Tag Archives: Thomas Jefferson

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.

The Wild Wild West of News

The Wild Wild West of News –“Remember, Obama has actually bragged about lying to the American people…”

by Bill Lockwood

True to his Marxist roots President Obama, in the waning days of his tenure in office, decries what he calls the “wild wild west” of news while suggesting that some agency should have a “curating function” to filter what is “approved” for public consumption. Speaking at a Pittsburgh conference last week, comrade Obama even proposed that “we are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to.” REBUILD? “We”—collectively?

A “curator” calls for someone or agency who is “in charge.” Sometimes it is used for “a guardian” to oversee a minor. This is exactly how Obama sees Americans. The free-flow of information is harmful to minors who need be spoon-fed government-approved information.

Continued the lying dictator-in-chief: “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.” Remember, Obama has actually bragged about lying to the American people —“If you like your doctor, etc.”

Another government bureaucracy added “to sort” through internet, television, radio, and printed material to apply basic “truthiness” tests. This does not simply sound like the Hitler’s and Stalin’s of the world, it is precisely what their programs of totalitarianism enacted.

As unbelievably astounding as Obama’s proposal is, he continued unfazed: “The way I would like to see us operate is, yes, significant debate and contentious debate, but where we are operating on the same basic platform, same basic rules, on how do we determine what’s true and what’s not. Everything on the internet looks like it might be true. And so in this political season, we’ve seen — you just say stuff. And so everything suddenly becomes contested. That I do not think is good for democracy, and it’s certainly not good for science, for progress, for government, for fixing systems.”

A government-sponsored media-organ would not be “censorship” Obama schmoozed. “But it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.” Only within certain parameters will “vigorous debate” be allowed.

Thomas Jefferson

Respect for the law of the land as well as basic components of liberty is something completely alien to Barack Obama as well as Hillary Clinton. There is an amendment of the Constitution that expressly, in so many words, declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

The core concept of the Bill of Rights is that people enjoy liberties because they are bestowed upon us by God Himself and that the government created for Americans is forbidden by the people to even touch the hem of the garment of these liberties.

As Thomas Jefferson observed, the fact that several liberties were enumerated in the First Amendment means that “whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others” and that “The liberty of speaking and writing … guards our other liberties.”

This election is about liberty. Will we enjoy what remains of that which God has given us in America? Much of it has already been eroded by the government. Or, will we succumb to the comrades of the Democratic Party who would love nothing more than to control you from cradle to grave?

Freedom-loving Americans resent the notion which lies behind all of these Big Brother proposals. It is the assumption that we need government to decide for us what political and religious information we will consume and what we will not. No thanks, Barack, we would rather live in the wild-wild-west of conflicting information and sort it out ourselves than be locked into government-sponsored “safe zones” being fed crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table.

Back to Homepage

Bill Lockwood: Obama’s War Against Freedom of Speech

Internet Giveaway: Obama’s War Against Freedom of Speech-“Hate,” like beauty, is the eye of the beholder. “

by Bill Lockwood

The danger is real. The threat is imminent. Under Barack Obama’s direction the United States is set to give up control of the internet to a world body controlled by other socialists such as himself. Obama’s Marxism is not the armchair sort where he simply cogitates about philosophies of life while puffing on a pipe. “Street-organizing” is called such for a reason.

As these lines are being composed Barack Obama, as has become his modus operandi, via the back door, is seeking to curtail freedom of speech. His proposal is to end the U.S. government’s oversight of the internet domain name system by turning it over to a world body called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) composed of 162 nations. These nations, composed of dictatorships of the communist or Islamic brands, such as China or Iran, will certainly curtail the precious freedoms long-cherished by Americans.

The Left argues that this “danger” outlined above is overblown. No entity would ever “censor” the internet, we are assured by the globalists. As Senator Ted Cruz observed on the floor of Congress recently, “A representative of Iran is already on record stating, ‘we should not take it [for] granted that jurisdiction is already agreed to be totally based on U.S. law.’” Unbelievable. More unbelievable is the fact that this does not cause Barack Obama to even pause in his internet giveaway. He pushes it onto the fast track.

Further, as Cruz pointed out to the Senate, leading technology companies in the United States have already agreed with the European Union to remove ‘hate speech’ from their online platforms. Giant U.S. companies  are currently in the process of “censoring speech” that is deemed unacceptable. “Hate,” like beauty, is the eye of the beholder. Those who have Twitter or Facebook accounts know that this is already occurring.

Freedom of Speech

America has had a long history of cherishing the precious freedom of speech, the free flow and exchange of ideas. Our framers of government fought long and hard that they and we might enjoy this God-given freedom, which had been stifled throughout the governments of history.

Probably the most significant figure of the Founding period in America is Thomas Jefferson. As were all of those remarkable statesmen called Founding Fathers, Jefferson was a fierce lover of freedom. At his First Inaugural Address (1801) the Sage of Monticello admonished future generations, in memorable phraseology, to carefully guard the Freedom of Speech.

The diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.”

The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.”

Elsewhere Jefferson rightly connected the freedom of speech with religion. “…Insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others” (Kentucky Resolutions, 1798).

Benjamin Franklin warned: “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.”

Is it the case that this ‘principal pillar of free government’ is near evaporation? Will tyranny indeed be erected on its ruins? Marxist Obama does not cherish this freedom; the liberal establishment does not desire a free flow of ideas. Placing the forum of the internet into globalist hands assures us that tyranny is in the offing.

Back to Homepage

« Older Entries Recent Entries »