K–12: Elon Musk Says Take the Red Pill

K–12: Elon Musk Says Take the Red Pill

By Bruce Deitrick Price

(emphasis added)

Elon Musk is one of the brainiest people on the planet and a fighter. He invented PayPal on his way to launching SpaceX and Tesla. Last week, Musk threatened to sue Alameda County because the pols wanted his employees to stay well distanced on a Tesla production line. Yeah, right, Musk replied — you’ll have to arrest me first.

Musk, once a liberal in good standing, explained his outrage: “Somebody wants to stay in the house, that’s great[.] … But to say that they cannot leave their house and they will be arrested if they do, this is fascist. This is not democratic. This is not freedom. Give people back their g—— freedom[.] … Everything people have worked for all their lives is being destroyed in real time. I think the people are going to be very angry about this and are very angry.”

Musk exhorted his 34 million Twitter followers: “Take the red pill.”

The New York Times goofily referred to his message as “cryptic.” Most people know that the hero in The Matrix films is offered a choice between a blue pill (comfortable delusions) and a red pill that lets you see reality and truth.

Never mind what the Times suggests; taking the red pill is not a new development. Fox News reported in 2017: “People of all ages and ethnicities are posting YouTube videos describing ‘red pill moments’ — personal awakenings that have caused them to reject leftist narratives imbibed since childhood from friends, teachers, and the news and entertainment media.”

According to Newsweek in 2018, “The pop culture metaphor has become a popular phrase among conservatives. ‘Being red pilled’ widely signifies a free-thinking attitude and having been awakened.”

Piers Morgan, once a CNN host and a typical liberal, found political upheaval in his red pill. “Populism is rising because liberals have become unbearable,” Morgan explained in a 2019 interview with Ben Shapiro. “Liberals have become utterly, pathetically illiberal and it is a massive problem. Populism is rising because people are fed up with the PC culture. They’re fed up with snowflakery.”

Professor Steve Turley, a conservative commentator, said Morgan’s new attitudes are “easily understandable and indeed justified by the tyrannical nature of PC culture.”

What’s all this got to do with public schools? Everything. They are the perfect embodiment of a tyrannical P.C. culture, which populism and conservatism should oppose.

Go ahead: take the red pill, and grapple with the shocking truths of K–12 malfeasance. The professors and bureaucrats who mismanage our public schools claim they care about education, your kids, and our country. A steady diet of blue pills makes that sound reasonable.

It took years for me to be red-pilled. Finally, I couldn’t escape the conviction that deep down in their Progressive hearts, our professors of education are actively hostile to kids, this country, and education as traditionally defined.

When you take the red pill, you see with clarity that millions of American children don’t learn to read for a horrifyingly specific reason. No, it’s not bad eyesight or a genuine disability. It’s because American public schools insist on using a method known not to work. Whole Word (AKA sight-words) devastates genuine literacy and thus educational progress.

Math is more of the same perverse intent. Your kids may struggle with basic arithmetic and become calculator-dependent at an early age. Why? Because Reform Math and Common Core Math befuddle children and deflate whatever native abilities they have. Take the red pill, and you will likely conclude that such bizarre instruction is not education, but a dirty trick that should be stopped.

Take the red pill, and then you see an impossible truth as if it’s the most obvious thing in the world. Constructivism? Oh, that’s the hoax that prohibits teachers from teaching. Teachers are ordered to be facilitators, not teachers, so children have to be their own teachers. Now and then, this approach might work. But what typically happens is that children are overwhelmed by their galloping ignorance. They have no joy in learning.

Everyone, please take the red pill. As long as you think the schools are your friends, you won’t take the time to grasp what sneaky tricks go on inside the classrooms. You won’t exert yourself to make the schools better.

All these years, the fraud in the public schools was right there before you. With the red pill, you may say, oh, my God, how could I have been part of this deception? They manipulate little kids and break their spirits.

Education officials have become arrogantly anti-education. They seem to be an alien presence that has foisted itself on us. Progressives appear to carry forward the aggression of Karl Marx, who threatened his fellow socialists, if they dared to disagree: “I will annihilate you!”

Kanye West, unexpected fan of Donald Trump, released a tirade of tweets including a call for people to break “out of our mental prisons.” Many conclude he has been red-pilled. We can hope so.

Kanye can give red pills to the people in Hollywood. Maybe they’ll want to help our schools break out of their mental prisons.

Bruce Deitrick Price’s new book is Saving K–12: What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them?



Choose to Unleash the Power of the Free Market




By Brent Regan


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.


See:  Idaho Taxation Won’t Fix Education


Red Flag: The Dangerous Urge To Do Something

By: Judge Andrew Napolitano


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?


Judge Andrew Napolitano

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit






By Tom DeWeese


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.


Scientist: Al Gore and Climate Cabal Are Lying About…


 By TNA Video


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.




Wrightstone wrote the book INCONVENIENT FACTS: THE SCIENCE THAT AL GORE DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW exposing the fraud. “They are lying to you,” he said. Watch and share!


Published with Permission of


Millennials Get It Wrong about Socialism


Most Millennials have a positive view of socialism and communism, but they don’t have all the facts.


From:                                                                                 By Benjamin Powell


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.

Reprinted from the Independent Institute


Benjamin Powell

Benjamin Powell is the Director of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University and a Senior Fellow with the Independent Institute. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.




Social Justice Education: Creating Little SJW Marxists in the…

By William F. Jasper

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.”

Yes, “making the world a more equitable place” through K-12 indoctrination in SJE dogma is all the rage. Even in math and the sciences, not just the humanities. So, it’s not unusual for education journals to publish articles such as the Education Week piece entitled, “To Enliven Lessons, Teachers Bring Social Justice Into Math Classes.”

“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:

“Addressing the Intersectional-Identity Phenomenon Through School Counseling”

“Five Steps to Launching a Schoolwide Social Justice Movement”

“Implications of Gender and Racial Intersectionality in the K-8 Classroom”

“A Pedagogy of Social Justice Education: Social Identity Theory, Intersectionality, and Empowerment”

Terrorist Bill Ayers, SJE Guru

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.

Image: benjaminec via iStock / Getty Images Plus

Related articles:

Seeing Red: MAGA Hats Trigger Media, Celebrities, SJWs Into Fits of Hate, Intolerance

Covington and Killing Conservative Dissent

California Wants to Teach Kindergartners There Are 15 Genders

Craziness in Kids’ Classes

Interview With Duke Pesta of FreedomProject Academy

Middle School Invites Drag Queen to Career Day Event, Parents Infuriated


-Published with Permission of


When environmentalism becomes corruption – Part 1


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.



When environmentalism becomes corruption – Part 2

By Craig Liukko:

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.



California Dept. Of Education Wants To Teach Your Kindergartners…

 By Tim Brown 

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.

Newman reported in April 2018:

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.

Carly Hoilman reports on the new developments:

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.

Fed Up Parents Organize ‘Sex Ed Sit Out’ to Protest ‘Gender-Bending Propaganda’ Taught in Schools

“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.”

Newman goes on to elaborate more:

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!

Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost


In Defense of Western Civilization

By Jeff Lukens

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.

© Jeff Lukens

Published with Permission of


Tropico 5: The Game That Proves Central Planning Can’t…

Tropico 5: The Game That Proves Central Planning Can’t Work

Tropico demonstrates to us that despite our best intentions, it is hubris to believe we can mold our economy to our wishes through central planning.

By Ong Jia Yi Justin

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.

Tropico 5’s simulated city building and management provide players with a taste of central planning and an opportunity to build a socialist paradise.

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.

Players have to plan out their nation’s agricultural sector meticulously, including making decisions about agricultural produce, location, technology, and farm employment.

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.

Players must assign wages for various jobs of various industries that demand various education levels to manage the supply of labor for each industry.

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.

Spontaneous Order

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.

The Venezuelan government’s game of Tropico has destroyed the lives of many. Despite owning the largest oil reserves on the planet, Venezuelans are so impoverished that they have to buy rotten meat from markets or scavenge for rotten food from dumpsters just to survive.

Unfortunately, many governments worldwide operate as if they are playing Tropico, without a second thought about manipulating the economy through central planning.

In Venezuela, the socialist government’s game of Tropico has failed its people. Despite having the world’s largest oil reserves, Venezuelans struggle desperately for basic amenities and even have to purchase rotten meat in markets to survive.

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.

Perhaps failing to plan is not planning to fail.

Image credit: Tropico



Saying You’re Against Fascists Doesn’t Excuse Acting Like One

— Published with Permission of —

by Jon Miltimore and Tyler Brandt

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.


UN Boss: Use “Climate Action” to “Transform World”

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.

But as the wheels come off the bandwagon with top world leaders such as President Donald Trump rejecting the UN alarmism, UN leaders are becoming even more alarmist. One UN chief, UN General Assembly president Maria Espinosa, even claimed mankind was “in danger of disappearing” if humanity refuses to submit to the UN agenda. “We need to act urgently, and with audacity,” she exclaimed. “Be ambitious, but also responsible for the future generations.”

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.

“Climate action offers a compelling path to transform our world for the better,” Guterres continued. “In short, we need a complete transformation of our global energy economy, as well as how we manage land and forest resources. We need to embrace low-carbon, climate-resilient sustainable development.” For those who are unfamiliar with UN-speak, “sustainable development” is code for government-directed development and global technocratic rule.

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.

GUO Banner

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.

Photo of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: ©

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 Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.


New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist

Ocasio-Cortez Sees Climate Change Politics as Means to Transform America

UN Plotting to “Dramatically Alter” Your Views and Behavior

At UN, Gore Demands “Ubiquitous” Population Control for Climate

UN Bosses Secretly Plot Global Govt Through “Green Economy” for Rio+20

U.S. Media MIA at UN COP24 “Climate” Summit Planning Future of Mankind

UN Report for Rio+20 Outlines Top-down “Green” World Order

Trump Trolls UN Climate Summit With Event Promoting Oil, Coal

Global Warming Bandwagon Coming Apart, Says Marc Morano

UN Climate Alarmists Angry at Trump Amid Push to “Transform” World

Scientists Ridicule Latest Round of Federal “Climate Change” Hysteria

Scientists Mock New UN Climate Report Seeking “Unprecedented Changes” to Society

Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything

UN Climate Summit: Shackling the Planet to “Save” It


Outing ‘Machiavellian’ Robert E. Lighthizer: The ‘New NAFTA,’ the…

From:                                        By Rich Loudenback

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.”

Christian Gomez in his expose’ What’s Wrong With the USMCA? reveals much more real danger for U.S. sovereignty:


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.


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.


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.


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.

Read Christian Gomez’s complete article:   What’s Wrong With the USMCA?

Make no mistake, Robert E. Lighthizer is an American sovereignty killing CFR globalist.




Government Thrives by Keeping People Blind to Its True…

From:                                        December 11, 2018                           By Gary M. Galles


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.

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.

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.

Row .5

20 Things Republicans Could Have Done but Didn’t

Another Republican majority has come and gone. And with nothing to show for it.

Although Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress under a Democratic president during two years of Harry Truman’s presidency, the last six years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the last two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, there have been three times in recent history when the Republican Party had absolute control of the government.

The Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress during the first two years of Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency.

The Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress for over four years during the presidency of Republican George W. Bush.

The Republicans have controlled both Houses of Congress since the presidential inauguration of Republican Donald Trump. However, because of Democratic gains in the recent midterm election, Republicans will lose control of the House when the next Congress (the 116th) meets in January.

Republicans under Eisenhower could have repealed the New Deal. They didn’t. And the road was paved for a massive welfare state.

Republicans under Bush could have repealed the Great Society. They didn’t. And the welfare state was expanded yet again.

Republicans under Trump could have repealed Obamacare. They didn’t. And the welfare state became inexorably entrenched.

Economist Walter Williams of George Mason University recently pointed out the terrible truth about government spending:

Tragically, two-thirds to three-quarters of the federal budget can be described as Congress taking the rightful earnings of one American to give to another American—using one American to serve another. Such acts include farm subsidies, business bailouts, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, and many other programs.

This is just as true under Trump and his Republican majority in Congress as it ever was.

In baseball it is three strikes and you’re out, but not in politics. In the months before the next election, Republicans will tell Americas that they should vote Republican so they can regain the House of Representatives in order to rein in government spending, reduce the size of the government, restore the Constitution, cut government waste, eliminate unnecessary regulations, fix the economy, and make America great again. And millions of Americans will believe them, vote for them, and give them yet another chance to not only do none of these things, but to make things even worse.

But of course, it doesn’t have to be like this. Republicans under Eisenhower could have done something. Republicans under Bush could have done something. Republicans under Trump could have done something. In fact, Republicans could have done almost anything.

So, what could the Republicans have done?

Could Republicans have eliminated Medicaid? Of course. Could Republicans have eliminated food stamps? Certainly. But let’s be realistic. Although Republicans could have at least made some real cuts to these programs, there is no way that they would ever try to abolish them. Even if they actually had some philosophical aversion to these programs, it would be politically inexpedient for them to try to abolish them.

What then, could the Republicans have actually done? What is the best we could have hoped for?

Here are twenty reasonable things that the Republicans could have done:

  • Repeal Obamacare in its entirety
  • Abolish the National Endowment for the Arts
  • Abolish the National Endowment for the Humanities
  • Eliminate refundable tax credits
  • Eliminate the Department of Education
  • Stop cash welfare payments
  • Cease funding any scientific research on climate change
  • Means test all welfare programs
  • Abolish the TSA and returned airport security to the private sector
  • Eliminate CAFE standards
  • Allow people to sell their bodily organs upon their death
  • Defund Planned Parenthood
  • End the federal war on marijuana and leave the issue up to the states
  • End the embargo against Cuba and allow Americans to freely travel there
  • Eliminate all foreign aid
  • End all restrictions on the production of hemp
  • Eliminate all funding for manned and unmanned missions to Mars
  • Privatize the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
  • Abolish the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
  • End all farm subsidies

And Republicans certainly could have eliminated Daylight Saving Time.

Not only could Republicans have done these things, they could have done them the first month that they had absolute control of the government. But they, as usual, did nothing.

Republicans are worse than useless. They are welfare statists just like Democrats. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. Libertarians who hold their nose and vote Republican when there are no libertarians on the ballot are wasting their vote.

Another Republican majority has come and gone. And with nothing to show for it—except a massive welfare state, perpetual war, a federal budget over $4 trillion, and a national debt over $21.7 trillion.

Row .5

Top Five Lies About Nullification

From: Dec 7, 2018 By: Mike Maharrey

We hear them over, and over, and over again — the same, tired, worn out misconceptions or downright lies about nullification.

Historians, legal scholars and journalists all parrot these fallacies every time anybody proposes nullification. They use these misconceptions as a way to derail efforts to stop federal overreach and limit the power of the general government. Some of them sound plausible — especially if you were a product of government schools. But all of them are wrong.

Following are the top five lies about nullification and a brief overview of why they’re wrong.

1. The Supremacy Clause Prohibits Nullification

This probably ranks as the most common nullification objection. According to the naysayers, the Constitution’s supremacy clause makes every federal edict “the supreme law of the land.” As such, a state has no authority to challenge it in any way. This erroneous assertion ignores the most important words in the clause. Only the Constitution and laws “made in pursuance thereof” qualify as supreme. Any federal act not in pursuance of the Constitution is, as Alexander Hamilton put it, “void.”

One does not obey or enforce a “voided” act. In fact, James Madison asserted that a state is “duty bound” to “interpose” when the federal government attempts to operate outside of its constitutional bounds. The supremacy clause does not undermine nullification. It actually enforces it. To learn more, click HERE and HERE,

2. John C. Calhoun Invented Nullification

Virtually every mainstream article about nullification invokes the name “John C. Calhoun.” Most of them will assert that he came up with the idea for state nullification. This, of course, is meant to tie the principles of nullification to slavery, as the South Carolina senator was an unapologetic supporter of the institution.

It’s true that Calhoun was a central figure in the so-called “nullification crisis” in the early 1820s and 1830s. But this had nothing to do with slavery, and he did not come up with the idea of nullification.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison first formalized the principles in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions two decades earlier in response to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws enacted by Pres. John Adams in 1798 were clear violations of the due process clause, the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment. Jefferson and Madison both insisted a state had both a right and duty to step in and stop the overreach. It was Jefferson who insisted nullification is “the rightful remedy.”

“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.”

Jefferson and Madison were working on a strategy to implement nullification after the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed their respective resolutions, but Jefferson’s ascendancy to the presidency and the subsequent end of the Alien and Sedition Acts rendered the issue moot.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with Calhoun. The principles were well-established long before Calhoun invoked them. But unsurprisingly, articles about nullification almost never mention Jefferson or Madison. To learn more, click HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

3. James Madison Opposed Nullification

Despite the fact that James Madison penned the Virginia Resolutions and was one of the first people to formalize the principle of nullification, pundits invoke a second common misconception claiming Madison actually opposed the idea. They rely on arguments he made during the aforementioned nullification crisis in the late 1820s and early 1830s, but they take his comments out of context.

In fact, Madison opposed a specific nullification scheme developed by Sen. John C. Calhoun. He never renounced the general principles.

Calhoun built on the ideas outlined in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and claimed that if a single state nullified a federal act, it was annulled within that state and it legally bound other states to honor its action until three-quarters of them overruled the nullification.

Madison’s anti-nullification comments specifically addressed this scheme. But Madison did not condemn the more general principles of state nullification. In fact, Madison reaffirmed the idea even while opposing Calhoun’s version, writing, “Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.” To learn more, click HERE.

4. The Supreme Court Decides Constitutionality

Even if they admit that federal actions violating the Constitution have no legal force, modern pundits will always claim that it’s the Supreme Court’s job to determine the constitutionality of an act — not a state. They will usually refer to John Marshall’s famous opinion in Marbury v. Madison to bolster their case.

In effect, these people argue that the federal government determines the power of the federal government. Thomas Jefferson pointed out the absurdity of this notion in the Kentucky Resolutions.

“The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

In the Report of 1800 (a defense of the Virginia Resolutions) Madison also insisted that the Supreme Court only had the final say in a dispute between the three branches of the government, but not in a dispute over federal power in relation to the states.

“The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

As far as Marshall’s opinion in Marbury goes, most people take what he said out of context. And regardless, it’s ludicrous to argue that the Supreme Court decided it has the final say, therefore it does. To learn more click HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

5. Nullification Supported Slavery

The final common misconception trumpeted over and over again is that nullification was all about slavery. Again, this is meant to tar the idea as “racist.” Actually, it nullification was about slavery, but not in the way the mainstream wants you to believe.

In fact, nullification was never used to support slavery. Slavery was the law of the land according to the federal government. There was nothing for slavers to nullify.

But abolitionists did use the principles of nullification and state powers to fight the fugitive slave acts.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was enacted to aid southern slavers in their efforts to reclaim their “property.” It allowed a slave owner, or his representative, to haul a black person back South into slavery merely on his world. It denied an accused runaway any semblance of due process. It also compelled citizens to assist in fugitive slave rendition if ordered to do so and made assisting suspected runaways a federal crime with stiff penalties.

But at the state level, northerners rebelled. They asserted state sovereignty and passed aggressive personal liberty laws to thwart execution of the act. In support of their stand, apologists appealed to the notion of “states’ rights,” sometimes directly quoting arguments advanced by John C. Calhoun during the “Nullification Crisis” decades earlier. These abolitionist efforts were so successful, South Carolina and several other seceding states listed northern state nullification of the fugtiive slave laws as justification for leaving the union — and they used the word nullification.

So, nullification was “about slavery,” but it never supported slavery. To Learn more, click HERE.


Trump Should Make GM Repay Bailout Costs

From: 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.

Row .5

The Nazi Roots of the Environmental Movement

From: February 24, 2018 by Steve Busch

Simply put, radical environmentalism, a.k.a. the GREEN MOVEMENT, DEEP ECOLOGY, or REWILDING, is a philosophy that elevates nature over man. Hitler incorporated this naturalistic philosophy in his infamous treatise, Mein Kampf, where he blamed the entire Jewish race for what he called “the pacification of Nature”.

According to Hitler, the Jews, and to a lesser extent, the Judeo-Christian ethic that stemmed from a belief in a “transcendent God,” were responsible for wrecking the environmental health of the planet. Jews and Christians accomplished this evil deed through the promotion of capitalism, international commerce, and/or the communitarian values of communism.

Hitler’s anti-materialistic, anti-human, indeed anti-Christ philosophy is very much evident in the modern environmental movement. Deep ecologists, a.k.a “radical environmentalists”, seek many of the same goals Hitler sought. Primarily they intend to keep and/or return as much of the planet as possible to a pre-historic or primitive state completely untouched and untrammeled by human beings. For the sake of simplicity, I refer to this agenda as “REWILDING”.

“In fact, the Nazis actually believed that the sick modern world of both international capitalism and communism, led by Jews and spread by Christianity, was entirely disobedient to Nature.” – [Mark Musser- Hitler’s Green Killing Machine c. 2010]

The NAZI’s believed that wild animals and nature needed more space. They initiated plans to depopulate and REWILD large swaths of Europe and replace domestic cattle with wild species such as the Auroch. Much of the NAZI’s genetic research was dedicated to replicating primeval animals of the past. Ironically, in their obsession with the veneration of nature, they treated human beings, in particular the Jews, worse than animals.

“Their ideology of genetic purity extended to aspirations about reviving a pristine landscape with ancient animals and forests.” – Read more: When the Nazis Tried to Bring Animals Back from Extinction

Today we see “Smart Growth” and restrictive land use laws based on NAZI notions of “sustainability”. In fact, the word “ecology” was coined in 1866 by the racist German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. Suffice it to say that Hitler approved of many of Haeckel’s Darwinist concepts, especially as they related to the Jews. Even after the defeat of NAZISM, subsequent generations continue to be programmed to believe that stifling human development in order to “save” fish and frogs or some species of vole is the right and necessary thing to do. We have been programmed to believe that shutting down the timber industry for the sake of non-endangered birds, or promoting large non-endangered carnivores such as wolves and grizzly bears to the detriment of human beings, is right, noble, and just.

“The Reich Nature Protection Act even allowed the expropriation of private property without compensation for the sake of the environment. Sustainable forestry practices called Dauerwald, which ironically means “eternal” forest, were also introduced at the federal level.” – [Mark Musser- Hitler’s Green Killing Machine c. 2010]

Advocates of REWILDING are fond of claiming that “nature needs half,” implying that human beings occupy too much space and therefore we must limit our planetary “footprint” in order to preserve a “sustainable” percentage of the earth’s habitat for wildlife and fish, an amount which only they are competent to define. Climate change is blamed on capitalism and those who hold to a Judeo-Christian ethic or outmoded concepts of industry and “private property.” The extinction of wildlife species is blamed on those who hold to the mindset that man is the pinnacle of creation and nature exists to meet man’s needs. The Deep Ecology answer to all of the world’s perceived “problems” is to reduce human impacts by radically reducing the human population, curtailing development, and re-educating (read: programming) and controlling those who are allowed to remain.

But here are the facts. Over half of the entire human population currently occupies a mere 1% of the earth’s land surface. The perception that human beings are virtually everywhere is based on the fact that we are a communal species that choose to live in settled landscapes where other people, i.e. civilization, if not right out the front door, is close at hand. While the total land surface area of the earth is just under 58 million square miles, approximately 33% is desert and 24% is mountainous. Subtracting this largely empty and/or uninhabitable land from the total land area leaves about 25 million square miles of habitable land.

Half of the total human population lives on less than 1% of the land area of the planet. [Map Info courtesy of NASA] Our urban centers are often surrounded by agricultural land that actually covers less than 11% of the earth’s land surface. Domesticated animals grazing on open undeveloped land or pastures may account for up to another 20%. That means human activity, in all forms, takes place on less than 1/3 of the earth’s land surface. The fact is, nearly 2/3 of earth’s land surface is very sparsely populated and is considered too hostile of an environment for human habitation or agricultural production. Thus, the REWILDERS already have far more land than they clam to want. In fact, they are GAINING EVEN MORE LAND EVERY DAY!

According to U.S. Bureau of Census statistics, the majority of rural counties in the United States are continuing to lose population while urban centers continue to grow. Over the last several decades, rural land abandonment in Europe has reached problematic levels as urbanization continues to swallow more and more of the population.

Those who think that urban sprawl and unchecked development are the greatest threats to the health of the planet may want to look at the facts. According to the 2014 FAO Global Land Cover SHARE database, a mere 0.6% of Earth’s land surface is defined as “artificial surfaces.” Artificial surfaces include any land surface area that has an “artificial covering” as a result of human activities. This would include any type of construction or infrastructure such as cities, towns, dams, roads, mines, quarries, urban parks, sports fields, etc.

Think about this. Over half of humanity lives on a mere 1% of the earth’s surface while development (infrastructure) covers just 0.6% percent. Let’s use Canada as an example to try to put this in perspective. Canada has a land area of roughly 3.8 million square miles. Nearly 90% of the population lives in only four provinces, with more than 40% living in only one province (Ontario). The vast majority of the Canadian population resides within 100 miles of the U.S. border. That leaves vast areas of unsettled land available for nature. Yet we are repeatedly told by the REWILDING advocates that “nature needs half”, as if humanity has somehow already managed to overrun the entire planet.

There is far more to the REWILDING agenda than meets the eye. NAZI ecological concepts went far beyond “wise use” or “responsible stewardship” of the earth’s resources and wildlife. And just like their NAZI mentors, modern environmentalists seek the power to create a world of their own choosing.

Sources for this article:

[Mark Musser- Hitler’s Green Killing Machine c. 2010]
When the Nazis Tried to Bring Animals Back from Extinction
Nature Needs Half
Global Land Cover SHARE


Mueller’s legal terrorism threatens a free press

From: November 29, 2018 By Cliff Kincaid

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.

© Cliff Kincaid



From: by Kathleen Marquardt

“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.”[1]

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?

[1] Deanna Spingola, The New World Order, Programming the Masses


The clever ruse of sea level alarm

From: 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.

The clever ruse of sea level alarm 2

Source:, modified.

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

From: 05 December 2018 by Alex Newman

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 Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.

CFSii banner

Related articles:

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


Not an Article 5, Rather an Article 6


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.


Migrants in Mexico

From:                                by Danielle Ahrens



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:$RedoubtNews


The Constitution vs. The Will of the People


The Petition for Review

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)


(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.


Indebtedness: The Path to Disaster

From:                              28 November 2018                                by  

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.

John F. McManus is president emeritus of The John Birch Society.

Row .5

Blaming climate – ignoring incompetence

From:                       November 19th, 2018                    By 

Two more raging infernos in California have burned an area nearly ten times the size of Washington, DC. Wildlife and habitats have been torched. Over 8,000 homes and businesses, and nearly the entire town of Paradise, are now ashes and rubble. Cars were partly charred and melted as they escaped the flames, others completely incinerated, sometimes with occupants still inside. Well over 60 people have perished. Over 50,000 are homeless. Hundreds remain missing.

President Trump expressed deep support for the thousands of courageous firefighters battling the conflagrations, urged residents to evacuate quickly and expedited disaster assistance to the ravaged communities. He also sent a poorly crafted tweet: “Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!”

The tweet is “partisan,” “ill-informed” and “insensitive” to those who are suffering, state politicians and celebrities railed – before engaging in their own ill-informed, partisan insensitivity.

“This is not the ‘new normal.’ This is the ‘new abnormal,’ Governor Jerry Brown asserted. “And this new abnormal will continue. Dryness, warmth, drought, all those things, they’re going to intensify.” We have to “do more” on forest management, he continued. “But managing all the forests everywhere we can does not stop climate change. And those who deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedies that we’re now witnessing and will continue to witness in the coming years.” This chart refutes his climate claims.

Resorting to “manmade climate change” has become the favorite, most politically expedient tactic for deflecting attention away from the abject, ideological, even criminally incompetent forest management practices demanded by politicians, regulators, judges and environmentalists in recent decades.

The hard, incontrovertible reality is that California is and always has been a largely arid state, afflicted on repeated occasions by prolonged droughts, interspersed with periods of intense rainfall, and buffeted almost every autumn by powerful winds that can whip forest fires into infernos.

43% of California timberlands are privately owned, 1% are state owned, and all of them are governed by state laws, regulations and regulators. The remaining 56% are federally owned and managed, largely by preservation-oriented, change-resistant bureaucrats, subject to constant litigation by environmentalists.

This past summer brought unusual rainfall that spurred plant growth. It was followed by hot weather that dried foliage out and set the stage for conflagrations in thick, poorly managed brush and trees.

In this context, it doesn’t much matter if the state is also now confronting climate change, whether natural or manmade – or that California’s or the world’s average temperatures may have risen 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 or even 1.0 degree in recent decades. It doesn’t matter if humans or nature caused the recent fires.

Instead of casting blame, responsible parties need to come together, and deal with the situation at hand. That means first extinguishing these fires and helping devastated families rebuild their lives. Thankfully, everyone is committed to doing that. But it also means better forest management, which is not happening.

In 2016, Governor Brown vetoed a bipartisan wildfire management bill that had unanimously passed the state Assembly and Senate. For decades, radical environmentalists have demanded – and legislators, regulators and judges have approved – “wildlands preservation” and “fires are natural” policies. Tree thinning has been banned, resulting in thousands of skinny, fire-susceptible trees growing where only a few hundred should be present. Even removing diseased, dead and burned trees has been prohibited.

