Tag Archives: Thomas Jefferson

Birthright Citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment & The Immigration Invasion

by Bill Lockwood

Some estimate the number of Central American citizens marching northward through Mexico to the United States to be upward of 14,000. Eighty percent of these immigrants are men younger than 35 years old. President Trump has issued a state of emergency and U.S. troops are being deployed to the Mexican border.

In the wake of this looming invasion of the sovereignty of the United States, several issues are being pushed to the forefront of national attention. The most notable is the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and its so-called Citizenship Clause. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Many cultural leaders and Constitutional commentators insist that these clauses mean that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students, or children born of illegal aliens who are unlawfully residing within our geographical boundaries automatically become U.S. citizens. This is known as “Birthright citizenship.”

This, however, is not what the text of the Constitution says or means, in spite of the fact that many people think that it does. For example, a recent article in the Chicago Tribune argues for birthright citizenship.

Chicago Tribune

“Trump eyes order to end birthright citizenship. Legal experts say that would violate Constitution,” blares the  headline.

President Donald Trump is vowing to sign an executive order that would seek to end the right to U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizens, a move most legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution and that was dismissed Tuesday by the top House Republican.”

John Wagner, a writer for The Washington Post and author of the above lines, adds that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed the idea in a recent radio interview, explaining that Trump’s proposal is not consistent with the Constitution. Ryan explained that not only can Trump not end “birthright citizenship” with an executive order, but that Republicans did not like it when Barack Obama changed immigration policy by executive action.

At the risk of taking on the Establishment legal experts but having confidence in the fact that the Constitution was written for all to understand, these “legal experts”, including Paul Ryan, are flat wrong. As a matter of fact, one of the “choke points” designed to minimize the likelihood “that an arguably unconstitutional federal law would pass and take effect” is the plain supposition that the Constitution speaks “not merely to federal judges, but rather to all branches and ultimately to the people themselves” (Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography, p. 62-63).

The Civil War Amendments

The Fourteenth Amendment was the second of three amendments to the Constitution that was adopted in post-Civil War America. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment defined citizenship and guaranteed the rights of former slaves; and the Fifteenth Amendment granted the vote to African-American men.

The point of today’s conflict resides in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which actually reads: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of the United States. Those who advocate birthright citizenship ignore the qualifying phrase.

What is the Meaning of the 14th Amendment?

First, consider Original Intent of the Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson pointed out the obvious, that “original intent” is the only legitimate interpretation.

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

This canon of interpretation is obvious, but Jefferson knew there were and would be forces which twist the meaning of written laws to make the Constitution conform to their desires.

James Madison agreed.

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution … What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

James Wilson wrote that “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” And modern-day Justice Clarence Thomas underscored the point. If we are not interested in the “original intent” the Constitution has no more value than the latest football scores.

All such interpretive methodologies that speak of “various contexts” of the clauses of the Constitution, or that the text actually morphs over time and clime partake is nothing less than existential nonsense designed to free persons from the constraints of law.

Second, consider the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, specifically the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery within all the territories of the United States. It was adopted in December, 1865, only months after the conclusion of the Civil War. However, the 13th Amendment was found not to be enough.

Former slaves were forbidden to appear in “the towns in any other character than menial servants” and were required to reside upon and cultivate the land “without the right to purchase or own it.” They were excluded from many occupations of gain and were “not permitted to give testimony in the courts where a white man was a party” (Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and Its Application).

These and other similar circumstances brought about the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in July, 1868. The chief architect of the Amendment was Ohio politician John Bingham. However, it was Senator Jacob Howard who was the author of the Citizenship Clause in question.

During debate over the clause he assured his colleagues in the Senate that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States because, although born in the geographical boundaries of our nation, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Instead, they owed allegiance to their tribes.

One of Howard’s colleagues, Senator Lyman Trumball, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued in exactly the same manner. He explained to the Senate that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

“Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” That is as plain as it can be. Who can misread this? Illegal border crossers are not included in subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

It is for this reason the children of foreign diplomats do not automatically become citizens of the United States, although perhaps born on U.S. soil. There is no birthright citizenship.

Modern Constitutional writer Hons von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese Center, explains further:

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

Liberals prefer to believe that anyone present in the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction” of America. That is false, as a plain reading of the 14th Amendment shows, as well as the intention of its framers. Foreigners who jump our borders owe allegiance to other nations and are not only not citizens, neither are their children, though they may be born on this soil.

The above being the case, how did Americans, even lawmakers, come to adopt the position that “birthright citizenship” is the law of the land? Only by bureaucratic overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution. This is a perfect illustration of how governing authorities stretch the meaning of the Constitution to unlawful lengths, then assert their unauthorized position so frequently that the idea becomes settled as if it really is the law of the land.

Americans should be thankful for a president like Donald Trump who is bold enough to take on the establishment and its pretended authority to tell us what the Constitution means. The current crisis in immigration is caused solely by Big Government bureaucrats who have twisted the Constitution into their own mold and a complaisant citizenry which allows them to do so.

Tom DeWeese: Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?

Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?-“The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell.”

by Tom DeWeese

There’s lots of talk about where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stands on the Roe v Wade abortion decision and if he would vote to rescind it. There is another very controversial Supreme Court decision made just few years ago, supported by the Anthony Kennedy, the justice he seeks to replace. That is the Kelo decision that basically obliterated private property rights in America. So, where does Brett Kananaugh stand on protection of private property rights? With Kennedy or the Constitution?

