At the end of the last century, something remarkable happened. The internet simultaneously exponentially increased the availability of knowledge and reduced the cost of acquisition to near zero.
Today, most people are cybernetic hybrids or cybrids. They carry with them, at all times, technology that allows them to access virtually all human knowledge, to directly and instantaneously communicate with over 5 billion other cybrids, to navigate to any destination, to purchase any product, to be entertained, and to create. Not having the technology in hand causes anxiety and a feeling of being “disconnected.” Loss of the technology causes actual feelings of grief.
Our 17th century “slips of paper carried on ships” school system was never designed to deal with this technology and the rapid change that comes with it. In many cases the first reaction was to ban technologies’ use in schools; to banish the information of choice and replace it with the information required by the standards.
When you honestly consider the magnitude of the change the information age has wrought the question is not why the public school system is failing; the question is why it hasn’t collapsed completely.
The answer is that people are social animals. We seek interaction with others and desire status among our peers. We are most comfortable doing what others around us are doing. If our peers are attending to the rituals of schooling then we want to addend to them as well.
Online education fails at this aspect, for now. The only technological hurtle is the fidelity of telepresence; the ability to interact with a remote environment. Once the fidelity of telepresence reaches a certain threshold, the technology becomes transparent and the person is “in” the experience. The threshold is different for different people and experiences but even today some gamers become “locked in” the game.
Imagine you are interested in a particular thing and for a small fee can take a class from the world’s expert on that particular thing. Imagine your child taking a class in algebra, not from the local high school but from the best algebra teacher in the country. Imagine a special needs student receiving one on one tutoring in real time and tailored to their specific abilities.
Impossible you say? Okay, now imagine its 1975 and you are telling your friend that in their lifetime every person would have a telephone that could call anyone anywhere, a television with every station, a jukebox with every song, a movie theater with every movie, a navigation system with every map and a “You are Here” arrow, a library with every book, a teletype that is connected directly to everyone, a color camera that takes movies and stills without film, a videophone, the ability to order anything from any store and have it the next day, and a flashlight, and that all these things would fit in your pocket. Oh, and there are no wires. Of course they would say “impossible” and yet, here we are.
“A system of free public schools” does not mean ONLY brick and mortar schools with regimented curricula. We must realize that our 17th century school system is just one of many system choices now available.
Our public school system is failing at its primary mission because like Kodak, Sears and other institutions, technology is making it obsolete. Our public schools are designed to create uniformity and sameness but our society now values innovation and creativity. It’s time to unleash that creativity and allow it to transform education. We need to be smart, willing to explore new systems and new choices. There are small examples all around us and new ones yet undiscovered if we are open to new possibilities. There is not just one answer, but many.
The easiest first step is to simply allow a portion of the money the state spends on a student to follow that student. Let the students, parents, and educators use the free market to explore other systems. Let the goal be excellence and not just compliance to artificial standards.
That magic box in your pocket is proof that free market choice works unbelievably well. Let’s use it.
When the Constitution was written, the idea of owning arms and keeping them in the home was widespread.
The colonists had just defeated the armies of King George III. The colonial weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle, while British soldiers used their army-issued version of Brown Bessies. Each rifle had its advantages, but the Kentucky (it was actually a German design, perfected and manufactured in Pennsylvania) was able to strike a British soldier at 200 yards, a startlingly long distance at the time. The Bessies were good for only about 80 yards.
Put aside the advantages we had of the passionate defense of freedom and homeland, to say nothing of superior leadership, it doesn’t take any advanced understanding of mathematics or ballistics to appreciate why we won the Revolution.
It is a matter of historical fact that the colonists won the war largely by superior firepower.
Six years after the war was over, delegates met in Philadelphia in secret and drafted what was to become the Constitution. The document, largely written in James Madison’s hand, was then submitted to Congress and to the states, which began the process of ratification.
By then, Americans had already formed two basic political parties. The Federalists wanted a muscular central government and the Anti-Federalists wanted a loose confederation of states. Yet the memory of a Parliament that behaved as if it could write any law, tax any event and impair any liberty, coupled with the fear that the new government here might drift toward tyranny, gave birth to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — the Bill of Rights.
The debate over the Bill of Rights was not about rights; that debate had been resolved in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence declared our basic human rights to be inalienable. The Bill of Rights debates were about whether the federal government needed restraints imposed upon it in the Constitution itself.
The Federalists thought the Bill of Rights was superfluous because they argued that no American government would knowingly restrict freedom. The Anti-Federalists thought constitutional restraints were vital to the preservation of personal liberty because no government can be trusted to preserve personal liberty.
Second among the personal liberties preserved in the Bill of Rights from impairment by the government was the right to self-defense. Thomas Jefferson called that the right to self-preservation.
Fast-forward to today, and we see the widespread and decidedly un-American reaction to the tragedies of El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Even though both mass murders were animated by hatred and planned by madness, because both were carried out using weapons that look like those issued by the military, Democrats have called for the outright confiscation of these weapons.
Where is the constitutional authority for that? In a word: nowhere.
The government’s job is to preserve personal liberty. Does it do its job when it weakens personal liberty instead? Stated differently, how does confiscating weapons from the law-abiding conceivably reduce their access to madmen? When did madmen begin obeying gun laws?
These arguments against confiscation have largely resonated with Republicans. Yet — because they feel they must do something — they have fallen for the concept of limited confiscation, known by the euphemism of “red flag” laws.
The concept of a “red flag” law — which permits the confiscation of lawfully owned weapons from a person because of what the person might do — violates both the presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of proof of criminal behavior before liberty can be infringed.
The presumption of innocence puts the burden for proving a case on the government. Because the case to be proven — might the gun owner be dangerous? — if proven, will result in the loss of a fundamental liberty, the presumption of innocence also mandates that the case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Republican proposal lowers the standard of proof to a preponderance of the evidence — “a more likely than not” standard. That was done because it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an event might happen. This is exactly why the might happen standard is unconstitutional and alien to our jurisprudence.
In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court that the right to keep and bear arms in the home is an individual pre-political right. Due process demands that this level of right — we are not talking about the privilege of a driving a car on a government street — can only be taken away after a jury conviction or a guilty plea to a felony.
The “might happen” standard of “red flag” laws violates this basic principle. The same Supreme Court case also reflects the Kentucky long gun lesson. The people are entitled to own and possess the same arms as the government; for the same reason as the colonists did — to fight off tyrants should they seize liberty or property.
If the government can impair Second Amendment-protected liberties on the basis of what a person might do, as opposed to what a person actually did do, to show that it is doing something in response to a public clamor, then no liberty in America is safe.
Which liberty will the government infringe upon next?
Where is the Republican Party? As insanity spews out of the Democrat Party, the long-time overseer of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty has no response, no unified plan to counter the Democrats, and, indeed, seems confused by the Socialist antics. The only part of the long-lost Republican cause that seems to be functioning is their near hysterics over the massive funds the Democrats are raising. Said a recent such Republican fund letter, “I’m hoping you have the courage and determination to fight for what we believe in.”
Of course, if the Republicans had the courage and determination to fight over the past two years for “what we believe in,” their fund-raising would be soaring. Instead they run candidates with nothing to say, seemingly clueless to the massive assault on our liberties. Now they wonder why they are being ignored in the elections.
Earlier this year I addressed the leadership of the Constitution Party. I presented them with the real agenda of the Democrats and I asked this question, “Do you want to be the majority party?” They answered with a resounding YES! I then gave them a strategy to win. It occurs to me that all freedom-loving Americas, no matter what party, can benefit from this strategy to use in their own local elections.
So, here is the speech I presented to the Constitution Party. Now, understand your true enemy, take these ideas, drain the swamp in your city or state, and take American back!
My Address to the Constitution Party Leadership:
There has always been some kind of force loose in the world seeking domination over others. They built armies to invade, break things and kill people in order to grab resources, build wealth and power, enslave people and conquer.
We’ve lived through such threats from megalomaniacs like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin. Secret societies have plotted to gain power in different ways.
In every case the efforts have failed. No one has ever managed to rule the entire world. In some cases they just pushed too far, too fast. Or they miscalculated the weather conditions in the lands they intended to control. It’s incredible to note that both Napoleon and Hitler failed to remember that Russia has a severe winter which ultimately led to their downfall and defeat.
However, what if such power mongers could find a way to keep their aggression under wraps and out of sight from those they intended to conquer – until it was too late.
Better yet, what if they could actually get their targeted victims to help them achieve control over them? No armies. No shots fired. Instead the victims quietly pull in the Trojan Horse and celebrate its arrival!
What if there was a way for a small, dedicated group to rule the world by simply organizing under a single unifying plan, accepted by everyone as fact and necessary?
Acceptance of the plan would see every nation voluntarily surrendering its independence and sovereignty to the aggressors!
What could possibly be such a powerful message that some of the world’s oldest and proudest nations would do that? What could get the world’s strongest religions to turn their back on their most fundamental beliefs? What would get the freest nation on earth to join in and agree?
How about the threat of Environmental Armageddon! Who could oppose saving the planet? Only selfish zealots who refuse to give up their creature comforts would oppose efforts to save Mother Earth! It doesn’t matter how many rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on.
The truth it, that’s exactly the force you and I are facing today as it drives, almost unopposed to change our life style, economic system, and system of government.
The Club of Rome, one of the main forces behind this hidden plan to rule the world openly explained their tactic and goal saying, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Diabolical! Turn man against himself so that he voluntarily submits to subjugation. The threat of global warming became the weapon of choice.
And it doesn’t matter if true science refuses to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made effect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scaremongers.
Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change told us outright what the real goal of the threat of Environmental Armageddon truly is. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” Of course, she means free enterprise.
The blueprint for the implementation of this grand plan was revealed in 1992 at the UN’s Earth Summit. It was called the Agenda for the 21st century – or just Agenda 21.
From its inception in 1992, at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”
The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals. They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.
So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities, and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice.
Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.
Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
The policy of Agenda 21 is called Sustainable Development. You hear the term used in every part of our society, from community development to production of our food supplies, to manufacturing of nearly every product.
While sold as a means to secure a happy, healthy future of equality for all as it protects the environment, sustainable development policy, as it is enforced in every single community in the nation, has proven to be a direct attack on free enterprise, private property, and individual choice in our lives. It is the epitome of tyrannical, out of control government.
Ironically, its perpetrators were quite open and honest in their plans. We just didn’t want to listen.
The official report from the UN’s Habitat 1 Conference explained the reasons for the attack on private property. It said, “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subjected to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” That is a direct attack on the entire American economic system
But it gets even clearer. Peter Berle of the National Audubon Society said, “We reject the Idea of Private Property.”
Thomas Lovejoy, science advisor to the Department of Interior admitted, “We will map the whole nation…determine development for the whole nation, and regulate it all.”
Harvey Ruvin, the Vice Chairman of ICLEI said, “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.”
That is Agenda 21!
For over twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.
Now, the Sustainable forces have taken their plans to the ultimate, inevitable point. No longer are they trying to hide its true goal – global domination. Now we have the Green New Deal.
I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and where we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export, and even breathe!
In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on energy use, mandating power be turned off during certain hours. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.
In short, the Green New Deal represents the largest step ever taken by the Socialists/ Sustainablists forces that have been pushing Agenda 21 for 27 years.
But just as I was met with scoffing and charges of being a conspiracy scaremonger, the Green New Deal has now been met with scoffing and lack of concern. When I said the Green New Deal was the most radical step to enforce Agenda 21, many of my own supporters sent me snarky emails laughingly telling me that, “This is too nuts to ever be made into law!” Ha Ha!!!!
Then the laughing really started when the Republican-controlled Senate brought the Green New Deal up for a vote and the tally was 57-0. They didn’t even vote for it themselves, went the joke. Such a silly, stupid little girl, they said with great hilarity!
Leaders of many establishment conservative organizations in Washington, DC laughed too.
Well, the fools are the Republicans, and the establishment Conservative Movement in Washington, DC, which have failed to understand the determination of these forces behind that “silly little girl.” They set a trap and the Republicans marched right into it.
What really occurred is that this Green New Deal pushes the radical agenda way beyond anything ever imagined by Republicans and conservative leadership. In short, the Socialist Democrats made a classic negotiating tactic. They came to the table and delivered the most radical, complete, all-inclusive agenda for the total take-down of the American Republic, our free enterprise system, our property rights, and our way of life.
The Republicans were completely unprepared for it. Since they have ignored my warnings for 27 year, the Green New Deal sounded too nuts. Too far out. No one would fall for it. They laughed and dismissed it without a thought. The Senate vote showed them!
But watch what has happened since the Senate vote and the laughing began. One hundred Democrat Members of Congress have signed on to the House bill. Almost every one of the 20+ Democrat presidential candidates is talking about it. The news media is filled with stories on pieces and parts of the Green New Deal. The discussion is growing.
But here’s the kicker – here’s where the laughing stops as the Republicans fall into the trap!!! Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz announced that he is working on the Green REAL Deal!!! Says Gaetz – his bill will be more reasonable. In the Senate, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander is countering with his “Manhattan Project for Clean Energy.” The difference? Almost nothing! Senator Lindsey Graham said “We owe it to the country to have an alternative to the Green New Deal.” He said he was frustrated because large parts of the Republican Party still resist the idea of climate change legislation.
Sen. Graham and other faltering Republicans seem to not understand that any attempt to provide “an alternative to the Green New Deal” means an automatic endorsement of the radical and wrong-headed leftist environmental movement.
This is exactly what the Democrats where counting on. They made an outrageously radical proposal that moves the agenda miles down the road and then – to be more “reasonable” the stupid Republicans join right in with just a little smaller proposal. That’s how we lose our nation – by being “reasonable” to tyrants.
The fact is, almost 50% of the Green New Deal is already in the works. California has set a deadline to force homeowners to install wind and solar power as traditional energy sources of oil and gas will be phased out within ten years.
In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the City Council is moving to eliminate zoning protections for single-family homes, calling such protections “racist.” That same attack on single-family homes is taking place in the Oregon state legislature, the Chicago city council, and the Baltimore city council, to name just a few. This marks the drive to abolish private property rights.
Smart Growth programs are in every city in the nation – targeting the elimination of private cars for transportation, in favor of public buses, trains, and bikes — just as called for in the Green New Deal.
Landlords are being targeted as the drive is on for rent controls – even as government is piling on the costs through higher taxes and more and more controls on energy use. How long can the landlords hold out?
And now comes this news. As the Congress, news media, and presidential candidates debate the “good ideas” of Green New Deal, New York City Mayor William De Blasio has rushed to introduce his own version. It’s a bundle of ten bills designed to meet the massive reduction of energy use called for in the UN’s Paris Climate Agreement which President Trump refused to join. Among its provisions are a ban on glass skyscrapers, hot dogs, and massive cut backs in energy use. Just as called for in the Green New Deal, the legislation seeks to eliminate more than one million cars from the road.
State by state, city by city, the radical provisions of the Green New Deal are being put into force – or at least openly considered. Controls on what we eat, how we live, and how we move about. Call it Agenda 21 or the Green New Deal – it’s a disaster to our economy and our way of life. It’s happening at a rapid rate. So who is laughing now?
The challenge to us is, what do we do about it? The fact is, every political party is talking about taxes, healthcare, immigration, and gun control. But no party is addressing the pain of the ranchers who are under siege of the federal government that is taking their land and their water.
No political party is talking about the attack on our food supply such as the World Wildlife Fund’s takeover of the beef.
No political party is talking about the over-taxing, and destruction of single-family homes and neighborhoods.
No political party is even discussing the destruction of our local system of government through the establishment of non-elected regional councils. These councils are eliminating political boundaries and the power of locally-elected representatives. The American system is disappearing in silence.
No political party is talking about the massive influence and control of the private, non-governmental organizations and planners that have invaded every single level of government, pushing these insane policies we now recognize in the Green New Deal.