All that timber could have gone to sawmills, to create jobs … and lumber for homes. Instead, the mills and jobs are gone. It could also have fueled biomass electricity generating plants; but most are also closed. State and federal forests in California now host over 129 million dead trees that cannot be touched!

In 2009, Clinton-appointed Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the Bush era US Forest Service had not fully analyzed the effects of potential timber harvesting on endangered plants and animals. In 2015, Obama-appointed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected concerns that new, highly restrictive Obama-era forest plans would further harm local economies and increase the risk of forest fires.

Did those judges and pressure groups, or the politicians and regulators who support them, ever ponder how thoroughly the inevitable infernos exterminate habitats, immolate endangered plants and animals, leave surviving animals starving, and incinerate organic matter in the thin soils? Did they consider how subsequent downpours and snowmelts denude hillsides, wash soils into streambeds, and ensure that trees and biodiversity won’t recover for decades?

Did they gave a moment’s thought to the way horrific conflagrations obliterate communities and kill firefighters, parents and children who get trapped by sudden walls of fast-moving flames? Not likely.

But now many of them seem ready to blame Pacific Gas & Electric, whose power lines may have may have caused a spark that ignited the current deadly inferno on private lands in Northern California. Let no one forget that these pressure groups and government employees share the blame – by causing and perpetuating the conditions that set the stage for this horrendous destruction and loss of life.

Governor Brown recently said that, especially during this “new abnormal,” you have to “do prevention” and “have escape routes” and adapt to “a changed world that not so many people were aware of or were thinking about.” These actions are part of his job – the job of regulators, politicians and judges.

Not only have they been derelict in their duties. They have colluded to prevent tree thinning and dead tree removal. They’ve contested recent initiatives by the Interior Department and Forest Service to revise and reverse policies that invite deadly infernos in the 56% of California forests that are under direct federal control. They’ve perpetuated what Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) calls “ponderous, byzantine laws and regulations administered by a cadre of ideological zealots.”

In too many areas, tree and brush clearing, dead and diseased tree removal, and the construction of fire breaks and additional escape routes are prohibited – or must go through decades-long study, review, approval and litigation processes. Only a fool or ideologue would fail to foresee the inevitable results.

In many cases, companies are not even allowed to salvage blackened trees that might be left standing after a conflagration has passed through an area. In stark contrast to these areas, privately and tribally managed forests outside the once-Golden State are actively managed to prevent major fires like those that have devastated vast national forest areas in California and other Western states.

In California, if private landowners want to burn leaves and tree limbs to reduce fire hazards, they must first obtain air-quality permits from local air districts, burn permits from local fire agencies, and other permits depending on the location, size, type and timing of a proposed burn, air and ground moisture levels, and other factors. That’s all well and good, if the rules prevent fires that could turn into infernos.

But do the bureaucrats make any attempt to factor in the horrendous air pollution and utter destruction from the monstrous fires their decrees cause by delaying or blocking brush clearing or controlled burns?

As to climate change, what actual evidence can alarmists provide to show that today’s climate and weather conditions are predominantly due to fossil fuel use – or would be significantly different if the state or USA went 100% renewable, especially when the developing world continues to increase its coal, oil and gas use to lift billions out of poverty? Can they prove energy and climate edicts would enable the state to control the timing, frequency and severity of future climate fluctuations, rains, droughts, winds, and other weather events? Will Governor-elect Gavin Newsom seek common ground on forest issues?

We clearly need less hidebound ideology, greater compassion and respect for human and animal life – and greater willingness to find bipartisan ways to deal with the perpetually arid conditions in California and throughout the West, via responsible and scientific management of our forest heritage.

Above all, we need to remember that people live in these areas and need to be protected. And right now, we should all lend a hand to those who have lost their homes, livelihoods and family members – perhaps by donating to the Red Cross or the Camp fire relief fund.

Row .5

How Al Gore built the global warming fraud

From:                 October 20th, 2018                 By  and 

Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”

Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?

Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.

This sounds very similar to today’s climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.

TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.”

Global cooling gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.

Al Gore Sr., a powerful Senator from Tennessee, saw to it that his son was elected to the House of Representatives, serving from 1977 to 1985, then going on to the Senate from 1985 to 1993.  Gore Junior’s primary issue was his conviction that the Earth would perish if we did not eliminate fossil fuels.

Gore advanced to Vice President under President Bill Clinton, where he was able to enact policies and direct funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority of the United States Government. Gore’s mission was boosted when Clinton gave him authority over the newly created President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

It will come as no surprise then that, when the Council’s Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, the “Scope of Activities” included the following direction to the Council:

Advise the President on domestic implementation of policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council should not debate the science of global warming [emphasis added], but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements. The Council should, at a minimum, identify and encourage potentially replicable examples of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across diverse sectors and levels of society.

Considering that the Council was tasked with advising the President “on matters involving sustainable development,” and alternative points of view on the science of climate change were effectively excluded, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton administration would go in the direction Gore wanted. Indeed, in their cover letter to the President accompanying their 1999 report, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, the Council stated: “Our report presents consensus recommendations on how America can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other steps to protect the climate.”

A cornerstone of Gore’s strategy was to ensure that all high-ranking government officials who had any involvement with funding policies relating to climate change were in line with his vision. These agencies included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.

Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, provided a series of graphic images showing the apocalyptic consequences that some had predicted if fossil fuels were allowed to continue warming the planet. Images included melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.

This compelling propaganda played a major role in frightening an entire generation about the future, causing young people and many parents to feel guilty about the role that they and their country were supposedly having in destroying our beautiful planet.

Since then, Americans have been told constantly that they should feel irresponsible if they drive cars or use fossil fuel energy to heat their homes or power their businesses. A rapid, massive conversion away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, we are told, is the only hope for saving the planet.

Now children are increasingly depressed about their future, thanks to the constant barrage of global warming propaganda that they receive at school. Indeed, they have become so brainwashed and cowed by their peers that they no longer dare to question any statement made about catastrophic climate change.

Yet, essentially everything in Gore’s climate change agenda is either wrong or highly misrepresented.

Now that he is President Donald Trump’s Senior Scientist for the National Security Council, Dr. Happer needs to show there is no “scientific consensus” on these issues, rekindle informed debate on climate and energy issues, and help bring hope, common sense and real science back into the discourse – to help end the dangerous mythology of dangerous manmade global warming.

Row .5

Price Controls Are the Wrong Prescription for High Drug…

President Trump often rails against foreign trade partners such as China that treat the US unfairly. These complaints sometimes have merit, as foreign governments often cheat and abuse US firms, which is why it’s odd that his administration is now seeking to perpetuate many of the same abuses on US-based pharmaceutical companies.

It’s well-known that prescription drug prices are typically higher in the US than many other nations. That’s both because bad domestic policies restrict the kind of competition that would keep prices in check and the fact that many foreign governments enact price controls while threatening to steal patents from companies that don’t cooperate.

To borrow a legal metaphor, it’s fruit of the poisonous tree.

So, it’s especially troubling to see a proposed rule from the Trump administration that would index prescription drug reimbursements under Medicare Part B—which covers drugs exclusively handled by physicians and hospitals like vaccines and cancer medications—based on the prices paid in other countries, including those with nationalized health care systems. To borrow a legal metaphor, it’s fruit of the poisonous tree.

Promising to lower the prices of prescription drugs is likely good electoral politics, but the way the administration aims to go about it is simply bad economics.

At stake aren’t just high-minded free-market principles but the vitality of the most innovative pharmaceutical market in the world. US drug companies have only weathered the abuses of foreign governments because the domestic market is large enough that they can recoup the losses. That’s why the president is right to call it “very, very unfair” for other countries to keep their prices artificially low at the expense of American patients; but importing those losses by allowing foreign abuses to set US prices will mean no more market in which to offset losses to socialized systems and thus an inevitable decline in research and development of new medications.

From rent control to the gasoline lines of the 1970s, the connection between price controls and shortages has been well established.

Nor have other governments managed to avoid other downsides of their price controls. Because they seek to keep costs down the wrong way, new, life-saving drugs often take longer to reach their shores, and their patients are more likely to encounter shortages. From rent control to the gasoline lines of the 1970s, the connection between price controls and shortages has been well established.

To be fair, the administration’s proposal is not a full-throated embrace of government control of healthcare, as it applies only to certain types of drugs for a subset of patients. But it’s part of a program created by Obamacare that focuses on small experiments with the eventual goal of implementing them more broadly. So, it’s a big step in the wrong direction.

Medicare Part B is not a market-based system now. But rather than providing reforms that address the disease of a system overwhelmed by government mandates and distorted incentives rather than just the symptoms, President Trump’s proposed rule threatens to throw gasoline on the fire.

Row .5

It’s About the Voter Fraud, Stupid!


It turns out James Carville was wrong. It’s not “about the economy, stupid.” President Trump has created the greatest booming economy since Reagan. But this past election wasn’t “about the economy, stupid.”
“It’s about the voter fraud, stupid.” As Stalin once said, what matters is who counts the votes.

Since election night Democrats have had one hell of a streak of luck. The kind of luck a lottery winner has when he knows the numbers in advance!
Democrats have picked up two US Senate seats they were losing on election night in Montana and Arizona. Mystery boxes of ballots just keep showing up.

In Florida, Democrats have discovered 83,000 votes since Election Day to cut their Senate candidate’s deficit down to only 12,000. And they’re not done yet. GOP Senator Marco Rubio warns that Democrats are sending their most vicious lawyers down to Florida to change election law to steal the Senate seat. Democrat lawyers are asking judges to change the law- to count ballots with signatures that don’t match the voter signature on file.

In the House it’s even worse. After Election Day Democrats have won 17 House seats from Republicans who were leading on Election Night. That’s some record of “luck.” That beats Joe DiMaggio’s hitting streak.

Here’s some important questions for my readers to ponder. Does anyone find it strange that ballots show up, out of the blue, days after the election? Should they be accepted? How about if signatures don’t match?

Why are these mysterious ballots always in favor of Democrats? And how can they always be just the right number of votes to overcome the Republican candidate’s lead on election night?

Folks this much good luck isn’t just strange. I’m a Vegas oddsmaker. It’s impossible. The odds are stratospheric that every single time a race is decided post-election day… and thousands of late ballots appear out of nowhere… Democrats win every time. No Vegas sports book would pay off on a bizarre outcome like this.

But the picture gets clearer what’s happening. A Broward County, Florida Deputy says civil rights attorneys were handing out absentee ballots to INMATES after the election. What a surprise. I’m just surprised the inmates are alive. Democrats must have run out of dead people to vote.

In Georgia, Democrat Stacey Abrams refuses to concede- at the same time 5000 new absentee ballots showed up days after the election. Let me guess- they’re all Democrat votes. And to no one’s surprise two radical Obama-appointed judges have ruled in Abrams’ favor that ballots should be accepted with an incorrect or omitted birth date.

Then there’s Arizona’s “Emergency Voting Centers” where voters with health “emergencies” were allowed to vote after early voting was over. All 5 locations just happened to be in heavily Democrat districts. The Democrat Mayor of Phoenix ordered these “emergency” locations. The County Recorder, also a Democrat, admitted not one voter was ever asked what their “emergency” was.

“It’s about the voter fraud, stupid.” This is an opinion column. My opinion is Democrats are committing blatant voter fraud to steal elections from sea to shining sea. This was a warmup act. A test run for seeing how much they can get away with in future elections. Like 2020.

I’ll have a few emergency solutions for President Trump in my next column.

Row .5

Here’s What’s Really Behind the Left’s Love Affair with…

From:                        Nov 26, 2018                  By Carl Jackson

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of

If you think the democrat’s sudden fascination with black socialists has anything to do with their political acumen, you’re wrong. The truth is the Left’s recent love affair for national candidates like Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams, Ayanna Pressley and Aramis Ayala, who became the State Attorney for Orange and Osceola County, Florida in 2017, has less to do with their political talent, and more to do with their skin color, sex and oratory skills.

Truth be told, black men, and particularly black women, rank higher than most on the intersectionality chart of victimhood established by the left. With an adequate amount of funding, these candidates pose a serious threat to weak kneed republicans, who refuse to forcefully oppose their radical views for fear of being branded a racist, sexist, homophobe or worse, despite evidence to the contrary. The left uses political correctness as a weapon against republicans as a way of getting them to defend themselves against fabricated character attacks, rather than going on the offense against democratic policies. Unfortunately, the GOP has yet to convey a uniformed message that permits voters to ignore the claims of hate coming from the left, and, embrace a message of freedom and prosperity championed by those of us on the right.

To put it plainly, the left exploits black candidates in order to advance their white European style of socialism virtually unopposed.

But we’ve seen this before! This is nothing new! Similarly, Margaret Sanger, believed that the most successful educational appeal to the negro was through a “religious appeal.” As a result, the racist eugenicist, creator of the Negro Project and Founder of Planned Parenthood, hired black pastors (the real sellouts of the black community) to promote her theory on “birth control.” Sanger saw abortion as a means of eliminating the black race and other minority groups she deemed “genetically inferior” to whites. She went so far as to propose funding farmlands and homesteads to segregate blacks where they could be taught to work under “competent instructors” for their entire lives. Can you say slavery?! Additionally, she wanted black women sterilized to stop them from breeding so-called “undesirables,” because she believed their progeny (offspring) were tainted.

Today, left-wing radicals such as Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and George Soros, have rediscovered an ally amongst black socialists. They’ve joined forces to advance their own selfish agenda to expand the role of the federal government, keep more Americans impoverished and increase dependence upon government welfare programs. If they can both maintain and grow a permanent socioeconomic underclass that relies on the democratic party for their survival, democrats will win elections for the foreseeable future. Of course, for the rich left-wing megadonors that fund these candidates, there’s the added benefit of squashing upstart businesses under the weight of new taxes that could potentially compete with their companies.
Sadly, no one knows how to use blacks better than the Democratic Party. Parading black socialists in front of national cameras appeals to some of the black community’s worst instincts, such as revenge, entitlement and victimhood. Conveniently, many of their candidates moved to the front of the line are females. This makes them twice as difficult to beat. Therefore, republicans need qualified candidates that can skillfully draw them into policy debates and avoid the traps of identity politics.

The right must fight for the spiritual, familial and financial health of the black community by reversing left-wing policies that have contributed to the destruction of the black family. Furthermore, we mustn’t hesitate to communicate why our policies help all Americans regardless of skin color, sex or socioeconomic status. Likewise, we must elect candidates that have the courage to implement those policies in the face of societal pressure.

Democratic socialists aren’t an asset to the black community. They’re a detriment to it, and should be treated as such.

Row .5

Smokey Has a New Message For Libnut Environmentalists

From:                  November 26, 2018             By Steve Straub

Smokey the Bear has a new message for far left environmentalists and they ignore his warning at their own peril.

Brutal but accurate:                                                       

That says it all!

And Smokey the Bear is right:

President Trump Proven Correct About California Wildfires by Carmine Sabia

President Donald Trump has been proven correct again.

The president was roundly mocked by the media for saying that better forest management could have mitigated the damage from the California wildfires.

But now the evidence shows that he was correct all along, Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army Retired Reserve Chuck DeVore, the Vice President of National Initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a former California Assemblyman, wrote for Forbes.

In my two decades of service with the California Army National Guard, we used to darkly joke that California’s four seasons were flood, fire, earthquake and riot. California’s rainy season will follow soon after these fires, triggering deadly mudslides on the steep hills now being denuded of vegetation. Mudslides, moving fast and with little warning, have historically caused greater loss of life than fire.

Advertisement – story continues below

Politics takes no timeout amidst the flame and smoke, and human policy bears part of the blame for this years’ tragic toll of life and loss of property.

When deadly fires were burning last August, Mike Marcucci, the assistant chief of CAL FIRE, California’s main firefighting agency, noted in an interview with the CBS affiliate in San Francisco that, “It’s a daunting task that we’re working with some of our cooperators (i.e. federal and local authorities) to make sure we can get some of those trees out of the way to not add to some of the fuel.” CAL FIRE experts expanded on the problem by blaming decades of policy that discouraged controlled burns to reduce the fuel load in the now-burning forests in the north and hillsides in the south, creating tinderbox conditions.

Some of the needed prescribed burns in Southern California’s coastal chaparral and grasslands have been deterred by environmental lawsuits and air quality concerns.

The federal government controls 46 percent of California’s land, much of it managed by the U.S. Forest Service. In the three decades before 1990, foresters harvested 10-12 billion board feet of timber from national forests every year. By 2013, restrictive environmental policies cut that to 2.5 billion. While the harvest declined, so too did tree thinning and the clearing of brush and diseased trees. The Trump administration is reversing that trend with the biggest harvest of trees on federal land in 20 years, selling 3.4 billion board feet on some 3 million acres—still just a third of the typical pre-1990 harvest.

Harvesting trees on public land is controversial but helps pay for needed brush clearing. Many environmental groups vigorously oppose both. But fighting the larger, hotter fires that result without active forest management is even more costly and threatens lives.

In California, tighter environmental controls, higher prices for timber harvesting permits and competition from overseas and pine forests in American Southeast led to a collapse of the state’s timber industry. Employment in the industry in 2017 was half of what it was in the 1990s.

During this summer’s fires, outgoing California Governor Jerry Brown blamed the record-breaking fires on climate change. In a press conference he warned that the level of climate change-induced forest fires predicted in 20 to 30 years were “now occurring in real time.”

While the frequency of fire has declined, the area burnt and the cost to fight wildfires have increased. Understanding why this is the case is the critical component in crafting a public policy solution to address the issue of deadly forest fires.

Many urban liberals are calling for higher taxes on rural Californians to pay for firefighting.

Rather than higher taxes, one solution to the constant forest management funding shortage in California would be to look to the state’s multibillion-dollar cap-and-trade program designed to address global greenhouse gas emissions. California’s out of control wildfires may have emitted up to 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide this year alone, about one-eighth of the entire state’s annual emissions, largely wiping out two decades of the state’s hard fought greenhouse gas reductions for 2018. Plus, unlike a natural gas-powered electric plant or a modern car, the fires cause terrible air quality.

California’s cap-and-trade program is now taxing some $1.5 billion a year from the state’s economy. The lion’s share of that revenue has gone towards California’s High-Speed Rail project. Until the fires this summer, none of the money had been allocated for forest management or controlled burns to reduce the fuel load until a modest $170 million was announced in August after the last round of big fires.

Rather than continue to fund a government rail project that that was promised as needing no tax money to build and operate, California’s elected officials should consider prioritizing a consistent stream of cap-and-trade revenue to more actively manage the state’s millions of acres of forestland and coastal chaparral. Prevention saves lives.

Democrats should avoid the partisan politics and do what helps the people.

Even if it makes the president look good.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

Row .5

How Government Became the Chief Violator of Property Rights

From:                 November 26, 2018                   By Lawrence J. McQuillan

Governmental violations of personal property rights drive much of the resentment, anger, and division we witness in America today.

In 1925, President Calvin Coolidge famously said that the “chief business of the American people is business.” Today, however, this could be reworded as “the business of the American people is redistribution.” And government redistribution of income and wealth—violations of personal property rights—is tearing apart the social fabric of the country.

When a majority of people benefit, on net, from government transfers and its growth, a tipping point is reached where pulling back is increasingly difficult, if not politically impossible.

Today more than half of Americans receive more money from government transfer* programs than they pay in federal taxes. When a majority of people benefit, on net, from government transfers and its growth, a tipping point is reached where pulling back is increasingly difficult, if not politically impossible.

The figure below shows transfers and federal taxes by household across income quintiles. The lower three quintiles receive far more in government transfers than they pay in taxes. Only the top two quintiles pay more in taxes than they receive in transfers, effectively subsidizing the bottom groups.

Sources: Congressional Budget Office, The Distribution of Household Income, 2014, 2018; and Ryan McMaken, “More than Half of America Gets More in Welfare than it Pays in Taxes,” Mises Wire, October 24, 2018.*

This pattern is no accident; rather, it is a deliberate strategy by those favoring larger, more powerful government. The goal is to make Americans increasingly reliant on government transfers and less self-sufficient with a large and growing segment of the population who “vote for a living” and a shrinking segment who work for a living. Much of the division in America today reflects this redistributive dynamic.

Hidden within the lower three quintiles is another important dynamic uncovered by John F. Early. After adjusting for transfers and taxes, there is an astonishing degree of equality among the bottom 60 percent of Americans in spendable income. As noted by Phil Gramm and Robert B. Ekelund Jr. in the Wall Street Journal:

Hardworking middle-income and lower-middle-income families must have recognized that their efforts left them little better off than the growing number of recipients of government transfers. . . . [I]t is easy to see how a middle-income husband and wife who both work could resent that people who don’t work are about as well off as they are.

Over time, the unfairness leads Americans to view political investments (campaigning, voting, lobbying, crony capitalism, rent-seeking in general) as increasingly attractive compared to investing in themselves through education and on-the-job training or investing in their businesses through new plant, equipment, and R&D. At the individual level, a transfer mentality creates welfare dependency and weakens entrepreneurial initiative.

In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt foreshadowed the dependency problem associated with welfare transfers: “Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” Indeed, since the dot-com bust of 2001, transfer income has increased relative to market income in every quintile.

Governments at all levels, through redistribution programs, have become the chief violator of personal property rights in America: taking income and wealth from one person and handing it to another while destroying the human spirit and social cohesion along the way.

Governments at all levels, through redistribution programs, have become the chief violator of personal property rights in America: taking income and wealth from one person and handing it to another while destroying the human spirit and social cohesion along the way.

James Madison wrote in 1792, “[It] is not a just government . . . where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

By Madison’s definition, governments at all levels in the United States are unjust. Governmental violations of personal property rights drive much of the resentment, anger, and division we witness in America today.

This article was reprinted from the Independent Institute.

Row .5

The Democratic Party: A History of Anarchy Part 1962…

By Steven Neill


Today’s Democrats have not changed their willingness to use censorship; intimidation and violence to silence a foe, the only thang that has changed are the targets. They moved from African-Americans (supposedly) over to Christians, males, whites, heterosexuals and conservatives.

 “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men.”Sarah Jeong

 1962: US Supreme Court case, Engel v. Vitale determined that the New York Board of Regents had violated the First Amendment by constituting an establishment of religion when the group authorized a prayer in schools. Five of the six deciding justices were Democrats.

  • 1963: US Supreme Court case, Abington School District v. Schempp determined that reading the Bible in public schools violated the first amendment. Seven of the nine deciding justices were Democrats.
  • 1973: US Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade gave legal protection for the murdering of unborn babies. Five of the seven deciding justices were Democrats.
  • 1995: Democrat Bill Clinton vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
  • 2003: US District Court Judge Myron Thompson (a democrat) ordered the removal of the granite Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Capitol stating it violated the U.S. Constitution’s principle of separation of religion and government.
  • 2008: “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Barack Obama
  • January 2009 – Obama reverses the Mexico City Policy which protected the American taxpayer from being forced to pay for abortions in foreign countries.
  • February 2009 – Military officials created more stringent restrictions on proselytizing at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs after the football coach there posted a locker room banner for “Team Jesus.” Officials met with militant atheist Mickey Weinstein for his opinion on the new rules.
  • February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
  • March 2011 – Obama announces plans to rewrite the Bush era Conscience Clause to force health care providers to offer contraceptives, including the morning after pill, even in violation of their religious beliefs.
  • April 2011 – President Obama urges the passage of ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) which would eliminate hiring protections for businesses and religious organizations with 15 or more employees from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • September 2011 – The Pentagon authorizes military chaplains to perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
  • October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs aiding victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion.
  • July 2012, same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, sue Jack Philips, the Christian owner of Masterpiece Cake-shop in Lakewood Colorado over his refusal to make them a wedding cake on religious grounds. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission practically railroaded Philips all the way up to the US Supreme Court. The court sides with Philips but only because the Commission was so draconian in the way they handled the lawsuit leaving the door open for another lawsuit to force Christians to conform to political correctness.
  • August 2012: On August 15, 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins entered the Family Research Council’s (FRC) building in downtown Washington D.C., pulled out a pistol and shot the guard, Leo Johnson, at the front desk shouting, “I don’t like your politics.” Though wounded, Johnson acted quickly and subdued Corkins before anyone was killed. Later, Corkins would admit to the FBI that he targeted FRC because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) had labeled them as an anti-gay hate group.
  • 2012: Democratic Party removes the word “God” from its party platform.
  • February 2012: The tragic meeting between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin that would leave Trayvon dead and Zimmerman one of the most hated men in America. The event would prove just how far the Main Stream Media (MSM) would deviate from the truth to push their narrative.
  • The MSM would create a new race by calling Zimmerman a “white Hispanic;” edited the 911 call Zimmerman made so as to appear he attacked Travon based on race; deliberately used a mug shot of Zimmerman making him appear as a criminal; and then label his acquittal as an act of “white supremacy.”
  • The MSM was just as deceitful with their treatment of Travon. The picture they used was several years old showing him as a young boy, not the strapping teenager he actually was; Trayvon was portrayed as a boy with a sweet tooth because he was carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. The media lied then and now about the tea which was in fact Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail that when combined with Skittles and codeine based cough syrup forms a popular drug called “lean.”
  • The MSM reported that Zimmerman gunned Travon down in spite of the physical evidence supporting Zimmerman’s testimony that he was defending himself against Trayvon. The MSM received help in their smearing of Zimmerman from the Great Divider, President Barack Obama, who said at a press conference “My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
  • With the help of George Soros and the MSM, Obama would get a “son” with Trayvon as one of its many faces. This “son” would help Obama widen the racial divide in America and when Obama publicly supported it, he would be the first President since fellow Democrat Woodrow Wilson endorsing the KKK, to support a domestic terrorist organization, the Klan with a tan, Black Lives Matter  (BLM).
  • April 2013 Military Religious Freedom Foundation founder Mikey Weinstein (the man who famously labeled fundamentalist Christians as “monsters,’ and compared Christian proselytizing to “spiritual rape),” was included by the Obama Administration in a Pentagon meeting to discuss religious issues and the role of the ‘chaplain’ in today’s military.
  • June 2013 – The Obama Administration overrides the religious conscience of employers by including in the mandates for Obamacare, that all employers must provide abortion causing drugs for their employees as part of Obamacare insurance. Some 70 organizations sue the government to overturn the directive and in October of 2017, the Trump administration settles the lawsuits by allowing the organizations to opt out of providing contraceptives.
  • April 2013 – The Obama Administration began using US Tax dollars funneled through the United States Agency for Internal Development (USAID), to begin training homosexual activists to help overturn the laws against sodomy and supportive of traditional marriage in countries with strong Catholic backgrounds
  • October, 2014 – Ultra liberal Joe Bernstein of Buzzfeed posts on Twitter “Kill a straight, white man on your war to work tomorrow”.
  • 2013 – Black Lives Matter was started by Marxist activists Alicia GarzaPatrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi and funded by left wing donors including Soros Funds, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. Alicia, Patrisse and Opal all cite Assata Shakur, a Black Identity Movement advocate and police murdering hardline communist as the inspiration for the BLM movement.
  • August 2014 – Unarmed 18 year old African-American Michael Brown is stopped by the white police officer, Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO. The encounter turned violent leaving Brown dead after being shot 6-times. The next night looters claiming to be “protestors” vandalize and pillage over a dozen businesses. Soon, Michael Brown’s parents hire the same lawyer that represented Trayvon Martin’s parents, and the race baiting agitator Al Sharpton arrives in Ferguson to demand justice for Michael and pose for cameras as he called Wilson a murderer of the “Gentle Giant” Michael Brown.
  • Black Lives Matter thugs burned down, vandalized and looted dozens of businesses costing the local/state governments some $26 million and leaving a town that will never recover. The myth of police officers racial bias against black males became deeply rooted, and escalating violence became the new norm for BLM. In an effort to defend the violence, Time Magazine wrote: “Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society
  • April 2015: Police arrested Freddie Gray, a 25 year old African-American male for possession of an illegal switchblade knife and locked him into the back of a police van wearing handcuffs but no seatbelt. When Gray left the van, it was on a stretcher and in a coma. He died a week later with three fractured vertebrae and a crushed voice box.
  • Within a few days, hundreds of protestors resort to violence, torch cars, burn buildings and loot businesses (and in a special effort to relieve their angst over the death of Freddie Gray, the thugs pillage over a third of Baltimore’s pharmacies of prescription drugs). As if on que, the MSM would roll out its support of the rioters with this article by Salon.
  • Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake gave a press conference while the riots were ongoing in which she tried to explain why so many police officers in full riot gear were unable to control the mob destroying Baltimore:
  • I’ve made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech.”