In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an opinion that shocked the nation. It was the case of Susette Kelo, et al. v City of New London, Connecticut, et al. The issue: “Does the government taking of property from one private owner to give to another private entity for economic development constitutes a permissible ‘public use’ under the Fifth Amendment?”

In 2000, the city of New London saw a chance to rake in big bucks through tax revenues for a new downtown development project that was to be anchored by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The company announced a plan to build a $270 million dollar global research facility in the city. The local government jumped at the chance to transform 90 acres of an area right next to the proposed research facility. Their plans called for the creation of the Fort Trumbull development project which would provide hotels, housing and shopping areas for the expected influx of Pfizer employees. There were going to be jobs and revenues A-Go-Go in New London. Just one obstacle stood in the way of these grand plans. There were private homes in that space.

No muss – no fuss. The city fathers had a valuable tool in their favor. They would just issue an edict that they were taking the land by eminent domain. The city created a private development corporation to lead the project. First priority for the new corporation was to obtain the needed property.

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

In July, 1997, Susette Kelo bought a nice little pink house in a quiet fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Little did she imagine that warm, comfy place would soon become the center of a firestorm.

She had no intention of selling. She’d spent a considerable amount of money and time fixing up her little pink house, a home with a beautiful view of the waterfront that she could afford. She planted flowers in the yard, braided her own rugs for the floors, filled the rooms with antiques and created the home she wanted.

Less than a year later, the trouble started. A real estate broker suddenly showed up at her door representing an unknown client. Susette said she wasn’t interested in selling. The realtor’s demeanor then changed, warning that the property was going to be condemned by the city. One year later, on the day before Thanksgiving, the sheriff taped a letter to Kelo’s door, stating that her home had been condemned by the City of New London.

Then the pressure began. A notice came in the mail telling her that the city intended to take her land. An offer of compensation was made, but it was below the market price. The explanation given was that, since the government was going to take the land, it was no longer worth the old market price, therefore the lower price was “just compensation,” as called for in the Fifth Amendment. It was a “fair price,” Kelo and the homeowners were told over and over.

Some neighbors quickly gave up, took the money and moved away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounted. Visits from government agents became routine. They knocked on the door at all hours, demanding she sell. Newspaper articles depicted her as unreasonably holding up community progress. They called her greedy. Finally, the bulldozers moved in on the properties already sold. As they crushed down the houses, the neighborhood became unlivable. It looked like a war zone.

In Susette Kelo’s neighborhood, the imposing bulldozer was sadistically parked in front of a house, waiting. The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell. More phone calls, threatening letters, visits by city officials at all hours demanding they sign the contract to sell. It just didn’t stop. Finally the intimidation began to break down the most dedicated homeowners’ resolve. In tears, they gave in and sold. Amazingly, once they sold, the homeowners were then classified as “willing sellers!”

Immediately, as each house was bulldozed, the monster machine was moved to the next house, sitting there like a huffing, puffing dragon, ready to strike.

Finally Susette’s little pink house stood nearly alone in the middle of a destruction site. Over 80 homes were gone: seven remained. As if under attack by a conquering army, she was finally surrounded, with no place to run but to the courts. Under any circumstances the actions of the New London government and its sham development corporation should have been considered criminal behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their own pockets, or those of their friends, it was considered graft. That’s why RICO laws were created.

The United States was built on the very premise of the protection of private property rights. How could a government possibly be allowed to take anyone’s home for private gain? Surely justice would finally prevail.

The city was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, one of the largest proponents of eminent domain use, saying the policy was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects. However, the Supreme Court had always stood with the founders of the nation on the vital importance of private property. There was precedent after precedent to back up the optimism that they would do so again.

Finally, her case was heard by the highest court in the land. It was such an obvious case of government overreach against private property owners that no one considered there was a chance of New London winning. That’s why it was a shock to nearly everyone involved that private property rights sustained a near-death blow that day.

This time, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer shocked the nation by ruling that officials who had behaved like Tony Soprano were in the right and Susette Kelo had no ground to stand on, literally or figuratively.

These four men and one woman ruled that the United States Constitution is meaningless as a tool to protect individuals against the wants and desires of government. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After deciding that any property is subject to the whim of a government official, it was just a short trip to declaring that government could now confiscate anything we own, anything we create, anything we’ve worked for – in the name of an undefined common good.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who opposed the Court’s decision, vigorously rebutted the Majority’s argument, as she wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Justice Clarence Thomas issued his own rebuttal to the decision, specifically attacking the argument that this was a case about “public use.” He accused the Majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment’s “Public Use” clause with a very different “Public Purpose” test. Said Justice Thomas “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a public use.

Astonishingly the members of the Supreme Court have no other job but to protect the Constitution and defend it from bad legislation. They sit in their lofty ivory tower, with their lifetime appointments, never actually having to worry about job security or the need to answer to political pressure. Yet, these five black robes obviously missed finding a single copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned the new government was to work. In addition, they apparently missed the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It’s obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have reached this decision.

So, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court said that it was okay for a community to use eminent domain to take land, shut down a business, or destroy and reorganize an entire neighborhood, if it benefited the community in a positive way. Specifically, “positive” meant unquestioned government control and more tax dollars.

The Institute for Justice, the group that defended Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court, reported that it found 10,000 cases in which condemnation was used or threatened for the benefit of private developers. These cases were all within a five-year period after the Kelo decision. Today, that figure is dwarfed as there is seemingly no limit on government takings of private property.