NGOs are deeply entrenched in Congress, every state legislature and every county commission and city council. There they lobby, push, demand, and intimidate to get your elected officials to make their private agendas law. The fact is they are not government agencies and they have no power unless your elected officials give it to them. And they have no intention of giving up their power.
The only way we can toss them into the street is to elect people who understand their tyrannical agenda and will take strong action to remove them from the halls of government.
Democrats empower them. Republicans are clueless. Libertarians are pathetically confused by the whole process, continuing to believe that Public/Private Partnerships are free enterprise.
The Constitution Party is the only party that understands what needs to be done. You’ve never had a better opportunity to grow and change things and achieve your mission to restore the Constitution.
Do you, as a political party, want to get the attention of millions of Americans who are suffering from this government over-reach? Do you want to defeat the socialist democrats and the ‘Me Too’ Republicans? Do you want to restore the American Republic?
Then get mad and be the party that takes on these issues. Thousands of victims are desperate to hear any elected official, any party, even mention these policies that are overrunning every single city, county, and state.
They are losing everything. They have been shut out of the American dream. And if they hear you take on these issues in upcoming campaigns at every level of government – they will flock to you. Americans are starting to wake up to these dangers and they desperately want a new voice that stands for freedom!
Run candidates for city council, county commission, and the state legislatures, who will articulate these issues. Make it your mission to run these enemies of freedom out of town on a rail.
Speak to these victims – these desperate Americans. Name the names of the NGOs – challenge them. Challenge their policies and their funding sources. Show the pubic what a danger they are. And then challenge your opponents as to why they are giving these NGOs such power and influence.
Elected officials keep referring to these NGOs and planners who live off the federal grants as “stakeholders.” They are not stakeholders! You are the stakeholders. They are carpetbaggers – there to grab everything they can.
Paint a clear picture as to what life in American will be like under these policies. Will every choice Americans make in their lives be like a visit to the DMV? Make your opponents responsible for their own policies. Put their names to them. Make them defend their plans.
Help the people see the truth! That’s how you drain the swamp and restore the United States of America!
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.
In this interview with The New American’s Alex Newman, geologist Gregory Wrightstone explains that Al Gore and the climate-change establishment are lying about global warming, sea levels, wildfires, extinctions, carbon dioxide, and so much more. He says CO2 is a “miracle molecule” that is incredibly beneficial to humanity and the planet.
Last month’s 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution is an appropriate occasion to remind us of the human atrocities committed by communist regimes. But we also should take time to reflect on the progress that has occurred since the fall of the Soviet Union and its socialist economic system in 1991.
A recent poll of Millennials found that 51 percent of them identified socialism as their favored socioeconomic system, with an additional 7 percent identifying communism as their favored system. Only 42 percent favored capitalism.
Socialism Kills, Always
A socialist system naturally selects leaders willing to exercise coercion to see that the plans are carried out.
Most Millennials I’ve met—and I meet quite a few as a college professor—are nice enough people. Most have no desire to see their fellow humans suffer. So I’m left to conclude that they have no appreciation for how socialism actually works in the real world.
Socialist regimes—through executions, intentional starvation, and brutal prison-work camps—killed more than 100 million of their own citizens in the 20th century. In places such as Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela the atrocities continue.
Such atrocities are no accident. The nature of a centrally planned economy reduces humans to labor inputs who must be coerced to perform a part of someone else’s economic plan. If people are permitted to make their own choices, no economic plan is possible. A socialist system naturally selects leaders willing to exercise coercion to see that the plans are carried out.
The economic track record of socialism is as dismal as its human rights record. But we need not direct Millennials to history books to see it. They need only look at what has happened to former socialist countries during their own lifetimes, as these countries have moved away from socialism and towards capitalism.
Economic Freedom Leads to Better Outcomes
The Economic Freedom of the World Annual Report provides the best measure of the degree to which a country is relatively capitalist or socialist. The index relies, of course, on the availability of reliable data. Consequently, socialist regimes, like Cuba and North Korea, are unranked because of the lack of such data. But the index does allow us to assess changes in former socialist countries since they abandoned socialism.
Russia, for example, scored only 4.3 on the index’s 10-point scale in 1995, when it was first ranked. It has since improved its score by 52 percent and now ranks in the top 50 percent of all countries included in the index.
The result of the move toward capitalism has been increased prosperity.
Other former Soviet-bloc countries moved toward capitalism more quickly. In the rankings in 1995, Estonia scored a 6.2 and Latvia a 5.7, ranking 57th and 75th, respectively. Since then, Estonia has moved up in the rankings to 17th place, and Latvia has jumped from 75th-freest economy in the world to 26th.
Outside the former Soviet bloc, China began its move away from socialism in 1978, just before the first Millennials were born. China’s first score was 3.6 in 1980. China has since improved by 76 percent and even this improvement understates China’s reforms as many special enterprise zones within China are much freer than the country as a whole.
But the rankings don’t tell the entire story. The result of the move toward capitalism has been increased prosperity: The people are better off. Average incomes have increased 250 percent in Russia since 1995. In more economically free Latvia and Estonia, incomes are up 487 percent and 461 percent, respectively. And it’s not just the rich getting richer. The percent of the population living on less than $5.50 per day has dropped 23 percent in Russia, 19 percent in Latvia, and 22 percent in Estonia.
The changes in China are even more striking. Average incomes are 12 times greater now than in 1995. More than 90 percent of the population lived on less than $5.50 a day back then; today, only about one-third of the population does.
Millennials could delve into history books to learn about Socialist atrocities. But they could also just look at the facts of the world and see how prosperity has increased as the former socialist countries have begun embracing capitalism. If they’d do either, I doubt you’d find many socialists among them.
Social Justice Education professor admits SJE is “social reproduction theory, developed by Karl Marx.” And communist terrorist Bill Ayers is a leader of “Social Justice Education.”
“What Is Social Justice Education Anyway?” That question forms the title of Professor Crystal Belle’s January 23 article in Education Week, which bills itself as the “American Education News Site of Record.” In her subtitle, Professor Belle declares, “We cannot talk about schools without addressing race, class, gender, ability, sexuality, and politics.”
Welcome to K-12 Social Justice Education, where kids may not learn how to read, write, or think, but after marinating for years in social justice dogma they can be dependably relied upon to act as virtue-signaling, Bernie-supporting, Marxist slogan-spouting Social Justice Warriors. Picture millions of truculent David Hoggs. You know, the belligerent, sanctimonious teen who parlayed his survivor status from the Parkland school shooting to stardom as the Fake News media’s favorite anti-gun activist. But, as the experience of the past three years has shown, the “activism” of these indoctrinated children and youth goes beyond being mouthy, bratty, self-righteous “snowflakes,” who melt into emotive puddles of angst and fear over the “oppression” of our patriarchal, homophobic, transphobic, capitalistic, Christian, intolerant, cisnormative culture. With the help of SJE teachers, these snowflakes can be taught to channel their fears over injustice and oppression into rage. Thus the explosion of crybullies, the activists who switch in an instant from lachrymose victims to club-wielding thugs and issuers of cyber death threats; thus more recruits for Antifa, Indivisible, and the other “Resistance” efforts that are spreading “tolerance” and “civility” by mob violence. Thus are we approaching the frightful precipice over the abyssal bloodshed of a “Cultural Revolution” (see here and here ) that not only is more and more resembling in rhetoric that of Chairman Mao’s genocidal epoch, but is, in fact, more openly adopting his totalitarian methods for enforcing Communist orthodoxy in thought.
“Many people think that social justice education is optional, something cool to do during a special professional-development session,” says Belle. (Emphasis in original.) But according to Belle, it must not be considered optional; it must be considered essential and must permeate everything our children study. The professor’s bio for the article informs us: “Crystal Belle is the director of teacher education at Rutgers University-Newark. She has worked as a teacher, activist, and professor for the past 13 years.”
Marx, Race, Equity, Identity, Intersectionality
“What I am describing here is social reproduction theory, developed by Karl Marx, to illustrate the ways that social inequality is passed on from one generation to the next,” says Belle. “What does this have to do with education?,” she asks. “Well,” she answers, “we must begin to look at education intersectionally. We cannot talk about schools, without addressing race, class, gender, ability, sexuality, and politics, because education is a political act. To ignore intersectionality within schools erases the very identities present in our classrooms and in our respective communities, every day.”
“As the director of a teacher-education program, one of my primary goals upon stepping into this role was building a vision that honors social justice teaching and learning practices,” Belle writes. “In one of my courses on curriculum and instruction, I implore students to look at curriculum as a primary mechanism for making the world a more equitable place.”
“From incorporating rap into lessons to using the ‘Hejný method,’ educators are increasingly looking for creative ways to make math more interesting to students and more applicable to ‘real-world’ situations,” the article reports. “One of the latest trends,” we are informed, “is ‘social justice math,’ a teaching style that combines math with political, economic, and social issues as an alternative way to try and involve students by relating materials to their communities and personal lives.”
“The idea of social justice math isn’t new,” the Education Week article states. “The organization Creating Balance in an Unjust World holds an annual conference on math education and social justice that began in 2007. The conference, sponsored by Radical Math, provides training, lesson plans, and resources for social justice math educators covering a wide range of topics and issues.”
Lisa Harrison, an assistant professor at Ohio University, relates her classroom experience of integrating SJE into mathematics for seventh graders in a Middle Grades Review article entitled “Teaching Social Justice Through Mathematics.”
Here are a few other samples in the recent literature:
Many of the SJE vigilantes who are now overrunning American college and university campuses were incubated in SJE classrooms utilizing programs developed by full-blown Communist terrorists. We’re not kidding — or exaggerating. One of the most influential proponents of Social Justice Education is unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who — along with his wife Bernardine Dohrn, Michael Klonsky, Angela Davis, Tom Hayden, and hundreds of his other 1960s communist comrades — decided to carry on “the revolution” as a cosseted, privileged professor.
You can see terrorist-cum-professor Bill Ayers in the video below gushingly introduced at the University of Oregon as “our honored and influential guest,” for the presentation “Bill Ayers: Teaching And Organizing for Social Justice.”
“How did this happen?” incredulous parents ask. “Where did all of this subversive nonsense come from?”
Well, it didn’t happen overnight. The SJE subversives have been at it for many decades — while America slept in blissful ignorance. Over a decade ago, we warned specifically about the Ayers-Dohrn-Klonsky cabal and the social justice education scheme in a lengthy article that showed Ayers’ close ties and working relationships with the leading lights of the SJE professoriate.
The government schools, from K-12 on through college, are becoming totally saturated with SJE indoctrination. However, even many private schools, Catholic parochial schools, and other Christian schools have become infected by it as well. Michael Rectenwald, a professor of liberal studies at New York University, presents a scorching and highly informative exposé of the phenomenon in his memoir Springtime for Snowflakes: Social Justice and Its Postmodern Parentage.
It is much easier, more sensible, and immensely safer to get your children out of these SJE-infected schools than to try to get the entrenched SJE curriculum and “social justice” teachers out of the classrooms.
All across the United States, private property rights are under assault – assault by state and federal legislators and regulators, environmentalist groups, wealthy liberal foundations, corporations and other special interests, often acting in coordination or collusion with one another. They are seizing or taking control of lands and other valuable property without due process or just compensation, under a host of environmental and other justifications, many of which are fictional at best.
I have personally witnessed attempts to shut down the small mining industry in my state of Colorado. Exploration and development by this industry often results in discoveries of major deposits of minerals that are essential for everything we make, use and do – including medical equipment, cell phones, computers, aircraft, aerospace, automobiles, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and modern high-tech weapon and communication systems.
Actions that block mineral development in the United States make us 50-100% dependent on sometimes less than friendly foreign sources, and on mines that are operated using, abusing and under-paying parents and children, often under horrendous health, safety and environmental conditions.
Stories like what my company went through can be found everywhere in the United States now. Worse, they are no longer confined only to businesses that rely on development of our nation’s vast and highly available natural resources – done today with the highest regard for laws, worker safety and the ecology.
My parents co-founded our family’s mining business. In their later years, they suffered incredible, needless physical and financial pain – at the hands of clever crooks who defrauded our company and ideologically corrupt bureaucrats who took advantage of corrupt legal and regulatory systems to devise yet another opportunity to close yet another mining operation.
The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) eagerly supported the crooks in an attempt to steal and destroy our hard work and the investments of 135 mostly senior citizen shareholders in our privately held Colorado corporation. In the process, our corporate and personal names were slandered in local newspapers by false reports from DRMS officials.
Far too many government agencies are corrupted now because they have been largely taken over by radical environmentalists, who know little about mining or society’s crucial need for minerals, who are ideologically opposed to mining and other productive land uses, and whose ideologies too often make them think they are above the law.
Environmentalism has become a new religion, whose extremists will do whatever it takes to fulfill their misguided life missions, to engage in what far too often amounts to injustice and legalized theft.
Worst of all, they have no respect for those who literally stake their time, their fortunes and even their lives mining for metals that make our modern technologies, lives, health and living standards possible. There is little difference between them and other radical religious zealots who cross the line from respectful observance into insanity and acts of depravity. They miss few opportunities to undermine America’s once incredible opportunities under the guise of “saving the planet” – mostly from problems and dangers that have been wildly exaggerated or willfully misrepresented or even concocted.
When we began underground hard rock mining near Silverton in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado in 1980, regulations were comparatively few – but compared to earlier times of few or no rules, mostly sensible and more than ample to ensure human safety and environmental protection.
Dynamite was available at the local hardware store. It was very important for us to protect the environment and operate with the utmost safety. We did exactly that, as we were initially regulated by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for the environment and the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for safety. In all those years, our company never had a single lost time accident; always took great care to protect the air, water and wildlife habitats; and made sure we never disturbed any more land than was absolutely necessary.
The DRMS began regulating our silver mine several years later. The transition went smoothly for several years, but then silver prices dropped to unsustainable levels. We reclaimed much of the historically mined silver property at our own expense for later use – then raised more capital from family and friends to expand into gold mining in 1988 with the purchase of 370 acres of private mineral property and associated permits. Our new property was surrounded by USFS public land.
A private litigation ensued, which we won handily – even though the DRMS entered the fray in an attempt to use the opportunity to gain more control over our property and mining in general. A concerned Colorado state representative came to our rescue at the time and blocked the DRMS action.
The agency had just become involved in the Summitville open pit mine disaster in the 1990s. The environmental disaster involved extensive pollution of local streams due to leakage of acidic water that contained large quantities of toxic heavy metals originating from decades-old mine tunnels from decades-old mining operations and poorly constructed storage pits associated with more recent open-pit mining.
The DRMS and other agencies should have regulated the operations and pollution much more responsibly from the outset. But they were largely inattentive and negligent. The disaster ultimately cost Colorado and U.S. taxpayers over $150,000,000 – a liability that the agency then capitalized on as an excuse to increase the price for reclamation bonds to unreasonable levels.
It was the first major example in Colorado of environmental activist bureaucrats attempting to regulate an industry in which it actually had no or too few qualifications, and doing so more from a position of opposing activities that they disliked and whose value they did not appreciate.
Fast forward to 2015. The historic San Juan Mining District experienced an even greater disaster: the infamous 2015 Gold King Mine Spill, whose direct cause can be laid squarely on the DRMS, in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. DRMS policies for handling earthen plugs in old mine portals had already been evaluated by the United States Geological Survey, which strongly advised against this method of remediating leakage from abandoned mines. The USGS was ignored.
Negative environmental impacts from reopening caved-in portals have been a problem for decades. It should be obvious that plugging a leak or opening while water is still flowing into a mine means it will fill up and spill over. If the water mixes with acid-generating elements underground, it will become acidic. Yet the DRMS signed off on its policies and practices anyway – causing a disaster that even today is costing taxpayers more millions of dollars, with ongoing cleanup costs that will eventually make the Summitville clean-up costs look cheap.
And still, when my company was in court with the DRMS in 2017, its lawyer told the judge and courtroom that the DRMS would undoubtedly need to plug our portals. Some bureaucrats never learn, or will say anything to an uneducated populace to shut down legitimate operators.