 “It’s a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well, and we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate”

  • While Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake would deny giving the “stand down” order, she was soon refuted by several police officers. The rioters damaged or destroyed more than 380 businesses and over 100 cars, injured over 100 police officers and cost the city over $50 million. Just like in the aftermath of the Ferguson, MO riots, the Obama administration would use the public outcry to federalize the Baltimore Police Department. One of the consequences of federalizing the police department was the local police just stopped noticing lawbreaking happening, this caused skyrocketing crime and the tripling of the homicide rates since 2015.
  • Peter Moskos, a John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor and former Baltimore officer, said of the situation: “The cops are being less proactive at the same time violence is going up. Cops are doing as requested: lessening racial disparity, lessening complaints, lessening police-involved shootings. All those numbers are just great right now, and if those are your metrics of success, we’re winning. The message has clearly gotten out to not commit unnecessary policing.”
  • August 2015: “Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” Hillary Clinton
  • September 2014: In keeping with its tradition of supporting terrorists, the Democratic National Committee endorsed BLM.
  • September 2015: BLM held a march at a St. Paul Minnesota State Fair in which the members payed homage to the group’s role model, Assata Shakur then chanted “treat police like ‘pigs in a blanket fry ’em like bacon’. In this, they were very successful for between 2014 and 2016 BLM members and/or supporters shot 20 police officers killing 11 of them in ambushes and the murder of police officers has increased 37% since 2015.
  • October 2016. Democrats hire paid agitators to disrupt Donald Trump rallies. One of the perpetrators, Scott Foval, was bragging on hidden camera that the democrat protestors at a Trump rally were actually paid rioters. “It’s a very easy thing for Republicans to say, ‘Well, they’re busing people in.’ … We’ve been busing people in to deal with you f—–‘a——- for fifty years and we’re not going to stop now, we’re just going to find a different way to do it.
  • Numerous signatories including; scholar Cornel West; author Alice Walker; Chase Iron Eyes of the Standing Rock Sioux; educator Bill Ayers; poet Saul Williams; CNN‘s Marc Lamont Hill; Carl Dix of the Communist Party USA; and others took out a full page ad in the New York Times bemoaning the election of Donald Trump. Part of the ad stated: “He has assembled a cabinet of Christian fundamentalist fanatics, war mongers, racists, science deniers. NO! His regime must not be allowed to consolidate. We REFUSE to accept a Fascist America!
  • January 2017: Massive riots happen all around the country as Donald Trump was sworn in as President.
  • 2018: Hillary Clinton being interviewed by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”
  • Oct 2018: “Michelle [Obama] always says that when they go low, we go high. No. No. When they go low, we kick them. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about.” Eric Holder said to a delighted crowd of Georgia Democrats

If the above incidents are not enough to convince the average American that the Democratic Party has returned to their pre-Civil War roots, than nothing will. In fact, if you really want to see how far the Democrat attitudes towards African-Americans have evolved, just look at their reaction to Kanye West’s meeting with President Trump.

A guest on CNN’s Tonight show commented on the meeting:

Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don’t read.”

Another guest commented “Listen, black folks are about to trade Kanye West in the racial draft, okay? They’ve had it with him; he’s an attention whore like the president.”

He’s the token Negro of the Trump Administration.”

No one should be taking Kanye West seriously; he clearly has issues; he’s already been hospitalized…”

Another attacker of Kanye was African-American “intellectual” Michael Eric Dyson said of Kanye on the MSNBC show ‘The Beat,’ “This is white supremacy by ventriloquism, a black mouth is moving, but white racist ideals are flowing from Kanye’s mouth.”

As with all things Democrat, the shackle does not fall far from the stock nor does their willingness to subjugate people to their delusions of grandeur ever lessen. Based on the events in Baltimore and Ferguson, we are seeing the start of Bleeding Kansas all over the nation, this coming election could spread that violence like a wildfire.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. —Edmund Burke

© 2018 Steven Neill – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Steven Neill:

Row .5

The Democratic Party: A History of Anarchy Part 1800…

By Steven Neill


Slavery is the Greatest Blessing for Master and Slave

“I want Cuba, I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason – for the planting and spreading of slavery.” – Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi 

Following 1800 election, the issue of slavery would drive a wedge in the country not seen since the American Revolution. As their power waned, the Southern Democrats began to threaten violence and secession from the union as non-slave states threatened their “particular institution.” While slavery was not the only issue the Southern Democrat was willing to go to war over, it was certainly the most prominent.

 Several petitions were delivered to the U.S. House of Representatives in February, 1836 from residents of Massachusetts stating that they were praying for the abolishment of slavery. Debate arose as to whether or not to allow the petitions into the Congressional Record. Democratic South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond responded: “What, sir, does the south ask next? She asks, and this at least she has a right to demand, that these petitions be not received here and recorded on your journals. Is this demanding anything unreasonable, unjust or unkind? Sir, we cannot endure it. If these things are permitted here, you drive us from your councils. Let the consequences be upon you.”

 “But, Mr. Speaker, even if this House should refuse these petitions, I am not one to trust that this conflict will be at an end. No sir, we shall have to meet it elsewhere. Our State Legislatures have to pass laws regulating our police with a stricter hand. They will have to pass and enforce laws prohibiting the circulation of incendiary pamphlets through the mail within their limits. We may have to adopt an entire non-intercourse with the Free States and finally sir, we may have to dissolve this Union. From none of these measures will we shrink as circumstances may make them necessary. Our last thought will be to give up our Institutions (slavery). We were born and bred under them, and will maintain them or die in their defense. And I warn the Abolitionists, ignorant infuriated barbarians as they are that if chance shall throw any of them into our hands, they may expect a FELON’S DEATH. No human law, no human influence can arrest their fate. The superhuman instinct of self-preservation, the indignant feelings of an outraged people, to whose hearth-stones they are seeking to carry death and desolation, pronounce their doom, and if we failed to accord it to them, we are unworthy of the beings whom it is our duty to protect, and we should merit and expect the indignation of an offended Heaven. “

The answer to the petitions by Senator Hammond clearly shows the pattern for Democratic Party behavior; censorship, boycotting, and violence to those with opposing points of views.

 Democratic South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said the following in an 1837 speech: “But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good. I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other.”

The 1852 Democratic Party platform stated: That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.”

In 1856, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner gave a speech before the Senate that caused US Congressman Preston S. Brooks of South Caroline to nearly beat him to death:

“Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech with great care, and with as much impartiality as I am capable of, and I feel it my duty to say to you that you have published a libel on my State, and uttered a slander upon a relative, who is aged and absent, and I am come to punish you.”

The increasingly bitter partisanship crept closer to open war as Jefferson Davis (the eventual president of the Confederacy) threatened secession by the State of Mississippi should a republican be elected as US President: “I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution.”

The reaction to the election of Abraham Lincoln was immediate as stated by Democratic Louisiana Senator Judah P. Benjamin in a 1860 Senate speech right before the South seceded from the union: It is a revolution; a revolution of the most intense character; in which belief in the justice, prudence, and wisdom of secession is blended with the keenest sense of wrong and outrage, and it can no more be checked by human effort for the time than a prairie fire by a gardener’s watering pot.”

 Was this sentiment not clearly displayed before the entire world on January 20, 2017 as thousands of democrats and leftists destroyed property and spread violence in Washington DC? Then the following day millions assembled to hold “Women’s Marchesall over the US. Though these would remain peaceful, the message was the same as the previous day as fading when pop star Madonna mused about blowing up the White House and called for revolution.

 “Boys, I want you to go ahead and kill every damned one of the ni**er race and burn up the cradle.” Democrat Memphis City Judge John C. Creighton


Following their defeat in the Civil War, Democrats in the South simply shifted their priorities from defending slavery to the suppression of Republicans and African-Americans, by forming the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups. The KKK operated as a loosely structured group of political and social terrorists. Their goal was the political defeat of the southern Republicans and the complete domination of the newly liberated African-Americans.

 In order to do this, the KKK used lynchings, beatings, shootings and intimidation to keep the African-Americans and Republicans from voting and being elected into office. Started by former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1866, the KKK was so successful in dominating the southern African-Americans that the southern states would remain a Democratic stronghold until the late 1960’s.

In an interview with a Cincinnati Commercial correspondent, General Nathan Bedford Forrest said of the KKK in 1868: “It is a political military organization, it was found that political matters and interests could best be promoted within it, and it was then made a political organization, giving it’s support, of course, to the Democratic Party.” So the lynchings, shootings and other terror tactics were done to promote the Democratic Party.

In 1871 Shaffer Bowens, a white former KKK member gave testimony in court about the goals and activities of the KKK. “My understanding was, to advance the Democratic Party and put down the radical party. … By killing, and whipping, and crowding out men from the ballot-boxes. “

Wilmington, North Caroline in 1898 was a prosperous town with a largely African-American population and led by a predominantly Republican leadership that supported their rights. The former democratic heads of the city however were determined to retake the city in the upcoming election.

Prominent Democratic leader Daniel Schenck, warned: “It will be the meanest, vilest, dirtiest campaign since 1876. The slogan of the Democratic Party from the mountains to the sea will be but one word … Ni**er.”

The day before the election, U.S. Congressman Alfred Moore Waddell spoke to his fellow Democrats: “You are Anglo-Saxons. You are armed and prepared, and you will do your duty. Be ready at a moment’s notice. Go to the polls tomorrow, and if you find the Negroes out voting, tell him to leave the polls and if he refuses kill shoot him down in his tracks. We shall win tomorrow if we have to do it with guns” In the same speech he also stated: “that they should, if necessary, “choke the Cape Fear with carcasses.”

Following the election, Waddell formed a mob of over 2,000 people to terrorize every African-American and Republican they could find, eventually killing somewhere between 25 – 300 people (no accurate count has been established), banishing hundreds and burning down a large section of the town. Not content with the murders and destruction, Waddell would oust the mayor and all Republican’s City office holders in what was really a coup d’état.

In the aftermath, thousands of African-Americans and Republicans left the area giving control of the city back to the Democrats. The Democrats then altered the voting requirements in the state preventing African-Americans from voting again until the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Alfred Waddell became the new mayor of Wilmington, a position he held until 1905.

Democrat Governor of Georgia, Hugh M. Dorsey wrote a letter to the NAACP in 1918 defending the lynchings of Hayes Turner and his eight month pregnant wife, Mary. Writing: “I believe that if the Negroes would exert their ultimate influence with the criminal element of their race and stop rapes that it would go a long way towards stopping lynchings.”

Row .5

Help Us Defeat the Sovereignty-Destroying USMCA!


On October 1, 2018, The New American magazine posted online an article by our Research Project Manager Christian Gomez, titled, “New NAFTA: Text of U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
We recommend that you read it.

For it outlines the problems with the new agreement to replace NAFTA.

And, they are worse than the original.

Quoting Mr. Gomez:

The USMCA has a total of 34 chapters, 12 more than the original NAFTA, which only had 22 chapters. Unlike the 1994 NAFTA, the USMCA includes chapters on labor, environment, anticorruption, regulatory policy, competitiveness, and Mexico’s exclusive ownership of its gasoline and natural gas resources, among others.

The last part raises some serious questions, two of which are:

  1. Why is it necessary to spell out the fact that Mexico retains exclusive ownership of its gas and natural gas unless they are worried about international controls or eventual North American merger
  2. Why Mexico and not Canada or the United States?

The first question one has to ask is why are socialist Canada and corrupt Mexico (soon to be led by a communist president) happy to sign this deal?

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that we can recover from a lack of jobs and a bad economy — as the recent surge in our economy after the election of Donald Trump proves. What we cannot recover from is the loss of our sovereignty!

This is the problem with the USMCA.

Keep in mind that once a country loses control of its economy, it will lose control of its sovereignty!

Among the 1,809 pages is the subordination of the United States to international agreements and controls including the United Nations:

Consistent with other globalist schemes, the USMCA follows the “rules-based system” of compliance to international authorities such as the World Trade Organization, International Labor Organization, a plethora of United Nations conventions including the Law of the Sea treaty, and the furtherance of “sustainable development” which is mentioned no less than six times in the environmental chapter.

For those familiar with Agenda 21/2030, this sounds very familiar.


In a bold step toward a potential North American Union, the USMCA establishes a new governing international bureaucracy. Chapter 30 of the agreement establishes the creation of a Free Trade Commission as a regional governing bureaucracy overseeing various lower regional committees.

And much like the TPP Commission, the Free Trade Commission can make changes to the USMCA without the consent of Congress.

The problem that we deal with is that most people cannot extend the lines and see what will happen in the future when one starts down a particular path and policy.

Mr. Gomez extends the lines and ends his article dissecting the USMCA:

The result of “promoting further economic integration” among the United States, Mexico, and Canada, necessitating the creation of an all-powerful, unelected so-called Free Trade Commission will be nothing less than a North American Union, and that alone should motivate patriotic Americans to vehemently reject the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Far from making America great again, the USMCA is a bag of goodies for globalists and a death certificate for American national sovereignty.

We recommend that you read the article in its entirety to get a full sense of what is being agreed to and the enormity of what is at stake.

Let us make the point by using someone’s opinion on the other side.

Christian Whiton posted an article on FOX News on October 2, 2018, which spells it out for those who understand what is going on:

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this isn’t the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning of creating a new world order of trade.

Mr. Whiton is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest whose Hon. Chairman is Henry Kissinger. If this is not enough to convince people of the intent of this Deep State institute, the top four officers are all members of the New World Order-Council on Foreign Relations, as is Kissinger.

Mr. Whiton is also a FOX contributor.

The problem that we face in opposing the USMCA is that it is being touted by President Trump. We doubt that he has actually read it and more than likely has accepted the word of his trade negotiator Robert Lighthizer, a decades long member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Also, many of the negotiators involved were holdovers from the Obama administration.

As a result of millions of people believing that Trump has the best at heart for America (and we don’t doubt it at this point), it will be hard to convince those people that we must convince on the danger of the USMCA, in order to create enough pressure on Congress to stop it.

Indeed, every conservative pundit with any following immediately started to praise this latest deal. These are the same prognosticators that never mentioned the danger to our sovereignty of the original NAFTA deal — it was all about trade and whether Canada would import our milk without a 300% tariff.

We will be swimming against this tide of conservative leaders who have large followings but no organization.

We did the job with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the North American Union, etc. The advantage we had at the time was time itself. In the case of the USMCA we do not have that much time to build the opposition.

But we must — and as soon as possible!

We have to start building the pressure now.

There are only three sure ways to do this:

  1. Raise sufficient funding to put together the necessary tools for our membership to start educating as many people as they can far and wide — now!
  2. Start immediately getting the word out in every way we can using social media, letters to the editor, etc. In other words, get the buzz going about the dangers of this agreement within the conservative community.
  3. Build our organization much bigger than it is as soon as we can.

Our members understand the first and second points. The third one takes a little more understanding of the urgency but involves growing our membership and chapters by both the individual efforts of our members as well as expanding our field staff at the same time.

The urgency is simple – we need more pullers at the oars of good people of character, to build the layers of strength in understanding in our communities so that it will make it increasingly more difficult for the globalists to attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the majority of Americans.

We are in the process of making new tools for your use in helping build the opposition to the USMCA. As usual, producing videos, reprints, books, and all of the necessary accouterments we use to educate our contacts and opinion molders takes funding.

The reason we need to expand our field staff is that they help us grow and coordinate the work of our members and chapters into more effective work. In those areas devoid of staff, we tend to atrophy.

We are going to need more people to augment our staff in the field to enable us to defeat not only the USMCA, but other initiatives that will be coming along in the name of “conservatism.” This will be, and has been, one of the main ideas of the Conspiracy we fight: mislead the conservatives into supporting the agenda of the Insiders by making it look patriotic, in support of the Constitution, or a “good deal.”

There can be no question that President Trump not only has problems with those in the Deep State, but those who are within his immediate entourage.

The negotiators for the USMCA included holdovers from the Obama administration. These people know what they are doing but not all of those who surround Trump are aware of the subtleties of the problems that we face.

As we go into the future, there will be more instances of deals made with other countries that will involve men and women who are holdovers from the Obama administration and who will write agreements that will be dangerous to our sovereignty. These agreements will also need to be fought.

Question: Why have we traded with other countries for centuries without such “free trade” agreements but need them now? We know the answer and you do as well. They are steppingstones to the New World Order and the loss of independence for the American people.

Our nation was started and based on independence. It can end by destroying our independence unless enough people rise up to prevent it.

Let us close this appeal out by pointing out that Karl Marx was a supporter of free trade. On January 9, 1848, Marx stated:

Free trade breaks up old nationalities… In a word, the free trade system hastens social revolution.

This is the unsaid agenda behind free trade and it has fooled more conservatives than we can count; however, we are not against free trade in the sense of one businessman trading with another from a different country. You do not need an 1800-page document for the businessman to comply with an order to do that.

We see the country in a state of flux at this time. The opportunities for moving our agenda forward have never been greater, but we will find ourselves fighting our own friends at times. This is one of those times. We will have to use patience and understanding with them and in some cases craft our case in a manner that will get our point across without harming our relationships. A tough job indeed.

Row .5

The 3 Strong Points Against the Con-Con Con

From:               Nov. 20, 2018                        By Rich Loudenback

The three most important points to understand about the constant drumbeat by well-paid pitchmen for a ‘Convention of the States’ or any other Article V Convention are:


Why should we believe that Congress or citizens would magically follow new laws any more than present laws? Few state legislators seem to realize that our nation’s disastrous budget deficits had accrued out of disregard for constitutional restraints in the first place. Because had government been held only to its constitutionally authorized activities, no budget crisis could have developed.  See: ‘The Solution Is the Constitution, Not Article V’

Much can be accomplished by following the Constitution, enforcing laws and by Nullifying unconstitutional laws.


Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Berger issued a stern warning: “Nobody tells a Con-Con what to do. Its powers to propose Amendments are unlimited. In light of this information, does America, do you, really want to risk a convention?  Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subject needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention.”

In his early career before he became Justice of the Supreme Court, the late Anthony Scalia is often quoted as stating he supported a constitutional convention. However, later in his career with the wisdom from a lot more experience and considering the realities of the day he became opposed to it.

During the question-and-answer session following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, he was asked whether a Constitutional Convention would be in the nation’s interest:  “Although COS might have one believe that a constitutional convention is a ‘different creature entirely’ from an Article V convention or ‘convention of the states,’ as they call it, this is simply not true.  A Constitutional Convention is a horrible idea,” Scalia replied. “This is not a good century to write a Constitution.”


You can count on this! A Constitutional Convention would not risk sending their results out for 38 state legislatures to ratify since Article V’s option (Ratifying Conventions) offers such a failsafe alternative. (Factoid: Utah’s legislature would never have repealed Prohibition. A Ratifying Convention repealed it.)  The mindset of the convention will assuredly be that ratifying in state legislatures would be entirely too perilous with endless debate, filibustering, committee assignments, legal challenges etc. into ad nauseum multiplied times 50 hoping to get 38 state legislatures who vote Yay.

No. They would send convention results to hand-selected delegates at Ratifying Conventions who will be like-minded, baggage carrying colleagues who would be chumps in the world of constitutional patriotism.  Helpful substantiation for my point is that our last Amendment (Amendment 27) took 202 yrs, 7 months and 12 days to ratify.  Most amendments took well over a year to several years to ratify.

Other points to ponder:

Legislators should strongly question where the funding for all these well healed lobbyists and their very expensive promotional efforts have been coming from to push this with such dogged urgency for years.  Just last year millions were spent by them in 19 states where we were fortunate in beating a total of 29 various applications.  They currently have 28 states and only need 6 more for a total of 34 for a Constitution Convention call.   See short video: Rep. Moon Exposes Fraud by Con-Con Peddlers

Application rescissions never time out, they are intentionally rescinded once states come to their senses. Idaho has had 6 applications in our past going all the way back to 1910. You have to ask yourself why so many times did our states awaken and rescind.  I think Americans are smarter than they often are given credit for and have just temporarily given into the spell cast by poker-faced presentations which have been fueled by our being fed up with how poorly our system has performed from not following the Constitution and the hunger to right things with the wish of a quick fix.  In other words, the Convention pushers are appealing to an attitude that’s nearly saying ‘We have to do something, even if it’s wrong!’

Nothing is more dangerous to our Republic than the opening of such a convention because it can literally take down our country as we’ve known it almost overnight. There are very clandestine and powerful forces behind it. We have problems today which are being exploited to hasten such a magical fix that can alter or even literally abolish our sacred Constitution.

The money behind it all:  The Con-Con con today, in our political climate is being overseen by unelected, unaccountable powerful global elitist who know what’s best about everything for everybody.  They will be directly or indirectly influencing the attendees to be sure the results of such a convention would be fatal to our republic.  That is why they are spending all the millions pushing this.

Sure things are a mess, because elected officials have gotten away from what brought us and what we are really about: A nation of limited national government, with the states and the people shouldering most responsibilities themselves. We are not supposed to be socialists and that’s where our majority of legislators have been taking us unintentionally or on purpose.  They must ‘Patriot Up,’ do the hard work of reversing much that is present by honoring  their oaths to the Constitution and our state Constitutions to save America for their grandchildren because America is rapidly being dissolved by them currently.

In summation, we don’t have a Constitution problem. We have an adherence problem. The ‘fix’ is following law, law enforcement, prosecution and nullification.   Nullification is the real serious effort that would surely work with bad legislation affecting our states and our citizens and needs being pursued.

Citizens direct the fix by educating ourselves, informing others, watching Freedom Index voting records for Washington, DC  found at and the Idaho Freedom Index for voting records for Idaho found at the and culling the vermin at the polls.

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”  — Abraham Lincoln

See:  Stop a Con-Con and Why Would “Conservatives” Want a Constitutional Convention?

Row .5

Crude Anti-White Anti-Male Anti-Christian Communists Indoctrinate California K-12 Students

From:                Leftist hate group “Just Communities” has a $250,000 contract with Santa Barbara educators to brainwash students.

Editor’s note: Beginning below, there is a “Forms of Oppression” grid that is part of a bundle of documents produced by the leftist group “Just Communities,” which the unfortunate taxpayers of Santa Barbara, California, are paying Just Communities to use to indoctrinate their children with anti-American beliefs.

Left-wing hate group Just C… by on Scribd

Above is a curriculum the Santa Barbara Unified School District has paid an organization called “Just Communities” to impose on its K-12 students. It tells you all you need to know about the racist, anti-American left which has embedded itself in school districts like Santa Barbara all across the country.

The left-wing hate group, whose full name is Just Communities Central Coast, has a $250,000 contract with school authorities in Santa Barbara, California, to indoctrinate young people into believing that America today is a manifestly immoral, cruel country in which white people routinely oppress non-whites, men oppress women, Christians oppress non-Christians, heterosexuals oppress gays, and the wealthy oppress the poor.

This anti-American mini-manifesto aimed at fomenting social discontent comes in a “Forms of Oppression” grid produced by Just Communities, which is partnering with the Santa Barbara Unified School District (SBUSD). The grid is included in a bundle of documents published online that includes the Just Communities 2018 training manual. (The document is also posted at Scribd here.)

Just Communities is attempting to radicalize students and encourage them to become activists obsessed with the Marxist holy trinity of race, sex, and class.

With help from the extreme-left hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other radical activists trying to impose unwanted social change on the country, public school teachers across America already saturate students with information about racial injustice in America in a nonstop barrage of historic facts and ahistorical nonsense. And in the culture at large, the media, politicians, and the entertainment industry can’t stop talking about race. The last thing any young student in America needs is to be taught about is race. Race matters only to radicals.

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Marxist theorist Paulo Freire urged that schools be used to inculcate radical values in students to transform them into agents of social change. Freire argued that the so-called dominant pedagogy “silences” poor and minority children and that there is no such thing as a neutral educational system. Teachers today are also smitten with the ahistorical, anti-American screeds of Howard Zinn, a Communist Party USA member whose writings they treat as gospel.

Joining Freire in his desire to use the educational system to level institutions is unrepentant communist terrorist and education theorist Bill Ayers, a close associate of Barack Obama who has long advocated corrupting the young so they can agitate to fundamentally transform American society.

“If we want change to come, we would do well not to look at the sites of power we have no access to; the White House, the Congress, the Pentagon,” he said in 2012. “We have absolute access to the community, the school, the neighborhood, the street, the classroom, the workplace, the shop, the farm.”

With its “implicit bias” training in the Santa Barbara Unified School District, Just Communities Central Coast is doing exactly what Ayers urged.

Let’s look at the contents of the Just Communities 2018 training manual.

America, Just Communities maintains, is an irredeemably rotten, racist place, according to the self-serving talking points that abound in the published bundle of documents.

One page from what appears to be a PowerPoint presentation asks:

“(What is) Racism? A system of oppression based on race that privileges white people and targets people of color.”

Another states:

“(white people) Privilege: Unearned access to resources that enhance one’s chances of getting what one needs or influencing others in order to lead a safe, productive, fulfilling life.”

Yet another levels a Marxist attack on America’s market-based system:

“Classism: A system of oppression based on socio-economic class that privilege (white) people who are wealthy and target people (of color) who are poor or working class.Classism also refers to the economic system that creates excessive inequality and causes basic human needs to go unmet.”

Not surprisingly, the group’s 2018 training manual is jam-packed with lies about the nature and history of American society.

At page 12 it states that among its “working assumptions about dismantling oppression” is the idea that “Oppression based on notions of race is pervasive in U.S. society and many other societies and hurts us all, although in different and distinct ways.”

Building on the leftist idea that everything is political, the manual states, “There is no such thing as ‘passively dismantling oppression.’ We are either actively working to end oppression or colluding with it, allowing it to continue. Indeed, we are often doing both at the same time.”

“The work of dismantling racism is an ongoing process, not a one-time event, seminar, or course from which one graduates,” according to the manual. “The process calls for a lifelong commitment to eliminating all injustice.”

Eric Early, a Republican candidate for California Attorney General, told local officials Sept. 11 that the SBUSD’s ongoing agreement with Just Communities to carry out classroom training in what it calls diversity, equity, and inclusion is likely to get the district sued by parents. The district entered into an agreement Sept. 11 to extend the group’s work at a cost of $250,000.

The group’s curriculum, parents say, “is radical, discriminatory, and illegal,” Early said. In a Sept. 21 letter to SBUSD counsel, Early wrote, “Teachers, parents and students have confidentially expressed their concerns that JCCC’s discriminatory curriculum has led to increased racial animosity toward Caucasian teachers and students.”

Jarrod Schwartz, executive director of Just Communities, tried to spin away what his group stands for with a lame conspiracy theory.

“After taking the time to review the materials and the claims, we now feel comfortable stating that many of the materials claimed to be ours have in fact been altered. Things described as being said or taking place during our workshops run counter to our curriculum, approach, and philosophy. At best, our work is being misrepresented; at worst, it is being distorted and doctored to support the claim that we are somehow anti-white and anti-Christian.”

According to its most recent publicly available IRS filing, the Santa Barbara-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit group, created in 2008, had gross revenues of $629,479 and employed eight staffers along with 43 volunteers in 2016.

The far-left Surdna Foundation, which has funded Black Lives Matter, ACORN, and the Van Jones-founded Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, has given Just Communities $329,000 since 2012, according to IRS filings. Other major funders are the Santa Barbara Foundation ($820,697 since 2010), McCune Foundation ($340,588 since 2011), and the James S. Bower Foundation ($240,000 since 2015).

On the About Us page of its website, the group describes its indoctrination work, making no effort to conceal its bad intent:

Just Communities offers cultural competency training to organizational leaders, education seminars for the general public, leadership training institutes for students and teachers, and customized consultation to local agencies for diversity and organizational change initiatives. Just Communities consciously works with people from a diverse cross-section of the community along the lines of race, income, gender, sexual orientation, age, and religious affiliation.

Our expertise in human relations uniquely positions us to serve people and organizations in the education, health care, non-profit, government, and business sectors. The breadth of our vision statement to “ensure that all people are connected, respected, and valued” does not limit our service to a single constituency. Whether we are training health care providers on cultural competency, facilitating a diverse collaboration of service providers to address youth violence, or empowering at-risk teens as leaders in their schools, Just Communities continues to bridge differences among those of diverse backgrounds and cultures to strengthen the local community and advance social justice.

This is all radical-speak for fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

But first Just Communities Central Coast is focusing on poisoning the minds of the young in Santa Barbara.

Row .5

The rise of millennials and the death of television

From:                         Aug 27 2018                By Nikita Kwatra

The results of the first round of a YouGov-Mint Millennial survey show that millennials are using social media networks much more than older cohorts
The ‘YouGov Mint Millennial Survey’ also shows that most millennials and post-millennials consume news online, with only a minority of the youth watching TV news or reading newspapers. Photo: Abhijit Bhatlekar/Mint

What do millennials want? How different are they from their predecessors, Gen X? And how different is the post-millennial generation, Gen Z, compared to their predecessors?

To answer these questions, Mint teamed up with the Indian arm of the market researcher YouGov to conduct an online poll of over 5,000 respondents spread across 180 cities. The YouGov-Mint Millennial Survey aims to understand the habits and preferences of India’s digital natives. The first round of the survey was conducted in July and the next round will be conducted after six months.

The results of the first round show that millennials are using social media networks much more than older cohorts. The survey also shows that most millennials and post-millennials consume news online, with only a minority of the youth watching TV news or reading newspapers.

In this analysis, millennials refer to those born between 1981 and 1996 or those aged 22 to 37 years in 2018. Those born after 1996, that is, those aged 21 years or below, are here referred to as the Gen Z.