The Kelo decision changed the rules. The precedent was set. Land can now be taken anytime at the whim of a power elite. So again, the question must be asked: if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, will he stand to protect private property rights against massive overreach by local, state, and federal governments? Will he support an effort to overturn the Kelo Decision?

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/17/will-brett-kavanaugh-stand-for-property-rights/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Natural Law

Natural Law– “All humans have impressed upon them from the beginning of creation the principles of Natural Law…”

by Bill Lockwood

Sir William Blackstone was an English jurist, judge and politician of eighteenth century England. His Commentaries on the Laws of England were a profound study of natural law and the founders of our nation carried Blackstone with them as a reference and guide. Even Abraham Lincoln loved Blackstone and studied him copiously.

One paramount principle which our founders loved was Blackstone’s explanation of Natural Law. Blackstone wrote in 1765:

This natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.

Note the following: (1) These laws are dictated by God himself. (2) They are binding to all men everywhere. (3) No human law that violates natural law is of any validity. One can hear echoes of this in the Declaration of Independence. Again, from Blackstone:

Thus when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When He put the matter into motion, He established certain laws of motion, to which all movable bodies must conform. And, to descend from the greatest operations to the smallest, when a workman forms a clock, or other piece of mechanism, he establishes at his own pleasure certain arbitrary laws for its direction; as that the hand shall describe a given space in a given time; to which law as long as the work conforms, so long it continues in perfection, and answers the end of its formation.

All humans have impressed upon them from the beginning of creation the principles of Natural Law—reasoning ability concerning right and wrong.

Even Cicero, whose full name was Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.), the greatest orator of the ancient Roman Republic, and was raised in a pagan society, recognized true law imbedded within the heart of each person to which each is responsible.

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions….It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.

One can hear in this echoes of Jefferson’s famous lines “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Based upon this clear principle of natural law our founders disobeyed the unjust laws of King George.

Romans

Paul writes essentially the same thing in Romans 2:14-16, except Paul was inspired of God.

For when the Gentiles, that have not the law, do by nature the things of the law [OT revealed law, bl], these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their thoughts, one with another, accusing or else excusing them …

Here the apostle shows clearly that those without God’s written law have knowledge of the existence of a law within themselves. All humans instinctively have within them the understanding that some things will always be right and other things wrong.

For example, ABORTION. The forcible taking of innocent human life is wrong. The Roe v. Wade (1973) decision at the Supreme Court does not change this and one-half of our nation rightly continues to recognize it as murder. The depth of America’s sin can easily be gauged by this horrific transgression. Because our nation has been adrift for at least fifty to a hundred years or more does not mitigate our guilt.

Another illustration is, HOMOSEXUALITY. It matters not that the Supreme Court Obergefell (2015) decision dictates to states that same-sex couples may marry—it is still sinful activity and godly Americans will not simply accept it and move along. Nor should we. As Blackstone rightly said, these types of human laws “have no validity” before God nor with those who honor Him.

Brainwashing Americans on the Founders and Slavery

Brainwashing Americans on the Founders and Slavery“The opinion of the Founders as a whole was that slavery was an evil to be eradicated.”

by Bill Lockwood

Those familiar with the techniques consistently used by Communist and/or socialist nations know that brainwashing has been a major factor in controlling people. By methods of thought control via propaganda totalitarian regimes are able to indoctrinate citizens by inculcating beliefs that are helpful to massive population control measures. This is precisely what is occurring in our halls of learning today.

Destructive behavior among students is being bred and fed against America itself by a constant drum-beat of ill-informed, even sinister, castigation of the Founding generation. The chief charge is that the Founders were slave-owners. With that snippet of information student firebrands are enlisting in communist Antifa groups and pouring onto the streets to destroy our free society.

Consider the fact that every single leading “founding father” acknowledged that slavery was wrong. “Slavery was legal and practiced in every state in 1776; by the end of the founding era, more than a hundred thousand slaves had been freed by the outlawing of slavery in seven of the original thirteen states or by individual acts of manumission, especially in the South” (Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders, xiii).

Most importantly, the Founders themselves laid the groundwork for the eventual abolition of slavery. This was done by their dedication to the “equality principle” as well as written directly into the Constitution. This was unlike any nation in the history of the world.

Article 1.9 of the Constitution became what has been called the “first milestone” on the long road back from slavery. This compromise provision delayed the prohibition against the importation of slaves by twenty years. Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina were thereby insured to come into the union by this measure. The program of the Founders was that slavery was to phase out.

Liberals and enviro-fascists today who despise the Founders understand this perfectly. For example, many of them harangue against the oil-based industry upon which our economy is built, going so far to categorize America’s use of coal and gas as “unethical” and a “rape of the environment.” Nevertheless, these same pontificators do no suggest the shutting down in one day the entire oil industry, but instead work to transfer us to more “clean energy” sources. As misguided as they are, they know the wisdom of a slow and gradual change in an economy.

Thomas Jefferson

When Jefferson was only twenty-five years old he was elected to the Virginia legislature. His very first legislative effort was to emancipate slaves. Though a slave-owner, Jefferson recognized the evil of the system. The failure of this measure was due to the fact that Virginia was a British colony which disallowed the manumission of slaves.

Later, Jefferson wrote right into the Declaration of Independence the following commentary on “all men are created equal.”