In fact, another vast area in the San Juans, once one of the richest underground mining districts in the world, is now off limits to mining – not because of shoddy mining practices, but because incompetent and ideologically driven bureaucrats have been handed the reins to regulate access into oblivion.
Craig Liukko has owned and operated underground mining, mineral processing and manufacturing businesses for over 40 years. He has traveled to many countries in Central America, the Middle East and Africa, helping them create jobs – safely and ecologically.
What does this country do for essential everyday minerals, when ideological bureaucrats have closed most mines and declared them “Permanently Closed”? In Colorado, it appears the “solution” is to have thousands of people sitting around idle, smoking pot, because many Colorado legislators and regulators now think the State can be financed for the foreseeable future through sales of cannabis.
Thankfully, Proposition 111 on Colorado’s recent election ballot was struck down. It would have crippled the robust oil and gas industry that makes our comfortable lives in this country the envy of all, by creating thousands of jobs, literally fueling our economy, providing raw materials for plastics and countless other consumer products, and generating billions of dollars in annual government revenues.
The general public is mostly unaware that the DRMS was the Colorado agency responsible for regulating Royal Dutch Shell out of the state after 30 years of highly responsible stewardship and incredible job creation. Shell spent hundreds of millions of dollars successfully developing and testing an extraction method from oil shale – but finally raised its hands in surrender when unrealistic demands by state officials became impossible to meet.
Shell’s in-situ (in-place) process would have caused minimal surface disturbance while making oil economically available from an estimated two trillion barrels of untapped resources in a three-state area. Just that one deposit contains more oil than Saudi Arabia. Much of their equipment is now set up and operating in Jordan in the Middle East, where Shell’s investment may exceed $20 billion dollars. The potential for tens of thousands of high paying jobs in Colorado is gone, thanks to activist bureaucrats.
My personal nearly 40-year involvement in Colorado mining witnessed this invasion of radical environmentalist bureaucrats who would say or do anything to stop mining and oil and gas production that reduces our dependence on foreign natural resources. They refuse to recognize that modern rules, technologies and practices, as well as industry attitudes and ethics, are hugely different from those that prevailed in the past, when they sometimes lead to accidents, mishaps and environmental degradation.
They don’t want mining or drilling done properly and by the book. They don’t want it done at all. And yet they are not about to give up any of the conveniences, transportation, communication, technologies, gadgets or living standards that depend on the metals, minerals and energy that come out of the ground.
These same radicals want to replace free enterprise capitalism (actually, their distorted views of what capitalism is and does) with centrally controlled socialism (and their imaginary world of utopian life happily ever after from that failed system). I’ve been to a number of socialist countries and have nothing but sympathy for their people’s lives in abject poverty, disease, deprivation and misery. How our schools, politicians and news media can teach and laud these destructive ideologies is a mystery to me.
In 2012, my company accepted some outside financing to help develop what appeared to be an incredibly valuable deposit of gold and other metals – one that would have brought tens of millions of dollars in revenues to Colorado state coffers. Over the following months, however, it became apparent that we were involved in a hostile takeover attempt by a sophisticated but crooked New York hedge fund.
As the hedge fund descended into bankruptcy, it hand-picked an equally unscrupulous receiver who took over operations, made false allegations about me and my company after realizing she did not know how to operate a mine – and then called on the Colorado DRMS to investigate us and, in effect, become part of the fund’s and receiver’s takeover operation.
The DRMS issued “cease and desist” orders before gathering relevant facts. It seized private property and buildings. Our high-value assets began disappearing, including valuable and once well-secured core samples that demonstrated the mine’s incredible potential – all under the supposed watch and care of DRMS inspectors and lawyers.
What can only be called a DRMS kangaroo court followed, in which our expert witness was told to sit down and not say another word. Instead of a jury of our peers, the DRMS’ impaneled seven “conservationist jurors,” who passed judgment based on its inspectors’ false reports and testimony – all while feigning transparency and evenhandedness – bureaucratic watchwords that are used to cover their highly deceptive practices.
While we fought this battle in the Colorado Federal Bankruptcy Court, DRMS lawyers refused to hand over subpoenaed documents, offering excuses like “that inspector doesn’t work here anymore.” Requested government emails were lost, unavailable or destroyed, in violation of laws and regulations.
Three years into the sordid affair, the DRMS field office that had handled much of our operation was closed, ending 25 years of operation and leaving its records and personnel unavailable. Inspectors received early retirement packages, while my shareholders, family and I were left gasping for answers and totally uncompensated for our losses.
Remaining DRMS bureaucrats are still assisting a federal agency in disposing of our valuable property, in the hope that it will not be considered for mining ever again. Ironically, the property was previously owned by Union Oil/Molycorp, a company that for decades specialized in rare earth elements. These strategic minerals are found in unique and uncommon settings, like those associated with our deposit. They are essential for defense, aerospace, renewable energy and countless other modern technologies.
As to my company, we did not have the funds or political connections to investigate or prosecute the criminals and bureaucrats who robbed us – with DRMS assistance. The hedge fund fraudsters face multiple counts of criminal fraud in an upcoming trial that will not restore our money, property or rights.
Meanwhile, the DRMS is again walking away unscathed by its glaring incompetence and corruption – with its bureaucrats likely bragging to one another about “mission accomplished” in blocking our mine … while getting nice paychecks, bonuses and pensions in the process.
It appears I have lost that battle. But I am on a new mission now: To highlight the attitudes, ideologies, corruption and outright criminality of too many elitist and self-serving “public servants,” and to restore as many rights to hard-working American individuals as possible.
We need rules to protect environmental values and worker health and safety. But they must be rational and fairly administered – and so that we can meet essential societal and technological needs
Horror stories like ours need to be investigated and brought into the open – and bureaucrats who think they are above the law need to be brought to justice. The arrogance and dominance of our ruling elites explains why President Trump was elected, and why millions of angry “yellow vest” protesters have been railing in the streets of France to block rising energy taxes.
America and American freedom and prosperity were founded on principles of private property rights. Those rights are now under constant assault by increasingly powerful and unaccountable politicians, bureaucrats and activists. If this continues, our nation will cease to exist.
Changing this intolerable, ultimately anti-America situation is the vow I made to my father shortly before he passed away. It’s a vow all Americans should make, if they want to keep this nation a prosperous land of opportunity for citizens and newcomers alike, for this generation and generations to come.
Craig Liukko has owned and operated underground mining, mineral processing and manufacturing businesses for over 40 years. He has traveled to many countries in Central America, the Middle East and Africa, helping them create jobs – safely and ecologically.
Apparently, in the land of fruits and nuts, the California Department of Education believes it knows what is best for your children and wants to teach kindergartners that there are at least 15 different genders. Not only that, but the curriculum being looked at claims that it is an impossibility to know whether a baby is a boy or a girl or something else… forget that 6,000 years of history has taught us “boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.”
Alex Newman from The Freedom Project and The New American was interviewed about California’s plan to indoctrinate young children, and no, parents you can’t opt out of the propaganda that will be fed to your little ones.
In a March 29 memo obtained by FreedomProject Media, Orange County Board of Education General Counsel Ronald Wenkart detailed his legal reasoning. As part of the “California Healthy Youth Act,” government schools are required to provide so-called “Comprehensive Sexuality Education.” One section of the “Education Code,” though, allows parents or guardians to excuse their child from “comprehensive sexual health education and HIV education,” Wenkart wrote.
Unfortunately, there is a giant loophole in the law that still mandates LGBT indoctrination. Another section of the “Code” explains that the exemption does not apply to “instruction, materials, or programming that discusses gender, gender identity, gender expressions, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family and does not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions.”
“Therefore,” Wenkart wrote, “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction. However, parents are free to advise their children that they disagree with some or all of the information presented in the instructional program and express their views on these subjects to their children.”
So, in short, as long as actual reproduction is not discussed, government schools are free to brainwash children to support homosexuality, transgenderism, and more. Indeed, among other schemes, the California code requires affirmation of homosexuality and gender confusion while prohibiting “outdated gender norms.” In short, biblical morality is now banned at government school.
California elementary school students could soon be the targets of progressive sexual indoctrination if new health guidelines are approved.
The guidelines, listed under the California Department of Education’s proposed Health Education Framework, include educational resources that teach children to reject gender stereotypes and embrace a rainbow of possible gender options. One recommended book called “Who Are You?” teaches that there are at least 15 genders, and that it’s impossible to determine whether a baby is a boy, a girl or something else.
“Babies can’t talk, so grown-ups make a guess by looking at their bodies,” an excerpt reads.
One chapter in the proposed guidelines offers suggestions on how to explain sexuality with kindergartners.
“Discuss gender with kindergarteners by exploring gender stereotypes and asking open-ended questions, such as what are preferred colors, toys, and activities for boys/girls, and then challenging stereotypes if presented,” chapter three reads. “Throughout this discussion, show images of children around the same age who do not conform to typical gender stereotypes. Examples do not have to be exaggerated or overt. Simple differences, such as colors or toy preferences, can demonstrate acceptance of gender non-conformity.”
Then, the teacher should continue to confuse the children. “Throughout this discussion, show images of children around the same age who do not conform to typical gender stereotypes,” the instructions read. “Examples do not have to be exaggerated or overt. Simple differences, such as colors or toy preferences, can demonstrate acceptance of gender non-conformity.”
Of course, preaching this sort of madness to vulnerable and impressionable children captive in a government classroom has devastating effects. As The Newman Report documented last year, a study from the University of California, Los Angeles, found that more than one fourth of children in the state between the ages of 12 and 17 are “gender non-conforming.”
The new proposed guidelines, which are even more extreme than the previous ones, also call for encouraging middle-school students to fornicate with multiple people at the same time. “Some students may be non-monogamous and the term ‘partner(s)’ may be used to be more inclusive,” reads the material, which aims to normalize perversions that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.
Among the examples offered is “polyamory,” which is defined as “the practice of, desire to, or orientation toward having consensual non-monogamous relationships (i.e. relationships that may include multiple partners).” Another option is “polyfidelity (which involves more than two people being in romantic and/or sexual relationships which is not open to additional partners), amongst many other set-ups.”
What exactly any of this perversion has to do with “health” was not made clear — especially since encouraging this sort of promiscuity and fornication leads to all sorts of venereal diseases, some of which can be deadly. Ironically, some of the sex propaganda is taught under the guise of preventing venereal disease.
On the gender-bending madness, the American College of Pediatricians has said that encouraging children to believe they can change genders by taking hormones and mutilating their genitals is “child abuse.” In other words, these schools are institutionalizing the abuse of children.
That’s exactly right! And parents that stand for this and willingly submit their little ones to this perversion should be held accountable for child abuse, but they won’t be in a state that sanctions it.
This is just another reason why if you have your children in the public indoctrination centers known as public schools, you should protect them by getting them out and teaching them yourself at home, and you can do so for free by clicking here. Stop making excuses for turning your children over to the state to become little statists, and start becoming a part of the revolution!
All people may be equal, but all cultures are not. The rise of Western civilization has led to the greatest progress in human history. It has given the world democracy, freedom, affluence, equality before the law, the separation of church and state, and the notion of a sovereign state to protect it all. No other civilization on the globe can make that claim. Western civilization is the most prominent civilization because it is better than the others. Yet this point is lost on many of those among us.
Western civilization is much more than a geographical area. It is more about the idea of inalienable rights and the intrinsic value of the individual. Beginning in about 1600 until about 1970, Western civilization was exported from Europe to the Americas and other parts of the world. The advances in science, manufacturing, and free enterprise were markedly different from those in Asia or Africa. Closing the gap on these differences in recent years is a result of non-developed countries adopting Western practices.
Central to our civilization is the nation-state, which consists of people who inhabit a specified boundary, who rule their own government, and who hold a national identity. Joined with the incentives and liberties of free enterprise, this paradigm has remarkably reduced poverty around the globe to levels never before thought possible. Only the nation-state and its laws can protect citizens’ liberty. In America, this includes all races, religions, education levels, income levels, and political views.
America was founded on an idea, and the idea is liberty. The American Founding created divided representative government that avoids the dangers of autocratic or mob rule. It is based on Judeo-Christian morality derived from respect for the individual. The Constitution provides for limited government based on natural law and respect for property rights.
Today, we are confronted with people who seek the downfall of the nation-state. They seek removal of the borders that protect it. Without borders, the nation falls into anarchy driven by people who would ruin the structure that has brought Western civilization to its current level of prosperity.
Once defenders of free speech, liberals now work to suppress opposing views in education, in entertainment, on the nightly news, in social media, and in academia. They frequently do so by threats and intimidation. The right to bear arms is also under ceaseless pressure from the left who know that an unarmed, submissive public is necessary for top-down state rule. They believe that global government is the solution for what they view as a socially unjust America.
The leftist self-loathing Faustian bargain with radical Islam to defeat conservatism will not end well. Together, these two groups would extinguish the essence of Western life. This would be the suicide of the West. Leftists will do to Western civilization what it has done to the universities, race relations, the arts, religion, and the moral fabric of America. They will destroy it.
No country outside Europe would ever surrender its national sovereignty to the globalists. Yet this is what we are called to do. Europe is floundering with low birth rates and a rising tide of socialism and sharia. It may already be lost to these trends, and we should not follow the Europeans down this hole. There is no substitute for the nation-state today, or for a long time into the future.
Progressives are pursuing a politics of disruption and division with the intent of overturning society. Their politics are modeled on the tactics of Lenin, not on the constitutional foundation of our country. Their goal is to overturn the founding concept of America and Western Civilization with a global socialist state.
Some vague new world order would never be respectful of our sovereignty or responsive to our local needs. It would bring with it socialism and an economic breakdown, with its empty shelves, its lack of services, and the unintended devastation that happens when these leftists gain control of our lives. It would have the same consequences for the West as it did in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe.
A global bureaucrat in Brussels or Davos cannot be entrusted with permanent power and expected to use it for the common good. It is not in the interest of women, blacks, Hispanics, or anyone else to embrace the privileged who are isolated from those they govern.
It’s no exaggeration to say the left is engaged in an ideological war against traditional America. As a result, a new cold civil war has settled in, where compromise seems impossible. Though many middle-class people may not realize it yet, we are in a titanic struggle to maintain our way of life. Health care, education, retirement, and other areas of American life are being more and more socialized, and the opportunity and freedom we have known may soon be lost.
We live today in an age where people like the idea of having rights as long as they do not have to pay a price for them. When it is time to defend those rights, they frequently run away. As sad as it may be, preserving freedom necessitates continuous confrontation against those who seek to destroy it.
Many conservatives wish to return to the days of civility but more and more find themselves surrounded by those who lack any notion of restraint. When that’s the case, we must toughen up and stand up to this nonsense. Our way of life as Americans depends on it. We must ignore their venom and reassert who we are as a civilization. And be proud of it.
In Tropico 5, you are El Presidente—the leader of a Caribbean island that is a semi-democratic banana republic. Your primary objective is to preserve your rule by micromanaging your country’s economy to appease your citizens, the Tropicans. If they are dissatisfied with your rule, they can vote you out in the next elections or stage a coup d’état, costing you the game.
First released in 2001, the city-building and management game has sold millions of copies worldwide, and the sixth installment is scheduled for release later in 2019. The game was even banned in Thailand due to concerns it would stir social unrest. In a hilarious response, the game developers included a mission in its DLC (downloadable content) to steal away tourists from Thailand.
Tropico 5 presents an engaging platform for players to craft their socialist paradise and examine the mechanics of socialist economies. Apart from sandy beaches and skyscrapers, Tropico 5’s appeal arises from loading players with a swarm of decisions to make, each with certain trade-offs that must be accounted for. Since most of us formulate our ideals from an armchair perspective, Tropico 5 delivers a much-needed dose of reality and numerous lessons on economics for its players to reflect upon.