The difference among generations when it comes to news habits is starkest for television news. Among Gen X (those aged 38-53), 34% depend primarily on TV news and 29% depend primarily on newspapers. Less than a quarter of them depend primarily on news apps and websites. In stark contrast, a plurality of post-millennials (34%) depends primarily on news apps and websites, while only 18% of them depend primarily on TV news. The share of post-millennials depending primarily on newspapers (17%) as a key source of information is roughly similar to those depending on TV news (18%).

The survey also shows that the share of millennials watching online entertainment (48%) exceeds the share of millennials watching cable television (43%). Among post-millennials, the difference is even starker: 44% of them watch online entertainment content.

The survey results confirm what media analysts have been hinting at for some time—that the media and entertainment sector in India is facing disruption.

While post-millennials are a bit less politically active, millennials seem to be as active as their previous generation. More than 80% of both Gen X and millennials said they would vote in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. These and other interesting findings from the survey will feature in a four-part data journalism series to be published in Mint starting today.

Row .5

Unapologetic Candace Owens publishes ‘Dem guide,’ says ‘#MeToo is…

From:               September 17, 2018                          By Tom Tillison

Candace Owens has proven to be true threat to the left in that she is quick to expose their radical agenda, which frequently uses race as a means to an end.

But Owens, a black conservative and Turning Point USA spokeswoman, doesn’t allow race to be the only motivating factor for her to engage, with the latest example of this being a tweet over the weekend describing the so-called #MeToo movement as “a Democrat slush fund.”

“#metoo is a Democrat slush fund. (Save yourself time today, journalists. I will neither be taking this down or apologizing— so go ahead and write the article about me). :-),” Owens tweeted.

Candace Owens

#metoo is a Democrat slush fund.

(Save yourself time today, journalists. I will neither be taking this down or apologizing— so go ahead and write the article about me).

Owens has been critical of the movement in the past, tweeting in June the “entire premise of #metoo is that women are stupid, weak & inconsequential,” and that the campaign has “turned sexual assault into a trend.”

The money generated by #MeToo aside, with Democrats having produced at the eleventh hour a victim willing to sully the impeccable reputation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, which trades on the atmosphere created by the #MeToo movement, Owens is willing to call a spade a spade.

Candace Owens

Democrats guide to fighting conservative wins:

1) Protest and scream
2) Accuse the candidate of racism
2) Claim that if elected, this candidate will somehow dial back human rights
3) Accuse the candidate of sexual assault. <—— (we are here).

11:23 AM – Sep 16, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
21K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Because, as we just saw with Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the Democratic National Committee deputy chair, there’s a whole different standard applied to those who are looked upon as center-right when it comes to allegations of sexual misconduct.

But then, as one social media user noted, Planned Parenthood too is little more than a Democrat slush fund — literally, given the circular motion of taxpayer dollars that are steered to the nation’s largest abortion provider, which then donates generously to the Democrats doing the steering.

Row 01

Why is the Deep State Flooding the West with…

From:               13 November 2018               By Alex Newman and William F. Jasper

In this video, The New American’s Alex Newman and William F. Jasper discuss the Deep State’s agenda behind the engineered influx of millions of Muslims into the West. In short, the agenda is to de-Christianize the Christian West and subvert nation states.

Related links:

Deep State Special Report


Row 47

The Pre-Existing Conditions Rule Kills Insurance Companies



It is also the lynchpin for single-payer, government-run healthcare

If insurance companies were to be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions, who would want to pay for insurance when they know it is not necessary, since they can just wait until they need it and buy it then? This would end the insurance industry as we know it.

Insurance actuaries work extremely hard calculating risk, marketability, competitiveness and projected profitability. After all, insurers are a business like any other whose actual purpose is to make a profit. It is a marvelous industry that provides an incredible service to its insured customers by transferring risk to their plans to provide the umbrella of safety when needed for a reasonable (competitive) fee. The competitive part of it is what makes it a real value to those in need of their services.

Sure, who wouldn’t like guarantees for everything in life? Guaranteed jobs, homes (make that free rent and make that apartments), food allowances, free education, guaranteed safety and of course, going along with all these socialist ‘dream perks’ should be included free health services or ‘single pay’ health insurance, actually run by the all-knowing and all controlling government. Taxes to pay for it all? Taken to extreme, maybe around 80% until everything collapses, like it always does with good old ‘dream world socialism.’

So this great all-inclusive insurance is called Single Pay. Heard that before? Been hearing that a lot lately? It is what happens directly as a result of wanting Pre-Existing Conditions covered for free. Welcome to the United States of Socialism.

There are plans and ‘proposed plans’ to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions at a premium cost which it should be. But what is being drummed up lately, with even, I am sorry to have to acknowledge, President Trump being taken in, is the acceptance by many Americans reacting to the socialist left and deep state RINO’s appealing drumbeat being whipped up by their supportive comrades in the fake news big media for everyone to be covered for everything with pre-existing conditions.

Again, why would you waste a lot of money on monthly premiums for coverage that is not necessary, because you will have guaranteed coverage if the time arises that you need it? Insurance companies disappear, to perhaps remain in place only as local administrators for the all-knowing all controlling government. Bought any postage stamps lately?

The Poor and the Indigent

But for the grace of God there go we, the poor and the indigent. Therein, does lie a vexing problem with no easy answers. Their plight however, is being exploited by socialist left and deep state RINO’s to take us into single pay. Hospitals and many civic organizations and churches, however, do render some remarkable financial assistance to this most heart wrenching social problem.

Here are some thought-provoking articles on the subject:

THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITION: GUARANTEED RENEWABILITY AND EQUITABLE TAX TREATMENT: “Moreover, this market-oriented arrangement would not bring about the negative side effects associated with the regulatory arrangements, such as the deadweight loss of taxation, regulatory capture, or higher unemployment. That said, a transition to this market-oriented arrangement would likely have to be coupled with high-risk-pool coverage for those who already have pre-existing conditions, but the need for these high-risk pools would decline over time.”

THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITION: SAFETY, SIMPLICITY, AND TRANSPARENCY: “We ought to focus on protecting people from the risk we know they face—catastrophic medical bills—by deploying our endless talent for innovation through markets rather than our decidedly lesser talent for creating and managing massive regulatory bureaucracies.”

THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITION: TOP EXPERTS PRESCRIBE BETTER PATHS FORWARD: “In the end, however, Robert Graboyes’s observation bears emphasis: our national discussion about healthcare has been “mired in a furious, partisan debate over how to distribute fixed stocks of resources” which, no matter how it is decided, can never please all the participants. Indeed, the ongoing debates over such particulars as guaranteed issue, community rating, and even the general subject of covering pre-existing conditions are essentially arguments about how to distribute benefits and burdens assuming a fixed supply of healthcare services. Yet Graboyes also observes that today “residents of the humblest villages in the developing world carry phones more powerful than 1980s supercomputers,” a distributive achievement paradoxically made possible by prioritizing innovation over distribution. To the extent that national healthcare policies focus narrowly on redistributive questions rather than on improvements in healthcare quality, they will fail to fulfill Americans’ healthcare desires. Any decisions we make to protect those facing expensive health conditions must not have the effect of constraining the rate of broader healthcare quality improvements. This may be the best reason of all for replacing an overly prescriptive comprehensive coverage mandate with an alternative approach that fosters the development of a vibrant healthcare market.”

What is most important to keep in mind about this most important topic being exploited today is this:

Remember Saull Alinsky’s reported Doctrine? 8 Steps to Topple a Nation and Create a Socialist State:

“1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people”

Everyone has all too fresh a memory of the deceit and disaster of ObamaCare which was so close to taking us to a really bad place like Canada’s expensive socialistic Health Care system, $5,789 per person annually and very slow wait times. From the American Institute of Medical Services and Education’s article in March 2018, ‘US vs Canadian Healthcare: What Are the Differences?’ “From the time it takes to receive a referral by a GP – to receiving treatment – Canadians wait an average of 21.2 weeks to receive treatment from a specialist. MRI procedures could take up to 10.8 weeks. Some argue that the wait times are far too long.”

ObamaCare absolutely needs a good killing not replacing. No tentacles left whatsoever. We had the best healthcare in the world and we need to get back to a totally free market competitive system that can flourish in technology, services and cost.

Row 47

The Dimm’s Drive for Power Includes Open Borders and…

Row 47

Prote$ter$ Are All about Being Paid, Know Very Little


Who isn’t absolutely fed up with the overwhelming displays of shrill and even violent protestations being aired non-stop in our media by the paid usurpers of the far left?

They are paid handsomely to raise hell with any elected official not in their camp of Alinsky-like comrades, and always show up on time, with professionally prepared signs and often arrive in expensive buses. See: Video of the buses stretching five city blocks. Their complicit media usually awaits their orchestrated arrival. Many of the professionally trained Antifa street protesters show up in expensive black ‘hooded uniforms’ with anarchistic tools such as clubs, helmets, megaphones, mace, spray paint and torches with their well-paid leaders edging them on.

How are these paid protesters who have shown up as anti-Kavanagh and never-Trumpers being allowed in the halls of Congress roaming freely to interrupt and stage a disgusting display of indignation against their opposing views? Their antics violate our freedoms to perform our law abiding duties! Why are they not arrested for disturbing the peace and inducing violent behavior into lawful civil discourse and procedures?

And almost nothing infuriates American citizens more than having something blatantly stolen from us such as having our peaceful existence and freedoms stolen by street violent anarchist thugs who are in our face interrupting our natural and lawful rights and breaking things.


Even worse is that they are being not only encouraged to keep up the civil unrest exhausting our nation by the likes of ‘Mad Maxine’ Waters but they actually have been hired by and professionally taught to do so by a former President of The United States.

It’s vitally important that Americans understand the truth — Barack Obama brought to Washington corrupt Chicago machine politics of cronyism and corporate payoffs, combined with audacious Alinskyite tactics aimed at dividing Americans and destroying his opponents.

“Chronic social irritation can do lasting damage to the fabric of a nation. By falsely accusing people of racism . . . or sexism . . . or homophobia . . . or Islamophobia — or whatever other “ism” or phobia they come up with next — these agitators are creating angst and hatred in people’s hearts that wasn’t there previously.

“But maybe that’s the objective. As Alinsky advised Obama and other young radicals: ‘A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of lives — agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values [until] masses of people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values… The time is then ripe for revolution.’” – Unquote from the New York Post’s Paul Sperry in his article, ‘How Obama is bankrolling a nonstop protest against invented outrage, ‘

Without the funding for paying these hell raisers and their orchestrations by handlers through the Obama run ‘Organizing for America’ (OFA) these loud mouths would be no shows. See: ‘Obama’s ‘Trump Saboteurs’ at OFA Boasts 30,000 Paid Agitators & Opening 250 Offices across America’

Mitchell Shaw reported in Mid-November last year in his New American magazine article, ‘Trump “Protests” Manufactured by Leftist Elites and Manned by Professional Protesters,’ “Beginning in late October 2016, ads for paid protesters began appearing on Craigslist in PittsburghBostonColumbusDenverPhiladelphia, and other cities. The ads, which were all carbon copies of each other, read:

Their recruiting ads read ‘STOP TRUMP – up to $1500/week

Hiring Immediately! Call Today Start Tomorrow!

$15 – $18 hourly rate + bonus + overtime! Up to 77 hours per week!
Drivers Earn Gas Reimbursement!
Morning and Evening Shifts

No previous experience required
Full time and part time positions
Weekend positions available
No fundraising!
No commission!

Sperry continues, “Organizing for Action is drowning in money, by nonprofit standards.

“OFA’s big donors are members of the George Soros-founded Democracy Alliance, a donors’ consortium for left-wing billionaires devoted to radical political change.”


Freedom is fragile and taken too much for granted by tuned-out laid-back Americans whose naivety is being exploited by these puppets of the deep state vermin directed by the Council on Foreign Relations/globalists community. See: “Who the ‘Establishment’ Really Is”

“The Council on Foreign Relations is “the establishment.” Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high-level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship.” – Former U.S. Congressman from Indiana (D) John Rarick 1971

The whole debate between voting for Republicans or Democrats is a scam. No matter who you vote in, the Council on Foreign Relations conspiracy marches on. The Clinton administration was flooded with Council members just like the Bush administrations before and after him were. The Council on Foreign Relations conspiracy has infiltrated our corrupt officials in the U.S. Government, the Freemason education conspiracy, and the corporate media brainwashing we’ve been exposed to all our lives.” – Liberal columnist Joseph Kraft, himself a member of the CFR

“It is through this front group, called the Council on Foreign Relations, and its influence over the media, tax-exempt foundations, universities, and government agencies that the international financiers have been able to dominate the domestic and foreign policies of the United States ever since.” – G. Edward Griffin / The Creature From Jekyll Island


States senior editor of The New American magazine, William F. Jasper in his article ‘George Soros’ War on America: Time to Prosecute the Billionaire’s Global Crime Spree,’ “Many of them, no doubt, were hired in response to the advertisements for paid anti-Trump protesters that appeared on Craigslist and other media in Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, New York, and elsewhere. Many of these “spontaneous” protests/riots would not have occurred without organized efforts involving hundreds of buses transporting thousands of protesters/rioters, many of whom appear to have traveled across state lines.

“Many of the anti-Trump rioters, then, would appear not only to have violated state laws against rioting and inciting to riot, but also federal law against the same crime. Specifically, the rioters could be (and should be) charged under Title 18 U.S. Code § 2101, which provides

“(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent —

“(1) to incite a riot; or

“(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or

“(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

“(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot….

“Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

“The definition section of 18 U.S. Code § 2102 defines the crime of rioting this way:

“(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.

“Obviously, the anti-Trump rioters who were arrested for starting fires and committing other acts of violence and public disturbance should be prosecuted under applicable state laws, and those who traveled interstate to do the same should also be prosecuted under federal law as well. But what about the organizers of the riots, those who hired the rioters and transported the perpetrators across state lines to engage in this criminal activity? Are they not also culpable under the “aid and abet” provisions cited above? Are they not also liable for prosecution under the federal conspiracy statute (18 U.S. Code § 371) which provides: 

“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

See: ‘Unmasking Antifa Act Proposed in U.S. House; Left Responds Accordingly’


Obama’s ‘Organizing for America,‘ (OFA) needs taking down along with the Soros group of funders and organizational heads whose clandestine goal is the overthrow of our system. Courtesies to an ex-President be damned! BO’s corruption and many machinations have been overlooked and tolerated for too long. He is blatantly an outright anti-American with questionable past with no previous records to show for except his sorry legacy that he can’t run from. Identify his illegal transgressions and bust him. He’s creating a strong new legacy for himself, a very deceitful one that is all evil. Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Stopping the funding stops the paid street stooges who haven’t much of an idea about anything but repeating the mantra they hear and are told to rant, that we are all fed up with. The stooges, their placement via buses, their signs, and their professionally orchestrated actions largely dissolve away when the money is gone. Grounds for arrest and prosecution must be identified and the pursuit of justice begun.

These violators of our laws must be held accountable and prosecuted.

Wrongdoers have brought upon the People an evil day:

“It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.” Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).

There is some serious Deep State accommodating obviously going on in our halls in Congress who have allowed the attacks against Brett Kavanaugh and little is being done or said about it. It cries to be dealt with.

The hapless far left Dims are the lead soldiers of the CFR/UN globalist whose primary focus is to transform America as a sovereign nation to become a member state of a global government run by unaccountable unelected elitists who know best about everything for everybody.

America direly needs an authentic patriot to serve as an effective ‘Constitutional’ Attorney General who will meet out equal justice to all.

Row 46

Undisclosed Source Says the Sanity and Truthfulness of the…


In the age of publishing anything that makes a shocking point and attributing it to a supposedly ‘relevant’ source whose identity must remain undisclosed for unexplained reasons, we here at Gem State Patriot News will not be left behind.

Therefore getting on board with the extremely popular trend, I have also found just such a qualified source whose identity must also remain anonymous.

Reporter/Author Bob Woodward and writers at the fake news New York Times and all the other fake news big media could be using the ruse of undisclosed sources to effect the pursuit of their left wing agenda, since who would know? Right? My undisclosed source told me he believes this to be highly probable given their penchant for lying and delivering lots and lots of fake news.

I could have used a neat pseudonym like Woodward Roberts, Fred Wretzlaughter or Nickedemus Agathangaleetez, but I’m not that kind of guy. I went out and found myself a real ‘bonafide’ source whose identity must remain undisclosed. Trust me. This is Gem State Patriot News and my source assures me that we are at least more reputable than the fake news, ‘declining’ New York Times.

So it is that my undisclosed source’s great proclamation is: “The sanity or truthfulness of the extreme progressives of the far left has never been proven, citing particularly the rabid ones proclaiming ‘Socialism is the future.’” Or, he says, “Could they just be blatantly bald-faced lying such as our former ‘Lier in Chief’ Barrack Hussein Obama and ‘Teflon Hillary.’

“Led on by such high profile ‘Socialist Leaders’ as ‘Mad Maxine’ Waters, and ‘The Bern,’ new upstart candidates for office betting on the propaganda of the Socialist’s ‘dream world’ are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar in New York, James Thompson in Kansas, Rashida Tlaib in Michigan and Sarah Smith in Washington.

“Since the mantra that spews from their mouths has never really been vetted by them or most of their followers, they must be considered insane or untruthful to those that have studied their claims and know actual facts.”

My mystery man says the best source for these fragile candidates or anyone who might want to verify the socialists’ shtick for absolute facts on socialism, would be to go to my big website that totally debunks socialism with plenty of verifying facts.

Check it out at SocialismToday.Info Currently there are 185 articles debunking socialism, including 16 that knocks Bernie Sanders’ hat in the dirt and stomps on it.

I think it is a pretty useful website, and basically, no one knows it is there. When you realize the site is helpful for educating, please tell others and share it. No advertising, just a website that wants to matter.

Thank you in advance for checking it out. – My undisclosed source’s friend, Rich L

Row 46

President Trump, Release the Docs, Cuff Them All and…


Constitutionally minded Americans are fed up! It’s time for justice.

There’s never been such abundant documented substantiation for charges against so many high-level leaders of government as there is against the hierarchy of the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) and FBI currently. Unless, you’re not listening to real news on such as Fox News and Fox Business News, or other responsible Constitutional conservative media you might not realize this.

Over the last year and a half that special prosecutor Mueller has been wasting millions of our tax dollars on a political ruse it has proven itself to be an utter criminal enterprise generated by the DOJ itself. His 13 member team is all hardened Democrat attorneys who are Deep State never Trumpers. Where can be the justice in all that?

These treasonous vermin are dedicated to taking down our wonderful president and do all they can to succeed on their path toward taking away our great republic that they were so close to accomplishing with the criminal female Clinton.

Since both the DOJ and FBI answer to the president many Americans wonder why he hasn’t come down on them. A close friend of mine says he believes President Trump has held back allowing them more time for building a stronger case against them and a lot more rope to hang themselves. If so, I wish he’d get down to pulling the lever.

Many lawfully responsible members of the FBI who are dedicated real Americans are ashamed and actually sickened by their leaders’ many violations of code and criminal law including treason and it is often affecting their work.


Judicial Watch in their Special Report ‘Exposing the Deep State’ reports:

“If the rule of law is to survive, if America’s constitutional protections are to endure, it is essential to roll back the sinister secrecy that allows, indeed encourages those operating in the Deep State to hold themselves above the law and beyond the Constitution.

“There is a way to rein in the Deep State but it requires a commitment to extreme transparency by elected officials. It requires determined leadership from the White House and serious bi-partisan action on the part of a committed Congress to expose the goings on inside the permanent D.C. bureaucracy and the connections between the Deep Staters, the media and the outside agents of influence.

“There is plenty of blame to go around for the transparency failures that foster the Deep State, most recently the Obama administration’s executive overreach and the veil of secrecy President Obama pulled over his administration to hide it. And now, unbelievably, those same secrecy policies seem to be on auto-pilot in the Trump administration. Thankfully, though, when it comes to sunshine actions, the Trump White House has a solution at hand – if only it would use it – that is both elegantly simple and breathtakingly radical. The Freedom of Information Act allows for the executive branch to make “discretionary disclosures.”

As Judicial Watch Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell has noted: “In plain English, that means President Trump and his cabinet secretaries can release whatever they want—whenever they wish to do so. They can exercise their discretion to release records that are of broad general and news media interest concerning important policy issues and/or the operation of the federal government. These discretionary disclosures take nothing more than the stroke of a pen.”


I can understand how it might be pretty close to impossible, even perhaps impractical to follow my wish for that which Constitutional law-abiding conservatives who know what America is supposed to be about would relish witnessing: That would be sending in the Marshall Service and videoing their serving arrest warrants and handcuffing DOJ and FBI leaders for their many obvious violations of law.

The humiliating image of handcuffs would make an impactful and unforgettable lasting and deserving statement that should be made, since the Teflon democrat elites have flaunted their noses at us and lady justice with blatant violations of law for so long.

Never mind the effect of the fake news big media reporting on such a historic precedential event, that Justice has been begging for, since everyone is used to nothing but attacks from them on everything President Trump does anyway. Go for the gold Mr. President. Make a loud statement about justice denied vs. the pursuit of justice applied by cuffing them all and let our courts sort it out.

Replace them with out of the beltway stock with credentials following our Constitution and the rule of law instead of the marching orders of the Deep State from the Council on Foreign Relations.

There is obviously more than enough evidence already reported on by the real news community and imagine the treasure trove of additional supporting evidence that releasing all the unredacted FISA documents and thousands more that have been refused even after receiving subpoenas from congressional committees.

The following list contains links to info about actual violations of law and even treason.

And finally… Jeff Sessions  No Handcuffs/No Crime. — But forced resignation for failure to comply with responsibilities is in order.

States Lindsey Graham on Sessions: “The President’s entitled to having an attorney general he has faith in, somebody that is qualified for the job and I think there will come a time sooner rather than later where it will be time to have a new face and a fresh voice at the Department of Justice. Clearly, Attorney General Sessions doesn’t have the confidence of the President.”


Nothing would make a stronger statement than immediately taking down both Clintons! The ‘Super Teflon’ Clinton crime couple should be arrested in a high profile manner that no one will ever forget. This couple is the most significant crimesters in America today and maybe in our history when you consider the duration of their long list of crimes including treason and that they’ve never faced a criminal court. See: ‘Clinton “Friends” Who Knew Too Much’

America must get back to: ‘With liberty and justice for all!’


Row 46

‘Voter Fraud in Montana’ Reported by Elaine Willman


A compelling case against Montana US Senator Jon Tester being re-elected is presented in a new video by author Elaine Willman who interviews Christopher Kortlander, owner of the historic town of Garryowen, Montana and founding director of the Custer Battlefield Museum.

The 19 minute video focuses on Chapter 7 of Kortlander’s new book ‘Arrow to the Heart’ – The Last Battle at the Little Big Horn, in which he exposes the factual events of the 2006 US Senatorial election’s voter fraud that was critical not only to the state of Montana but to the entire country since it tipped control of the US Senate to the Democrats by one vote.

Chapter 7 in his book reveals that Montana was the last state to turn in its votes after the Crow Agency’s precinct finally reported its votes at 2 AM in the morning. His book states that Senator Tester’s campaign was writing $40 checks for Crow votes within 50 feet of the front door of the tribe’s polling place which is only 5 miles from where Kortlander’s museum is located. He knows only too well about the checks since some of the tribal members cashed them at his museum’s store.

Willman points out that the critical material facts in the case of voter fraud was that the ballots that came at 2 in the morning that changed the election came from a polling precinct on the Crow reservation that was located on federal trust land where the Montana secretary of state has no oversight or enforcement authority. They just had to trust the ballots in that box with no state oversight. See Wilman’s informative article on Election Fraud here.

“One of the reasons for the video at this time, in 2018, prior to the upcoming election, is to note that those same voting precincts are still located on federal trust lands where the state of Montana’s secretary of state has no jurisdiction or enforcement authority,” states Willman. “That’s how Tester was re-elected in 2012 and that’s going to be a huge issue in 2018, because nothing has changed.”

Christopher Kortlander adds, “Right, and we’re not saying that we should disenfranchise the American Indians from voting, what we’re saying is the polling precincts still need to be located on the reservations, but they need to be located on property that’s under the jurisdiction of the State of Montana which is in charge of running the election. The Secretary of State is in charge of the elections in every state and that is what makes us the United States of America, all 50 states. The Federal government never runs a Federal election, they leave it up to each of the 50 Secretaries of States to be in charge.

“So how can you have ballot boxes that are unlocked, unchecked, with Native Americans running the elections throwing non-Indian poll watchers out of the buildings, and won’t even allow them to accompany the ballot boxes, which is under a Montana code penalty, for not being physically with the ballot boxes during transportation and delivery to the election officials at Big Horn County Court House in Hardin, Montana. The non-Indians were not allowed to do that, which is a violation of the Montana code.”

Kortlander says the Crow reservation is not actually breaking the law the way it is set up now is that there is no law, because again, because state law, criminal and civil jurisdiction, cannot be enforced on tribal trust federal property. It’s exempt, because the Crow reservation is a non-public law 280 reservation. What that means is explained on a great Wikipedia page on non-public law 280. What that means is that civil and criminal jurisdiction from the State of Montana cannot be enforced on this reservation to an American Indian.

The video wraps up with mentioning that it doesn’t take a whole lot to swing a vote and that Jon Tester won that late night last count by only around 3000 votes and there was documented evidence of double voting, name changing and voting by deceased voters.

Wilman points out that this has had tremendous impact on what has gone on on this reservation for at least 12 years and those that have benefited from this have not been willing to make the change. She says that Montana voters really need to contact the Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton’s office at 406 444-2034 and demand correcting this flagrant wrong.

For further information, contact:

Elaine D. Willman, MPA
Ronan, Montana
Elaine Willman,

Row 46

We Must Help Trump, ‘Our Blessed Gift for Our…


We MUST NOT Be Complacent

President Trump’s list of accomplishments seen at for his first year alone is incredible. Also, a general overview of his first 500 days by can be seen at President Donald J. Trump’s 500 Days of American Greatness.

All Americans should be grateful for these most meaningful accomplishments; but not the deceitful globalist/socialist (in and out of government) and their deluded and naïve followers led on by our deceitful fake news big media.

Attacks against President Trump are relentless. The sordid long list of attackers include the ‘progressive’ Democrat PartyRINOs in Congress, Justice Department and FBI leadership, big city mayors, Democrat governors, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) aka the leaders of the Deep State, our disgusting ‘Fake News’ big media in print, radio and TV, disappointing ‘Entertainment Community’ big mouth hot shots such as Rosie O’DonnellRobert DeNiro,Madonna and many prominent world leaders such as Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Canada’s ‘socialist boy wonder’ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Mexico’s current corrupt President Enrique Peña Nieto…. the drumbeat is incessant.

In particular, the outrageous constant ginning up of over the top exaggerations, questionable news from ‘undisclosed sources’ and outright blatant lies are repulsive and extremely tiring such as what just surfaced by none other than Bob Woodward in his new book ‘FEAR.’

Whitehouse Chief of Staff John Kelly denies the book’s claims, “The idea I ever called the President an idiot is not true. He always knows where I stand and he and I both know this story is total BS.”

Likewise, former Trump Attorney John Dowd states “… could not recall all these details because he is saturated with information daily.” And “…a transcript saying he could not recall makes him look like an idiot to others not involved.”

Also, Defense Secretary James Mattis says “The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward’s book were never uttered by me or in my presence.” Clearly, Bob Woodward has some credibility problems. No one has ever undeservedly endured so much from so many as President Trump. How does our President withstand it all?

He endures it because he is tough as nails, and is smart enough to know how to fight back practically all alone save for Fox News, a few conservative alternate media outlets in the news business and a whole lot of very grateful admiring ‘real’ Americans who get it. The ones that truly know what America is about.


What makes America run is vibrant productive commerce in the free marketplace of a capitalist system. Productivity and its subsequent profits are absolutely necessary for our success as a nation. Our money has been going away for far too long and thank God President Trump has been repatriating a lot of it already and we need helping him continue his fine efforts with our support by electing real patriotic non-RINO republicans that actually do follow the great GOP platform and more importantly the U.S. and our state Constitutions.

Freedom, true freedom is pure capitalism. Capitalism is the freedom to win at starting a business or investment and cannot and must not provide ‘subsidized’ guarantees for those who attain less.

Failure is a lesson learned well and one moves on, strengthened from the experience. One can strive to achieve all he wants or adjust to what levels of accomplishment he attains.

Businesses creating commerce, accountably making a profit providing jobs are the root sources of all governments’ funding. A growing economy that creates more tax paying employees will bring in more revenue than higher tax rates and new taxes which conversely hurt us. President Trump’s tax program is just that remedy.


Because, had the utterly corrupt female Clinton won the election we would probably have already been signed off by her handlers at the Council on Foreign Relations through their deep state members of Congress to a member state of the new World Order run by unelected, unaccountable power elite globalists who know best about everything for everyone. A socialist worldSee how corrupt the two Clintons are here and see the corrupt Clinton female brag about her CFR handlers here. Also, here is another must see.


We put our elected representatives on notice that we expect them to do the hard work of developing a grand plan that can work to turn things around by returning us to a functioning republic following our laws and the Constitution. Then we must get into a drive to get others to be sure to vote to assure Trumpsters win.