He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere … Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

All men are created equal” included blacks. Jefferson’s subsequent career included proposing laws for the emancipation of slavery in Virginia (1779); proposed a law to outlaw slavery in the Northwest Territories (1784); he penned “the most eloquent denunciation of slavery written by anyone in the founding era” in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787); he publicly supported the abolition of the slave trade as president (1807); and throughout his life expressed his fervent opposition to slavery (Woods, 3).

The entire founding generation was so opposed to slavery that historian Thomas Woods characterizes the Revolution as an “antislavery movement.” The opinion of the Founders as a whole was that slavery was an evil to be eradicated. In keeping with this sentiment the adoption by various states of emancipation laws they directly tied to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Due to the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney in 1793 cotton was made king in the South and changed the trajectory that the Founders had mapped out for the abolition of slavery. Cotton and slavery ruled while the principles of the Constitution were ignored. Nevertheless, the Founders themselves cannot be blamed for this course.

Inscribed on Panel 3 of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. is this compendium of Jefferson’s own words regarding slavery. They are compiled from his A Summary View of the Rights of British America and his Notes on the State of Virginia, “Query 18.” That he speaks for the founders, generally, cannot be denied by the fair-minded.

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan.

Because of the greatness of the Founding generation of principled men who based their system of belief upon biblical values, America became a leader in the western world in the emancipation of slaves. Today’s general and growing disdain for the founding generation by young radicals who parrot prejudiced professorships about early American slavery illustrates only one thing. There is a homegrown hate of our own nation begin incubated in the halls of learning. By this methodology mobs are being indoctrinated to destroy our culture.

Tom DeWeese: Barbarians at the School House Door

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

by Tom DeWeese

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

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.”

Is it Time for Divorce?

Is it Time for Divorce?- “How Deep is the Divide?”

by Bill Lockwood

With all of the political rancor boiling out of the Left against President Donald Trump, perhaps it is time to ask the question if the time has come for American states to consider an amicable divorce? Political separation. The chasm that divides right from left in our nation is wider than can be bridged by mere bi-partisanship. America is in the midst of a brewing civil war. The community organizers and Deep State devotees continue to foment rebellion behind the scenes while their street goose-steppers violently rampage with impunity.

What is the cause of all of this? What is the real issue? It is not about, as shallow thinkers suggest, Trump’s tweets. It is instead the same issue that has been festering beneath the surface for over a century and is just now coming to an ugly head. Will we have a limited government whereby the individual can enjoy his or her God-given liberties?; or, will we have total government control which dispenses or retracts these “freedoms” as central-planners see fit?

This is the only explanation for the intensified vicious hatred flung at President Trump. He is doing exactly what he said he would do — rolling back the gargantuan total state that has been created after the socialist will. But the heart of the left will always be about imposing their ungodly agendas on others by totalitarian-style edicts of the New World Order.

Witness some of these edicts. They range from population-control schemes; mandating the activity of each person on earth as is clearly enunciated by Agenda 21 UN goals; over-riding national sovereignty by international law; the complete destruction of capitalism; militant sexual LGBT worldviews; absolute federal and international control of our children’s education; the forced funding of the welfare state; complete domination of unconstitutionally-held land; complete control of our money supply and wealth by which slavery is promoted in the form of debt; and a thousand other similar well-established practices.

Therefore, perhaps the time has come to consider an amicable divorce. States that wish total government, go your own way. Those that eschew despotism, go another. Irreconcilable differences.

How Deep is the Divide?

To consider how deeply we are divided, ponder James Madison’s statement pertaining to government power. “The powers delegated [by the people] by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce… The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Those enumerated powers of which Madison spoke equal about twenty specifics (Art. 1, Sec. 8). So important was this basic concept of a limited government that the Founders added the 10th Amendment which was to serve as a lock on the the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson even wrote, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” (1791)

We are now on that “boundless sea” and the horizon does not look promising. We have completely lost the Constitution as the people writhe beneath a centralized state. In common with every breed of despotism, communism, Marxism, socialism, Nazism, or fascism—all of which are rooted in atheism—individual rights and liberties are almost non-existent in our nation. This is exactly what the left wants. Therefore, whether one reads the U.N. Earth Charter or the Manifestos of the Humanists or the Democratic Party platform, they all cry for more government control and less freedom of the individual.

Deeper still is the principle that was observed by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830’s. He noted that that which united Americans, transcending political parties and religious differences, was a fundamental moral consensus in the heart of the people. This was so impressive to the French diplomat. Sadly, consensus does not any longer exist between the opposite sides of our divide which advocate two very different world views.

With a complete lack moral consensus today and cultural leaders of western civilization who love to have it so, it seems insufficient to even call for state conventions for the purpose of adding amendments to the constitution or even demanding the federal government retreat. Statist policies of government officials will continue unfettered and anarchy will escalate.

So, instead of middle America being forced to tolerate the near-Satanic-style assaults from the left, making it impossible for our elected president to govern, perhaps it is time for those addicted to government management of their lives to write their own constitution and go their own way.

Crucifying the Constitution

Crucifying the Constitution- “Do no give us any standard by which actions can be judged to be right or wrong.”

by Bill Lockwood

The Progressive Era, beginning at the turn of the last century, has brought us a constant assault upon the rule of law in America. Led by the Democratic Party, the Constitution of the United States has been ignored, trashed, vilified, tortured and shredded. Whether twisting the meaning of the Commerce Clause, or re-writing the Necessary and Proper Clause, to the re-molding of The First Amendment, our Constitution at this point is practically relegated to the dust-bin of historical oddities. Reading the Founding Fathers on their own Constitutional product is like reading opinions of foreigners unacquainted with modern methods of governing.