Pineapples, Cotton, or Death
The first focus when you start up the Tropico 5 game is managing your agricultural sector. Players must choose between constructing two types of farms. Farms producing food crops for local consumption, such as bananas and pineapples, boost your approval rating but don’t add income to your budget. Conversely, farms growing economic crops such as tobacco and cotton bring a healthy income stream but don’t feed your people.
Some players prefer to amass large sums of wealth in the early game through cotton exports and then focus on food production later, hopefully before too many people starve to death. Other players risk bankruptcy in their attempt to bring their popularity to a safe level by spamming pineapple plantations before transitioning to economic crops later. Either way, you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.
A Wager on Wages
Wages must also be manually assigned in Tropico. Intuitively, some players inflate wages for jobs such as teachers and scientists, which require a higher level of education.
Buckling down on an education-based wage system causes a mass exodus of workers deserting lower-paying agricultural jobs, threatening your domestic food supply.
However, buckling down on an education-based wage system causes a mass exodus of workers deserting lower-paying agricultural jobs, threatening your domestic food supply. Conversely, if wages for white collar jobs are not high enough, Tropicans will not bother to upgrade their education to take on those jobs, crippling your economic growth and funding for programs such as food and healthcare subsidies to appease your people.
An article written by The Daily Beast sums up my views on the lessons we can take from Tropico:
“The level of micromanagement needed to skillfully run the island is not impossible to acquire, but it becomes clear why no sane country is run this way. There is no mechanism to allow for wages to be set organically and there is too much onus on single individual (El Presidente) to guide the nation. Great for a game, terrible as a template for real life.”
The alternative to all the insane micromanagement of central planning already exists—it’s called the free market.
In a free market, transactions are voluntary, and they produce market prices that guide the decisions of consumers and firms. As economist Alex Tabarrok aptly describes it, prices are “a signal wrapped up in an incentive.” When there is scarcity of food, prices will naturally rise to signal shortages even without the supervision of government bureaucrats. The expectation of larger profits invites firms to build more pineapple farms and raise wages sufficiently for pineapple farmers to attract enough labor. While not foolproof, market prices must remain free so that prices can adjust organically as our economy evolves.
Applying Tropico’s Lessons to the Real World
Unfortunately, many governments worldwide operate as if they are playing Tropico, without a second thought about manipulating the economy through central planning.
To support its massive social welfare programs, the government nationalized oil production, and petroleum exports account for 95 percent of the nation’s total exports, making the economy hyper-sensitive to shocks in oil prices. Just like Tropico players who focus too much on banana or cotton plantations, Venezuela was doomed when it funneled all its resources into oil production.
Centrally planned economies typically lack economic diversification since governments actively prioritize certain industries by injecting investment funds and nationalizing companies. Thus, these economies are afflicted with Dutch Disease—an economic term describing a decline in overall market competitiveness due to over-reliance on certain industries.
However, the Venezuelan government still hasn’t finished its game of Tropico. To appease Venezuelans, it raised the minimum wage 34 times from previous levels and imposed strict price controls on essential goods like cooking oil and flour. As a result, the currency became hyper-inflated and worthless, destroying incentives for firms to keep producing essential goods.
Failure to Plan
Some may remark that what happened in Venezuela is merely the product of government corruption, and the solution is more central planning but done better.
Unfortunately, Tropico has demonstrated to us that despite our best intentions, it is hubris to believe we can mold our economy to our wishes through central planning. One must realize that the government is neither omniscient nor omnipotent; it simply cannot define or defy economic realities. As the great economist Milton Friedman once said, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
While not foolproof, it is ultimately market prices that have successfully advised millions of businessmen worldwide in creating and delivering products that make our lives meaningful at prices we can afford. Marketplaces are crucial experimental spaces for firms to discover how best to serve their consumers only if prices are liberated from the chokehold of government manipulation.
Despite claims that Antifa fights fascism, the group’s tactics actually mirror those of Benito Mussolini’s regime.
On March 23, 1919, Benito Mussolini, an Italian veteran of the Great War and a publisher of socialist newspapers, created the Fasci di Combattimento (commonly known as the Fascist Party) with the help of a few syndicalist friends.
Nearly one hundred years later, the word fascism remains at the forefront of our political discourse even though fascism is all but dead as a political force, and the word has lost much of its meaning (if not its power).
So why are we still talking about fascists?
The Rise of Antifa
On November 8, the late-night TV host Stephen Colbert took to Twitter to condemn a mob that had attacked the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
“Fighting Tucker Carlson’s ideas is an American right,” Colbert wrote. “Targeting his home and terrorizing his family is an act of monstrous cowardice. Obviously, don’t do this, but also, take no pleasure in it happening. Feeding monsters just makes more monsters.”
The attackers consisted of a group who called themselves Antifa. Few Americans had heard the word “Antifa” prior to 2016. But that’s no longer the case.
In addition to the attack on Carlson’s home, numerous high-profile incidents involving Antifa—the “Battle of Berkeley,” the tragedy in Charlottesville, and a series of street battles in Portland—have thrust the loosely organized political group into the national spotlight. (It’s difficult to miss gangs of black-clad individuals who wear masks, tote weapons, and pick fights with political opponents.)
Antifa, if you have not already guessed, is short for anti-fascism. Conduct a Google search, and you’ll see Antifa oppose fascist ideologies, people, and groups.
This is part of the brilliance of Antifa. Unlike most fringe political groups, Antifa is not named for something. Their name expresses opposition to an ideology, one that is at once vile and nebulous.
We’re All “Fascists” Now
More than seven decades ago, the British writer George Orwell observed that the term fascism had lost any coherent meaning.
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable,’” Orwell wrote in his essay “Politics and the English Language.”
Because of the ambiguous nature of the word, Antifa and other alt-left groups have been able to brand thinkers as diverse as Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan B. Peterson, and Ben Shapiro as “fascist.”
Moreover, by branding themselves as “antifascist,” Antifa inoculate themselves from the criticism that usually is directed toward extremist groups.
Colbert’s condemnation of Antifa’s attack on Tucker Carlson’s home notwithstanding, there has been a cultural reluctance to condemn Antifa’s political violence and tactics.
In 2017, following the tragic events in Charlottesville, which involved a showdown between white supremacists and Antifa members, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said it was wrong to equate fascists and anti-fascists.
“No, not the same,” Romney tweeted. “One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.”
Fascists and Antifa: Not as Different as You Think
Romney expressed a common belief, but Antifa is hardly the polar opposite of fascism. An examination of Antifa and the fascists of the 1920s and 1930s reveals striking similarities.
Many historians and political writers describe fascism as a right-wing movement, and the claim has an element of truth to it. When Mussolini and his syndicalist friends created the Fasci di Combattimento, it’s true they embraced Italian nationalism. Yet the party also called for the seizure of church lands, the confiscation of finance capital, and the abolition of the Italian monarchy and Senate.
In fact, Mussolini was an ardent Marxist for years. The son of a socialist-anarchist craftsman, he was well-versed in the works of Karl Marx, whom he praised as “a magnificent philosopher of working-class violence.” The extent to which Mussolini’s fascists simply copied their socialist predecessors has often been overlooked.
In his magnum opus Modern Times, the historian Paul Johnson explains that Mussolini was highly influenced by Kurt Eisner, who was cited several times in Mussolini’s fascist programme. Eisner’s “Bavarian fighting squads,” which inspired Mussolini’s Fasci di Combattimento, were themselves inspired by Lenin’s “men in black leather jerkins,” Johnson points out. Mussolini’s use of the term “vanguard minorities” to describe the shock troops of his revolution was almost certainly inspired by Lenin’s “vanguard fighters” (a term Lenin first used in 1903).
Communists and fascists of the 1920s and 1930s were unified by one thing above all else: their willingness to use political violence to achieve political goals. Mussolini, like Lenin, had no qualms about using violence in his effort to “make history, not endure it” (a Marx quote Mussolini was fond of employing).
The Perils of a Philosophy of Violence
The use of violence to attain political goals is a stance Antifa similarly embraces.
Antifa openly advocates and employs violence and intimidation. Like Mussolini’s “vanguard minorities,” they dress in black garb (though Antifa members often also cover their faces) and use intimidation and violence to prevent political opponents from assembling. These tactics include launching feces at law enforcement and using bricks, bats, chains, and knives in their street wars.
The methods are ostensibly reserved for fascists, yet so many have shown a willingness to overlook the fact that Antifa is employing fascist tactics. Antifa is given a pass because labeling the other side as “fascist” automatically makes them “good,” for they are the ones fighting against fascism. It’s a brilliant rhetorical trick. As Chris Cuomo said in defense of Antifa on a carefully-worded CNN segment in August, “fighting against hate matters.”
In a moral universe where the ends justify the means, using fascist tactics to fight fascists (or people deemed fascists) is entirely proper. The dangers of embracing the philosophy of violence, however, are severe. For as Solzhenitsyn observed, the first casualty of violence is the truth.
“Violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood,” the Russian writer observed prior to his exile from the Soviet Union. “Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle.”
Solzhenitsyn’s point is one Antifa should seriously consider. If they do not, and they persist in their defense and employment of violence as a means to their political ends, Antifa will continue to be “interwoven with falsehood.” Their grandiose aims will prove as empty and sterile as those of the Jacobins and Bolsheviks who preceded them.
In our next piece on the rise of Antifa, we will explore the root of their philosophy and examine precisely why they think it’s justifiable to use fascist techniques in the name of fighting fascism.
In fact, the man-made global-warming theorists in attendance at the UN summit here are working to exploit alarmism over the “climate” to restructure every aspect of human life. This includes the economy, industry, governance, and even your thinking, Guterres declared. The sought-after global transformation will also involve more government promotion of feminism, planetary taxes on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a total transformation of governance, and so much more, explained Guterres, a longtime socialist leader who led the Socialist International before becoming UN boss.
The World Wildlife Fund, a radical group promoting tyranny and globalism under the guise of “environmentalism,” has billboards and fliers here claiming humans are an “endangered species.” Asked whether this was due to abortion and population control, a WWF representative at the booth in the COP24 venue responded that no, it was because of “climate change.”
Guterres, a fervent globalist, ludicrously claimed hurricanes that struck the Caribbean last year were “emergencies” that “are preventable,” as if hurricanes were caused by refusal to submit to carbon taxes quickly enough. Speaking some days afterwards at the COP24 summit, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore made similarly dishonest claims, pointing to everything from snow fall to bad weather to argue that human activity and choice needed to be further curtailed.
“It is hard to overstate the urgency of our situation,” Guterres continued in his fear-mongering speech. “Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption. Nor are we doing enough to capitalize on the enormous social, economic and environmental opportunities of climate action.”
In America, socialists are using virtually the exact same rhetoric. Speaking last week alongside self-described Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, self-styled “democratic” socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for using the “climate” agenda to implement her fringe vision for America. “[We] can use the transition to 100 percent renewable energy as the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social and racial justice in the United State of America,” she exclaimed.
Indeed, globalists and socialists have made clear on repeated occasions that they view the phony “climate crisis” as an “opportunity” to achieve their “social” and “economic” goals — namely, wealth redistribution, government controls over ever-larger swaths of human activity, social engineering, and more. And throughout the conference, that was clearly on display as every globalist special interest group came to link its totalitarian agenda to the “climate” bandwagon.
All of this can be accomplished through the mechanisms agreed to by Obama and other “leaders” in 2015 at the UN “climate” summit in France. “The Paris Agreement provides a framework for the transformation we need,” Guterres said, calling for “concerted resource mobilization” and “transformative climate action in five key economic areas — energy, cities, land use, water and industry.”
According to the UN boss, all of this transformative action must be geared toward shackling humanity to what is euphemistically dubbed the “green economy.” Reading the descriptions given of this “green” economy, it becomes immediately apparent that it is a lot like the “red economy” of yesteryear. The difference: the justification is primarily “environmental” in nature, rather than relying on the discredited communist “ideology” so tainted in the public mind following the institutionalized mass murder of over 100 million people just in the last century.
The “green” economy “means embracing carbon pricing,” Guterres continued, arguing that the gas exhaled by every human being is “pollution” that must be taxed and regulated. This “green” economy also means vastly increasing the scope of the welfare state and the level of dependence on government among individuals. Those workers whose “sectors” face “disruption” must have “retraining” from government, as well as a “social safety net.” In other words, when you lose your job due to the “green” economy, the government will take care of you and your family — maybe.
Spending some $100 billion per year will provide a “positive political signal.” This money is supposed to go into the UN Green Climate [Slush] Fund to help bribe Third World governments into cooperating with the scheme. More will be required later, naturally. At the moment, the U.S. government is prohibited by law from providing money to this fund, but Obama did it anyway, and the next president may try to do it as well.
“Decisive climate action today is our chance to right our ship and set a course for a better future for all,” Guterres continued. “The transition to a low-carbon economy needs political impetus from the highest levels…. We need a full-scale mobilization of young people. And we need a global commitment to gender equality, because women’s leadership is central to durable climate solutions.” Gender policy, feminism, and the indoctrination of children are all key, as countless other UN leaders have also made clear.
Shortly after his initial speech, Guterres gave another, focusing on similar themes, including the “transformation of the real economy” that the UN and its member governments must oversee in energy, industry, nature, cities, and much more. “I count on multiple new transformational commitments from governments, business, finance and civil society in each of these areas,” he added. “To achieve genuine transformation in the real economy, we need national governments to play a crucial role in each of the robust coalitions which will deliver concrete transformative outcomes.”
Finally, the UN Secretary-General made clear that even your mind was in the UN’s cross-hairs. “The Paris Agreement is not a piece of paper. It is a historic compact among nations, a compact to ensure our survival,” he said, as if mass murderers who enslaved nations — Kim Jong Un, the Castro regime, Islamic dictatorships, and others like them — were actually nations. “This coming year we must put it to use to transform our economies, our minds, and our future.” This has been a recurring theme with the UN.
All sorts of companies, non-profit groups, “religious” leaders, “civil society” organizations, Big Oil, and others were tripping over themselves to sign on. At an event featuring Guterres and other top UN bosses, for example, a number of globalist mega-banks with trillions of dollars in combined lending vowed to “put their balance sheets to work” in advancing the warmist agenda. “It shows that banks are becoming increasingly ready to take the bold steps needed to play our part in achieving a low-carbon economy,” said ING CEO Ralph Hamers, one of many cronies jumping on the bandwagon.
Critics and scientists, though, were outraged at all the talk of transformation, citing the pseudo-science underpinning the whole effort. “Why do all the scientists and politicians and rent-seekers continue to play the games of the urgent need to stop CO2 from rising by changing to ‘renewable’ energies while Paris is literally burning because people cannot afford to pay more taxes for nothing in return?” wondered astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
In a statement to The New American, Dr. Soon slammed the anti-energy movement for attacking reliable, cheap and abundant energy while people are in dire need. “How about the energy needs of Africa, India, China and South America: can they all really live purely from the ‘clean’ energy of the Sun and Wind?” he asked. “This is truly a sad tale of third rate scientific studies and fake evidence dressing up to rob the world of cheap and abundant energy.”
Even President Trump slammed the effort to fundamentally transform the world under the guise of climate, too. “The Paris Agreement isn’t working out so well for Paris. Protests and riots all over France,” said Trump on December 8, trolling the UN summit and embattled French President Emmanuel Macron. “People do not want to pay large sums of money, much to third world countries (that are questionably run), in order to maybe protect the environment. Chanting ‘We Want Trump!’ Love France.”
As the UN global-warming alarmists finalize their “rule book” for implementing the UN Paris Agreement and restructuring the world, opposition is growing in tandem worldwide. Trump, incoming Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, the anti-warmist tax revolt in France, and other developments hung like a cloud over the COP24 in Katowice. But as has become clear, a wide range of totalitarians from all over the world — socialists, globalists, communists, Islamists, and others — are all hoping to weaponize the “climate” alarm they cooked up to advance their dangerous agenda.
It is not too late to stop them. But Americans must act now.
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, was at the UN climate summit in Paris and has been at other key UN climate summits as well. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.