There will be much gnashing of teeth, screaming and whispering threats from lobbyist and many special interests PAC’s. But that has to be expected, if we are to really get us back to a functioning republic. This has nothing to do with political parties. Both parties are full of socialist leaning and GREEDY MEMBER$.

It has everything to do with patriotism, because we as Americans are supposed to care about and run our country. Not political PAC’s, or the CFR, the corrupt UN and especially not George Soros and his ilk.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and their democrat counterparts need to give up listening to the drumbeat of their party machines both orchestrated by the Council on Foreign Relations/UN crowd and start listening to the patriotic citizen owners of this country. Deep Staters, ‘Short time, lame duck’ Ryan and McConnell will hate this hard work, but it has to be done and they should ‘Patriot Up’ for it.

To continue as ‘Americans,’ not citizen members of a globalist state, we must make certain that we continually watch voting records published on both houses of our legislature here in Idaho at , and another one published on the U.S. congress at to make sure our representatives know we are watching their voting records. And we must awaken others to the importance of this monitoring and how to do it.


America became great precisely because of the stifling effect of too much government. We need to get back to ‘stifling’ and start doing the very hardest work that must be done of reversing and undoing the wrongs of the overzealous, the naïve and corrupt politicians that have damaged our ‘lifeblood commerce,’ and taken our freedoms by allowing such as the recent ‘social media infringement of free conservative expressions’ by Facebook, Twitter and Google. We must work very hard at Making America Great Again!

Yes, we have an imperfect President again, like all the rest. But, we should be eternally thankful that we finally have a President with the right gut instincts about what is most of America’s wrongs and how to fix them with the stamina to fight the good fight against some horrendous odds. He is like a blessed gift to America for our time.

Now it is time for us to get off the couch and hammerdown! We must do our part to help our blessed gift.

Row 45

We Don’t Need A Wall. We Need Two Walls!


How We Pay for Them

The compelling onslaught of violations to our national sovereignty on our southern border has so captivated our nation’s attention that we’ve almost become oblivious to the fact that we have a northern border that is as wide open and much longer that could be an even greater security threat.

There are about 16,000 border patrol agents on the Mexican border. There are about 2,000 agents on the Canadian border, which is twice as long as Mexico’s.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the length of the International Boundary line of the U.S.-Canadian border, excluding Alaska, is approximately 3,987 miles, while the length of the U.S.-Mexican border is estimated at 1,933 miles. The length of the Alaska-Canada border alone is 1,538 miles. Nov 9, 2006 .

States Wilson Ring/AP in his article ‘While the Trump Administration Looks South, Human Smugglers Exploit the Canadian Border:’ “Driving the increase here, officials say, is the ease of entry into Canada, where visas are no longer required for Mexicans, and a border that receives less scrutiny and resources than the southern border, where thousands fleeing violence in Central America are being detained.

“A plane ticket from Mexico City to Montreal or Toronto can cost less than $350.

“The Canadian government in late 2016 lifted its requirement that Mexican citizens apply for visas to enter the country as part of broader efforts to strengthen ties with Mexico. A similar requirement for Romanian citizens took effect in late 2017.

However, the biggest surprise regarding security on our Canadian border is that Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is taking heat for a steady flow of asylum seekers entering Canada from the U.S. since Donald Trump’s election, by people who fear the U.S. will deport them or reject their bids for asylum. What is poor ‘boy’ Trudeau to do?

I suggest he readily consider sharing the cost of our mutual border with us.

It really does come down to how to pay for these walls. Well, I have already suggested that if we straighten out our trade imbalance with Mexico it would go a long way toward paying for the southern border.

The rest? See the GAO report about how the federal government wasted $45 billion in redundant programs and consider that Ron Paul proposed saving $1 Trillion by scrapping 5 federal Departments. Then these very corporations can get back to real free enterprise again.

Philip Mattera in his report, “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent” reported that $110 billion was given to 965 big business parents of subsidy recipients. Ending this alone will easily pay for the southern border wall without help from Mexico.

Stephanie Condon with CBS News reported in 2011 that Ron Paul during his presidential campaign “unveiled a plan to cut $1 Trillion from the federal budget within one year by cutting a handful of federal departments. KaChing! Walls paid for.

“Paul’s plan would shape the federal government to fit the Texas Republican’s small-government, federalist views, slashing remaining department budgets, immediately ending all war spending, eliminating programs viewed as unnecessary, sending control over programs like Medicaid to the states, scrapping significant regulations and cutting taxes.

“Along with the Departments of Energy and Education, Paul also proposes eliminating the Departments of Housing and Urban DevelopmentCommerce, and Interior. Paul would also abolish the Transportation Security Administration, leaving security at airports and other transportation systems up to the private sector.”

With our good neighbors, Mexico and Canada prudently sharing the cost of maintaining our friendly countries important national sovereignties we can well pay for the walls. Where there is a will there is a way. If you think you can, you can and everybody wins.

Of course, such proposals most certainly will be met with hell raising objections and gnashing of teeth if ever serious contentions are pushed, but that is life today. The crazies on the left, the sorry RINO’s and totally liberal media are going to bitch about anything that Constitutional Republic loving Americans want because they are all in to take us away into a globalist world run by unaccountable, unelected power elitist who know best about everything for everybody.

Open borders are a vital tool toward that end by those who wish to take us down.

Row 45

Why America Declined Before Trump


In a 2015 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, one senator noted that “The Federal Register indicates there are over 430departments, agencies, and sub-agencies in the federal government.”

Obama’s presidency produced 81,640 total pages of regulations and rules for 2016 alone, a record. To put into perspective what type of effect the regulatory state has on the American economy, a 2014 report by the National Association of Manufacturers found that regulatory costs on all firms exceed $2 trillion annually and disproportionally affected small businesses.

The English writer G.K. Chesterton stated, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” 99% of these mistakes all have to do with their transgressions in violation of our blessed Constitution.

“The Tenth Amendment emphasizes the belief that the federal government holds only those powers and responsibilities specifically discussed in the Constitution, and that all others are reserved to the individual states, and to the people. This amendment does not give new powers to the states, but specifically safeguards their authority over all matters that are not specifically granted to the federal government.” – The Legal

In the first place, unconstitutional subsidies, grants, loan guarantees, tax deductions, foreign aid, stimulus plans, regulations and unconstitutional agencies shouldn’t exist in our Constitutional Republic!!!

All these actions by our government for citizens, corporations, financial institutions, states, counties, cities and other countries are not what our federal government was set up to do. Our federal government has morphed into a giant good will endeavor purporting to enrich and improve life for the benefit of all, while in fact, it has been expropriating power to itself, charging it all to taxpayers and businesses while unsettling our true ‘competitive’ business dynamic in what should be a free marketplace. Most of this was created at the direction of the establishment (CFR), with a design for gaining control.

Free people prosper. Restrained people… not so much. Nothing spends like someone else’s money, especially when that someone else is utterly inattentive and over trusting. American citizens have been tuned out and too trusting of politicians that are naïve, deluded or eaten up with $PECIAL INTERE$T greed, i.e. Democrats and our betraying RINOs?

And guess what? Not one of these bureaucratic departments or agencies want their ox gored!


We have a spending problem! A budget’s total of expenditures is not ‘the problem,‘ it is the itemizations!, or the ‘devil in the details’ that create the total to be balanced. Our list of expenditures is the root problem. Like itemizations such as our government spending more on corporate welfare subsidies than social welfare programs in 2006. And that is particularly outrageous when you consider that billions of those welfare expenditures are illegally being paid to non-qualifying illegal aliens which actually now is the greater of the two expenditures.

In FY 2016 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — was “guesstimated” to be $1,032 billion(that’s over $1 trillion), including $591 billion for Medicaid, and $467 billion in other welfare. There are 70 Federal Domestic Assistance agencies with 2306 programs listed here.


Philip Mattera in his report, “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent” reported that $110 billion was given to 965 big business parents of subsidy recipients. He also stated that the total number of these awards were over 25,000 and all this accounts for a 75 percent portion of the total value of the Subsidy Tracker universe.

He stated, “Berkshire Hathaway, a company with $485 billion in assets and $20 billionin profits, received over $1 billion of that money. Its chair, Warren Buffett, is worth about $58 billion. Buffett, by the way, is still a darling of the left. He has some nerve to call for higher taxes. The billion dollars his companies took would pay for a lot of teachers, healthcare, and other public goods.” (His alternate recipients would also be receiving the money un-constitutionally.)

From Tom Coburn’s Milking Taxpayers at the in 2015, “American farm subsidies are egregiously expensive, harvesting $20 billion a year from taxpayers’ pockets. Most of the money goes to big, rich farmers producing staple commodities such as corn and soybeans in states such as Iowa.

“To this day, to be treated as a farmer in America doesn’t necessarily require you to grow any crops. According to the Government Accountability Office, between 2007 and 2011 Uncle Sam paid some $3m in subsidies to 2,300 farms where no crop of any sort was grown. Between 2008 and 2012, $10.6m was paid to farmers who had been dead for over a year.”

These links are sure to further stir your ire: NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers10 Taxpayer Handouts to the Super Rich That Will Make Your Blood BoilShould Washington End Agriculture Subsidies?American taxpayers give an $18 billion gift to the post office every year, and Despite $39 billion in Annual Gov’t. Subsidies, Solar Produced 0.5% of Electricity in US. Also for some insight and inspiration see: Downsizing the Federal Government, YOUR GUIDE TO CUTTING FEDERAL SPENDING.


Stephanie Condon with CBS News reported in 2011 that Ron Paul during his presidential campaign “unveiled a plan to cut $1 Trillion from the federal budget within one year by cutting a handful of federal departments.

“Paul’s plan would shape the federal government to fit the Texas Republican’s small-government, federalist views, slashing remaining department budgets, immediately ending all war spending, eliminating programs viewed as unnecessary, sending control over programs like Medicaid to the states, scrapping significant regulations and cutting taxes.

“Along with the Departments of Energy and Education, Paul also proposes eliminating the Departments of Housing and Urban DevelopmentCommerce, and Interior. Paul would also abolish the Transportation Security Administration, leaving security at airports and other transportation systems up to the private sector.”


Writing for the Cato Institute, Chris Edwards says, “So let me suggest some wasteful spending that the new administration should tackle, and the annual savings from terminating each:

K-12 school subsidies, which generate bureaucracy and stifle innovation ($25 billion).

Farm subsidies, which enrich wealthy landowners and harm the environment ($25 billion).

Rural corporate welfare, which is handed out by the Department of Agriculture ($6 billion).

Energy subsidies, which have been one boondoggle after another ($5 billion).

TSA airport screening, which Trump has said is “a total disaster” ($5 billion).

The war on drugs, which wastes police resources and generates violence ($15 billion).

Excess pay for federal workers, especially gold-plated retirement benefits ($33 billion with a 10 percent cut).

Housing subsidies, which distort markets and damage cities ($37 billion).

Community development aid, which is corporate welfare used for buying votes ($11 billion).

Urban transit and passenger rail funding, which are properly local and private activities ($12 billion).

Obamacare exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion, which should be repealed along with the overall law ($225 billion a year by 2026).


Josh Guckert at Libertarian cites what he calls his Top 10 Examples of Government Waste, “Government Agencies Are Out of Control. When George Washington became President, his cabinet consisted of only an Attorney General and the Secretaries of State, War and Treasury. Needless to say, in the two centuries since then, government bureaucracy has gotten completely out of control, and it has become nearly impossible to keep track of all of the country’s departments and agencies. While there are entire departments that should also be discarded, here are 10 agencies which we could easily do without. Because there are so many which are ineffective and intrusive, this is certainly not an exhaustive list:

  1. National Security Agency
  2. Food and Drug Administration
  3. Environmental Protection Agency
  4. Amtrak
  5. Internal Revenue Service
  6. Federal Emergency Management Agency
  7. Transportation Security Administration
  8. Drug Enforcement Administration
  9. Federal Communications Commission
  10. Federal Reserve

Also, see the GAO report about how the federal government wasted $45 billion in redundant programs.

It’s interesting that the Government Accountability Office’s 2016 report presents: “ 92 actions that the executive branch or Congress could take to improve efficiency and effectiveness across 37 areas that span a broad range of government missions and functions.

GAO suggests 33 actions to address evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication in 12 new areas across the government missions of defense, economic development, health, homeland security, and information technology.

GAO also presents 59 opportunities for executive branch agencies or Congress to take actions to reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury across 25 areas of government.”


Here’s a list of the various federal agencies reportedly on the chopping block so far with their budgets. See the full report with more details on each as reported in an article by Taylor Tepper with the above title at

  1. Corporation for Public Broadcasting – Budget: $445 million
  2. National Endowment for the Arts – Budget: $150 million
  3. National Endowment for the Humanities – Budget: $150 million
  4. Minority Business Development Agency – Budget: $36 million
  5. Economic Development Administration – Budget: $215 million
  6. International Trade Administration – Budget: $521 million
  7. Manufacturing Extension Partnership – Budget: $142 million
  8. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services – Budget: $286 million
  9. Office of Violence Against Women – Budget: $480 million
  10. Legal Services Corporation – Budget: $503 million
  11. Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department – Budget: $156 million
  12. Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department – Budget: $123 million
  13. Overseas Private Investment Corporation – Budget: Self-sustaining
  14. UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – U.S. Funding: Estimated $10 million
  15. Office of Electricity Deliverability and Energy Reliability – Budget: $262 million
  16. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy – Budget: $2.9 billion
  17. Office of Fossil Energy – Budget: $878 million

This could be a great beginning but we truly need to jettison a lot more of our socialist bureaus, departments, agencies, laws and regulations which have been exactly what all this ‘big government in control’ has been striving toward. The federal government was never intended to be in charge and certainly not a creator, fixer, charity house and surely not a referee picking winners and losers in the business community. It was established with enumerated powers, period.


IT’S A STATES’ RIGHTS THING. States should control land, water, air and parks. Check the Constitution and awaken. Then threaten your legislators with retirement should they not start the hard job of reclaiming our Republic as it should be. This can and needs being done.

It should be pointed out that former government employees would evolve into vibrant jobs in the expanding commerce of the healthier private sector and be just fine. As Americans, the good ones will appreciate their new freedoms and the whiners will have to attend to some growing up. America isn’t about guarantees. It is about the freedom to grow and succeed and learning valuable lessons that can be built upon when attaining less.

States Bob Adelmann of the New American .com“The one thing that would work best at reducing government: following the limitations placed on the federal government by the Constitution. Under Article 8, the duties have been enumerated, limited, and then guaranteed under the 10th Amendment: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ Just following the Constitution would, it has been estimated, cut the government by at least 80 percent.” Think of the good that money could do working in the private sector.

America isn’t about government freebies, it’s about freedom, personal responsibility, morality and limited government.

Economic Freedom defined: The freedom to prosper within a country without intervention from a government or economic authority. Individuals are free to secure and protect his/her human resources, labor and private property. Economic freedom is common in capitalist economies and must incorporate other civil liberties to be deemed as truly free. – The Business

Ox goring season is open year round. There are so many oxen to gore, whose protection will be vehemently fought for by LOBBYI$T$their ‘client’ corporations, supported legislators, Presidents and judges.

Patriot up!, and the wall is easily paid for!

Row 45

Open Letter to Ontario, Canada’s Premier Doug Ford


Dear Premier Ford,

I am one of the many Americans who wish you well in your new charge as Premier of Ontario. I must say your outspokenness and the challenges you are undertaking in ‘Liberaldom’ Ontario seems very Trumpian, so a slogan like Make Ontario Great Again (MOGA) seems in order.

My point in writing this is to open your eyes to what has been going on with this Hydro One debacle that intends to spend nearly $7 billion dollars of Ontario’s borrowed money to venture into another sovereign nation’s affairs to buy Avista, a perfectly healthy electric utility company that doesn’t need any help nor extra money that does business in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Alaska.

I do not believe that Ontario’s Hydro One executives just decided one day to expand into other markets with a business plan that has been a total failure in Ontario. If anything they might have foolishly thought they could buy a company like Avista, here in the Northwestern United States, and milk it for carbon credits by closing dams and coal plants like they have in Ontario. I wouldn’t think that patriotic Ontarians would think like that, only liberal fools who are tools of others.

No. I believe these people at Hydro One have been pawns of the globalist agenda and this nonsensical borrowing of that kind of money for a foreign entanglement, such as the Avista buyout, at way above market prices with $51 million being paid to Avista executives is all about globalists taking control of our electric grid and water ways injuring our economy and weakening our sovereignty.

The Green Energy Act of 2009 codified Maurice Strong’s dream of global warming and Ontarians are suffering the legacy he created as Hydro One’s chairman back in 1992. Strong mentored Al Gore and Barack Obama, who together created the Chicago Climate Exchange a location for you to pay for your climate indulgences.

Should you not be aware, this buyout had rules that would upset you if you lived here and paid attention to the details in this shady concoction: There is so much that is wrong with this deal like Avista and Hydro One getting permission to not have to divulge proprietary information that is vital to this ‘deal,’ such as: • The Cost of Sharing Formula? • Who is the Golden Share? • What are the identities of the holding company parties involved in the Olympus Holding Corp.? • The proposed closing of our valuable and very efficient 13 dams for the sake of cap and trade credits should be criminal.

I believe your most important priorities as I see it from here are completing your audit and your selections of the best people you can find dedicated to accomplishing your goals and their being held accountable to them for the citizens of Ontario. With Ontarians having the most debt per capita of any non-sovereign state in the world you have all you can say grace over without new international conflictions.

Premier Ford, it would be wonderful, if you would announce that you are ending the pursuit of this insane Avista purchase, thereby giving the new management of Hydro One the fullest advantage of focusing on their utmost priorities where they should be, in Ontario, and not doing the bidding of others in the UN/globalist community. We would like to see both Hydro One and our newly organized avoid all the unnecessary organizational and legal expenses that will grow vigorously if this continues. Our group is growing rapidly as we get the word out and will become a force to be reckoned with. We just filed for a NEPA Coordination Process in Spokane, WA on July 23rd.

We here in America wish you the best in your Herculean undertaking. Done well, should awaken Canada to the need for a leader like you in the near future.

Row 45

Why Nothing Is More Important than Firing ‘Kingpin’ Mitch…

Above: Obstructionist, RINO Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and his protector wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chow, who also is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.




There are many issues that are considered top priorities in President Trump’s agenda to MAGA, but none greater than being able to move on with necessary legislation and especially now to have confirmations on appointments completed in a timely fashion.

One of his greatest priorities is his Supreme Court appointment that has received absurd protestations, way before he even announced a candidate.

Truly a deep state RINO, Mitch McConnell obviously is following the dictates of the Deep State, otherwise known as The Council on Foreign Relations, of which his wife, who is also Secretary of Transportation, Elain Chow, is a member. McConnell may as well be outed as a card-carrying, rabid, far left Democrat, no matter what ruse he puts on.


“The opportunity to transform the American judiciary toward freedom and away from tyranny won’t last forever. It’s hard enough for the president to fight intransigent Democrats who are opposing him every step of the way. He now finds that he must fight Republican Senator Mitch McConnell as well.” – Bob

A prime example of why Mitch needs to go ASAP is his handling of President Trump’s $60 billion in federal spending rescissions last April when he instead pushed through a mammoth budget-busting $1.3 trillion spending bill.

Steve Byas of The New cited “House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was also quite pleased with the bill. ‘The House just voted to rebuild our military, secure our borders, and give our service members their largest pay raise in eight years.’ But it was the Democrats — the people McConnell had “brokered” a deal with — who appeared to be most pleased with the spending bill.

Dedicated Deep State obstructionist McConnell

“Congressman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) summed up what the Democrats thought about the bill. ‘We got about 80 percent of what we were trying to get.’

“Most Republicans, on the other hand, except for their leadership, have expressed disgust. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said, ‘This year we’re looking at a deficit of $750 billion to $1 trillion. Next year, the estimate is $1 trillion or more. I have to wonder if there is any way that we can avoid a national insolvency or bankruptcy.’

“Yet, McConnell appears more concerned with good relations with the minority party Democrats than he does with his relationship with members of his own party or the president in the White House — also of his own party. Which helps explain why the Republicans are technically in the majority in the House and Senate, but the minority Democrats get 80 percent of what they want.”

The Dimms long ago set precedent via their hotshot former Senate Leader Harry Reid, in 2013 by changing the vote for confirmation of Supreme Court Justices to a majority rule vote of 51%. However, these days it seems the Dimms don’t need precedent for anything. They are such obstructionists they will not stop at anything for their conquests. While the Republicans opine the need to uphold tradition and gentlemanly agreements.

Paul Kane writing for the Washington Post also back in 2013 in his article “Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees: “Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of Senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

“The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

“In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.”

So GOP Senators, now is the time for you to stand up and show us if you are authentic party platform breathing, Constitutional Republicans or deep state RINOs like McConnell who are out to undermine President Trump at any opportunity. Judge Brett Kavanaugh needs to be confirmed as early as possible so the Senate can move on to other important priorities for American citizens so we can collectively make America greater.

There is no time to lose in the Senate and much on the line for the upcoming November elections. The Senate must be in sync with President Trump’s agenda and it is doubtful to happen on two-faced Mitch’s watch which seems apparent given his history.


Top priority: Get the Senate to oust McConnell, replace him with a real Republican like Rand Paul or Mike Lee.

Priority number 2: Get the House to do the same with Ryan and replace him with Jim Jordan or Mark Meadows. Once Trump has the support of Congress he can deal with Priority number 3 quite easily.

Priority number 3: THE PRIZE – Fire the entire Dept. of Justice (DOJ) hierarchy Sessions, Rosenstein and Mueller and their FBI cohort Wray. I especially relish the vision of doing it with a flourish by sending the Marshall Service or better yet the Marines in and taking them out in cuffs since there are plenty of charges to accompany the action and then carry out truckloads of all the documents that have been requested by house committees and refused, even under subpoenas.

Confirmations for their replacements could be quite expedient in the Senate and prosecuting them could also be a lot easier in the House with ‘team’ leaders in both houses instead of the deep state obstructionist ‘Never Trumper’ team of McConnell/Ryan.

American patriots are so disgusted with our broken justice system that is clearly two-sided today, this action should be a great boost in the mid-term elections to any American that is paying attention to reality and understands what America is genuinely about.

Of course, the big payoff at DOJ would come in the prosecutions of all the players in the Russiagate fiasco, and a seemingly endless row of Teflon Democrats such as the Clintons, Obama, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Loretta Lynch, Timothy Geithner, Jack Lew, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Thomas Perez, Huma Abedin and Debbie Wasserman Shultz. See a list of their transgressions in the article Travesty or Justice?


Again, the kingpin action to focus on in making this all happen is booting the deep state’s ‘cork in the bottle’ McConnell out the door. That will take some serious organizing and strong pressures on Senate members to get ‘er done. This will be particularly difficult in light of the fact that so many Senators are avowed RINOs. But, this effort needs to be organized and pushed with heavy pressures and the strongest of priorities on all GOP Senators. It is the key to the other two priorities.

Accomplishing this top priority could light the fuse for the same treatment immediately for Ryan in the House. The House recognizes the need to boot RINO Ryan sooner than his desired time frame but hasn’t made it their top priority yet.

Accomplishing these three priorities would create a panacea to build from for making and keeping America greater.

However, it is just too much to expect in a patriots idea of a perfect world, but wouldn’t it be great if fake news media owners and their many lying and propagandist employees were held to truth standards that hold them responsible for their intentional crimes of false information, defamation of character and outright treason with reports that harm America. A man can dream, I suppose.

Row 44

Obama’s Place Today is with his OFA


Clint Eastwood said one day we will realize that “President Obama was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Obama’s Political Career Began With Castro-backed Terrorist so he has sort of come home to his roots.

The ongoing rant to abolish ICE is part of the intentional evolution of a socialist coup.

Obama’s Muslimism, socialism and arrogance are finally being recognized and rejected by most Americans of traditional values in both parties. Although America feels disdain for his flavor of community organizing at his Organizing for Action (OFA), it is the job he has and he is good at it. Too bad for America.

In February 2017, I wrote an article titled Obama’s ‘Trump Saboteurs’ at OFA Boasts 30,000 Paid Agitators & Opening 250 Offices across America that revealed his intentions to do all he can to damage Trump.

FrontPage reportedObama rented a $5.3 million, 8,200-square-foot, walled mansion in Washington’s Embassy Row that he is using to command his community organizing his cadres. Michelle Obama joined the former president there as did the Obama Foundation.


Do you really think ‘Mad Maxine’ Waters decided on her own to launch this concerted effort she’s making to encourage conflict and incite followers to harass and get in the faces of Republicans and especially White House officials?

Waters pointedly instructed a small crowd while back in California last week, “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents.” Blah, blah, blah, blah….

This woman is a dedicated tool of the extreme left who needs coaching, says much without any coaching that she shouldn’t, and even says a lot that she hasn’t thought about yet.


Have you noticed that present in all the left’s assaults you see everywhere, are the professionally printed signs, the perfect timing of demonstrators arrival and their organized efforts to act as a synchronized group with a designed focus. Never mind that these groups are also often bused in at great expense in very pricey buses. Sounds like the craft of a very effective and well-funded community organizer, right? Reminds me of my follow up article the week after the aforementioned one, Stop Paid Anarchists by Cutting off the Head.

And anarchists are exactly what these Common Core educated, naive, largely, students with a mix of older Americans that just wish to collect some easy money by responding to ads are: STOP TRUMP – up to $1500/week

Hiring Immediately! Call Today Start Tomorrow! $15 – $18 hourly rate + bonus + overtime! Up to 77 hours per week!
Drivers Earn Gas Reimbursement!
Morning and Evening Shifts

No previous experience required
Full time and part time positions
Weekend positions available
No fundraising!
No commission!

So while Obama’s organization is busy with all these orders to implement, he keeps himself occupied as much as possible meeting influential and financial supporters and leaders of the world, who will see him, trying his best to undermine America’s interest, like he always has, and especially trying to put a dent in President Trump’s thick armor.


The Democrat Party presently is exactly antithetical to the precepts of what America stands for as created by our founders. We are not the land of freebies, guarantees, open borders, sanctuary cities or Sharia Law. We are about limited government, personal responsibility, moral codes such as the biblical Ten Commandments and the rule of law. The Democrat Party won a lot during Obama’s years while America was losing. Thanks to President Trump that trend is reversing and America is winning again. The Dimms are in utter shock, ‘Big League.’

The donkey party has for decades rolled on a social bent promising and delivering programs and outright free money that conversely has dealt much harm to American freedoms and our necessary healthy commerce. Most ‘government programs’ have contained a lot of fat, political chicanery and socialist nonsense which dis-incentivized and eroded the American spirit to strive upward.

The Democrat Party today is not reaching out to voters so much anymore. They truly are no longer the party of Zell Miller. It is being led by a dictum of raw, far-left anger that is exposing their roots of blatant socialism and even fascism. The new ‘progressive’ Democrat leaders are leaving behind some party loyalists who don’t want any part of their new extreme socialism. It is apparent that the Democrat leadership is so arrogant that they don’t care, since they are buying and training new young socialists for Obama’s legions who are out raising hell in the streets, protesting everything worthwhile and recruiting new upstarts for the attractive pay of from $15 to $18 an hour plus expenses and transportation courtesy of George ‘Take Down America’ Soros.‘ It is truly a sad party when the best they have is purely obstructionist Chuck Shumer, Nancy Pelosi, Elijah Cummings, Elizabeth Warren and Maxine Waters.


Obama is re-emerging into the political fray for Democratic National Committee fundraisers, and that is the most exciting news the stagnant Democrat Party has created since Donald Trump’s Presidency. Whatever magic may appear to be present in that talented poker face smile, the bloom is definitely off the rose thanks to the Dimm’s own bungling in all the many exposures to their corruption in Russiagate, DOJgate and endless Clintongates not to mention the huge quantity of Obama’s damaging regulations and programs exposed and canceled by President Trump. The Fake News media can only do so much.

That first DNC event of elites in the Tony LA atmosphere notwithstanding, future such events will find party elites, some very blind loyalist followers and perhaps some of those paid OFA legions that can help produce some audiences, but gone will be the larger crowds of his lucky past.

OFA’s funding source, George Soros, needs being squashed like a bug in our courts. Blatant treason is the charge and perfect justice would be a quick, short trial, obvious guilty verdict and straight to prison. We can dream.

What do you think we should do about all these repugnant demonstrations, marches and riots we are having thrust upon us?


A man who will remain nameless in Southern California is presently having great successes combating the many aggressive intrusions into what should be America’s peaceful political scene by the far left, by using common sense against them through organizing conservative activists and implementing a ‘focused’ plan.

He successfully creates factual, concisely prepared whitepapers in a bulleted format that is used to get in the face of these far left crazies who try to upset everything like Maxine Waters and her ilk would direct. He does it by, believe it or not, using Alinsky tactics, back at them. He says his activists have been largely responsible for the many California cities giving up their Sanctuary City status.

Even though our conservative activists are short on the Soros level of funding our activists have a large advantage. Truth and reality are difficult to overcome. Conservatives only need presenting our truth strongly in the face of lies and innuendo to succeed. The California activist leader reports that these extremist hell raisers from the left have nothing to answer with against facts and steel away when confronted assertively.

He says the only reason the left has been getting away with their anarchist behavior is that the right has allowed them their platform unopposed by not confronting them.