A case in point. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) plans to block an up-or-down vote on President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch is an “originalist” in his approach to the Constitution which means his interpretive principle in discerning the meaning of the Constitution is based upon the actual words of the document itself.

While there is some debate on the “originalist” principle—for instance, the modern meaning of words in the commerce clause can lead us astray from what the founders intended by that clause—Gorsuch basically allows the Constitution to speak for itself. * This will not do for Schumer and the Democratic Party which tells us that this approach to the Constitution is “out of the mainstream” of America.

What About Originalism?

First, the very reason for having a written document of settled law is to prevent what has been occurring in America under Schumer-style leadership. When the Constitution was drafted and ratified the Founders were exceedingly clear. They wanted to avoid the common pitfall of English history wherein there was no written law. England had been guided by the decisions of Parliament which, in absence of a written legal code, was a wide invitation to an open-ended metamorphosis of legal standards.

This, in turn, meant that the populace never enjoyed the obvious protections of their rights under law, but instead were at the mercy of Parliamentary changes or the powerful Crown that would ignore Parliament. In the end, it is the common people who suffer most.

One of the “chains of the Constitution” spoken of by Thomas Jefferson was that America would have a written code that would remain inflexible and never change, except by Amendment. It is this concept, a written document that encloses the actions of the leaders, that both Democrats and Republicans have disdained. Most of our departures from Constitutional Law, whether it be by means of the Federal Reserve System or the Environmental Protection Agency, or the liberal transmutation of the Second Amendment, can be explained on the basis of this sad truth. Many leaders do not wish to be contained.

Second, to say that America’s Constitution is a “living, breathing document” insinuates that one wishes to disregard the standard. When one conjures the notion of a “living, breathing” document, such as was recently done in a Cosmopolitan article (authored by Jill Filipovic), it involves an attack upon the standard itself. It is to say that the standard actually evolves over time. Democrat strategist Chris Hahn, a former campaign worker for Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), reflecting the same relativism in a 2011 comment, stated that our Constitution is “a living, breathing document that evolves over time.”

This same breed of hostility to any normative standard is seen in theological circles as well. Liberals are fond of citing a New Hermeneutic approach to the Bible which means that moderns wish to have a “relativistic” approach to God’s Word. This translates thusly: “Do no give us any standard by which actions can be judged to be right or wrong.” Mankind wishes to be free from the constraint of God’s Law.

Exactly so with Schumer and the Democrats in law-making. To interpret the Constitution according to its original intent is anathema to them because they hate the standard of Constitutional law to begin with. It is too restricting. Too restraining is the Constitutional standard against their impulses to dictate and control the lives of other Americans.

The Founders foresaw this lawless maneuver. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, pointed out that our Constitution is only “legitimate” if we “resort” to the “sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.” James Wilson, Pennsylvania member of the Philadelphia Convention rightly insisted, “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”

Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase “Chains of the Constitution,” recognized that the guardian of our liberties was the Constitution itself—provided that we properly interpret it in its “originalist” intent. “On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Chuck Schumer’s confrontational opposition to Neil Gorsuch has its roots in the lawlessness that has characterized many of our politicians for over a century. They brook no limit on their power over the citizen—least of all that old relic The Constitution of the United States. Gorsuch, by Schumer’s own admission, demonstrates no specific opinion of dangerous proportions. The New York Senator simply does not like what he calls his “ideology” of honoring the law of the land. That’s where we are.

*The Tenth Amendment Center’s recent article, “Nine Reasons the ‘Living, Breathing’ Constitution View is a Lie” discusses the difference between being an “originalist”—seeking the original intent of the Founders’ words—from a “textualist”—where it is claimed Neil Gorsuch actually is.

Rogue Government

Rogue Government- Was Donald Trump under surveillance during his presidential bid?”

by Bill Lockwood

As governments tend to grow in size they not only become unwieldy, but oppressive of the very freedoms they are framed to protect. For this reason, the Founders, knowing that the very nature of government is to expand its scope– for it is the nature of man to seek to rule over others, continually warned that the United States Government should remain small and limited at a national level. The powers granted to the Federal government were to remain “few and defined” (James Madison, The Federalist).

Thomas Jefferson reminded us: “Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself.”

Further, he explained, “It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.”

Jefferson then asked, “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun?” The answer: “The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate.” We might add “so also the American Republic.”

The latest “surveillance” revelations apparently made by the Obama Administration on presidential candidate should warn thoughtful citizens that governments that are large enough to take care of you are too large.

Surveillance?

Was Donald Trump under surveillance during his presidential bid? Trump himself tweeted that he was and that Trump Tower had been “wiretapped.” This caused a major explosion among the press as well as members of Congress, Republican and Democrat. Various members of Congress began to investigate.

On Wednesday, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) revealed in a press conference that “US citizens involved in the Trump transition team” were “incidentally” surveilled by the Obama administration. Nunes stated that what his Congressional committee discovered “has nothing to do with Russia,” but “everything to do with possible surveillance activities, and the president needs to know that these intelligence reports are out there …”

Politico reported it this way, “Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during the Obama administration.”