Patriotic Americans love President Trump’s gut feelings about what’s wrong and his tireless energy to fight for us to right those wrongs in regulatory matters, Congress, the Justice Department and the media. Name one other person that could measure up to his zeal and persistence in the face of such an overwhelming onslaught.
However, he must have counsel on many pressing issues from advisors he feels he can trust. Therein, lies his vulnerability. Since no one is literally perfect, it is a shame that he has mis-judged or chosen to be directed to believe in utter snakes as some of his closest advisors. Way too many leftovers, swamp people and the worst of all ‘bonafide’ members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). CFR members like his lead negotiator, Robert E. Lighthizer, for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Even on Fox News, America is being sold on Lighthizer by many financial and trade pundits endorsing him and stating he is the best we have. Yet when you pursue finding out what is really in this heralded wonder of trade pacts you will be shocked.
The text of this mammoth sovereignty wresting mechanism of the globalists is 1809 pages long. Lots of controlling rules that fly in the face of real free ‘fair’ trade. There are good people I know of who are pleased to proclaim that this do- good ‘thing’ will benefit our agriculture. America doesn’t need ‘others in control’ to make our deals for us on agriculture. The Ag issue is mere bait to entice some to speak well of this globalist Trojan Horse behemoth for control.
Following is a list of talking points condensed from various John Birch Society and The New American sources.
Globalist and CFR President Richard N. Haass called it “World order 2.0.”
It was negotiated by Robert Lighthizer, who negotiated the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The Huffington Post: “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump railed against.”
Bruce Heyman, Democrat, former Goldman Sachs vice president said, “Two thirds of this agreement is essentially going back to TPP. All they did was take so much of the language of TPP and implement it here, as it pertains to Canada.”
A side by side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change.
It establishes a USMCA Free Trade Commission that can “consider proposals to amend or modify” the agreement. It can make changes without the consent of Congress. It completely undermines Congress’ constitutional Article I, Section 8 power to regulate trade with foreign nations such as Mexico and Canada, and to impose tariffs on them should the need arise, as in the case of national security.
A North American Competitiveness Committee (chapter 26) is intended for “promoting further economic integration among [all three countries].”
Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, tweeted, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes precedent for TPP.”
It subordinates the U.S. to the International Labor Organization (ILO), which mandates “the effective recognition of collective bargaining.”
The current WTO has already ruled against the U.S., denying the right to require labels of origin for beef, pork, and other meat products. More of this type of decisions could be expected.
Chapter 17.5 of the USMCA includes: “No party shall adopt or maintain…a measure that…imposes a limitation on…the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular financial service sector or that a financial institution or cross service supplier may employ…in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test.”
It recognizes Mexico’s sovereignty, but not that of the U.S. or Canada:
Mexico reserves its sovereign right to reform its Constitution and its domestic legislation; and
The Mexican State has the direct, inalienable and imprescriptible ownership of all hydrocarbons in the subsoil of the national territory, including the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone located outside the territorial sea and adjacent thereto, in strata or deposits, regardless of their physical conditions pursuant to Mexico’s Constitution.
It calls for further energy integration. In the GAO’s report, North American Energy Integration, it is reported that “State and DOE officials we interviewed said they did not expect the U.S. renegotiation of NAFTA and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to have a significant impact and stated that the energy sector is already well integrated.”
The USMCA also contains language that will undoubtedly be exploited to merge the three countries into a regional economic union, much like the EU — language that non-globalist Republicans fought against in the past. In June 2015, then-Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) exposed how buried within the still-secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership’s more than 5,500 pages was language for creating an entity similar in makeup to what he described as a “nascent European Union” — he was referring to the TPP Commission. He said, speaking from the Senate floor: “Even more significant to me is that it [the TPP agreement] creates something that is a non-trading entity, a commission, a transPacific international commission.” He explained: “This commission will meet regularly. It will be … entitled to make the TPP say different things, eliminate provisions it does not like, and add provisions it does like. In fact, the commission is required to meet regularly and to hear advice for changes from outside groups and from inside committees of the commission so that they can update the situation to change circumstances.”
Delving deeper, Sessions further elaborated, “It says it is designed to promote the international movement of people, services, and products — basically the same language used to start the European Union.”
Everything Sessions said about the TPP could also accurately be said about the USMCA. Chapter 30 of the USMCA establishes the creation of a “Free Trade Commission,” which is broader in scope and power than the original 1994 NAFTA Free Trade Commission. According to Article 30.2, the USMCA reads, “The Commission shall”:
(a) consider matters relating to the implementation or operation of this Agreement;
(b) consider proposals to amend or modify this Agreement;
(c) supervise the work of committees, working groups, and other subsidiary bodies established under this Agreement;
(d) consider ways to further enhance trade and investment between the Parties;
(e) adopt and update the Rules of Procedure and Code of conduct; and
(f) review the roster established under Article 31.8 (Roster and Qualifications of Panelists) every three years and, when appropriate, constitute a new roster.
In other words, the USMCA’s Free Trade Commission can make changes to the agreement itself, implement changes to the agreement, change the rules by which it operates, approve who serves on its lower subordinate committees, and oversee the work of those committees like an international bureaucracy or government — all without the consent or approval of Congress.The Free Trade Commission will also oversee committees on Agricultural Trade, Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures, Textile and Apparel Trade Matters, Customs and Trade Facilitation, Technical Barriers to Trade, Government Procurement, Transportation Services, Financial Services, Telecommunications, Intellectual Property Rights, State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies, the Environment, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Issues, North American Competitiveness, Good Regulatory Practices, and Private Commercial Disputes.
The committees will meet regularly or on an annual basis, depending on the committee, and like the Free Trade Commission, unelected government representatives from each of the three countries will comprise them.
Committees can propose changes or revisions to the chapter in the agreement that corresponds to their area. All of the committees’ work, discussions, findings, and recommendations are to be submitted to the Free Trade Commission for further consideration. And much like the TPP Commission, the Free Trade Commission can make changes to the agreement without the consent of Congress. In fact, the agreement completely undermines Congress’ constitutional Article I, Section 8 power to regulate trade with foreign nations, such as Mexico and Canada, and to impose tariffs on them should the need arise, as in the case of national security.
Tariffs to remedy problems would be out of U.S. hands. Steel and aluminum tariffs for national security such as those imposed by President Trump on Canada and the European Union are not permitted by individual EU member-states, states that are bound together by a regional entity similar to one that the USMCA would create to bind America. One of the purported aims of the EU was to avert another world war on the continent by making all of its member countries economically interdependent, meaning that even Germany’s and France’s national security is intertwined with that of the other EU member nations. The thought is that no single country in the EU should be able to be economically and, in turn, militarily self-sufficient, lest it become a threat to its neighboring countries and the continent as a whole. However, the very ideology hoisted to prevent the rise of another Nazi Germany may also prevent a European country from being able to defend itself from such a threat in the future.
Rather than preventing another Nazi Germany from arising, power is concentrated at the EU level. The same arguments in favor of the EU also work in reverse against the collective body. Furthermore, at the EU level, regulations have a direct and immediate effect on EU member states, and EU directives, which are a bit broader than regulations, set EU objectives, which the member countries are then expected to translate into new national legislation.
Individual European nations sacrifice or “trade” their individual autonomy and security — in turn sacrificing the freedoms of their citizens — to be part of a supposedly stronger whole. However, if one country chooses to leave the group, the other countries oppose it and try to stop it, as was the case with Brexit. Hence why membership in such transnational economic (and eventually political) unions is unquestionably more detrimental than beneficial.
TOWARD GLOBAL UNION
Though there are often short-term economic advantages of “free trade agreements,” such as the USMCA’s new access to the Canadian dairy market allowing U.S. farmers to sell their cheese and milk products to Canadian retailers and consumers, the pluses pale in comparison to the long-term cost and consequences of losing national sovereignty — sovereignty lost to unelected and unaccountable transnational and global governing bodies that are far removed from the influence of the nation’s people.
In fact, a North American Competitiveness Committee is to be established with “a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties” (i.e., the United States, Mexico, and Canada) and “enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports.” (Emphasis added.) It reads as though the purpose is to make the North American bloc competitive with other trade blocs such as the EU, ASEAN, and Eurasian Economic Union, but of course, this is simply a ploy by the Deep State to abolish the modern international system of sovereign nation-states to, in turn, replace it with a transitional world order composed of interdependent transnational unions, with the view of further global integration toward a socialistic one-world economic union.
Entities such as the EU are dictatorial, with the executives in charge put in place by the world’s wealthiest, most influential people — hardly a situation that bodes well for individual rights and freedoms, or, as leftists claim to want, “democracy.”
Today the EU sees itself as a “post national” entity: It has its own flag, capital in Brussels, passports, foreign and diplomatic service, anthem (“Ode to Joy”), currency (the euro), central bank, supreme court (in the form of the European Court of Justice — ECJ), parliament, president, executive branch (the EU Commission, which elects the president), and constitution (the Lisbon Treaty). Despite what it may say, the EU possesses all the hallmarks of a nation state, but at a larger level, transcending the nation-states that make it up.
In the case of Britain, most of its laws come from or have been influenced by the decisions of the EU. According to a research study conducted by Business for Britain, “Between 1993 and 2014, 64.7 per cent of UK law can be deemed to be EU-influenced. EU regulations accounted for 59.3 per cent of all UK law. UK laws implementing EU directives accounted for 5.4 per cent of total laws in force in UK,” the report stated. Further elaborating, “This body of legislation consists of 49,699 exclusively ‘EU’ regulations, 4,532 UK measures which implement EU directives and 29,573 UK only laws.” British MEP (Member of the European Parliament) and leader of the pro-sovereignty United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) Nigel Farage has repeatedly stated that “75 percent of Britain’s recent Brexit vote to withdraw membership from the EU should serve as a wake-up call for Americans, as the U.S. government proposes entering into a similar transnational union. As the case of the EU shows us, America’s fight against globalism must be won before our globalist politicians cede away too much of our power.our laws are made in Brussels,” the capital of the European Union. Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of these laws, it should be Britons through their representatives in Parliament that make their nation’s laws, not a collection of foreign bureaucrats across the English Channel.
The major steps in creating the EU were not met without resistance and reservation. In 1992, when Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty, that was not the end of Denmark’s membership in the union. Denmark was forced to continue voting on it until the result was a “yes.” At the time, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl told the Danes: “You are just a little people. You cannot dam the Rhine.” The same happened in Ireland. The Irish people rejecting the Treaty of Nice in 2001 following a national referendum. A second referendum was held a year later, which approved the treaty. The second vote was quickly accepted as final. To the EU’s ruling Deep State elite, it does not matter that the citizens of the countries in the European Union repeatedly vote against their country’s continued participation in the Euro-state project, the EU will force it on them.
The new USMCA’s Free Trade Commission fits the criteria of James Madison’s definition of “tyranny”: Writing in The Federalist, No. 47, Founding Father James Madison stated, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The USMCA underscores the urgent need not only to get out of the original NAFTA but to likewise reject the USMCA and all other so-called trade agreements that erode American sovereignty through the establishment of transnational executive commissions and that subordinate the United States to international regimes such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and ILO.
A chapter in the USMCA puts emphasis on powers that America and Canada will give up, by highlighting powers reserved to Mexico. Chapter 8, entitled “Recognition of the Mexican State’s Direct, Inalienable, and Imprescriptible Ownership of Hydrocarbons,” simply states that “the United States and Canada recognize that”:
(a) Mexico reserves its sovereign right to reform its Constitution and its domestic legislation; and
(b) The Mexican State has the direct, inalienable and imprescriptible ownership of all hydrocarbons in the subsoil of the national territory, including the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone located outside the territorial sea and adjacent thereto, in strata or deposits, regardless of their physical conditions pursuant to Mexico’s Constitution.
That is great news for Mexico, particularly its political and energy sovereignty; however, no such chapter affirms the same recognition for the United States, or Canada’s sovereignty. In fact, Mexico’s constitution is the only constitution that any part of the USMCA affirms to be “pursuant to.”
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Mexican constitution gives its nation’s federal government power to regulate whole sectors of its economy: “hydrocarbons, mining, chemical substances, explosives, pyrotechnics, movie industry, commerce, bets, draw and raffles, intermediation and financial services, electrical and nuclear energy.” In the United States, the U.S. government has taken charge of many of these areas, especially energy, despite not being granted powers in those areas by the Constitution, and these sectors will likely be controlled by the Free Trade Commission through its subcommittees covering the Environment, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Issues, North American Competitiveness, Good Regulatory Practices, and Private Commercial Disputes.
ENERGY INTEGRATION OR SOVEREIGNTY?
In the area of energy, the three countries are already merging. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released an eye-opening report revealingly entitled “North American Energy Integration.” This 58-page report, which was discreetly posted on the GAO website in August, is intended for the House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. The report outlines in detail the progress of eight U.S. federal government agencies and departments in integrating the energy sectors of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
According to the GAO report, the “United States cooperates with Canada and Mexico on integrating North American energy markets and infrastructure (energy integration),” further elaborating, “Cooperation occurs at the presidential and ministerial levels (e.g., the countries’ secretaries or ministries of energy) for strategic issues and at the agency level for technical issues.”
In researching for its report, the GAO surveyed various U.S. government officials from the agencies involved in the energy integration scheme. According to those surveyed, a total of 81 energy integration-related schemes were conducted from 2014 through 2017. Those energy integration schemes are listed and summarized in Appendix III of the GAO’s report.
The report also stated that U.S., Canadian, and Mexican officials “expressed general satisfaction with intergovernmental cooperation on energy integration” and that they suggested “further work in areas such as aligning energy regulations.” (Emphasis added.)
Harmonizing energy regulations of the three countries would more easily facilitate their merger. The logical conclusion of these 81 energy integration schemes, and further work to synchronize the energy regulations of all three countries, is a North American Union, much like the present and already integrated European Union. Page six of the GAO report states: “NAFTA has enhanced North American energy integration, facilitating a greater flow of oil, natural gas, and petroleum-derived products among all three North American countries.” Although the report was published prior to the release of the new USMCA, it stated that then-ongoing NAFTA talks would have little effect on the efforts to integrate North America’s energy sectors. According to the report, “State and DOE officials we interviewed said they did not expect the U.S. renegotiation of NAFTA and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to have a significant impact and stated that the energy sector in North America is already well integrated.”
Among the objectives of the North American energy integration plan is to merge the energy grids of all three countries into one single North American energy grid. In fact, page 43 of the GAO report discusses efforts to integrate the U.S.-Mexico energy grid and the need to “enhance the resiliency of the North American energy grid,” rather than referring to it as the energy grids of the three separate countries. (Emphasis added.) The question then naturally arises: Under whose jurisdiction would such a North American energy grid eventually fall? Would it be under Mexico, Canada, the United States, or that of an even higher transitional authority, such as the USMCA’s Free Trade Commission? At present, the answer is unclear, but one thing that is clear is that if the United States goes ahead with the USMCA, it will wreak havoc on America’s national sovereignty.
CAN USMCA BE STOPPED?
The USMCA can most certainly be stopped. It happened before with the TPP and Free Trade Area of the Americas, and it can happen again; however, the Deep State will not make it easy. The United States didn’t get on board with the TPP, even with a seemingly popular president — Obama — who lauded the globalist-controlled Deep State. Obama failed to convince much of his own liberal base to support the TPP. The TPP’s widespread unpopularity resonated in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, with both candidates, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton, coming out against the agreement. On the Right, those who supported real free trade, such as Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would later change their initial support to oppose the agreement. Most Americans, on both the Left and the Right, recognized the TPP as a direct threat to American sovereignty and jobs.
The road will be tough now that Trump, who called both the TPP and NAFTA a “disaster” and the “worst trade agreements in history,” heralds the USMCA as one of his many “promises kept.” But it can be done if people are informed that the USMCA is everything that Trump hated about NAFTA and the TPP, plus more — and that the real solution is to have Congress, not multinational or international entities, decide trade and other policies that fall within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
It is up to us at the grassroots level, through organizations such as The John Birch Society and publications such as The New American magazine, to inform the electorate, opinion molders, members of Congress, and President Trump about what’s really in this USMCA agreement and the need to stop it, in addition to withdrawing the United States from the original NAFTA. Both NAFTA and the USMCA lay the groundwork for a North American Union and threaten our constitutional Republic. Now is the time to act.