So there you have it. We need to confront them with irrefutable facts and not back down. They get physical, we have our sheriffs and our video recordings. If sheriffs don’t enforce the law, we vote the sheriffs out of office. That’s the way it works in America. But, we must get organized, strategize and show up. It is the American way.

And Obama? He should answer for many violations of our laws just as any other law breaker in America should.

See: “Criminal In Chief” — 78 Times President Obama Broke The Law During Presidency

Obama, ‘the Worst President in History’ Continues Trying to Destroy America

Please check out my new website with over a hundred articles totally debunking socialism.

Row 44

The problem isn’t the immigrants, it’s Mexico!


ABOVE: Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto and U.S. President Barack Obama


The mass immigrations of illegal immigrants from countries south of Mexico’s borders would not be here if it weren’t for Mexico.

In the first place, if Mexico was enforcing their own immigration laws at their southern border that would be the end of it. It must be noted that Mexico’s own immigration laws are much tougher than ours.

As Phil Kent at reports on his website in his article ‘Comparing Mexico’s Tough Immigration Laws To Ours:’

Here’s what Mexico’s “Law on Population” contains:

  • Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society. Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” (Article 34). Furthermore, Article 37 says foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” Can you imagine the uproar if our Congress debated, let alone passed, such a stipulation?
  • Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country. Article 73 says federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with immigration authorities in assisting with the arrest of illegal immigrants.
  • Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned (Article 116).
  • Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported and/or imprisoned as felons (Article 117).
  • Illegal immigration is a felony (Articles 123, 125).
  • Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law. For example, a Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison (Article 127).

Here’s what the Mexican Constitution also says:

  • Non-citizens cannot participate in the country’s political life (Article 33). Non-citizens are also forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics.
  • There are no equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector (Article 32).
  • Fundamental property rights are denied to foreigners. Article 27 states: “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters….”
  • An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years (Article 37).
  • Foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33: “The Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.

Clearly, Mexico’s immigration laws are far tougher than the United States. Yet its sanctimonious legislators will spin gullible American journalists about how they somehow hold the high road with regard to their immigration laws.” – Unquote

In the second place, Mexico practically rolls out a red carpet when these mass migrations are created to pass through to America by allowing them in country, giving them time to gather a collective, watching it organize and then passing all the way through their country, unrestricted, to our door. Mexico practically ushers these illegal immigrants through all of the approximately 1800 miles from that southern border to their northern border as though they are chaperoning them to our front door. Never mind, that they would imprison an American for illegally crossing their border.


Quoting Warren Mass of in 2016, “The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) released a statement that utilized refreshing logic in pointing out what should be obvious to almost anyone wondering how tens of thousands of unaccompanied children could travel 1,800 miles on their own to a common destination:

‘This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor Illegal Alien children at risk for purely political purposes. Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States Government. Anyone that has taken two six to seven year old children to an amusement park can only imagine the problems associated with bringing thousands of unaccompanied children that age up through Mexico and into the United States. I doubt even the Cartels would undertake that chore at any price. No, it has to be heartless corrupt politicians and their minions lusting for more money and power.’

Central American immigrants board “La Bestia” (“The Beast”) cargo train, in an attempt to reach the Mexico-U.S. border, in Arriaga, Chiapas state, Mexico on July 16, 2014. (Elizabeth Ruíz/AFP)

“As part of our research, we spoke with Andy Ramirez, a recognized national expert on border security who has testified before Congress, the California state legislature, the DHS and the DOJ. Considering both the large numbers of unaccompanied children and the long distances involved, Ramirez stated bluntly: “There is no way this could have been done by an alien smuggling organization [ASO]. It had to have been done at a much higher level.”

“Further along in the interview, Ramiriez told us that considering the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce U.S. immigration law, he believed, “it’s clear in connecting the dots that the Obama administration and [the] Mexican government are co-partners.”

So throw in the fact that Sara Carter reported in The Blaze in 2014 that ‘Armed Mexican Troops Have Crossed the U.S. Border More Than 300 Times Since 2004″ and there is serious fodder for consideration of giving Mexico a taste of our feelings about their purposeful violations of our nation’s border.

An even more recent blatant armed attack was reported in 2015 by Judicial Watch: DHS Records Detail Mexican Government Helicopter Crossing Border and Firing on Border PatrolSee video portrayal on that attack here.

Plus, keep in mind that all our heightened attention, resources and money being expelled on this intentionally created crisis serves as a great distraction to the drug cartels thriving endeavors to penetrate our border.


America and Mexico have not exactly been a mutual admiration society for some time. And now, America has clearly been violated and invaded by Mexico and it’s time America needs to affect Mexico’s attitude. Maybe we should put Mexico on notice, perhaps to start with, by invoking trade restrictions. Think North Korea. Severe, restrictions.

If that doesn’t get immediate attention, perhaps we should go to level 2. Think red line, and unlike Obama’s red line, it is a real Trumpian red line which we back up quickly. Perhaps some serious military exercises with a lot of heavy armor and aircraft breaking things. In Mexico!!! You would think that would affect some major changes. I don’t think they would be loco enough to keep on keeping on as usual.

In other words, a big ‘back atacha in spades’ is overdue just to see how it affects their attitude about our border, our legal immigration laws and our sovereignty. Wars have been started for less than we have been putting up with.

And, thank God Obama is no longer President.

Row 44

RINOs are Worse than Crazy Democrats


I remember when Halloween was the scariest night of the year. Now, it’s Election night. Shortly after of the election, transformations begin appearing among Republicans revealing people most of us should despise, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who are not honoring their oaths to our Constitutions, U.S. and state, and not taking their great GOP Party Platformseriously.

I suppose we should have feelings of wanting to pray for those lost crazies in today’s extreme socialistic Democrat party; whereas the feeling one conjures up for these RINOs is one of utter betrayal. Nothing hurts more than betrayal.

A democrat today is not the democrat of yore. Today, they are in our face with obstructionismand outright socialism and even admit it blatantly. For example, their beloved Maxine Waters outed the Dem’s socialist agenda way back in 2008 while threatening to socialize big oil.

I truly do feel sorry for the many Democrat Party faithful who proclaim they will always be a democrat strictly from a position of blind loyalty. They, unfortunately, are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. If only they would wake up and quit with big media fake news on TV and in print and watch Fox News and Fox Business, (the two Foxes may not be perfect, but they are clearly the best) listen to Rush Limbaugh and read original source vetted news in The New American magazine and at

After considering the Victor Hugo quote ‘who among us is perfect,’ and recognizing that way too much legislation is purposely bundled with totally unrelated issues that will turn off even a guy with a superb voting record like Rand Paul’s, 94%, I suppose a fair line to be drawn to determine a tolerable voting record would be generous at 85%.

The average vote with our Constitution in the U.S. Congress for Democrats is 22.66% and the Republicans is 62.48%. That 22.52% difference to the 85% mark is huge for Republicans.

Having to cope with the true enemies of this great Republic, that the Dimms’ crazies have become, is one thing; but we should not have these sorry RINOs in place who are actually turncoats betraying our trust and our Constitutions doing the bidding of the Deep State establishment, known as the Council on Foreign Relations, clandestinely taking us away as a sovereign nation into a member state of a global government run by unaccountable, unelected power elitists who purport to know what’s best for everyone about everything: Pure socialism, which never has and never will succeed.

The two Princes of the RINOs has to be Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell (he is such a phony, he comes off like a pussy, acting like he cares about the filibuster and 60-vote majority, when our Constitution actually allows for a majority vote, 51 votes, in the Senate). They both should be removed expeditiously and the Senate vote returned to a majority vote.

Effective Republican patriotic leaders in both houses and the Senate’s Nuclear Vote, as the majority vote is nicknamed, would break the obstructionists Dimms’ deadlock on most of President Trump’s agenda and finally move this country forward… somewhat. But we still need dealing with our RINOs and especially the Never Trumpers!

I like Jim Jordan for Speaker of the House and Rand Paul for Senate Leader.

There is no end in sight for my level of disdain for Congressmen and Senators who are obvious, no doubt about it, RINOs. President Trump’s great track record makes the worst of them, the ‘Never Trumpers’ insurrectionists! America is begging for patriotic Republicans to replace these RINO betrayers.

Please check out my website that totally debunks socialism today:

Row 44

Jason Chaffetz: Republicans Will Win On the Issues


An Invigorating Lincoln Day Dinner Speech in Spokane, WA

Former US Representative and Fox News Contributor Jason Chaffetz’s opening remark at Spokane’s Republican ‘Lincoln Day’ Dinner on June 2 was that every morning he is so really, really happy when he wakes up because he realizes that Hillary Clinton is not our president.

He then said one of his favorite people on the planet is Washington’s US Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers. “You all call her CMR and Cathy, in Washington DC we used to call her madam chair.”

Chaffetz said hands down, Republicans in Congress knew they could rely on her to get things done in front of the camera and behind the scenes as well. He said she is a wonderful person and he knows the Dems are going to come after her particularly hard this year. “You all know that and you already live it and breathe it.”

He said eastern Washington is sort of Ground Zero and that if it doesn’t get this election results right the whole country will pay. Chaffetz said Cathy McMorris Rodgers is effective, she makes things happen, gets things done and that’s why the Dems are so afraid of her and that’s why they don’t want and can’t afford somebody like her to continue to thrive.

“My guess is you all have your own individual reasons for being here. But maybe through hearing other people’s stories I can help bolster and support what you are doing and make us all stronger as Republicans. We need to keep expanding these ballrooms so that there are more and more people.”

He said there are major untapped reservoirs of people who want to be part of the solution instead of the problems. They just haven’t been asked yet, they haven’t been invited. They haven’t been shown how to participate.

“As we look at the election that’s coming up in 2018 and certainly in 2020, we always keep talking about that it’s the most important election giving the tumultuous nature of the United States and the troubles we are going through. But we have to have some leadership. And we have to have somebody that will help lead that way. We’ve got to tap into that bigger spectrum and elevate our game and how we do things. So I just want to share some of my story and my perspective and hopefully that helps.


“I grew up in Northern California, Southern California, and Arizona. I actually graduated high school in a little town named Winter Park, Colorado. There was 49 students in the graduating class of 26 girls and 23 guys.

“Growing up in California, I was very blessed. I never woke up in the morning and thought about when I was going to get something to eat and I never woke up wondering where I was going to sleep. I never went through that. Not every family was like mine. Every situation is different. I grew up in this sort of idyllic, everything’s happy ‘Beaver Cleaver’ type of situation until I got a little older. Then I started understanding things a little bit more. I had a wonderful mom, a fabulous dad and a younger brother three years younger. We played and had a good time.

“I remember things changed when I got a little bit older, my dad would wake me up every morning that I can remember. I had those NFL sheets and he come over and wiggled my toes and I’d get up and take a shower and come out for breakfast. When I got up he would put the paper in front of me, at first it was a comics, then the global section and then the full paper. And that’s kind of how I grew up, I grew up reading and understanding the newspaper learning what a box score was and how to read really paying attention to it.

“Things started to change when I was 13 or 14 years old. Dad put the paper in front of me with the section on want ads. I said, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa, dad, where is the rest of the paper? I don’t read this part, this is the one section I don’t read.’ He said, ‘Life’s changing, you’re going to get a job.’ And I said, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa, dad, I play soccer. That’s what I do. I’m really good at it and summers coming up.’ At the time I was living in Scottsdale Arizona.

“He said, ‘No it’s time you get a job.’ And I said, ‘I don’t know how to get a job.’ That kind of fell right into his trap. He started reeling me in at this point and he said, ‘See those phone numbers? You start calling those numbers.’

“I actually got a job. I was quite proud of myself in this very short amount of time and what I really liked about this job was that it was done by noon.

“Dad said, ‘How do you get to work, where is work?’ I said I don’t know, so I called my new employer back up and he said, ‘Don’t worry about it, I’ll come pick you up.’ So I said, Okay, what time?’ He said, ‘3: 45 in the morning.’ I go to bed at 2:30 AM, this was going to be a real tight turn here.

“It was a gardening job in Scottsdale in the middle of the summer and he said wear boots long pants and a long sleeve shirt, make sure you have a hat and bring the biggest gloves you have because we’re going to be breaking and picking cactus. So I came home after the shift and I remember thinking, ‘I’m a white-collar guy. I don’t like this job.’ I said, ‘Dad, what am I going to do? I hate this job.’ He said, ‘You’d better figure out how to make yourself more valuable.’ I said, ‘Well, what does that mean?’ And he said, ‘If you want a better job, go figure out how to get one.’

“He just kind of threw me out there. That was one of the best things that ever happened in my life. I started working at the General Cinema Corporation in my powder blue coat, my clip-on black tie, short sleeve white shirt and I sold movie tickets, cleaned up popcorn, did all those things, shined a light on the teenagers that were making out that I could never get a date with, you know, ‘Hey, I know you!’ I was making $2.88 an hour and then I saw that I wasn’t making minimum wage. I said, ‘Dad, I’m not making minimum wage.’ He said, ‘So go talk to your boss.’ So I went and talked to my boss.

“I said, ‘Boss, I’m only making $2.88, (I don’t remember what the minimum wage was back then) it’s lower than the minimum wage.’ He said, ‘We’re in the entertainment industry, we’re exempt. Get back to work.’ I said, ‘Okay.’ And I went back to work.

“Okay. There were some lessons going on there that I worry about, with all the current political correctness, especially in this state, out west. Do you know what we’re doing, we’re not allowing those 14-year-olds to figure out how to go work at the local subway or other businesses?

“My wife and I have been blessed with three children and our youngest started working when she was about 14 years old. A while after she started she got promoted to a checker and all that. I asked her how much she makes and she said I don’t know. That’s perfect. She’s working because she needs to, she likes to and she’s enjoying it and she gets that little check and she goes out and does what she wants with it because it’s her money.”

Chaffetz told that story because he said it is an integral part of who he is and we all have stories like this that are impressionable ones.

He continued, “We were in, I believe it was a judicial committee hearing, and minimum wage came up, and I said, ‘Why is it that you Democrats believe so heartily in minimum wage that you exempt the entertainment industry?’ And they didn’t know that. I said, ‘You’re a carnival worker, probably somebody that actually needs minimum wage, guess what? You’re exempt.’ I shut them down so fast because they could not justify it and they couldn’t understand it since they never had those life experiences.

“I’m here to tell you that the most difficult times in your life are those times when you develop character. That’s when you get your backbone, your foundation. And you won’t always deal with it as good and as effectively in the moment as maybe you will upon reflection later in your life. They’re places in life where you don’t want to go and you don’t wish anybody else has to.

“In my life, in part of this Beaver Cleaver world I was growing up in, my parents set me down and told me that they were going to get a divorce. I didn’t see that coming, never heard them argue, I never grew up in a household where somebody was beating on somebody. A lot of people grew up with that. Too many people. I had a hard time with that. My mom and dad sat me down separately and together told me it had nothing to do with me. It took me some time to digest that.

“A couple years later my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. She passed away when she was just about the age that I am now, just over the age of 50. I wish they had the technology then that they have today. That was some of the hardest times and most difficult things I’ve ever gone through in my life.

“But there are also the times that I grew even closer to my mom. I had experiences with her that I could never have had otherwise. When you carry a parent into the bathroom it’s not what you expect. I lost my mom to breast cancer and I lost my dad to colon cancer.

“The doctor said if he had had any kind of checkup in the eight or ten years prior he would be just fine and here with us today. But he was old school said, ‘Na, I don’t need that.’ So, now I get a colonoscopy every week. I still don’t enjoy it, just kidding, of course. What I’m trying to tell you is there are tough things and tough times that you go through in your life and they inform you as to who you are. They change your life if you like it or not. And hopefully you share with your younger, older or Golden age other people how to make the best of that.”


Chaffetz said in his heart of hearts as he talks to groups of people who are engaged in the campaigns, Republicans and conservatives will win on the issues. The reason the Democrats and the national media change the story is they can’t win on the issues.

He stated that in Nancy Pelosi’s world we’re just one good tax increase away from prosperity. “That’s how she thinks. They can’t believe Donald Trump’s tactics on North Korea and Kim Jung Un are working, that he actually tore up the Iran nuclear deal and that unemployment is where it is. We will win on the issues every single time.”

“Here’s my philosophy on elections. People will vote for who they like, who they know and who they agree with on policy and principles. Get two of those three right and you win. I say that as a segue to the next part which I’m going to share with you.

“I don’t believe that we do as well as we can about leading with our hearts. It’s about explaining and sharing not in just one quick conversation and not in just one Facebook post; but sharing from the heart, why you are involved, why you are engaged. When you turn that corner and start to talk from your heart about what you believe is right for your state, for your family, for this Republic that we have, then you will be so much more successful and effective.

“Fast-forward here a little bit. I went to school, married my wife, started to have kids, 16 years in the local business community and Jon Huntsman, Jr was running for the governor of Utah. Now the Huntsman family in Utah were the wealthiest family. 1995 was the year my mom passed away and that was the year the Huntsman’s decided to pour millions of dollars into the fight against cancer.

“So I was very touched by that. Fast-forward to 2003. In September 2003, there was an article in the newspaper about how Jon Huntsman Jr might run for the governor of Utah. Through a mutual friend I asked for a meeting. I said if nothing else, I just came to say thank you. That 10 minute meeting with my wife and I turned into 30 minutes, turned into hey come on back, and on October 31, 2003 Jon Huntsman, Jr. said, ‘Would like you to come on board to be our communications person?’ It was a fraction of what I was used to making.

“My wife and I talked about it, we prayed about it, and we said you know it’s the Huntsmans, it feels good, who knows where this is going to lead and financially maybe we can make that work through the next year. About six months after I joined the campaign Jon Huntsman and I were traveling south on I-15 and Jon Huntsman said, ‘Hey, congratulations, you’re going to be the new campaign manager.’ And I said, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa, I’ve never done this before.’ And he said, ‘Don’t worry about it, I’ve never run for governor before.’

“Nine people including the incumbent Governor, and he upset them all. So he became the 16th Governor and then we had the same conversation when he said, ‘Congratulations, you’re going to be the new Chief of Staff,’ and I said, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa Jon, 22,000 employees, $14 billion and I have never done that.’ And he said, ‘Oh, don’t worry about it, I’ve never been governor before. We’ll figure it out. You know, it’s the story about getting the right people on the bus and figuring it out.’ And that was his philosophy.

“Once I was there as Chief of Staff I got to see up close and personal who was doing what and how, particularly the congressional delegation. At the time we had two senators and three members of Congress and I figured out really quickly that there was a slow gazelle in that herd and I was going to take him out. So I decided to throw my hat in the ring and run against the person who was representing Utah in the third congressional district. Jon said, ‘Congratulations you’re going to leave the comfort of the governor’s suite and go figure this out.’

“I almost ran in 2006 but then I stepped back and said I’ve got to understand this. So here’s what I did. Okay now, the name Chaffetz… you can’t even pronounce it, let alone spell it. So imagine my surprise when I went to go get It was available! So I got that going for me and I thought no one is going to know how to spell that so I came up with Jason in the house or Jason Chaffetz@jasoninthehouse which is still my Twitter and Facebook address.

“I took every single conventional, normality that I could find and threw them out the window. Every single thing, I challenged. We had no campaign office, we had no polling, I couldn’t afford it, I couldn’t raise money. I told my wife we’re not going into debt. We made a promise, if we didn’t raise it we were not going to spend it.

“Here was the whole key to our success. I found stay-at-home moms, working moms, newly retired people and people that worked in the National Guard. Those four groups were the core to what we did. Jennifer Scott was my campaign manager, and I remember her coming in to us months later saying, ‘I’ve figured it out, I figured how this actually works.’

“She set up her campaign office in the laundry room. It’s the safest room in the house. Nobody will go in there, will bug you, will interrupt, will touch anything in there and she even started having meetings in the laundry room. Husbands and their kids were not going in there and we built an army of people who were doing exactly the same thing.

“When we went out to find people to help with the campaign we found people that would say ‘Ooh-wee, I’ve got all the time in the world, I’ll do anything.’ That was the flashing red light to say, ‘Oh gosh, this person is going to be a problem.’ Do you know who we found was the most successful in our campaign? The person that said, ‘I have absolutely no time to do this.’ Because once they actually believed in it, they made it happen. They figured it out. Those people, they know how to do things.

“We built an army. Just to give you a general idea in one weekend we put up 95,000 door doorknockers. We figured out how to get a merit badge for Boy Scouts to run from neighborhood to neighborhood putting up doorknockers. It was unbelievable. This is really bad. I didn’t do this a lot, but I did do it. We had all these Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts out there and we said the first one back gets a pizza. There was no pizza. There never was a first one back, they all came in second. It was really bad, in this part of my repentance process, and I promise I won’t do that again.

“I remember Mitt Romney’s campaign, he would sell interns a piece of pizza for one dollar and he bought the pizzas at ‘Five Buck Pizza,’ keep in mind there are eight pieces in a pizza, and they thought they were getting a deal. Remember it’s Mitt Romney and he’s worth $500 million. But it worked almost, he came in second.

“I was very fortunate to win that race. I was polling at 2.7% plus or minus 3.4%. That was in March 2008. They would not let me on a radio debate. I won that race by 20 percentage points. Here’s the point: don’t get sold on the polls. You can watch a poll every single day. What’s happening in your neighborhood, your backyard and what you’re seeing is reality.

“It’s all about who shows up. Lead from the heart, talk about what’s important to you, ask yourself why am I conservative and why am I a Republican? You share that from your heart, that’s what I did from neighborhood to neighborhood, from town to town. I said, ‘Look, I believe in this country, but if we want a different result it is going to have to go in a different direction. Here’s what I believe in: fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability and strong national defense. What is most important to you?’

“Then I would relate a personal story and tell why I was running. I met a guy after the vote at a Costco where I was pumping gas and the guy said to me, ‘Jason Chaffetz?’ I said, ‘Ya.’ He said, ‘I voted for you.’ I said, ‘Well thank you, but why did you vote for me?’ He said, ‘You know what, I just loved your energy and enthusiasm.’ He couldn’t name a single issue, but he felt like I was really going to get after them. Okay? Cathy has that. Susan has that. But you have to share that with others from your heart.


“I gotta tell you there are some really good, decent, honest people in Congress. When I was first elected to Congress I asked Jim Hansen who had served 22 years, ‘I don’t know what I don’t know, tell me what I need to know.’ He said, ‘When you get to Congress you’re just going to be pinching yourself, like how did I get here?’ But he said in six months something is going to change. I was sitting on the edge of my seat, you know, asking what is going to change in six months. This is exactly what he told me and this is exactly what happened.

“‘You walk onto the floor of the house, you get that chill in your spine, you look at the desk and feel the weight of the country with all that history. In six months your thinking, “Gosh, how did I get here”? And then you look around a little bit and say to yourself, “How did they all get here”?’

“There are a lot of people that are trying to do the right thing. At the beginning, I did not have the vision to say that Donald Trump was the right person to be the next President of the United States. But I look back now and I think, you know, of all those whatever 18 Republicans and all those Democrats he’s about the only person on the planet that could have pulled that off because we didn’t know we needed that disruptive personality to make things happen.

“There is a reason why we have this opportunity. This is the Lincoln Day dinner so I’ll tell you about Abraham Lincoln


“I knew real quickly when I got to Congress that I would probably fit best was with oversight. We hear a lot about the need for checks and balances. I remember sitting with John Boehner who gave me this advice, ‘I don’t want anybody telling me what I need to know. Listen, you can disagree but don’t be disagreeable. Don’t be the bad person in the room. Okay? If you see something you want to go after just go for it because you know of the 435 people there they will be very surprised. No matter what issue you pick there will only be a handful at the introduction who are focused on that. You’re going to be 7 miles wide and ½ inch deep but focus on something you can go as far and deep as you want on.’ So I focused on the oversight responsibility.

“The committee grew and shrank and at one point was the largest committee in all of Congress. In the House of Representatives it is the second largest in terms of budget and personnel. It is still a fraction though of what you’re up against in the executive branch. There are about 60 people who work in the oversight committee as opposed to 2.2 million people who work in the federal bureaucracy.

“If you spent $1 million a day every day it would take you almost 3000 years to get to $1 trillion. The federal government is spending $1 trillion every 90 days. So what can go wrong? Right?

“Remember they formed this committee in 1814 and in 1850 along came a man named Abraham Lincoln who was elected to one of the congressional districts from Illinois. What committee does he go on? The oversight committee. Nine days after Abraham Lincoln was elected to the house he got up on the floor of the house and gave a speech. He did not believe the President of the United States. The President was saying that the Mexican-American war had started on American territory where the Mexicans fired upon US citizens. And Abraham Lincoln said, ‘Well where was that? Name the spot, tell me where it happened. I want to go talk to the people. Where was the spot?’

“Lincoln gave a series of speeches and followed the President around the country. Communication was a bit different then. But a lot of people credit his oratory skills by going on the road speaking to these groups from town to town challenging the President. That to me was very inspirational. He became known as ‘Spotty’ Lincoln for those trips.


“Fast forward to when Benghazi happened and we see four Americans killed and our Consulate up in flames. Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Leon Panetta, Joe Biden and President Obama were all saying, ‘Hey, it was this YouTube video.’ Fortunately I sent a letter, since I was chairman of the subcommittee at the time on national security, to Secretary Clinton putting a ‘preservation letter’ in place. You cannot destroy any federal records but this expanded the jurisdiction of Congress by saying you have to preserve all of your personal correspondence, emails, letters and that sort of thing.

“That was the precursor to finding out that she had her own private email, her own server and that she had forwarded all of her information. Oh by the way, this idea that she set up a server, she couldn’t have had intent to subvert the federal records act, because she set up the server on the exact same day that she started her Senate confirmation hearings, and I’m sure that that was just a coincidence. The same day.

He said for the essence of time, he fast-forwarded to after Benghazi happened. Chaffetz went to Tripoli about 20 days after the attack. He said that still one of the unsolved mysteries of Benghazi is “Why is it that it took our FBI 18 days to get there? There was not a single FBI agent, there was not a single member of our United States military that would not run to the scene of another person being harmed or in harm’s way. Yet the FBI took 18 days to get there? Because it was too dangerous? You had national media walking around taking video, picking up the diary.

“Why did that take so long? Somebody made a decision to hold them back. I went there with General Ham and was stuck with being there all day. When I got on the plane to fly out of Tripoli, which was a surreal experience, I thought about that the entire time we were there, there wasn’t a single person who ever mentioned the video. Do you know why? Because it never happened. It was a lie. It was made up.

“That’s where I really, really dug in and felt like we were really going to have to go to a lot of different places to figure out where this thing really, really is going to take us. We still don’t have all the answers on that. I wish I could spend two hours with you just talking about Benghazi.

“At the end of the movie, 13 hours…here is the continuation: We never sent (the government never sent a transport plane to pick up our wounded), they never did that. They never sent a single human asset into Benghazi. Not to help them when they were under attack and not to help them once they got a little bit more clearance.

There was this oil tycoon who used his own private plane and that plane is directed to take them to Tripoli. The plane does not take them to Italy, it does not take them to Germany it takes them to Tripoli.

“Once they got them a little patched up they finally got a transport plane from Stuttgart, Germany to pick them up and take them back to Germany. There is this one guy David Ubben who was really, really messed up and still is to this day.

“And then Kris Paronto and Tig, I probably know Chris the best, and the rest of the crew, finally got patched up and they wanted to go home. You know what the State Department did? They said we want to go home, the State Department said, ‘Well you’re free to go.’ They asked, ‘How do we go?’ Our government would not buy them an airline ticket. They made those guys reach into their own pockets and pay for their own flights to get back home.

“And they didn’t have anything. It wasn’t like they could pack up their gear and leave normally. They didn’t have the fares. I’m convinced personally, that the reason they did this is because we had an election coming up. They didn’t want guys like Jason Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy and others going in there and interview these people. It took months just to figure out where they were.

“I went to the State Department and found out one of these guys was at the Walter Reed Medical Center. I went there and couldn’t find him. I talked to his dad and he said I promise you he is there. I showed up at the door and they said he wasn’t there. They changed his name so that guys like us wouldn’t be able to see what’s going on.

“We need good men and women to be able to overturn what’s going on in this bureaucracy. We talked a little tonight at this event about the spirit of America. In spite of all our problems, challenges, heartaches, frustrations and some of the divide we see in this country, nobody is ever going to break the American spirit. I’m writing a book that’s coming out about the deep state.


“One of the most special things I did in Congress I wish everybody could do. And that is we got a group together and went down to Walter Reed Medical Center. This was a room about this size, maybe a little larger, like an Olympic training room. Think of the picture you might conjure up with upbeat music, patriotic colorful symbols and all that around, but this was a room exclusively for amputees, people who had lost limbs. Anytime I speak, I like to mention this because it is one of the most impactful things that happened to me while I was in Congress.

“This day there happened to be about 40 present and they all happened to be men there and they had all lost their limbs while serving overseas. I still remember the first one I went up to which made an indelible impression in my mind. This kid is older now, but at the time, he was in his young 20s. He was from New York, he was in a wheelchair and he had lost both his legs and he had lost both his arms. I didn’t know what to do, I couldn’t shake his hand, I tried to hug him. It was awkward at best. There were six or seven of us who were members of Congress and we were all shell-shocked. And you could see it in his face, he was struggling. I cannot even begin to imagine what he was going through in his early 20s.