The Daily Wire ran a piece this week which downplayed the significance of the above facts. “And no, nothing Nunes said changed the underlying facts: Team Trump got caught up in incidental collection of information. That’s not the same thing as accusing the intelligence community of violation law in order to target Trump and company.”

Really? Consider the following.

First, The Washington Times reminded us on Monday that according to an NPR report on May 2013 “The Associated Press is protesting what it calls a massive and unprecedented intrusion into its gathering of news. The target of that wrath is the U.S. Justice Department, which secretly collected phone records for several AP reporters last year.” This occurred under Eric Holder’s leadership at the Dept. of Justice. Mass surveillance upon citizens was apparently in the Obama playbook.

Second, the Obama Administration made more than one attempt to get an official government surveillance on presidential nominee Donald Trump. Obama even had the proposed process “converted” in a “national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)” (National Review). The FISA application by Obama was denied. Yet, Obama tried a second time. This again shows Obama was in the spying business, more concerned about potential Republican nominees to the White House than real foreign dangers. The FISA court evidently agreed with that assessment.

Third, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward warned this week that there are persons from the Obama administration who could possibly face criminal charges. The reason is that these individuals illegally “unmasked” the names of the Trump transition team that were in these “incidental” surveillance reports of foreign officials (The Washington Examiner). These names were then illegally passed around by the Obama Administration. This directly answers the Daily Wire claim which said that there was “no violation of law” in incidental surveillance. This is a smoking gun.

As the Examiner reports: Trump and members of his transition team had their identities “unmasked” after their communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials. “The revelation is notable because identities of Americans are generally supposed to remain ‘masked’ if American communications are swept up during surveillance of foreign individuals.”

In conclusion, instead of encouraging everyone to remain calm, as The Daily Wire has done, because there are no apparent “violations of law” in what occurred regarding wire-taps, perhaps it is time the American people awakened to the fact that there is plenty of evidence here to warrant grave concern that our own government has become rogue-enough to spy on its own people with intent to harm.

The real cause of all of this is in the size and scope of the government which we have allowed to grow into unconstitutional mammoth proportions. And this under the siren song that the government can better care for us than we ourselves can. The real issue here is freedom. Will we as a people be able to control our own government or has it grown to such an extent that it now controls us?

John Adams of the Founding generation stated in a letter to his wife in 1775, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” Ominous words these.

The Venal and Oppressive Police State

The Venal and Oppressive Police State- …the highest levels of the FBI have been secretly investigating and “harvesting” highly confidential information…”

by Bill Lockwood

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another [one branch of government], and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” —Thomas Jefferson

Revelations of mass surveillance are pouring out of Washington, D.C. at an alarming rate. Wiretaps, electronic spying, harvesting of information and bugs not only upon members of the Trump Team, but upon all Americans, has become common knowledge—in complete violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, among others. The Bill of Rights has been completely trashed. What is being forged is a Police State where Gestapo tactics are no longer only “in the wings.”

How has this occurred? How have we landed exactly where Jefferson warned us not to go?

Step back for a moment. A prime cause of the American Gestapo is the gargantuan growth of government which has been occurring at an accelerating rate over the past 100 years. From the time of Woodrow Wilson through FDR, who purposefully brought all power to Washington, D.C., to the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama– government itself has now exponentially matured to fearful proportions. Positioning itself as the benefactor of mankind—witness the welfare state—tentacles of government penetrate all corners of society.

We should not be surprised, therefore, that the highest levels of the FBI have been secretly investigating and “harvesting” highly confidential information that is being used as a political weapon—for this is the nature of government itself. A “dangerous fire” but a “fearful master.” The very opposite of the noble principles of limited government, enshrined in our Constitution, upon which we were founded.

Sadly, we must confess that not only Jefferson and the entire Founding generation warned us of a big government, but our own history in America demonstrates the foolishness of listening to the siren song of the state becoming our savior.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that our forefathers on these shores experimented with socialistic philosophies which entails a large government and by nature involves oppression. Our ancestors weighed these ideas in the scales of human experience and found them to be wanting.

Plymouth Rock & Socialism

When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock on a bleak day in December 1620, it was a colony established “for the glory of God.” Seeds of greatness were planted in American soil. But America’s future greatness depended in large measure upon the fact that the earliest settlers at Plymouth, after experimenting with socialism, flatly rejected collectivism (socialistic redistribution) in order to embrace the biblical teaching of “individualism.”

Collectivism is the political theory that encourages people to think about working for the STATE and to consider themselves as part of a “class” which would be granted certain benefits. Individualism, on the other hand, emphasizes that each individual has rights—that these rights are not granted to “groups” or belong to us because we are of a certain “class.”

Pilgrim fathers discovered at Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts that socialism is doomed to fail. William Bradford, in his work Plymouth Plantation, chronicled the rapid deterioration of the colony as a whole as they approached starvation under a socialistic system. The ideas that the “community” owns the goods and that individuals worked for “the company” instead of themselves produced laziness! This in turn caused the goods to be scarce and starvation began.

Most of all, socialism did not and does not today recognize the true nature of man. Because men are sinful by practice they cannot be expected to labor for no personal reward. Bradford even stated that the system of socialism, “If it did not cut relations God established among men, it did at least diminish and take [remove] mutual respect that should be preserved among men.” Almost sounds like a prophecy of streets in America that are today burning. Bradford and the Pilgrims, thankfully, rejected the socialistic model and warned future Americans of its bedevilment.