When you see a political predator coming, bearing blinders to basic economic truths, run for your life, liberty, and happiness.
Ever wonder why people put blinders on horses? As prey animals, horses have eyes on the sides of their heads to increase their ability to detect and escape predators (who have forward-focused eyes for targeting prey). But that also means horses can be quite distractible by things occurring in their peripheral vision. Consequently, when people want horses to better focus on a particular task, blinders can reduce distractions and make horses more productive.
However, there is no positive parallel for humans. Putting blinders on people, as often attempted by those trying to “sell” public policies, does not help people more successfully attain their goals. Such blinders do the opposite. They increase the likelihood that people will be preyed on. The reason for the difference is that blinders are put on horses to make them more productive when the threat from predators has been controlled, but when public policy is involved, individuals are surrounded by political predators.
In the face of ubiquitous political efforts to selectively blind people in order to sell what they shouldn’t buy, it makes sense to consider ways to better blinder-proof ourselves. And knowing basic economic principles is one major way.
Every Choice Has a Cost
Economics arises from scarcity as a universal fact of life, which means having more of one thing I want means giving up other things I also want. That means, as Thomas Sowell put it, “There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs.” So someone promising solutions while overlooking the tradeoffs is selling snake oil.
One of the implications of scarcity is that “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Every choice has a cost. That means that every promised government free lunch is really a lunch stolen from someone else. And every time they treat resources as free (e.g., ignoring the cost of something the government already owns because there is no added explicit cost, even though there is the foregone opportunity of using it for other purposes or sold to others), they are really hiding costs. But pitchmen don’t want you to notice.
Since government has no resources of its own, for government to spend money, it must also raise those resources from those they supposedly ser
Since government has no resources of its own, for government to spend money, it must also raise those resources from those they supposedly serve. So one cannot just analyze the consequences of government spending as if other things will be equal because they cannot be. One must also analyze how government acquired the resources and the consequences (including the costs to society from the distortions created by taxes, in addition to their direct cost).
If spending is to be deficit-financed, that doesn’t reduce the cost. It just moves it to the less-easily-recognized future because borrowing is, in essence, a government commitment to higher future taxes to make its promises good. And if government uses inflation to make it possible, it just changes the form in which citizens will be taxed. Ignoring such liens on citizens’ futures is blinding people to what must be recognized for accurate analysis.
Distorting Political Realities
Policy changes also cannot change just one incentive “story.” There are multiple margins of choice at which programs change people’s incentives. So when political pitchmen treat policies as single-issue, they are always omitting important parts of the story.
Further, your responses to changed incentives will change others’ incentives and behavior, as well, so a policy presented as “all about you” is always incomplete. And you can’t look only at what happens at first because some responses take longer than others to fully develop.
What Friedrich Hayek termed “weasel words” are also used as blinders to necessary policy considerations. “We” pay for Social Security and “we” get the benefits, but it has transferred trillions of dollars from the young to the old. “Need” is used to imply someone shouldn’t have to pay for something, sidestepping how A’s supposed need justifies taking B’s resources without their consent. “Fair” is applied to one group, keeping people from seeing that fixing any such inequity requires unfairness to others.
Putting blinders on horses can make them more successful at their intended tasks. But putting blinders on people for political decisions does the opposite.
Putting blinders on horses can make them more successful at their intended tasks. But putting blinders on people for political decisions does the opposite. It makes them less successful in achieving their desires but makes government-enabled predators more successful. So when you see a political predator coming, bearing blinders to basic economic truths, run for your life, liberty, and happiness.
From: nlpc.org November 28, 2018 by Peter Flaherty
In response to General Motors’ intention to close American assembly plants and effectively move manufacturing offshore, President Trump should seek repayment of costs associated with the auto bailout. The direct loss to taxpayers when the Treasury sold the last of its GM shares in 2013 was approximately $10 billion.
There is precedent for requiring direct bailout costs to be paid back. In January 2010, President Obama proposed a new fee on the banks that took TARP funds, even though TARP funds were already in the process of being paid back, and with interest. Obama said, “We want our money back. We want our money back, and we are going to get it.”
In 2013, the National Legal and Policy Center asked then-GM CEO Dan Akerson to repay the $10 billion, prompting his widely publicized refusal during a speech at the National Press Club.
The rationale for the bailout was to save American manufacturing jobs. If GM did not want the government interfering in its business decisions, it should have declined taxpayer funds, like Ford. President Obama claimed the bailout would make money for the taxpayer, which did not happen.
The GM bailout was at its core, about politics. This was best illustrated during the final stretch of the 2012 presidential contest when GM spokesmen openly attacked Mitt Romney for asserting that bailed-out GM and Chrysler would move jobs abroad, which is now happening. Romney was right.
Of course, the $10 billion figure dramatically understates the true bailout cost. There were separate multibillion dollar bailouts of Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC, and Delphi and other suppliers. There was cash for clunkers, the government guarantee of warrantees, accelerated fleet purchases, etc., etc.
Treasury also allowed a novel application of the tax-loss carry forward provisions of the tax code during the GM bankruptcy, shielding $45 billion in GM profits from taxation.
Worse, the bailout insulated GM from market forces that would have forced the company to operate differently. Instead, there has been no culture change and the old ways persist, enforced by the UAW, which remains one of GM’s largest shareholders. It has been easy to make money during an economic expansion, but GM is not well positioned to endure the inevitable downturn in auto sales.
GM’s share price of $36-$37 is today not much higher than the its 2010 IPO share price of $33. If Mary Barra headed any other major company, she would be long gone. Instead, she has enjoyed political protection.
Finally, GM has cancelled the Chevy Volt. This move is better late than never. The project was a huge waste of taxpayer money from the beginning.
President Trump’s failure to fire Russia-gate prosecutor Robert Mueller has resulted in pro-Trump journalist Jerome Corsi facing financial ruin and imprisonment as a result of Mueller’s tactics of legal terrorism. But Corsi has now made a smart move, hiring combative attorney Larry Klayman to take the fight to Mueller. Klayman may save Corsi from a frivolous prosecution, but he can’t save Trump from Mueller or impeachment.
It appears that Corsi made some of his own mistakes by associating with controversial characters such as Roger Stone and Alex Jones and perhaps attempting contact with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Assange was a one-time host of a Russian propaganda television show whose interviews included the notorious leftist academic Noam Chomsky. A leftist with an anti-American agenda, he was out to get Hillary Clinton for reasons of his own. Although there are legitimate questions about whether the sources of WikiLeaks were linked to Russian intelligence, it’s difficult to see how Corsi’s involvement in researching a story about Hillary constitutes any form of criminal conduct. Corsi is a pro-Trump journalist who was looking for a story he thought could damage then-candidate Clinton. Under interrogation by Mueller’s operatives, he made some mistakes or misstatements but won’t plead guilty to lying.
Not all of Corsi’s work can be defended, but it is a fact that he is a curious and tough-minded journalist who authored The Obama Nation, a book on the controversial background and communist connections of Barack Hussein Obama. His book cited our material, released during Obama’s first run for the White House, on Obama’s debt to communist Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was Obama’s mentor and father figure. A drinker and pothead, Davis was a lover of Red Russia and a designated security risk suspected of espionage of behalf of the Soviet Union. This relationship alone should have disqualified Obama from the presidency. It is the real Russia-gate scandal that Robert Mueller, one of Obama’s FBI directors, had – and still has – inside information about.
But while Corsi sought to publish stories and a book about the secret life of Obama, journalists from the Washington Post repeatedly played down damaging evidence about Obama having a relationship with the Russian agent Frank Marshall Davis, who had been under FBI surveillance for 19 years. We released Davis’s 600-page FBI file in 2008. Post journalist David Maraniss was one of the worst offenders in terms of the media cover-up. It was later disclosed that he had personal connections to the Communist Party USA through his parents, who were members of the Moscow-funded entity that doubled as an espionage apparatus for communism in America. Red-diaper baby Maraniss never repudiated his parents and their love for communism. He went on to write a sympathetic Obama biography.
Trump’s failure to fire Mueller isn’t entirely to blame for what is happening to Corsi. Trump may have felt he had to let Mueller continue his investigation after conservatives like former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy joined liberals in saying Mueller was an honest professional who could be trusted to do a thorough job. They ignored his service to the Obama-Davis cover-up, not to mention Mueller’s mishandling of the post-9/11 anthrax investigation and purging of FBI materials on the Islamic threat.
Upping the ante, Trump has now retweeted an image of Mueller, Obama, and others behind bars for treason. But Corsi is one of the few journalists who had wanted to investigate that topic. He is now in legal jeopardy because Trump let Mueller continue his “Witch Hunt.” His days as a journalist are now in question as he struggles to survive Mueller’s attempt to jail him. This matter, not the denial of a press pass to CNN’s obnoxious Jim Acosta, involves real First Amendment freedoms.
At this time of political peril for Trump and threats to political journalism from Mueller’s team, former Bush adviser and Fox News contributor Karl Rove has laughably emerged to offer Republicans advice as to how to fight the new crop of socialists in Congress. His Wall Street Journal column is headlined “Stopping the Socialist Resurgence: Republicans need to fight the wild ideas of the Democratic Party’s left wing.” But when Barack Hussein Obama was running for president, Rove told Republican donors to avoid calling him a socialist because some people would object to using that term. Rove told the donors, “If you say he’s a socialist, they’ll go to defend him. If you call him a ‘far out left-winger,’ they’ll say, ‘no, no, he’s not.'” That meant no talk of Obama’s communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and no talk of his backing from the Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, and other such groups.
It’s because of Obama’s success – and timidity like Rove’s – that the liberals and socialists took as many as 40 seats in the House on November 6. However, Trump compounded the problem, calling the defeat a victory.
As a result of Rove’s strategy when John McCain and Mitt Romney ran as the GOP presidential candidates against Obama, the American people were denied a clear understanding of the choice between American values and Marxism. Obama was president for two terms and his legacy of “permanent revolution” – and the cover-up surrounding his own Russian connection – continues. In the words of the Post slogan that was devised to justify its anti-Trump journalism, this is how “Democracy dies in darkness.”
* America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) President Cliff Kincaid has had a nearly 40-year journalism career that includes serving as a co-host for the debate show “Crossfire” on CNN in the 1980s. He currently appears in a popular film on media bias and anonymous sources that is being shown in the Newseum, the journalism museum in Washington, D.C. Kincaid has written or co-authored more than 20 books and hosts an Internet-based Roku TV channel called America’s Survival TV that is available in more than 60 countries and is also on YouTube. Cliff’s book on Marxist dialectics, The Sword of Revolution, has been translated into Portuguese to reach people in Brazil, where an anti-communist revolution has taken root.
“At its worst, political correctness is nothing different from Orwell’s Newspeak – an attempt to change the way people think by forcibly changing the way they speak.” Urban Dictionary
“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.” Chester M. Pierce, Harvard psychiatrist, speaking as an expert in public education at the 1973 International Education Seminar.
The “Dear Hillary” letter, written on Nov. 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), lays out a plan “to remold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone,” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”
Tucker’s plan would change the mission of the schools from teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards. Nothing in this comprehensive plan has anything to do with teaching schoolchildren how to read, write, or calculate.
Twenty-seven or eight years ago, I was interviewed by a reporter at the Sacramento Bee about my articles challenging the thinking of animal rights. The reporter said to me, “But they are politically correct and you are not.” I agreed, saying that if anyone ever called me politically correct, it would be time to slit my throat.
Why do I bring this up now? Back then I didn’t realize where p.c. was going; now it is full-force tyranny. Am I exaggerating? Few people who do not back socialist-leaning thought are allowed to speak on our campuses of ‘higher learning’, many sporting bumper stickers pro Trump or Christianity or pro life have their cars keyed or spray painted. You don’t hear about that happening when one has a coexist bumper sticker.
Political Correctness has become a tool, one of many in the arsenal of global tyranny. It is a tool that could not have been used 40 or 50 years ago; most people still had rational, thinking brains. Since my interview with the Sacramento Bee, the road to hell – or global government – or the death of Western Culture — has gotten so steep we may not be able to stop it or even slow it down.
Do I exaggerate? You tell me. Besides that loss of free speech on college campuses, we have social justice dictating what can, can’t, and must be done. Many campuses require you to intuit someone’s arbitrary choice of gender so that you may properly address them (it would take a perfect clairvoyant to achieve this). Let’s move on to the important stuff – academic learning, or the lack thereof.
College students used to take a liberal arts degree in their undergraduate work to give them a well-rounded base. Now that and most other true academic learning has been ditched for social justice studies, sustainable studies, gaming studies – anything that is anti Western Culture, anything that makes one unemployable, anything that dumbs down the next generations.
Textbooks are full of misinformation, propaganda and lies. Classic literature is banned for using outdated words. Books are ignored or shunned for promoting morality, literacy, reason, common sense, and civility. And while our institutes of higher learning preach, “question authority”, they don’t actually teach questioning anything but Western Culture and its values. They certainly don’t teach students to question the professors’ authority. No longer do students debate tough issues; no one wants to take the side of the non-politically correct.
How did we get from the Declaration of Independence to the State of Political Correctness? One major contributor was the book, The Ideal Communist City, (a design for No Child Left Behind, Common Core and all the other aliases of behavior modification of children) said here in public education, “The best opportunity for contact among children of preschool age occurs in the nursery, which is the best setting for developing the child’s imitative powers and individual activities. He expresses his inclinations most freely here, and his egocentricity is least harmfully repressed. The positive value of group activity, of course, is fully realized only when it is organized and directed by educators who have benefited from advanced social training.”
Or look at this from the BSTEP program our government (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) hired Michigan State University to design. “A small elite will carry society’s burdens. The resulting impersonal manipulation of most people’s life styles will be softened by provisions for pleasure seeking and guaranteed physical necessities. Participatory democracy in the American-ideal mold will mainly disappear. The worth and dignity of individuals will be endangered on every hand. Only exceptional individuals will be able to maintain a sense of worth and dignity.”
Let’s not overlook UNESCO, here, “As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness (one-world order) can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism). We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness.” UNESCO publication #356, “In the Classroom: Toward World Understanding”
It took only about half the lifetime of our country to get us here.
In 1918, Mary Parker Follett wrote, in The New State, group organization – the solution of popular government, “The training for the new democracy must be from the cradle – through nursery, school and play, and on and on through every activity of our life. Citizenship is not to be learned in good government classes or current events courses or lessons in civics. It is to be acquired through those modes of living and acting which shall teach us how to grow the social consciousness. This should be the object of all day school education, of all night school education, of all our supervised recreation, of all our family life, of our club life, of our civic life.
“When we change or ideas of the relation of the individual to society, our whole system of education changes. What we want to teach is interdependence, that efficiency waits on discipline, that discipline is obedience to the whole of which I am a part.. . . when we know how to teach social discipline, then we shall know how to ‘teach school.’ The object of education is to fit children into the life of the community.” P.363
So, according to Follett, our lives must focus completely on losing our individual rights and work to subordinate any freedoms we might consider to the cosmic one-ness, the group. The thought of that (if there are thinking minds left) would drive most of us to suicide.
John Dewey, the reformer of the education system, said, “I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.”
“Humanist Manifesto” (1933) co-author Dewey calls for a synthesizing of all religions and “a socialized and cooperative economic order.”
America cannot last under this. Our country is based on Western Culture, Judeo/Christian Values, the Rule of Law, and other rational, reasoning social institutions. As we eradicate morality, common sense, values, attitudes, and beliefs, we become no different than the animals. Look at Venezuela. Do we want that at a magnitude of the nth degree? If not, now is the time to wake up, stand up, and speak out. We don’t have much time left. Look at the streets of San Francisco, Chicago, Nashville, New York, Los Angeles. Is this what we want to call our civilization?