“I wish every American, I wish my kids could’ve been there to see that. We went to visit as many of them as we could. This one other guy, I have very few pictures on my desk, but this one of Carlos I will always have on my desk. Carlos was the happiest person I have probably ever met in my life. Carlos was serving I think his third tour when he was injured. All smiles, he talked about his faith in God, he talked about his wife and two daughters.

“He had been hit by an improvised explosive device and he lost both his legs his right arm and part of his left arm. While I was there he explained how his prosthetic device works as he was trying to get it to work. We talked for a while, and I was almost embarrassed, but I asked him if he didn’t mind if I took a picture. He said, ‘Oh yeah, absolutely.’ I said, ‘How are you so happy?’ He said, ‘I’m alive. I’m an American. I have a beautiful wife and great kids, the food here is not so good, but that’s okay.’ Another thing I loved about Carlos was the shirt that he was wearing. ‘Wounded Combat Marine, Some Assembly Required.’

“We do have problems, we do have challenges, but I think that’s in part why we’re here to learn how to help solve those problems and leave this country a better, safer world than we found it. I can’t thank you enough right here in Spokane for being part of that solution and not part of the problem. It would be easy to skip this and easy to go to something else but you came out and opened up your hearts, you opened up your wallets and you invested your time. As a candidate who was on the receiving end of all that help, I’m eternally grateful. I know that Cathy and Susan and everybody running for office is so grateful for that, for what it does and for what it’s going to take.

“Because of the atmosphere, the other group is organized, they’re motivated and they just get in line.

“But I believe the hearts, minds and spirit of America are conservative in nature and that most people do believe in the same sort of principles we do. So I hope that we share our hearts, facts and policies with others within our family and our community.

“Why? Why? Why? Ask yourself. And share with them. God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

Row 43

Deneen Borelli: Black men are turning toward Trump, ‘The…

Row 43

The Left’s Deluders and their Deluded



It is an incontrovertible fact that socialism always fails. Always has, always will. As Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialism sooner or later runs out of other people’s money.” Always!!!

And anyone pursuing socialism is a fool.

It doesn’t matter the flavor of socialism, pick one: Utopian socialismMarxist communismMarxism–LeninismStalinismMaoismTrotskyismCouncil and left communismAutonomismAnarchismMutualismCollectivist anarchismAnarchist communismAnarcho-syndicalismNational Socialism and our newest flavor of the month ahem, or our times, is Democratic Socialism. They have all failed. See my website: which totally debunks socialism. Oh, and check out the truths about ‘The Bern’ here and here 2, etc. 3456789101112,13, and 14


One of the most socialist countries in the world today is our northern neighbor, Canada. It is just a matter of time for them, if a Trumpian Canuck doesn’t surface soon they are headed for at least self-inflicted civil strife. Their boy wonder, Justin Trudeau (46) probably believing too much in his late father’s legacy, appears naïve about reality like most socialists, but given his incredible responsibility and the dire direction they are following according to the auspices of the United Nations he has to be asleep at the switch for not awakening to his impending reckoning with what works and what doesn’t. See: Lawyer Alan Whiteley: Ontario’s electricity Ponzi scheme and Hydro Rates in Ontario are killing small business

I like Canadians and the country but I really feel sorry for them given their misunderstanding of how to succeed in business. They have been blessed with our profit making exchange rate that has kept many of them in business for decades which is the primary reason they have been able to stay afloat given all their socialist programs.

My last several years before retiring, I worked for a management consulting company and traveled four provinces of Canada including the far eastern province of Nova Scotia. So I know I experienced pretty much the breadth of what the beautiful country is about and their many deluded citizens are about. Conversely, I was astonished at how strongly their conservatives expressed their views to me. There are some very ticked off Canadians up there and many of them surprised me by telling me they could not believe we elected Barack Hussein Obama. They saw him for what he is from the start, it almost seemed more quickly than most Americans did.

Some of the first things you start noticing in Canada are how many apartment complexes there are, how many people are waiting at bus stops, how many more big box stores there are than here, (all of ours and plenty more with names we’ve never heard of down here), and how fewer small independently owned businesses there are.

I’ll not forget a company in Alberta with 120 dealers in the U.S for utility trailers he manufactured who told me he hadn’t sold a single trailer in the U.S. without his customary approximate 15 to 25% advantage over American competition during the time of parity when the exchange rate was practically non-existent.


Some of Canada’s Many ‘Big Box’ Stores

All this about Canada is to draw a picture for where socialistic programs like Agenda 2030 and ObamaCare that penalize an economy can take us with costly welfare, over-regulation, subsidies and subsequent over taxation not to mention the wasteful costs associated with uncontrolled and overpaid bureaucracies that run things unfettered from sensible solutions that really work within a planned budget.

We are overladen with such programs and federal agencies which President Trump is rightly intending to rid us of the abuses, fat and waste and in several instances accomplish that by eliminating whole agenciesSee: The 62 agencies and programs Trump wants to eliminate

The design by our real establishment at the Council on Foreign Relations with the help of the United Nations and its many socialist programs has been for decades steering both our parties toward that same realm of reality as Canada so that we might be more easily merged into a North American Union partnership with Canada and Mexico, then segued into a status as a member of something like the Trans Pacific Partnership and eventually all the way into a member state in a global gover nment merged with the European Union which would be run by unaccountable, unelected global elitist who know best for everyone about everything.

That’s not for us. We are Americans. We like our freedoms and our sovereignty. If you don’t understand that you are either the deluder or the deluded which makes you a fool for not catching onto reality.

Socialism doesn’t work. Do real math. Check and verify facts. Wake up, smell the coffee. You are an American, you don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything. Take pride in using your personal responsibility to yourself and your loved ones for verifying real facts from responsible news sources.

To start with I recommend and start watching Fox News and Newsmax. And if you haven’t checked out the likes of Rush Limbaugh for a while get re-acquainted.


In 2015’s Charles Scaliger in his article Oh, Canada reported, “The Alberta conservative whose attempt to wean Canada away from her addiction to Big Government socialism has failed spectacularly. Harper, known in the United States for his chilly relationship with Barack Obama and his persistent efforts to persuade the White House to authorize the Keystone Pipeline to ship crude oil from the Alberta tar sands to American refineries, steered Canada through the Great Recession with sounder fiscal policymaking than other leaders in the Western world.

Former PM Stephen Harper

“As a result, Canada was the only major industrialized country to weather the Great Recession largely intact. While America stagnated, Canada enjoyed significant economic growth. Harper also succeeded in ridding Canada of the hated Long Gun Registry, an attempt by the Canadian government to register all privately-owned firearms that was met with widespread non-compliance. Harper was a fiscal conservative who championed smaller government and lower taxes, to the consternation of Canada’s liberal socialist establishment. Harper was also an unapologetic friend and ally of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposed the Obama nuclear deal with Iran.

“But on October 19, Canadians turned back to their leftist preferences by electing a large Liberal majority to Parliament, ushering in the era of Justin Trudeau. Trudeau, an enthusiastic proponent of cannabis use and son of the late Pierre Trudeau, the Liberal prime minister of Canada during most of the late ’60s, ’70s, and early ’80s. Despite warnings from Canada’s Conservatives that Trudeau is too young and callow to be prime minister, the cachet of the family name proved irresistible.

“The electoral math proved impossible to overcome for Harper. Canadians, in a funk because of a mild recession earlier this year, turned out en masse to throw the alleged bums out. All of Atlantic Canada, most of Quebec and Ontario, and all of Canada’s far north elected Liberal MPs, with Conservatives carrying the day only in Alberta (Canada’s freest province) and portions of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia.


From:! – Written in 2016

Just Society:

Pierre Trudeau started the Canadian cause for a society where no one “should be entitled to superfluous or luxury goods until the essentials of life are made available to everyone”, which set the tone for modern-day Canada, in spite of the policy’s devastatingly Socialistic after-effects.

One of the strongest social safety nets in the world:

Welfare is widely defrauded by citizens as well as new immigrants, with hard-working Canadian citizens paying for every cent. While certain provinces, such as Ontario, have taken steps to eradicate fraud (and to get capable workers back into the workforce), these policies have been widely criticized as “violations of human rights.” As it stands right now, a person fully capable of working can remain on welfare for their entire life, if they so choose.

Efficient and provides excellent service to everyone:

The inefficiency of government control has resulted in outrageous waiting lists for services such as cancer treatment. Waiting lists for cancer treatment are considerably longer than the American average and “the times are also longer than what radiation oncologists consider to be the medically acceptable maximum” (Fraser Institute). Furthermore, in 1999, over 120 people were removed from the coronary by-pass surgery waiting list in Ontario because they had been on it so long, they were so unhealthy that they would not survive the surgery anyway. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has also ranked Canada low for the availability of MRI and CT scanners although Canada ranked fifth for health care costs. Similar problems plague almost every area of the system.

User fees:

The majority of Canadians choose to believe that more government funding is the answer to health care problems. Most Canadians refuse to even entertain the idea of user fees, which even Sweden has implemented as part of the answer to dealing with patients who go to the doctor for every sniffle or cough.

Canadian economy:

The Canadian rate of productivity, which is directly connected to the standard of living in a nation, continues to slow, particularly in comparison to the United States. The high Canadian tax rate discourages business growth and investment and Canada’s high level of debt (which owes great thanks to Trudeau’s massive expansion of social services in 1970’s) has contributed to the low value of the Canadian dollar.

Best and brightest to come to Canada to work:

The chief executive of one of Canada’s top high-tech companies said it best when he said, “we sure have not created an economic climate to keep our top talent … and wealth creators here for the coming century” (John Roth, CEO of Nortel). The low value of the Canadian dollar, the ability of American companies to adequately pay for highly-skilled workers, and the high rate of taxation has led to a “brain drain.” As Roth said, “the threshold for the top marginal tax rate in the United States just moved from $283,000 to $285,000. Canada’s threshold for its top rate starts at $65,000 Canadian, or $42,000 U.S. So in Canada, you are wealthy at $42,000 U.S. In America, you’re wealthy at $285,000 U.S.”

Redistribution of wealth:

Hardly a fair system. The provinces of Ontario and Alberta are the only net contributors to the economy of the country and are punished for this by having their wealth taken. Despite being morally wrong, this system of “taking from the rich to give to the poor” is rife with flaws. A family in Alberta with a household income of $30,000 – $40,000 will pay out over $3000 for equalization payments, while a family in the province of Newfoundland which has a household income of over $100,000 will receive over a $1000 in benefits. Furthermore, these equalization payments have not led to economic development in the areas receiving them, ensuring that the system will never end.

Supports labour unions:

Canadian law has given labour unions the right to force people to join as a condition of employment, in violation of the right to freedom of association.

The concept of rehabilitation and human rights:

There is no system of consecutive sentencing in Canada, resulting in such recent cases as the five year sentence given to a man who had a large role in the 1985 Air India bombing which killed 329 people. Many Canadian police officers have become frustrated as people convicted of such crimes as break and enter are routinely let off with light probation.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

While the Charter seems to defend such basic rights as “freedom of expression,” its preamble enshrines religious values (“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”) rather than a separation of church and state which any free nation should have. This allows for the continued public funding of Catholic schools, which even the UN has declared is a violation of civil rights.

More important, Section 33 of the Charter has the infamous “notwithstanding clause” which allows for any provincial government to violate fundamental freedoms if they pass an act of Parliament. This has most famously occurred in Quebec to violate the rights of non-Francophones.

World’s strongest democracies with an accountable government:

There is no limit to how long any Canadian politician, including the prime minister, can stay in power. The British-style Parliamentary system allows for a party to form a majority with only 40% of the popular vote. Furthermore, the West, in particular, does not get an adequate vote, a problem which had contributed to the Western Separation movement. In addition, Jean Chretien’s ‘reign’ as Prime Minister has been marked by patronage appointments, scandal, and corruption, in which billions of dollars have been misappropriated. He has centralized the power of Parliament within the Prime Minister’s Office and maintains strict controls over his fellow Liberal Party members to prevent dissent. Amongst the critics of his government, he has been called “The Friendly Dictator.” Even the leader of the Canadian citizen’s group Democracy Watch, who has co-written a book with ultra-socialist Ralph Nader, does not consider Canada a democracy any longer due to the centralization of power.


America’s leftist deluders are not challenged by their deluded followers for substantiated facts from vetted sources but taken at face value with no introspect at all. Followers of the left are real sheep, and also a lot like lemmings, who will follow the socialist insanity right off a cliff without any forethought. They are needing serious educating, but that task usually is fruitless. They are locked in, close-minded. Therefore, what else can they be called but fools? We probably need to concentrate our educating on low hanging fruit such as RINOs and misguided or confused conservatives. And elect bonafide patriots who know and definitely will follow our Constitutions, state and federal and do all we can to spurn and in no way support fake news big media and Hollywood propagandists.

When the left’s only position today is one of obstruction, labeling everyone not agreeing with them on most any topic racist, and spreading untold lies most of which are pure propaganda, there you have it. They are deluding their deluded followers who must be called fools.


See: At Council on Foreign Relations Forum, former Time Magazine editor and former State Department official Richard Stengel says, “Basically every country creates their own narrative story,” Stengel said. “My old job at the State Department was what people used to joke [call] the chief propagandist job. I’m not against propaganda, every country does it and they have to do it to their own population and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.”

William Craddick@williamcraddick

At a Council on Foreign Relations forum about “fake news,” former Editor at Time Magazine Richard Stengel directly states that he supports the use of propaganda on American citizens – then shuts the session down when challenged about how propaganda is used against the third world

Join the Discussion
Row 42

Dimm’s & RHINOs vs. Patriots & Our Constitution


This title sounds like the greatest wrestling match of all time for all the marbles.


The question is: Is the referee the corrupt media or awakened American patriots armed with the Constitution who will purge the RINOs and beat the crazed Dimms of today?

Another question: How much propaganda, fake news and lies can the American public absorb before enough of us catch on and quit supporting big media TV and print? Thank God for social media like Twitter, Fox News, Fox Business News, Newsmax and syndicated radio.


America is not about programs to help people, subsidize efforts, favor political parties and the unequal justice we have evolved to by exempting the Teflon democrats that have blatantly committed so many felonies and even treason in the case of the Clintons and their closest cronies.

America is about limited government creating opportunities that are boundless. True freedom is pure capitalism. Capitalism is the freedom to win at starting a business or investment and cannot and must not provide ‘subsidized’ guarantees for those that attain less. Failure is a lesson learned well and one moves on, strengthened from the experience. One can strive to achieve all he wants or adjust to what levels of accomplishment he attains. Businesses accountably making a profit, subsequently creating commerce and providing jobs are the root sources of all governments’ funding. A growing economy that creates more tax paying employees will bring in more revenue than higher tax rates and new taxes which conversely hurt us.


To restore America back in line with the original tenets of our Constitution we must first accept one absolute fact. Socialism fails and capitalism succeeds. Simple as that.

The late, not so great Soviet Union’s socialist’s citizens experienced a life of guarantees for all the necessities of life, meager as it was: Education, Home (make that apartment,) Job, Medical Care & Retirement. Literally everything was decided on and taken care of by government. Missing, however, was one basic ingredient to make it all work. Work.

Work that would have provided the money that would have come from taxes had government controls not squashed the environment for entrepreneurs and investors to thrive. Government magic was an illusion.

What has made America run is vibrant business in the free marketplace of a capitalist system? Productivity and its subsequent profit are absolutely necessary for our success as a nation.


Many democrats are very good people and very loyal people. Like I said at a meeting a couple years ago, “Democrats are good people, they just can’t do math.” Like many Republicans today, I was raised in a family that were staunch bible-thumping democrats. Habits run deep and many people remain locked in out of sheer loyalty. However, folks like me caught onto inevitable common sense about math and recently many more have been deserting the blatant socialist mantra of the far left that has moved the party to a world that doesn’t resemble the party they grew up knowing.

The late, former Georgia Governor and U.S. Senator Zell Miller, a staunch democrat, in his book ‘A National Party No More,’stated, “All left turns may work on the racetrack, but it is pulling our party in a dangerous direction…It is a system that “Cuisinarts” individual thought into a mushy party pudding – a system that expects one to go along with the team even if the quarterback is calling the wrong signals….this never-ending back-and-forth partisan ping-pong game of revenge needs to end – for the good of our country.”


Quoting a 2014 Investors’ Business Dailey editorialDemocrats: The Real Party of The Rich, ‘‘Indeed, a recent book, ‘The New Leviathan,’ says donations to Democrats outstrip those to Republicans 7-to-1. How can this be? Democrat support soars when you include unions, universities, SuperPACs, nonprofits, left-wing interest groups, and — ready for this? — Wall Street (which overwhelmingly favors Democrats).

“So Democrats don’t really want to restrain money in politics. Just the money that goes to Republicans.

“Voters need to stop listening to the lies. Since 2008, the number of people who call themselves middle class has plunged from 53% to 44%, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.

“And, by President Obama’s own admission, his party’s control of Congress and the White House has led to 95% of all income gains going to the top 1% in income during his administration.

“So please, enough of this about Democrats being the party of the little guy.”

Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg Meg Whitman, Marc Andreessen, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, Reid Hoffman, Sergi Brin, Marissa Mayer, Warren Buffet, Jeffery Immelt, Elon Musk, virtually all Hollywood elites, the Big Media elites and virtually all of the financial industry are hardly ‘the people.’

Words are very important. They must be weighed carefully and their users must be accountable to them and politicians held accountable additionally for their votes. The Democrat Party’s words, actions, and votes don’t work anymore.

Also, from that Investor’s Business Daily editorial, “The Democrats’ lurch to the left is a tragedy for a once-great party. But for the Republicans, it is an enormous opportunity to craft a governing majority for years to come — unless, like the delusional Democrats, they blow it.”

The hijacked Democrat Party leadership transformed by extreme socialists clinging to the moniker of progressivism, are now progressively associating with the likes of the Triangle People’s AssemblyWorkers World PartyIndustrial Workers of the WorldDemocratic Socialists of America, and the Antifa movement being ginned up by the legions of Organizing for Americapaid agitators orchestrated by Obama and Soros.

I feel sorry for the good people who are the party faithful, blindly clinging to loyalty to satisfy their consciences.

The Democrat Party should be suffering its comeuppance at the hands of these very followers who should be sickened.

See: 11 ways President Obama absolutely destroyed the Democrat Party and The catastrophic fall of the Democrat Party


RINO: ‘Republicans In Name Only,’ the party’s hypocrites.

‘The revealing truth’ of the GOP today is that it has a fine, patriotic party platform that may as well not exist. Winning GOP candidates who convinced us they are the patriots who would fight to support President Trump’s campaign to restore America by repealing Obamacare, reducing taxes, regulations and the size of the overwhelming federal government who have wound up becoming RINOs are the biggest Republican Party disappointments of our time.

 It matters not what politicians say or how nice they appear. It is alwaysonly about how they vote and these days that also includes ‘that’ they vote!!!

The RINOs hypocrisy might be more upsetting than the upfront nonsensical, deceitful and fatalistic aspects of the socialism exuding from the Democrats, because how can we fight if our poker-faced elected representatives we picked to clean up the mess are betraying us?

A lot of blame can be focused on leadership, but why would a bunch of patriots stand by and let the officers of a fantastic ship named America be steered intentionally adrift without engines running, or rudder control with possibly a hurricane coming? It’s time for Congressional mutiny! The establishment’s obstructionist puppet leaders Ryan and McConnell must go, and we should be recalling the RINO members of Congress that share the blame.

See: ’29 Republicans Join Democrats to Reject Rand Paul’s Plan to Balance Budget’


The average voting record for both parties with our Constitution for the House of Representatives is 41% and in the Senate a paltry 35% as is tracked by The John Birch Society’s The New Voting Index. Going to the index and seeing how many low scores and extremely low scores there are will tick you off and might even make you sick.

“The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution” rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. The percentages are cumulative scores based on key votes from 1999 to the first part of 2017. Go to the Freedom Index and click on a senator’s or representative’s name to get a detailed breakdown of his or her voting record.

What we are getting from most of the Washington GOP RINOs is a mindset that the Republican Party’s Platform is irrelevant. Those words being ignored include the following standards in the PREAMBLE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM:

  • We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant.
  • We believe our constitutional system — limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and the rights of the people — must be preserved uncompromised for future generations.
  • When political freedom and economic freedom are separated — both are in peril; when united, they are invincible.
  • We believe that people are the ultimate resource — and that the people, not the government, are the best stewards of our country’s God-given natural resources.
  • This means removing the power from unelected, unaccountable government.
  • This means relieving the burden and expense of punishing government regulations.
  • And this means returning to the people and the states the control that belongs to them. It is the control and the power to make their own decisions about what’s best for themselves and their families and communities.
  • This platform is many things: A handbook for returning decision-making to the people. A guide to the constitutional rights of every American. And a manual for the kind of sustained growth that will bring opportunity to all those on the sidelines of our society.

Either these RINOs don’t read or don’t give a damn when there is money to be made or power to be gotten for following amoral leadership.


Government subsidies are part of socialism and have been running amuck for such as corn, tobacco, wheat, milk, lamb meat, livestock assistance, windmills, solar, rural electrification loans and loan guarantees, rural telephone loans and loan guarantees, public television, state library programs, AMTRAK, General Motors labor, Asian elephant conservation, rhinoceros and tiger conservation, Wildlife Without Borders – Latin America, the Caribbean and Mexico and refugee and entrant assistance programs to name just a few. There are a total currently of 1607 funding programs from our federal government to be precise, totaling $1,974,042,215,000 (that is trillion dollars)! There have been only our surviving businesses and those of us still working to pay for it all. Hopefully, with the Trump Presidency, subsidies will begin decreasing and disappearing as well the number of government programs, agencies and departments.

In the ‘perfect world’ expounded on endlessly from utopian progressives who control the media, Hollywood and the sorry socialist education system, to which we’ve been subjugated, they are constantly demanding fairness, assistance, social justice and redistribution. They do not want you to acknowledge the trade-offs for all their purported goodness and freebies. As certain as Newton’s Law of Physics ‘For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,’ the same can be said for the balance sheet for life in America. There is no something for nothing!

Socialism’s trade-off of course, being that we give up individual freedoms, (in young-speak – let us make that ‘opportunities’). That means when an employer is forced to pay higher minimum wages his balance sheet’s reaction is to either raise prices or cut back on staff. Nothing for nothing. A business must make a profit. So what good is a $15.00 minimum wage if it kills the golden goose?

Every program the government creates has a very simple basis for its existence, ‘It must be supported with money derived from our taxpaying pockets.’ Therefore, like the business owner who must decide to cut back overhead (lay off employees) or increase prices, which may run off business, America, cannot sustain the magnanimity of all these programs and subsidies that are killing our nation’s balance sheet forever. Government itself is killing us!

Socialismlike the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” – Frederic Bastiat’s ‘The Law’

It is a testament to our Capitalist system’s resiliency that we have endured as well as we have so far while rapidly backsliding under such erosive abuse. But this erosion will finish us for sure if unchecked as sure as ancient Rome went away. Socialism fails. Socialism just takes and produces nothing that can be taxed. Capitalism succeeds. Capitalism’s profits are the roots to all our taxes. Nothing else. See my website that totally debunks socialism:


It is sickening to see the preponderance of thinking among elected officials of our federal and state governments who wish to make things happen for which they can be given credit for a resulting ‘fix,’ that actually, out from behind the smoke and mirrors, could be thought of as sheer ‘magic’ by using unconstitutional money. To understand this point see: ‘The Mindset of Politicians Today’

Almost everything that happens in legislative sessions have costs attached to them. Bluntly ignoring our laws and our Constitution is the blatant use of tools such as subsidies, tax credits, grants, waivers, tax extensions, loopholes, loans, allocations, moving funds around among interagencies with special purpose names, etc. If something needs buying, supported, arranged, paid off or done in any way there are methods available, which all cost money, but are more apt to be presented as an accomplishment as clearly as a feat of ‘magic.’ Never mind that the matter had to do with money that’s not so accountable, where it comes from, that it may present an unfair advantage to one entity over others in the marketplace, or supports socialistic values by supporting illegal aliens for instance. After all what is the government here for in today’s mindset, right? A whole lot can be accomplished using other people’s money and borrowing into infinity when that is gone… until judgment (or accountability) day. Socialism never succeeds. Capitalism does.


Legislators who intervene in free enterprise for all sorts of purported well-intentioned purposes are constitutionally, to be recognized as traitors to their oaths and thusly these United States. They need to be removed from office with haste at the ballot boxes to be replaced with genuine patriots who do the bidding of the Constitution because they take their oaths seriously.

The dereliction of Congress’s responsibilities to our Constitution and thusly our people is happening because we are letting it happen. We are sitting by watching our elected representatives who took an oath to protect our Constitution and follow law abdicate their sworn responsibilities to follow the edicts of the ‘wrong people,’ i.e. the power brokers of the Council on Foreign Relations and United Nation’s orchestrated party machines with ulterior designs that are diametrically opposed to the continuation of our republic.

President Trump can only do so much. He direly needs legislative support.

If you’re not feeling almost overwhelmed from about all the news we’re exposed to anymore on national and state issues, then God help us because you’re either ‘tuned out’ from not caring enough or just can’t listen to it anymore. Either way, this inattentiveness and inaction is the biggest problem in America today! America’s waning future cries for its citizens’ attention and involvement.

Without asserted pressure from enough citizens these bad/corrupt elected officials will just keep on letting America dissolve away from our Constitutional based freedoms and commerce until we simply are no more. Believe it! The insanity of Socialism and its redistribution is that it kills revenue producing commerce and eventually there’s just not enough of other peoples’ money.

Most Americans don’t like our current reality. But, it is what it is. And America as we’ve known it is going away. Are you going to just sit by idly and continue luffing in the wind or are you going to ‘Patriot Up’ and help put a stop to the insanity and nonsense of our sorry Congress. Disgusted Americans want to do something but are feeling so overwhelmed they just can’t envision how they can make a difference. The answer begins with getting educated on facts, informing others and then replacing the turncoats with genuine effective patriots.


The radio talk show host Scott Hennon in his book ‘Grass Roots – A Common Sense Action Agenda for America,’ states: “When the founding fathers crafted our Constitution, they established a government with restricted powers and restrained responsibilities. You find the scope of our government outlines in Article I, Section 8: taxation, coinage, national defense, the court system, post offices, roads and the repayment of debts. There’s nothing in Article I, Section 8 about government getting into the banking or automobile manufacturing business, or getting into the health insurance business, or controlling all the nation’s schools from Washington, D.C., or subsidizing various industries or the arts or public television.”

An excerpt from the 29 minute video ‘Overview of America,’ “Our Constitution was created to govern the Government, not the people, and not the states, each of which is a guardian of its own sovereignty. The central government was created with strictly limited powers leaving the states to compete with one another to become the best state, the one with the least amount of taxation and controls, one where citizens would want to build a business and raise a family. That spirit of competition produced excellence as honest competition always does.”

One of my favorite statements from the video is, “The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government.

We must have a U.S. Congress of pure constitutionally hearted patriots who recognize the necessity of eliminating whole agencies, and bureaus of government, and abolishing the damaging laws and regulations of all the overstepping unconstitutional tentacles of big government. I suppose the biggest majority of citizens would probably not agree that this is possible or can’t imagine the undertaking. I also suppose the same might have been true if they were asked about the feasibility of putting a man on the moon in such a short time.

With acknowledgement of the necessity, and the same kind of determination and absolute commitment as putting a man on the moon, such a feat can be accomplished. The large task before us is for Americans to awaken to their responsibilities as freedom loving citizens to start paying attention to real facts, informing others and electing ‘real patriots’ with the dynamic zeal and hunger to right our ship before it sinks. There are only a couple handfuls of such patriots currently working on this in Washington. If you find that hard to believe check the Freedom Index at


There’s a very simple way of identifying which elected representatives need replacing in our Idaho statehouse and in Congress in Washington. You study The Freedom Indexes for both bodies which shows exactly how they vote with criteria in keeping with the Constitution and then cull them at the voting box. Here in Idaho The Freedom Index is published by

For the U.S. Congress see The Freedom Index at A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution” rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. In the third index for the 114th Congress, here is how abysmally our congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C. voted with the Constitution: U.S. House 45% and U.S. Senate 32%. So there you see now why we are where we are.

Don’t count on a thing politicians say, only believe what you see and judge them on how they vote!

The terrible voting records revealed in the two The Freedom Indexes, is exactly the explanation for why we are rapidly becoming a socialistic society and our Republic is in danger of evolving into losing our national sovereignty and becoming first a member state of a regional government, the North American Union overseen by the corrupt UN, and then a world government run by unaccountable, unelected global power elitists who know what’s best for us.

I suggest you discover The John Birch Society (JBS) for help with getting educated on the Constitution, issues and how you can make a difference with their great depth of factual information available to you online, in print, in media and field support. Check out their online magazine, and consider making it your home page. Then every time you open your computer you will see original source, vetted news that must be read and signed off on by three editors before publishing.

The JBS slogan: ‘Less Government, More Personal Responsibility, And – With God’s Help – A Better World’

Row 42

Voting Done Nicely!


