based upon Democrat-party interests.”

The Republican-led Congress needs immediately to panel an investigation and require everyone that was possibly involved, including Obama himself, under oath. To fail in this responsibility is to forfeit leadership and endanger all Americans. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is thought by many constitutional scholars to have already been trashed—it will be in point of fact if this is not aggressively handled now. Perhaps since Susan Rice and Barack Obama demonstrate such disdain for the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, they will not find comfort in the Fifth Amendment when under oath. Fat chance.

« Older Entries