 Deanna Spingola, The New World Order, Programming the Masses
From: cfact.org December 5th, 2018 By Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris
For the past 50 years, scientists have been studying climate change and the possibility of related sea level changes resulting from melting ice and warming oceans. Despite the common belief that increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere could result in catastrophic sea level rise, there is no evidence to support this fear. Tax monies spent trying to solve this non-existent problem are a complete waste.
There is another widely held misconception: that all the oceans of the world are at the same level. In reality, sea level measurements around the world vary considerably, typically by several inches. Prevailing winds and continental instability are among the variables that make measurements difficult, but the varying results of rising sea levels are extremely accurate.
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States updated its coastal sea level tide gauge data in 2016 at the request of the previous administration. These measurements continue to show no evidence of accelerating sea level rise.
The measurements include tide gauge data at coastal locations along the West Coast, East Coast, Gulf Coast, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, as well as seven Pacific Island groups and six Atlantic Island groups, comprising more than 200 measurement stations.
The longest running NOAA tide gauge record of coastal sea level in the U.S. is in New York City at Battery Park. Its 160-year record shows a steady sea level rise of 11 inches per century. A few miles away at Kings Point, New York is a station whose 80-year record shows about the same.
Both locations show a steady, unchanging sea level rise rate whether temperature has been rising or falling (see below figures). Indeed, The Battery measurements showed the same rate of sea level rise well before the existence of coal power plants and SUVs as today.
The clever ruse of sea level alarmThe clever ruse of sea level alarm 1
The 2016 updated NOAA tide gauge record included data for California coastal locations at San Diego, La Jolla, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The measured rates of sea level rise at these locations vary between four inches and nine inches per century. NOAA data provide assessments with a 95% confidence level at all measured locations.
In contrast to these steady but modest real-world rising sea level rates, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that sea levels all over the world will almost immediately begin rising far faster than before. Not only do NOAA records contradict such claims for U.S. and selected island coasts; this pattern of steady but modest sea level rise is being observed all across the world, despite rising CO2 and fluctuating average global temperatures.
The IPCC and its supporters are not able to provide convincing evidence to support their concerns about dangerous warming-driven sea level rise, as rising temperatures have rarely pushed sea level rise beyond one foot per century. Current sea level rise trends have stayed essentially constant over the past 90 years, despite the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels from less than 300 parts per million (ppm) as the Little Ice Age ended and modern industrial era began, to today’s 410 ppm.
Dire predictions made decades ago of dramatically accelerating polar ice loss, and an ice-free Arctic Ocean, have simply not come to pass. Dr. Steven E. Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science in the Obama administration, noted in The Wall Street Journal on September 19, 2014: “Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today.”
We can test the rising-seas hypothesis with real data collected from ten widely-distributed coastal cities with long and reliable sea level records in addition to those listed above. Those cities are indicated on the map below.
Each of these cities has well-documented, long-term sea level rise data, from which linear extrapolations can be made for the next 100 years. Here are three samples of the data available on the NOAA web site:
The clever ruse of sea level alarm 3
The Ceuta, Spain data show a nearly flat trend. Most notably, the data show no correlation between CO2 concentration and sea-level rise. If the current trend continues for the next century, the sea level in Ceuta will rise only three inches. This is in sharp contrast to the 10-foot global rise in sea levels recently projected by former NASA scientist James Hansen.
The clever ruse of sea level alarm 4
Like some other regions, Hawaii can see significant year-to-year fluctuations in sea level because of global oceanic currents or local plate tectonic movements. However, Honolulu has seen an average sea-level rise of only 5.6 inches since 1900. The sea level around Honolulu is projected to rise a mere 5.6 inches in the next 100 years, once again with no correlation to CO2 levels.
The clever ruse of sea level alarm 5
In contrast to these other locations, the sea level trend in Sitka, Alaska has been downward, not upward. If the rate of change continues, sea level will fall nine inches over the next 100 years. Note that Sitka is only about 100 miles from Glacier Bay and 200 miles from the Hubbard Glacier on Disenchantment Bay. If melting glaciers were causing sea levels to rise, one would expect to see it in Alaska.
Of course, the Sitka anomaly could be due to rising land masses, as is the case in other parts of the world. Still other locations – such as the Norfolk, Virginia area – are prone to land subsidence, the result of groundwater withdrawals from subsurface rock formations and/or to isostatic changes in nearby areas that cause some land masses to rise while others fall in elevation.
Here is the forecast sea level rise over the next century for the remaining seven cities on the map:
Atlantic City, New Jersey – 16 inches
Port Isabel, Texas – 15.4 inches
St. Petersburg, Florida – 10.7 inches
Fernandina Beach, Florida – 8.3 inches
Mumbai/Bombay, India – 3.12 inches
Sydney, Australia – 2.7 inches
Slipshavn, Denmark – 3.6 inches.
The observational data and projected sea level trends for these ten coastal cities lead to three obvious conclusions:
There has been no dramatic sea level rise in the past century, and evidence-based projections show no significant or dangerous rise is likely to occur in the coming century.
There is no evidence to indicate that the rate of sea level rise (or fall) in any of these areas will be substantially different than has been the case over the past decades or even century.
There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and sea level rise. The steady but modest rise in sea level pre-dated coal power plants and SUVs, and has continued at the same pace even as atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 280 parts per million to 410 parts per million.
Claims about dangerously rising sea levels, and island nations being submerged by them – as a result of human fossil fuel use and manmade global warming – are nothing more than a clever ruse, designed to frighten people into demanding or accepting terrible energy policies.
Those policies would cause nations the world over to give up abundant, reliable, affordable coal, oil and natural gas … and replace these fuels with unreliable, weather-dependant, expensive wind, solar and biofuel energy. The results would be devastating – for economies, jobs, manufacturing, food production, poor families and the environment.
Global Rebellion Against UN Mass-migration Pact Spreads
VIENNA, Austria — Following the lead of U.S. President Donald Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (shown), governments across Europe and beyond are refusing to join a controversial United Nations agreement aiming to accelerate mass immigration into the West. Basically, under the UN plan, migration and taxpayer-funded benefits are to be transformed into a “human right,” while governments crack down on criticism. But on December 5, Slovakian and Bulgarian authorities followed Austria, Israel, Poland, Australia, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Croatia, and other free nations in announcing that they would not be signing up to the UN scheme. The growing list of defections comes just before the start of a key UN migration summit set to open next week in Marrakesh, Morocco. Globalists are outraged at the resistance. But the list of governments rejecting the plot is expected to keep growing.
In Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia, public pressure to reject the UN scheme has been growing for weeks. Last week, the Parliament even adopted a resolution urging the government to withdraw. “Slovakia is fully sovereign in defining its own national migration policy,” reads the resolution, adding that the UN Global Compact for Migration was at odds with the nation’s security and migration policy. The resolution also noted that illegal immigration is a negative phenomenon with national security risks. And so, Slovak Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini announced that he would send the objections to the UN. Bulgarian authorities also announced this week that they would reject the pact. “At this stage, the Bulgarian government believes that the decision not to join the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration protects to the fullest extent the interests of the country and its citizens,” the government press office said in a statement released on December 5.
Here in Austria, public sentiment against the UN plot — and against mass migration — is surging. Top officials have noticed, and are now standing with the people. “We view some of the points in this agreement very critically,” said Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, who was elected on a platform of stopping the mass migration and standing up to the globalist EU. “We will therefore do everything to maintain the sovereignty of our country and ensure that we as the Republic of Austria can decide for ourselves on migration issues.” Vice-chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache with the pro-liberty, anti-establishment Freedom Party offered more specifics. “It cannot … be that any formulations are adopted that could perhaps or possibly be interpreted to mean that migration can be a human right,” he said. “That can and must not be the case.”
Poland is standing firm, too. Announcing the his nation would not participate, Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak blasted the deal and the rationale behind it. “This is not a method that would make it possible to reduce the migration crisis. On the contrary, it would only intensify the crisis,” he explained, adding that Poland was working with allies to rein in the mass migration. An official statement from the Polish Interior Ministry noted that the UN agreement is “contrary to the priorities of the Polish government, which are the security of Polish citizens and maintaining control over migration flows.” Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis, who announced last month that his nation would also refuse to join, highlighted the danger of the scheme, saying, “it, in fact, defines migration as a basic human right.”
Outside of Europe, governments are waking up as well. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morris, for instance, said that the UN plot to globalize migration policy was “inconsistent” with the best interests of Australia. He also noted that it “fails to adequately distinguish between people who enter Australia illegally and those who come to Australia the right way.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed similar concerns in blasting the UN deal. “We are committed to guarding our borders against illegal migrants,” the Israeli leader said while announcing that the Jewish state would not be submitting to the UN migration pact. “This is what we have done, and this is what we will continue to do.”
In virtually every Western country that has not yet withdrawn, from Canada and Belgium to the Netherlands and beyond, the official opposition is rallying to stop the UN plan, too. “Canadians and Canadians alone should make decisions on who comes into our country and under what circumstances,” Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said this week, blasting Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen and far-left Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for essentially working to erase the nation’s borders. “Instead of signing international agreements that erode our sovereign right to manage our borders, the prime minister should focus on restoring order at home.’” Other lawmakers have used even more fiery rhetoric, with Conservative Michelle Rempel blasting the UN plan as a “border-erasing policy” and People’s Party chief Maxime Bernier noting that it would “normalize mass migration.” In Belgium, the government may collapse as one of its parties threatens to pull out unless the UN pact is axed. And in the Netherlands, polls show far more people oppose the UN plan than support it.
The effort to globalize immigration policy officially got off the ground in the waning days of the Obama administration at the UN’s first Summit for Refugees and Migrants. Obama, who publicly proclaimed his goal of “fundamentally transforming” America, was an enthusiastic supporter, even hosting the Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis the next day. Those events produced the UN New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and began the negotiation process for the Global Compact for Migration. And that scheme was supposed to culminate on December 12 in Marrakesh with a global agreement that would gradually restructure immigration policy around the world to facilitate an ever-larger migrant influx from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America into the United States, Canada, and European nations.
The problem for globalists, though, was that Trump refused to go along with it. The U.S. government was the first to announce its withdrawal. “Today, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations informed the UN Secretary-General that the United States is ending its participation in the Global Compact on Migration,” the U.S. mission to the United Nations announced in a press release last December, just as the process was getting underway. “The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles. As a result, President Trump determined that the United States would end its participation in the Compact process that aims to reach international consensus at the UN in 2018.”
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, who had been a supporter of the extremist UN effort, went even further after being ordered by Trump to withdraw from the scheme. “America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe, and our generosity will continue,” she said. “But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”
More recently, Trump spoke out during his speech at the UN General Assembly in September. Speaking of the massive illegal immigration swamping the United States and Europe — a key vehicle that even national leaders have said is aimed at undermining nationhood and national identity — Trump called it a threat to national sovereignty, security, and prosperity. “We recognize the right of every nation in this room to set its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests, just as we ask other countries to respect our own right to do the same — which we are doing,” he said, adding that the U.S. government would not participate in the UN’s new “Global Compact on Migration” or other UN migration schemes. “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.” Trump also exposed the lie that re-settling migrants in the West was humanitarian, noted that far more genuine refugees could be helped closer to home for a fraction of the cost.
Globalists at the European Union were left fuming. EU “Migration Commissioner” Dimitris Avramopoulos, for example, told the German newspaper Die Welt that he did not understand the opposition to the UN agreement. The far-left Greek bureaucrat, who has come under fire from governments across the bloc for improperly purporting to speak for Europeans on the issue of migration, also claimed, falsely, that the UN agreement does not “force” anything on anyone. In reality, the deal, known as “soft law” in globalist-speak, would seek to fundamentally re-shape immigration policy to facilitate the massive influx of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans into Europe, Canada, and the United States. Avramopoulos urged European governments to “re-think” their opposition to the pact and sign on. The increasingly unhinged EU boss Jean-Claude Juncker blasted “stupid populists” and said that if they had read the UN agreement, they would not have withdrawn.
The agreement itself demands that the media be used to propagandize populations into accepting mass migration as one of the “guiding principles” of the agreement. Among other policies, it calls on governments to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting,” including “by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology.” It also calls for government to begin “investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising.” The document then goes on to target critics, saying that governments should stop the “allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants.” In other words, the UN agreement envisions governments taking an active role in weaponizing the media and turning it into a propaganda megaphone for UN policies and mass immigration.
The New American’s William F. Jasper offered a more comprehensive breakdown of the threat posed by the agreement, ranging from criminalizing dissent to enshrining totalitarian “international law” and supposed “obligations” to obey it. Perhaps not surprising, Jasper highlighted the role played by the subversive globalist “think tank” known as the Council on Foreign Relations in seeking to strip Americans and other peoples of their sovereign right to set immigration policy. In its Global Governance Working Paper entitled “Domesticating the Giant: The Global Governance of Migration,” the CFR agenda was clear. “UN member states should agree on a normative framework for the multilateral governance of migration,” the global government-promoting outfit declared. “UN member states need to adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM). As the first global comprehensive agreement, the GCM sets common standards and norms for managing migration and presents the potential to improve collective response.”
The growing resistance to the globalist agenda — the mass migration and global governance in the UN pact are both key tools of this agenda — is an encouraging sign. Trump has helped peoples around the world to resist merely by speaking out and being willing to take the heat from the increasingly discredited “fake news” media. The UN and the globalist establishment is now on defense, big time. But to stop the dangerous Deep State vision of a totalitarian and border-less “New World Order” will take much more than just refusing to submit to one UN agreement. Hopefully freedom-loving peoples from around the world can capitalize on these victories. It is not too late to save liberty and Western Christian civilization. It will take hard work. But it can be done.
Photo of President Donald Trump with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban: AP Images
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at email@example.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.
Trump, Hungary’s Orban to Stand Alone Against Signing Dangerous UN Migration Compact?
Trump Admin Orders Withdrawal From UN Migrant Accommodating Agreement
Hungary Resists EU Assault on Sovereignty, Christian Civilization
UN to Help With Migrant Caravans, Might “Resettle” Migrants Here
Globalists Using Mass Migration to De-Christianize the West
Globalists Created the Refugee Crisis
UN “Together” Propaganda Bid Seeks to Flood West With Migrants
Obama-UN Refugee Plan: More Chaos, Conflict, Terror
Hungarian PM: Mass Migration a Plot to Destroy Christian West
New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist
Swedes and Germans Told to Integrate Into Their “New Country”05 December 2018
We hold that Article 5 is most certainly in the Constitution and is a valid and potentially useful tool for righting any defects. We further propose defects that exist are minor. An Article 5 convention would not result in any kind of a correction for what is happening to cause the current devolution of law we are witnessing. Frankly, what would come out of an Article 5 convention would be just as subject to oath violation as the current Constitution.
Further, although there are those in the Article 5 camp that believe only good could come from it, the left has their own designs, and these designs must be considered. Recently in an article in the New American, Christian Gomez detailed the left’s plans: “…we warned about liberal Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig’s bipartisan Call a Convention organization and website, which has since then fortuitously gone defunct. We also warned about the left-wing Con-Con group Wolf-PAC, founded by Cenk Uygur, the host and producer of the progressive The Young Turks. Uygur, like Lessig and many others on the Left, wants an amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and to ensure public financing of elections. The same article also warned about those on the Left wanting to repeal or revise the wording of the Second Amendment. We also quoted from Lessig’s article “Fidelity in Translation,” published in the May 1993 issue of the Texas Law Review, in which Lessig wrote, “Perhaps … it is time to rewrite our Constitution.”
Now, further validating our warnings of a convention from the Left, The Nation magazine — known for its radically progressive and historically communist-leaning views — has published an article in its November 20-27, 2017 issue entitled, “The US Constitution Is Over 2 Centuries Old and Showing Its Age,” with the rather telling subtitle, “To fix our broken system, we need a new constitutional convention.”