Jamestown Experiments with Socialism

Almost the same thing occurred at Jamestown Colony, established a few years earlier than Plymouth. Relying on a socialistic system in which laborers worked for “the colony” and depended upon it to “redistribute” the food supply, Jamestown was dying.

James Hamor, the first secretary of the colony, in his A True Discourse, noted that “glad was the man that could slip from his labor.” Instead, under the leadership of John Smith they adopted private property concepts and individualism and Hamor observed that the colony became ten times more prosperous! Discovered was the fact that socialism breeds hunger as workers came to regard it as a form of “injustice” and a kind of “slavery” that they were required to work.

Revolutionary America

Exactly the same principles were at work during the Revolutionary period. Historian Caleb Perry, in The Constitutional Principles of Thomas Jefferson, observed: “Free enterprise, according to all American historians, was the major issue in the American Revolution and, in the opinion of man, the most important issue. Political freedom was regarded as the necessary means for economic freedom. Irrefutably, the American Revolution was a revolt from the highly regulated economy of mercantilism.”

Mercantilism was, like socialism, a protectionist policy enacted by Great Britain, to assist the wealthy merchant class. It provided a monopoly to the mercantile sector of England as government eliminated competition. Thomas Jefferson himself lamented the socialistic system of bureaucratic regimentation which was part of mercantilism.

Famously he noted, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another [one branch of government], and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” This is exactly where we are. The checks and balances seem powerless.

What are we to learn from all of this? Evil forces have been working tirelessly since America’s inception, to destroy God’s blessing of freedom by creating a gargantuan totalitarian state. Flatly repudiating any connection with the Bible and its legacy of freedom, secular collective ideologies such as Marxism, Nazism or Socialism are not only incompatible with God but create an enormous governing apparatus which “attempts to squeeze human nature into unnatural shapes.”

The very essence and character of government, especially out-of-bounds unconstitutional government, will always be “venal and oppressive.” The police-state will flourish in the dank atmosphere we have crafted in America. If Americans do not roll it back now the unlawful surveillance we are witnessing will become the new norm.  

Does Congress Believe that “All Men are Created Equal?”

Does Congress Believe that “All Men are Created Equal?” – “We the “plebs” are incapable of sorting out right from wrong. ”

by Bill Lockwood

To Thomas Jefferson and the founding generation “All men are created equal” is a “self-evident truth.” This is one of the fundamental principles upon which the American experiment is grounded. In practical reality this earth-shattering God-given concept is anathema to many who do not view the world in Natural Law terms. It is an affront to the elitist superiority complex that inflicts so many people in power and influence. They are of the mind that some persons are more fit to rule than others. People at large need to be “managed” by the few. This is why throughout the ages men have consistently drifted into power-broker positions which assume that all men are not born equal, but most of us must be controlled; our lives managed by the few.

Just before Christmas President Obama signed a bi-partisan measure passed in the GOP-controlled Congress entitled the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which authorizes $611 billion for the military. But deep within the 1,500-page bill, sponsored by U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), lies a totalitarian scheme entitled the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act. It is in bold reality a supervising strategy in which our elected officials will superintend what information we will be fed. Obama has not been whining about “fake news” for nothing.

During debates on the bill as liberal Republican and Democrats sought to push these measures through, it was argued that we need a “whole-government approach” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation.” Bottom Line: An official government organ needs to counter foreign government misinformation.

Portman complained that “there is no single U.S. government agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.” These foreign countries, continued the Senator, “spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations.”

This blatantly unconstitutional measure actually creates a bureaucracy that will serve to funnel “correct news” to media outlets. As Zero-Hedge accurately calls it, the United States has now an official “Ministry of Truth.” Shocking, and a good insight into how government operatives think. Their method of handling the hypocrisy of government agents such as Hillary Clinton, who have been caught in the Main Stream Media bed, is to create an official bedroom where this illegitimacy can occur with government approval.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

I have another suggestion. Let’s consider Congress as “servants of the people.” In this model, the population at large, operating in an open free market, should dialogue, debate, and explore various “news” and “points of view” –through paper, television, internet, etc.–and then We the People will instruct our Congressmen and Senators on how we wish them to vote on particular bills. “We the People” will be the gate-keepers and Congress our servants. Original, isn’t it?

Another thing. Why does Congress itself “debate” and “discuss” various bills with a multiplicity of viewpoints? It is simple. Because these elitist, snobbish, holier-than-thou Congressmen and women think of themselves in superiority terms. Only they can debate and hear both sides. Only official government appointees are mentally capable of entertaining various views and drawing conclusions warranted by evidence. All men are not created equal to these prima donna’s. We the “plebs” are incapable of sorting out right from wrong. “Let us sort through the options,” says Congress, “and we will tell you the correct news.”

What’s next? Disallowing commoners to vote on selected issues? As a matter of fact, that is exactly what exiting European Union Council head just proposed on the international stage. Slovak Prime Minister and EU Council boss Robert Fisco last week urged Council members to begin disallowing citizens in Europe to vote on important issues. “I am asking,” said communist Fisco, “EU leaders to stop with adventures like the British and Italian referendums … on domestic issues which pose a threat to the EU.” Apparently, that is the direction to which America is headed as well. Little difference exists between “disallowing citizens to vote” and “disallowing citizens information from both sides of an issue” that they may intelligently vote.