The Nation article states, “A convention of states, therefore, is the best remaining option for sorely needed constitutional reforms.”
Among the amendments to the Constitution that The Nation suggests could be proposed or brought up at a Con-Con are free universal healthcare, education, and housing; campaign finance reform; abolishing the “anti-democratic” Electoral College, relying solely on a national popular vote for the election of the president and vice president; non-renewable, 18-year term limits on Supreme Court judges; and a guaranteed living wage.”
Now, back to the issue I was dealing with earlier about men who understand the times these men, and if I could humbly include myself, believe we are not currently in such a time as we were 231 years ago. We believe that what would emanate from a convention today would be far removed from what happened 2 centuries ago and would probably result in the destruction of the protections that were erected at that time.
In addition, remarkably, those who hold to an article 5 convention consistently also hold that we cannot nullify unconstitutional law especially if it has been ruled, that is in reality, an opinion has been given, by the Supreme Court, that said law is constitutional. They’re willing to give their lives over to one vote in a nine person Tribunal. Yes, they are willing to be ruled by a 5-4 vote. Why will they not be ruled by say a 50 to 20 vote in the Idaho legislature where 50 of our legislators many of whom have a good legal training may believe a particular law is unconstitutional. Why will they do it for the five but not for the 50? Strange question indeed.
Another issue of controversy is the concept of nullification. I personally have treated this issue numerous times elsewhere so I won’t go into great detail but suffice it to say that state governments have been nullifying federal law since the beginning of the Republic. Roger Sherman, the only person to have signed all four great state papers of the United States: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution understood clearly the document that he had helped form and in December 1787 he reminded his contemporaries that “The powers vested in the federal government are only Such as respect the common interests of the Union, and are particularly defined, So that each State retains it’s Sovereignty in what respects its own internal government, and a right to exercise every power of a Sovereign State not delegated to the united States. And tho’ the general government in matters within its jurisdiction is paramount to the constitutions; laws of the particular States, yet all acts of the Congress not warranted by the constitution would be void. Nor could they be enforced contrary to the Sense of a majority of the States. One excellency of the constitution is that when the government of the united States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to support it, but when it over leaps those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments they will be powerful enough to check it.”
Alexander Hamilton, speaking at the New York ratifying convention said, “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”
In addition, in Federalist 33 Hamilton said, regarding the supremacy of laws enacted by the federal government which he called the “larger political society”: “If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”
Yes, he actually encouraged the states to treat non-pursuant enactments as usurpation and to ignore them. In that same paper he also said in a manner that contained incredulity: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed.”
There is much, much more. Nullification is a thoroughly constitutional idea that was expressed both in its pages and in the papers of the day that detailed the intent of those who created the Constitution. Do we really believe in getting back to the original intent or not? Do we really think that the founders would’ve ratified the Constitution where Article 6 said something to the effect, “This Constitution, and every Law of the United States which shall be made for any purpose; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”? Perish the thought.
This was debated ad nauseum and set aside. It was one of the concerns the anti-Federalists had. The founders who traveled around to speak to state ratifying conventions consistently pooh-poohed that idea. They drew the attention of their listeners back to the fact that the Constitution proposed was an enumerative document and what was not given could not be done. It was a grant of power with each and every power granted, specifically laid out.
Some early examples of nullification were acts of states ignoring federal controls of free speech and free trade, and against the fugitive-slave laws, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and the prospect of military conscription. Today we see states ignoring the Real ID Act and marijuana laws. Thus they may be minor but the fact remains they have happened and are happening. In some cases, the courts ruled against those early acts and are ruling against some of the modern acts. Do we really believe courts rule? I thought kings ruled. Courts issue opinions. When we subject ourselves to a 5-4 opinion we are fools.
One other point that is made in some cases is that some of the founders changed their minds about nullification and other issues and therefore we must agree with their latter opinion rather than their former. Upon what do they base that requirement? We hold to Madison and Jefferson’s opinions when they penned the resolutions of 98. We believe that when Madison changed his mind, it was a result of pressures of the day, disaffection with his countrymen and their continued non-adherence to the Constitution among things.
Men change their minds sometimes for the wrong reasons and their new opinions are incorrect. John Adams, one of the great founders in the early days when he became president apparently let that power go to his head. He was the instigator of the alien and sedition acts, a blot on his presidency and a testimony that even good men can do stupid and wrong things.
Let’s face it, there are strong opinions on both sides held by people who are otherwise in most instances, on the same page constitutionally. Yes, Article 5 is in the Constitution. But there is so much that is in that document that our legislators disobey on a daily basis. Why do they think we live in a time when that document can be entrusted to those who violate it daily?
And so concluding, no one that I know who is opposed to an Article 5 convention believes it is not constitutional. We just believe this is not the time. We hold with big government Hamilton that when the federal government overstepped its bounds and encroached on the sovereignty of the states, those “…ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.”
Well, the federal government has gone to such extremities. Multiple times. If our state governments would but find their backbones they would resist these encroachments. What could happen I ask you? If the state of Idaho actually was willing to defend such statutes as 18-3315A which stipulates that any “personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Idaho and that remains within the borders of Idaho is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.
It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured in Idaho from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state.”
Would the US government send in F-16s and bomb Boise? I think not. Idaho needs to get her house in order. She needs to stop taking federal monies wrapped up in federal strings, in short she needs to cease succumbing to federal blandishments. Start with something such as this statute and say we will no longer allow a non-pursuant, Second Amendment violating federal statute to rule in our state. This would be a good start and I believe other states would follow, plans of resistance would be concerted, a proper spirit would animate and conduct the whole of them and freedom would again be on the horizon.
THE MIGRANTS WERE ANGRY BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN TOLD BY THE ORGANIZERS IN HONDURAS THAT IT WOULD BE EASY TO GET INTO THE US AND THAT THEY COULD JUST WALK ACROSS THE BORDER.
Last week I went to Tijuana, Mexico to support a family member who was having surgery at a surgical center down there. Their insurance in the US stated that it wouldn’t cover it. We found out that it would cost 35,000 in the US but only 5,000 in Mexico.
Medical tourism is a huge business on the border with thousands of Americans coming down everyday for dental and medical services. We decided to go to a surgical center that specializes in only this surgery down in Tijuana, Mexico.
While I was down there, I wanted to ask the locals about the truth of what was going on with the migrants who were coming up from Honduras and see how different that was from the news that we were receiving in the states.
I talked to street vendors, nurses, orderlies, drivers and others in Mexico. Several of the people that I talked to stated that the 7,000+ people that had come up with the group were mostly young men under or around 30 years old. Locals had offered the migrants rice and beans but the response from them was this is pig food we want pizza.
The migrants were angry because they had been told by the organizers in Honduras that it would be easy to get into the US and that they could just walk across the border.
The mayor of Tijuana said they were spending over 30,000 dollars a day to feed this group and it wasn’t fair to the citizens who pay taxes to have their money taken away from schools and city services for this group of thousands of uninvited people.
Many of the migrants were offered well paying jobs in Tijuana but they refused saying they only wanted to go to the US for work. Several years ago several thousand Haitians came in to Tijuana and thought that they could get into the US also but, when that didn’t happen, they quickly found work and blended right in.
This new group of migrants that have come in the last several weeks, the locals said they are belligerent and show thug like behavior. They don’t want to fit in with the locals and are demanding services. This is not sitting well at all with the very hard working Tijuanans for whom 5.00 a day is considered a good wage for a job.
When the migrants rushed the border officers and started assaulting them the locals were furious because they cant work or make a living if the border gets shut down for any length of time. They don’t want any violence or trouble being brought into this area from those with other agendas.
The most surprising thing that I saw was a huge statue of Abraham Lincoln on the Paseo de los Heroes (The road of Heroes) which is a main road in Tijuana. Several people said that our President Donald Trump was a hero to many because he was a regular citizen who has made our economy boom and so there is work for everyone now that the US is doing so well then Mexico is too.
Medical tourism is so large that they have several lanes just for the medical transports into Mexico at the border.
After several days we went down to Rosarito Beach for another day of recovery at one of the condos that the surgery center owned. We met several other Americans that were recovering from surgeries as well.
During the day we were made aware of a flyer that was being passed around to the migrants. They planned to rush the border again on Sunday morning so we planned on leaving at 7:00am to try to be one of the first vehicles to get through to the US. We were reading that Antifa was behind this latest flyer.
When we drove by the migrant camp on the way to the border we saw lots of Federales and their vehicles and vans and it appeared that they were clearing out the last of the migrants with lots of clothes and trash left behind.
The migrants were supposedly moved to an area 45 minutes from the border so that there would not be anymore attacks or trouble. Some are leaving and returning to Honduras and were upset that they were lied to about the wonderful things that they were going to get once they made it to the border.
I was so grateful to make it to the border where vendors were running up to each of our windows selling blankets, statues, tequila and assorted food and drinks.
I was very happy to see our American flag flying and our Border patrol officers in mass along with US soldiers.
I’ve come back a different person after seeing a city of over 1.9 million people many of whom have a very difficult struggle daily to survive and work. I am humble and grateful to be an American citizen and I am beyond proud of our President Donald Trump and his strong love and support for the American people.
Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews
In our democracy we must respect the ‘will of the people’ is a phrase we have all heard, but is it true? Is the democratic majority the ultimate standard of what is right? Imagine for the moment that there is a voter initiative on the ballot, call it Proposition 0, that specifies everyone in Idaho has one vote except people whose last name begins with R. This passes handily because everyone knows that a person whose last name begins with R is a retrograde raucous rapscallion and their opinions should be rebuked.
The majority has spoken in true democratic fashion and the Rs are OUT.
“Not so fast,” says Mr. Right “We may enjoy a democratic process but we live in a Republic where the rights of the minority are protected from the menace of the mob by our Idaho and United States Constitutions.”
Sure enough, the Supreme Court concurs that the “will of the people” is limited to the bounds agreed in our Constitution. Prop 0, despite having the approval of all people whose names don’t begin R, is dead on arrival, null and void.
Now imagine there was another initiative on the same ballot, call it Proposition 1, which reads:
“Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Secretary of State is directed to build an Executive Mansion. The Secretary of State is required and authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the provisions of this section as soon as practicable.”
Prop 1 passes with a wide majority because the Governor needs a house, obviously. It is the right and good thing to do.
The will of the people has spoken so the Secretary of State better get to work. It should be easy because the Secretary of State is not constrained by any laws, has been granted unlimited resources and is required to take all actions necessary to build the mansion as soon as practicable, because that is what the will of the people demands.
Plans are made. The Executive Mansion will be constructed with the best materials, have 100 rooms, be appointed with the most expensive furnishings and decorated with the finest art money can buy. Labor will be conscripted and carpenters and artisans will be forced to work for free. Funds will come from whatever sources needed such as schools, roads, health services, wherever and if that is not enough, new taxes will be imposed.
The Secretary of State is REQUIRED to take ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY to build the Executive Mansion. After all, it IS the will of the people.
Furthermore, no environmental impact studies are needed, no safety regulations must be obeyed, and no building codes must be followed if they impede the construction because the Executive Mansion must be built as quickly as practicable in spite of any law to the contrary. It’s the will of the people, you know.
Along comes Mr. Right. Remember Mr. Right and his friends on the Supreme Court? Mr. Right’s friends remind the Secretary that the people’s power of the initiative is the same as the power of the legislature, with the same restrictions and limitations. They go on to remind the Secretary that the power of the purse and the power to tax rest solely with the legislature and cannot be assigned to the executive branch. That in a law, the legislature must set limits and standards because the ability to allow unfettered power does not exist. But the ‘will of the people’ laments the Secretary.
The truth is that the through the initiative process the people have the same powers as the legislature, including the power to pass an unconstitutional law that is struck down in the Supreme Court. All intelligent people understand this to be true.
Now imagine that you replace the words “Executive Mansion” with “Medicaid Expansion” and our imaginary Proposition 1 becomes the very real Proposition 2, the one that was just approved by ‘the will of the people’.
The poorly written Proposition 2 assigns legislative powers to the executive branch, and it fails to set limits and standards, and in doing so is in clear violation of our State and Federal Constitutions. Case law supports this conclusion
Proponents of Proposition 2 will argue that the ends justify the means, that helping people is a noble cause and that in this case, the ‘will of the people’ is more important than that pesky Constitution.
One has to then wonder, if the ‘will of the people’ can randomly override the Constitution then why have a Constitution at all?
Text from Proposition 2 (emphasis added)
56-267. MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY EXPANSION.
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law or federal waiver to the contrary, the state shall amend its state plan to expand Medicaid eligibility to include those persons under sixty-five (65) years of age whose modified adjusted gross income is one hundred thirty-three percent (133%) of the federal poverty level or below and who are not otherwise eligible for any other coverage under the state plan, in accordance with sections 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) and 1902(e)(14) of the Social Security Act.
(2) No later than 90 days after approval of this act, the department shall submit any necessary state plan amendments to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to implement the provisions of this section. The department is required and authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the provisions of this section as soon as practicable.
President Trump and his administration don’t want to discuss an enormous problem facing the nation. The problem is indebtedness. It’s huge and getting larger every day.
Discussions about the national debt usually focus on dollar amounts so large that they become almost meaningless. But the figures can be understood, so let’s try to bring clarity to a monstrously serious problem.
Anyone can use the Internet to find the following information about Uncle Sam’s profligacy.
1. As of mid-summer 2018, the national debt totaled more than $21.3 trillion dollars. ($21,300,000,000,000.) It continues to rise.
2. Annual interest payments to holders of this massive indebtedness now total $170 billion ($170,000,000,000.)
3. The federal government’s yearly addition to its indebtedness exceeds the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the worth of all the productivity of the American people.
4. The never audited Federal Reserve is a major holder of U.S. government indebtedness.
5. The United States is beholden to foreign governments that have purchased U.S. Treasury securities. China and Japan each hold more than $1 trillion of these securities and receive interest payments on what they have loaned to our country. (Does being indebted to Communist-controlled China affect U.S. foreign policy? Of course it does.) Other government lenders include Brazil, Ireland, Britain, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and India.
6. The Social Security Trust Fund and 230 other federal agencies own 28 percent of the U.S. national debt. The so-called Social Security trust fund has no money; all it has is government IOUs.
In 2010, a little-known member of Congress from Wisconsin assessed the nation’s indebtedness. Paul Ryan stated:
Unprecedented levels of spending, deficits and debt will overwhelm the budget, smother the economy, weaken America’s competitiveness in the global 21st century economy, and threaten the survival of the government’s major benefit programs.
Ryan attracted growing attention as a result of his expressed concerns. In 2012, he became Mitt Romney’s running mate against the Obama-Biden Democrats. After that GOP team lost the 2012 presidential race, Ryan was soon tapped to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. Early in 2018, he decided to leave both that post and even membership in the House. Did he decide to leave politics because he knew that national indebtedness was being ignored?
As Ryan (and others) indicated in 2010, spending and indebtedness posed a huge threat. It only got worse. In November 2018, retired Texas Congressman Ron Paul reported that an audit of the Pentagon showed barely 10 percent of its agencies could account for how they lost trillions in spending. Pentagon officials didn’t express embarrassment about their inability to explain the disappearance of billions. Without shame, they asked for an extra billion to help find what happened.
Twice during the current decade, the House of Representatives passed a measure calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Twice, the effort died when the Senate failed to produce a similar measure. Therefore, the Fed will continue to manage (rather “mismanage” for nefarious purposes) the nation’s economy.
History shows that nations can become basket cases because of wild spending, overregulation and indebtedness. Once-prosperous Zimbabwe and oil-wealthy Venezuela were reduced to poverty and widespread unrest in recent years. Other nations have suffered similar catastrophic collapse. The causes, led by enormous overspending and resulting indebtedness, are being repeated in the United States. History confirms that continuing to overspend while adding to the nation’s indebtedness is the path to disaster. And ignoring both it and its consequences is surely not the way to proceed.