With the same doctrine the Roman Church throughout its history disallowed its members access to the Holy Scriptures. During the Middle Ages Bibles were literally chained to various structures in their facilities and the continuing belief today is that any interpretation of biblical issues outside the pale of the imprimatur of the Holy See is illegitimate. It was this practice of denying mankind the right of interpretation, based upon his inability to draw proper conclusions, that helped spark the Reformation Movement. Perhaps we need more than a Trump Revolution. We need a complete Reformation of the United States government.

Selected Slavery: Loving to Hate America at UVA

Selected Slavery: Loving to Hate America at UVA-Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning?

by Bill Lockwood

According to The Daily Caller, a group of 469 professors and students “at the University of Virginia (UVA) are calling for the school’s president to stop quoting school founder Thomas Jefferson, on the grounds that Jefferson was a slave owner.” The public letter composed by the group went on to add that “We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, others of us came here in spite of it.”

In a related story, “the president of San Francisco’s board of education wants to remove George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from the names of all tax-payer funded schools in the city because the forefathers owned slaves.” The San Francisco Examiner reports that “Board of Education President Matt Haney is expected to introduce a resolution as early as next week encouraging schools in the San Francisco Unified School District that bear the names of men with questionable human rights legacies to consider proposing new monikers.”

The Examiner explains that “The idea came to him after listening to a sermon Sunday at Third Baptist Church, a black church in the Western Addition, about 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick protesting the national anthem in recent weeks. The song’s slave-owning author, Francis Scott Key, has a school named after him in the Outer Sunset.”

Why the Selected Slavery?

What shall we say to these things? First, I suppose the UVA crowd and the San Francisco authorities will be banning the reading of the Koran and building mosques. If it is SLAVERY that they so despise, then consistency drives them to ban the Koran because it teaches “chattel slavery” as a continuing positive institution endorsed by Allah. “Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; But if ye fear ye shall not deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive [slave] that your right hand possesses …” (Surah 4:3).

Mohammed himself was involved in every aspect of slavery. He had non-believing men killed so that their women and children could be made slaves (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, 466). He gave away slaves as gifts. He owned slaves, even a black slave by the name of Safina, whom he called “ship” because he carried Mohammed’s baggage for him.

Mohammed passed around slaves to his lieutenants that they might be used for sex. He stood by while others beat slaves. After one major battle he enjoyed the pleasures of forced sex with the widows of men he had recently slain. He captured slaves and wholesaled them in order to finance jihad. Mohammed received slaves as gifts from other rulers.

Mohammed’s pulpit from which he preached was made by slaves; he ate food prepared by slaves; he approved of an owner’s having sex with his slaves. The “prophet of Islam” put it right into the Koran for modern-day Muslims that they may “own those whom their right hand possesses.”  Slavery has always been a part of Islam; it is taught in the Muslim holy book.

Will our professors and student body at UVA therefore ban the Koran, or ban mosques, or ban Muslims? No. Because like all wild-eyed liberal, socialist and/or communistic societies, it is only our America, and its foundations, that they love to hate—not the institution of slavery.

Second, it would be interesting to hear the professors at UVA define slavery. I am going to launch out here and suggest that they do not even understand what is slavery. What is slavery? We normally say, “one person owned by another.” But what is it to “own” another? It means that all my production belongs to someone else. In other words, I work for free for someone else, and not on a voluntary basis.

Slavery is a “legal or economic system” in which the “principles of property law” are applied to persons. In other words, “While a person is enslaved, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave’s labor, without any remuneration” (Encyclopedia Britannica online).  A person is a SLAVE if he or she is “forced to work for another person without ability on the worker’s part to unilaterally terminate the arrangement.” Forcibly using one person by another. Forced labor is “the forced exploitation of a person’s labor.”

Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning? For this. Many college students are completely in the dark, made so by liberal professorships. A government that forcibly removes the production of my labor, or forces me to labor for others is practicing slavery. But this is exactly the definition of SOCIALISM. Socialism is slavery at the government level. But this the professors want! See the vast numbers of college students who supported Bernie Sanders—the avowed socialist.

ObamaCare, which is on the way out, is a perfect illustration of socialism. Doctors may have financed their own education to the tune of a million dollars and need to re-coup their costs by the fees they charge—but Big Brother Government FORCES them to work for free. It steals their production and re-distributes it among others. This forcible labor the government calls “caring for the poor.” Collegiate masses favored this system of plunder!

If UVA professors or the San Francisco mayor wish to oppose slavery, they can start with the modern-day version of it—socialistic government. The legs of the lame are not equal. Slavery to the White House is fine with them; but slavery to a white’s house in American history is criminal.

Third, the Founding Fathers with one voice condemned slavery. It was a horrific institution which they tried to expunge from America from the colonial period forward. Thomas Jefferson’s first effort as a representative at the Virginia state assembly was to abolish slavery. The year was 1776. He and Madison both wished to clear out the “rubbish of feudalism, aristocracy, and slavery.” His proposed bill would eradicate slavery in one generation. The reason it did not occur was due to the fact that England forbade it. The founders later put right into the Constitution that slave trafficking would cease within 20 years of 1787 (Article 1.9.1).

At least the Founders were honest about it, recognizing that an institution which they had been born with was evil. They all set it on a course for extinction. The UVA letter also repeats the unfounded allegation against Thomas Jefferson that he had illegitimate children by Sally Hemings, a black slave he owned. Once again, what is occurring on campuses or in the halls of San Francisco government is nothing less than hatred of America. It is on display as they continue to libel the Founders of our great nation.

« Older Entries