Obviously, voting for candidates because they are nice is absolutely the wrong reason for electing them. Nice is nice. But how elected officials make judgments and actually vote according to our U.S. and Idaho Constitutions is what matters.

Government should be run like a business, with objectivity, a balance sheet and most importantly by following its business plan which would be our U.S. and Idaho Constitutions and the GOP national and state platforms.

If your candidates are following the socialistic platform of the recently crazed Democrats, you should change parties and then make sure the GOP candidates are actually following their great platform and not transforming into Dimms anyway, to be known as RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only). It seems as though the obstructionist Dimms of late, might believe that getting fools on their side will assure them of being elected to anything. There are many very good people blindly following this hijacked, now outwardly socialist, party out of nothing more than shear loyalty.

Poker-faced candidates who say what you want to hear about limited government, the 2nd Amendment, Idaho sovereignty, forest management, abolishing the travesty of Common Core in our schools, spending our money and readily satisfying any question you ask should most certainly be vetted. Doing so for incumbents is easier using a voting index such as mentioned below.

Making that tough decision about people you want to believe in without a voting record is a tough judgement call, but voting for them mostly because they are nice just doesn’t wash. Look at accomplishment and integrity in their past and their knowledge of our Idaho and U.S. Constitutions.

Again nice is nice, and good decorum has its place, but sound judgement and allegiance to an oath should rule the day. Voting for a wrong reason is nonsense and damages us all.


We would love nice people who vote correctly. But we have far too many nice people who vote incorrectly with our Constitutions! We probably need some grumps in elected office who are madder than hell at how these nice people are taking us away, to awaken them or run them off. We need serious people who will deal with the seriousness of their intended calling with our Constitutions. They are put there to exercise correct judgement. Social issues, tree hugging and such have their place in our hearts but the business of government spelled out in our Constitutions should be a limited affair and these tertiary issues are for local governments and the private sector.

The Alinskyites have so successfully and constantly kept these ‘concernments’ in the forefront of legislatures’ agendas because it all further breaks us down financially and by distracting our focus on the serious business at hand with which the government is really meant to cope.

It is obvious that either most elected officials today don’t really know these two constitutions or they don’t take their constitutional oaths seriously. The way our system has evolved, unfortunately, they are probably too busy campaign fund raising, which is not an excuse for a poor voting record. They need to prioritize, vote correctly and for the most part, re-election will be helped immensely. Then all is truly nice.


The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) has roots going back to 1977. They state on their website, “Our goal is to hold public servants and government programs accountable, expose government waste and cronyism, reduce Idaho’s dependency on the federal government and inject fairness and predictability into the state’s tax system.

“IFF’s work has been credited with saving taxpayers millions of dollars, eliminating failed government programs and holding politicians accountable like never before in the history of the state.

“Idaho Freedom Foundation gives a voice to the voiceless, the people who don’t have the means, the time or the wherewithal to take on the special interests, which include labor unions, the government bureaucracy or businesses that seek a handout. We hold lawmakers accountable when they say one thing and do another, when they promise conservative leadership but then vote to expand government, support special interests or make it harder for Idahoans to get ahead and stay ahead.”

IFF publishes a voting index called the Their Idaho Freedom Index can also be found instantly on a cell phone by installing their groundbreaking impressive application named Testifi.

The Idaho Freedom Foundation states how they grade bills for their voting index:

2017 Idaho Freedom Index Rating Metric

(+/- 1 point for each instance)

  1. Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
  2. Does it transfer a function of the private sector to the government? Examples include government ownership or control of any providers of goods or services such as the Land Board’s purchase of a self-storage facility, mandatory emissions testing, or pre-kindergarten. Conversely, does it eliminate a function of government or return a function of government to the private sector?
  3. Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
  4. Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
  5. Does it directly or indirectly create or increase any taxes, fees, or other assessments? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce any taxes, fees, or other assessments?
  6. Does it increase government redistribution of wealth? Examples include the use of tax policy or other incentives to reward specific interest groups, businesses, politicians, or government employees with special favors or perks; transfer payments; and hiring additional government employees. Conversely, does it decrease government redistribution of wealth
  7. Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
  8. Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency or accountability? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency or accountability?
  9. Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws which discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?
  10. Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for nonviolent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
  11. Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
  12. Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?


For the U.S. Congress see “The Freedom Index at A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution” which rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. In this second 6 month session of the 115th Congress just completed on February 19th, 2018 here is how abysmally our congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C. voted with the Constitution: U.S. House 45% and U.S. Senate 31%. So there you see now why we are where we are.

Utopia in politics are the elected officials with incredibly stellar voting records who also happen to be very nice people.

“It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” – Thomas Paine

Row 41

Common Core ‘Free,’ Judeo-Christian, Classical Education for Your Children…


Please see meeting invitations at end of the article.

This quote, “Our greatest natural resource is the minds of our children,” came from the great Walter Elias Disney. Truer words were never spoken, because our children’s education, good or bad determines America’s future.

Today’s children are not being educated properly like we older citizens were. Far from it. Under Common Core they are being indoctrinated into what to think instead of learning how to think for themselves while being molded into socialist and even social-justice warriors. Along the way they are also having ideologies imposed upon them such as transgenderism, global governance, global warming, homosexuality and they are getting sexualized way younger developmentally than they would ordinarily be.

The three R’s today are racism, revisionism and relativism. All this is devastating to a student’s prospects for success in a competitive world where creative thinking, skills and application reign.

As Selwyn Duke of The New American magazine says in his article ‘Craziness in Kids’ Classes, “In fact, what transpires in government schools today is so bizarre that sometimes you’d be inclined to say ‘You can’t make this stuff up’ – except that someone did”.

Furthermore, Duke says, “If the ‘philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next,’ as the apocryphal saying goes, then today’s Blackboard Jungle could lead us to a true dark age.

Fortunately, in Idaho today, we still can opt out of public schools for a more traditional Classic American education, or at least a lot closer to one, in charter schools, Christian schools and in homeschooling programs. However, charter schools that need to supplement their funding by accepting government money can get controlling tentacles attached to that funding thus handicapping their ability to teach everything the way they might wish.


Six years ago The John Birch Society (JBS) created the Freedom Project Academy (FPA) which is ‘Home Schooling Done Right.’ It is a fully accredited, Judeo-Christian based classical American school with Common Core free classes and textbooks, taught ‘live’ by 47 teachers for K-12 educating that is second to none. It includes three foreign language courses: Latin, French and Spanish. FPA accepts no government funding. Cost is $2200 a year for each student. Please check the website:FreedomProject Academy

Also, many homes are made up of working couples where homeschooling is not possible, so now FPA offers an accompanying program named FreedomProject Partnership which seeks out churches and other venues that can provide a classroom environment. Charter and Christian schools that don’t offer all grades in their schools can augment those missing classes by utilizing FPA’s fine classes through the Partnership Program without having to hire extra teachers.

Dr. Duke Pesta, a tenured professor at the University of Wisconsin serves as FPA’s Academic Dean. An absolutely captivating speaker/teacher, who has electrified audiences all across the country, he will be speaking on Friday May 4th in Spokane, WA at Mirabeau Park Hotel at 3PM for RSVP invited guests on ‘The Big Picture’ and on Saturday the 5th at CenterPlace at 3 PM for the public covering the classes and curricula. See the invitations below.

For RSVP reservations for the Friday event or any questions contact Rich Loudenback at 208 755-7717.

Join the Discussion
Row 41

Free Event: ‘Is Free-Market Capitalism Moral?’ A Resounding Success

On Saturday, April 14th, in Post Falls, Idaho, the Free Event: ‘Is Free-Market Capitalism Moral?’ – Sponsored by FEE (Foundation for Economic Education) and Northwest Liberty Academy (NWLA) hosted an audience made up of mostly homeschooling students, their parents and their supporters which included some local political candidates who were there for the right reasons and not for campaign purposes.

The program was opened with a welcome from Washington state’s lead conservative state representative, Matt Shea followed by a talk titled ‘Capitalism Beats Socialism. Naturally!’ given by FEE’s Director of Programs & Alumni Relations, Jason Riddle.

Speaker and Discussion Leader, Howard W. Beatty then gave a talk, “Free Trade vs. Central Planning which included some activity with the attendees.

The most memorable event of the day came after lunch when Beatty conducted the “Lemonade Trading Game” a very engaging activity that saw competing teams established to trade among each other for the ingredients like sugar and elements like cups, straws, and fake money that went into marketing lemonade.

The “Lemonade Trading Game”

The trading was interrupted a few times to introduce market adjustments such as shortages, surpluses, product recalls (damaged cups) and a new product introduction to their market, a new strawberry flavored drink. This learning activity was enjoyed by all.

Summing up the day’s events, Howard Beatty stated, “In our meeting today we discussed the three fundamental flaws of socialism and why it will fail every time it is tried. It does not matter who did it, or who’s trying to put it together, the three fundamental flaws are the incentive problem, the knowledge problem, and the calculation problem.

Howard W. Beatty

“The beauty of capitalism and why it is the best moral economic system that has been devised yet is based completely on free exchange between people. It requires every businessman to persuade customers to part with their money to buy his or her products and in so doing the businessman makes a profit between the price and his cost to produce it and the customer also makes value for himself because what they are purchasing is worth more to them than the price they paid.”

Alan and Elizabeth Hodge, co-founders of NW Liberty Academy extended an invitation for students to attend their ‘2018 NWLA Summer Symposium’ at the NNU Campus on June 20th – 23rd.


Northwest Liberty Academy Mission: “Advancing the principles of a Free Society and Free Enterprise beginning with the Founders’ acknowledgment that men are by nature free and derive their natural rights from God, not government; that the proper role of good government is to protect the inalienable rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ and that free enterprise is the right of the people to engage in a free and moral exchange of ideas, goods and services.”

Aubrey Jacobs

One of last year’s Symposium students, Aubrey Jacobs gave a short testimonial regarding the merit of her experience, “The symposium was awesome and I enjoyed every moment of it. I went there thinking I was going to learn only about capitalism and that wasn’t the half of it. There were classes on economics, trading, the value of money, the political process and so much more.”

Included in the Summer Symposium are interactive games and discussions on free-trade, entrepreneurism and a personal tour of all three branches of the government at the State Capitol in Boise.

NWLA quotes John Adams on their Summer Symposium brochure: “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.”

Alan & Elizabeth Hodge

For more info about the Summer Symposium contact Alan & Elizabeth Hodge: A 208 869-2942 or E 208 869-1709

It seems I should acknowledge the candidates who were present, while other politicos were out campaigning against some of them. They and their candidacies are: Leslie Duncan (Kootenai County Commissioner), John Green (State Representative District 2, Seat B), Bjorn Handeen (Precinct 52 Central Committeeman) and Hari Heath (State Representative District 5, Seat A).

Row 41

Democrats’ Three Biggest Blatant Lies Exposed


Growing awareness of the failures of the Democrat Party’s strong brand of socialism today have left the socialist crazies who have taken over the party evidently no choice but to double down on poker-faced lies that are always upheld vociferously by their comrades in the fake news media intending to create believers by repeating it often enough.

A long time ago the Democrat Party’s lack of a positive direction led President Ronald Reagan to make a great point in historywhen he said, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left me.”

The Democrat Party today is nowhere near the party of your grandfather’s. Their failures are so numerous and their lack of good positions so poor all they can come up with is lies. There is no other nice way to put it. Lies are lies.


The Dem’s have always purported to be the party of the little guy and the unions struggling against Wall Street and big business. However, revealing truths expose that using that same effective political ploy was used by Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Castro. That very deceptive, classic, socialist claim about fighting for the oppressed vs. the powerful, very wealthy has been a mainstay Democrat bread and butter claim for decades.

Deceptive is truly the word when 8 of the top 10 wealthiest net worth Americans support the Democrat Party. In order of their wealth as of March 2018 according to Forbes, have you heard of Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin? All in the tank for Obama’s & Hillary’s world of Democrats.

In 2014 Politifact reported, “We cross-checked the Open Secrets list of the top 100 individuals donating to outside spending groups in the current election against the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires and found that, as of June 19, there were 22 individuals on the Open Secrets list who were billionaires. Of those 22 billionaires, 13 — or more than half — gave predominantly to liberal groups or groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. The other nine gave predominantly to conservative groups. (A list of billionaires and how much they donated can be found here.)”

Quoting a 2014 Investors’ Business Dailey editorialDemocrats: The Real Party of The Rich, ‘‘Indeed, a recent book, ‘The New Leviathan,’ says donations to Democrats outstrip those to Republicans 7-to-1. How can this be? Democrat support soars when you include unions, universities, superPACs, nonprofits, left-wing interest groups, and — ready for this? — Wall Street (which overwhelmingly favors Democrats).”

Never mind that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history.


In the first place most non-black Americans I have known couldn’t care less about blackness or any kind of race identification. We are simply people on earth with many skin tinctures, roots, and backgrounds. Get over it.

My wife and I are native Idahoans who lived over 30 years all over the southeastern U.S. and I have traveled extensively all but two of our states and traveled four provinces of Canada. I saw people of all races occasionally complaining less about race as much as I saw them complaining about sports teams, regions of the country, religions, politics, etc.

A testament to good race relations is the success of transitional neighborhoods that have grown nationwide. Walter E. Williams, an economist from George Mason University and a best-selling author, noted: “There is no question, though it’s not acknowledged enough, that black Americans have made greater gains, over some of the highest hurdles and in a very short span of time, than any other racial group in mankind’s history.”

By and large I and most people today don’t think a thing of the subject of racism except when we hear the ginning up of it by the race baiters constantly repeated by the sorry fake news media.

It should be obvious to everyone that the people leading the charges of racism to new unjustified heights are the race baiting leaders like Al SharptonJesse Jackson, the new Black Panthers and our recent Manchurian President, Obama. Throw in money from the likes of George Soros and his many organizations and their skills with the money he supplies to pull off demonstrations and in our face video images with professionally designed signage messaging hatred, derision and contrived false claims loudly broadcast to us, again, by a disgusting complicit big media.

This political abomination from the left, in reality, is creating reverse racism with influenced blacks that are being megaphoned by the race-baiters for the hidden agenda of the left to create division and support for themselves.

See: ‘Racism is a Tool of the Left’


A blatant lie if ever there was a blatant lie is the democrats’ constant drumming that Americans should be sympathetic for all immigration with no differentiation between legal or illegal. They then try to claim that Republicans are against immigration as though all immigration is, or should be, legal. Facts are facts. When we say illegal (with tongue in cheek) we are not talking about a sick bird here. Illegal immigration is unlawful immigration. These Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters types spewing their despicable and shameful mantra appear to be what the Democrat Party is all about now.

Most Americans without their heads in the sand get it, recognize reality and wish these bigmouths would just shut up and go away. Actually, however, I wonder if perhaps these such bigmouths might not be the Republican Party’s biggest recruiters.

The Dims efforts to gin up support for DACA recipients and open borders has been a glaring deceptive attempt to gain additional votes and election support. However, now that they have in their drive to oppose literally everything Trumpian no matter what, by turning down his most generous offer to support a DACA program that even included three times as many DACA people as the Dims were originally trying to get support for, these cocky Dims hopefully have shot themselves in the foot with the DACA folks.

All the Dims seem to exude today is vitriol for all things Constitutional and for traditional American values. Instead they promote a full time view for our need to become good socialists who should capitulate to become a member state of a globalist government run by unelected, unaccountable elitists who know best about everything for everybody. All they want is control as quickly as they can get it, to impeach President Trump and with the help of the establishment’s minions on both sides of the aisle finish what the worst President in our history, Obama, almost completed.


The second way to spell it is RINO (Republicans In Name Only). That’s right, those politicians with an R after their name who are not following our fantastic Constitution and the great GOP Platform are as bad as the sorry Dims have become. It’s because of these two factions of the Democrats’ ways that we are in the sad state that America has evolved to today. This is our biggest problem spelled out in a nutshell. Most Americans recognize our big problem is bad representation in Congress, however they may not so clearly understand why. What most citizens want to know once they catch on, is what is the solution?


There is absolutely nothing more harmful to Americans and our way of life than our own complacency and refusal to pay attention to how our elected officials vote on issues. That’s the simple truth about why we have the paltry state of affairs in our government that we do today. We are solely responsible for the government we have been getting because we have been too trusting, flat out un-involved and utterly clueless about how the Establishment and LOBBYI$T$ led folks we’ve elected do what they wish, which generally hasn’t had that much to do with what they should be doing for us by following our Constitution.


There’s a very simple way of identifying which elected representatives need replacing in our Idaho statehouse and in Congress in Washington DC. We need to study The Freedom Indexes for both bodies which shows exactly how they vote with criteria in keeping with Federal and State Constitutions and then cull the bad ones at the voting box. Here in Idaho The Freedom Index is at published by ‘The Idaho Freedom Foundation.’ Since the legislature is currently in session, go over on the right side of the page and click on 2016 to see the most recent index completed.

For the U.S. Congress see The Freedom Index at The New “A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution” rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. In this second session of the 115th Congress just completed, abysmally our congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C. voted with the Constitution 45% of the time in the House and 31 percent of the time in the Senate. So there you see now why we are where we are.

Don’t count on a thing politicians say, only believe what you see and judge them on how they vote! Then do your part in draining the swamp by culling them at the ballot box and replace them with Constitutional following patriots that understand the importance of upholding the oaths they swear to when they are elected.


From Frederic Bastiat’s ‘The Law,’ “God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

“And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.”

To which I add, it is our fault for not paying attention, letting our elected officials zealously getting away with too much playing in the candy store with no supervision and not replacing them with constitutionally patriotic Americans.


Nunes Pushes Back Hard On House Dems: “Tell So Many Lies You Can’t Keep Track Of Them”

How liberal Democrats use lies to get what they want

Dreamers to Democrats: We’re tired of your lies

The BIG Black Lie: How I Learned The Truth About The Democrat Party

Democrats melt down over Nunes memo and enter the Upside Down

Row 40

Why NAFTA and All ‘Free Trade’ Must Be Stopped


Free trade is a true misnomer, a ruse. Free trade is not fair trade. It always has lots of controlling tentacles. NAFTA is the example for why we should get out of all Free Trade Agreements (FTA’s).

NAFTA proponent Gary Hufbauer member of the Council on Foreign Relations and of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) predicted in his 1993 paper NAFTA An Assessment,’ “with NAFTA, U.S. exports to Mexico will continue to outstrip Mexican exports to the United States, leading to a U.S. trade surplus with Mexico of about $7 billion to $9 billion annually between 2000 and 2010.” Really?


Our current trade deficits in NAFTA are: Canada – $582 billion traded with an $18 billion deficit and Mexico – $557 billion traded with a $71 billion deficit.

The year before NAFTA we enjoyed a trade surplus of $1.66 billion. The first year after NAFTA we had a $15.8 billion deficit. Increasing greatly every year since, since 2010 we have been running a deficit with Mexico not to mention that before NAFTA we exported around 225,000 cars annually to Mexico and in 2016 Mexico’s exports to the U.S. has surpassed 3.1 million cars. Chrysler, Ford and GM transferred major production facilities to Mexico in the last several years.

Haufbauer also predicted that 170,000 new net jobs will be created by NAFTA. In a 1995 interview with the Wall Street Journal, he admitted, “The best figure for the jobs effect of NAFTA is approximately zero… The lesson for me is to stay away from job forecasting.”

An August 2017 article in the Washington Post (no friend of President Trump’s) reported “The numbers are clear. The U.S. government has certified that at least 700,000 Americans have lost their jobs due to changing trade flows resulting from NAFTA.Many people believe that the number is much, much bigger than that.” — United States Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer, remarks on NAFTA renegotiation, Aug. 16

The late, Professor Robert A Pastor, one of the leading architects of the European Union wrote in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”

NAFTA supporter Andrew Reding of the World Policy Institute has written: “With economic integration will come political integration…. One of the purposes of NAFTA and other international trade agreements is to set the principles by which such decisions are to be made, including the critical question of how to “harmonize” differing labor, consumer, environmental, and other standards. By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international government.”

During the Obama years, the endeavor toward ‘our partnering’ was being broadened and expedited through implementation of new foreboding ‘free trade agreements.’

Real free trade is as it should be, FREE. These masked agreements are chock full of restricting and illegal regulations that, like our experience with NAFTA, are ruinous to our interests, freedom, and sovereignty.

What does climate change, sustainable development, internet regulation, homeland security, the military and international courts have to do with trade? Nothing, but it’s all part of the pending free trade agreements.

Critical for our attention recently has been the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the looming Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Fortunately, President Trump has for now put a stop to these deceitful and very dangerous programs that want only one thing out of us. Control. If you study them they include long lists of all kinds of controls and worse even are the courts that circumvent our own courts.

During the Obama administration’s dealing with TPP, members of congress were shut out of negotiations, no press or public participation was allowed, yet corporate lobbyists, other nations and their corporate lobbyists were having full access. The only information available was that that was leaked.


William F Jasper, Senior Editor of The New American magazine states, “The fact is that the European Union (EU) began as an economic and trade pact that, over the course of six decades, morphed into a full-blown supranational government that is now in the process of wiping out the few remaining vestiges of national sovereignty of its member states. And what is important to note is the blatant lying and deception that has been essential to each advance of the EU project along these lines. At each crucial step, when critics objected that a new set of EU powers would lead to destruction of national sovereignty and independence, the EU prop­agandists would assure the contrary and insist that “economic integration,” “harmonization,” and “convergence” posed no threat to national sovereignty, tradition, and local rule. Those assurances have now been proven completely false. “Vladimir Bukovsky, the famous Russian dissident, author, neurophysiologist, and survivor of Soviet prisons, psychiatric prisons, and labor camps states: “It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet.”

Mr. Jasper also reports: “The TPP and TTIP should be of special concern to Americans, since…. the authors and promoters of these agreements admit that they deal with far more than trade and have been designed to drag the United States into “regional governance” on a host of issues. The architects of the TPP and TTIP are virtually unanimous in their head-over-heels praise of, and support for, the political and economic merger taking place in the European Union. The once-sovereign nations of Europe have been tricked, bribed, and browbeaten into yielding control over almost every aspect of their lives to globalist banking and corporate elites and their bureaucratic servitors in Brussels. The national governments, legislatures, and courts in the European Union are becoming mere administrative units of the unaccountable rulers of the increasingly tyrannical EU central government.


This should tick you off! In 2013, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) issued a statement criticizing the Obama administration for the lack of oversight into an agreement with devastating potential: “After more than a decade of broken promises from NAFTA, CAFTA, and normalized trade relations with China, we can now add a credibility deficit to the trade deficits we’ve seen. The leaked documents surfacing today only underscore the secrecy surrounding TPP negotiations and confirm worst suspicions about the direction trade negotiations are heading. It’s telling that it is easier for the CEO of a major corporation to access information about the negotiations than the American people’s elected representatives.


There’s nothing partisan about this fight. This is an American fight. In 2015, out of curiosity, I googled ‘democrats opposing FTA’s’ and quite surprisingly, I found many democrats were alarmed at the blatant undertakings of the FTA’s as well as the secrecy. Prominent democrats included Senator Ron Wyden (OR). And Representatives Rosa DeLauro (CT) and George Miller (CA) as well as 149 others in the House told Obama they would not support Fast Track for the TPP.

Quoting from the U.S. House Democrats’ letter to Obama in November 2013 on the subject: “For some time, members of Congress have urged your administration to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the numerous issues being negotiated. Many have raised concerns relating to reports about the agreement’s proposed content… Such opportunity for input from Congress is critical as the TPP FTA will include binding obligations that touch upon a wide swath of policy matters under the authority of Congress.

“Beyond traditional tariff issues, these include policies related to labour, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, competition, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, e-commerce, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.

“Twentieth Century ‘Fast Track’ is simply not appropriate for 21st Century agreements and must be replaced. THE UNITED STATES CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER TRADE AGREEMENT THAT REPLICATES THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST. WE CAN AND MUST DO BETTER.” Fast Track today is called ‘Trade-Promotion Authority’ (TPA).


In 2015, Congress shamefully voted to relinquish their Constitutional responsibility for negotiating trade to the sorriest elected American, (if he truly is bonafide) to ever hold office, in my opinion, who again, in my opinion, wasn’t capable of negotiating himself out of a wet paper bag. In that relinquishing of their responsibility to deceitful Obama, many members took a lot of money for passing that legislation.

Back in May, 2015 when Congress passed TPA The Guardian identified the source of the money and the senators who participated in the bipartisan betrayal:

“Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the U.S. Business Coalition for TPP made to U.S. Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:

“Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.

 “The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.

 “The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.”

That same very shameful ‘tainted’ Congress today is as inept for such a task of negotiating as the infamous ‘Mr. Hope and Change,’ deceitful Obama was. Under normal circumstances Constitutionally, Congress should not extend the TPA.

However, today, wide awake Americans who recognize that our non-perfect President Trump, who may not have all the answers ‘yet,’ or the best staff he needs ‘yet,’ is aces, and by far, the best breath of fresh air Washington, DC has experienced in decades. The Donald has the instinct for true American values and our best interests at heart and certainly has the negotiating prowess to deal with these complex trade issues on our behalf much more safely than would the corrupt, deep state orchestrated, special interest Congress with a most disgusting track record that’s virtually performance free but for the tax reduction bill. I feel it would be wisest for us to most safely extend TPA before July 1, 2018, for President Trump to deal with than for this establishment Congress. Be damned with this dangerous Congress!


We need to replace all the RINO’s & Democrats in Congress with rock-solid platform following patriotic Republicans. Liberty Caucus Republicans if you will. The Republican Party Platform like The Constitution Party have fine platforms that very closely mirror our Constitution. If only 90% of Republicans were following their platform and thecontemptible Mitch McConnell would invoke the Nuclear Optionwhich is as the Constitution specifies: ‘majority vote in the Senate,’ we would be in great shape to go forward accomplishing much, instead of all the shameful and intentional stagnation designed to continue taking our great Republic into the world of the establishment’s drive to make us a member state of a global government. McConnell has got to go and we must watch voting on The Freedom Index!


Of course, the ‘dumbing down’ media moguls are directing their newsrooms away from exposing these Trojan Horse endeavors cloaked in such an innocently beneficial sounding name as ‘free’ trade. When really what’s clandestinely being crafted by poker-faced ‘newsmen’ and their orchestrators who continually act with virtual impunity, is extremely harmful to our continued future as a capitalist society and contributing to our demise as a free sovereign nation.


This real story needs to get out! FTA’s need understanding, exposing, and acted upon with serious blocking action legislation, if necessary, before it’s too late. FTA’s and subsequent ‘national unions’ might be accomplished in an on-going gradual secretive process. Most people probably don’t believe this really can happen. Really!!! They’re either too trusting or asleep at the switch.

American sovereignty will be dissolved if these giant FTA’s are reawakened to transition us to fruition as intended. Then freedom loving Americans will be told by a world government run by unaccountable, unelected global power elitist what’s best for us and how we must conduct all aspects of our lives with unfathomable rules about everything that makes our current big government maladies appear like we’re just in training for the ‘big hurt’ (my expression) and all the while subordinating our new member state status during our transition to the UN, WHICH WE SHOULD BE OUT OF!

President Trump might need to use the carrot of negotiating if he wishes to use some of these free trade issues like tools to barter into accomplishing other ends, perhaps such as border walls, etc. but he must become aware of our greatest danger lurking in these purported ‘programs:’ the regulations and courts that pose our nation’s greatest threat, our loss of control. FTA’S demand control. The best Trump could do is to get us totally out of all free trade programs!

‘Free trade’ has always been a giant misnomer of those that would have their way with our weak, naïve and even complicit negotiators from the likes of the National Chamber of Commerce who are all in with these globalist machinators.

Thank God we have President Trump dealing with this topic. We need to pray that he will continue to stay focused on how bad the mechanics of these programs are in their controls even more than the predatory price agreements. It would be most desirous to hear President Trump say, “We are not doing any ‘free trade’ agreements! We are only going to work on ‘fair trade’ agreements with individual countries, one on one. That makes good sense and truly is the fairest and safest way to trade”

See: ‘Globalists and Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?’

Row 40

51st State Status for Liberty State Gains Momentum



Matt Shea, Washington State’s firebrand state representative from Spokane County is extremely pleased to report that the endeavor to create a new state out of eastern Washington which would be the 51st state named Liberty has grown leaps and bounds.

States Shea, “The momentum of the Liberty State movement has been incredible. We have been getting county captains left and right. We’ve got people from all different walks of life that are joining the drive and dozens and dozens of flags have been sold and are flying all over the state. We get a lot of pictures of them.

“The flag design is made up of three stars that represent opportunity, resiliency, and the rule of law. The wheat sheaves are a nod to our agricultural traditions, the broken sword is a nod to the sacrifice to the people that have been bringing this issue for literally decades to try to make happen. The broken shackles symbolizes that we don’t want any more of the yoke to the tyranny of downtown Seattle. The blue in the background is really truth and loyalty and of course you have the very centerpiece of the entire flag which is the Osprey, a symbol of freedom really indigenous to our area as well and I think one of the great designs that I’ve ever seen in people of really love that design. It’s really been well received.

“We have a drafting committee that is drafting the proposed Constitution for the state of Liberty to then put it out for public comment. One of the greatest minds in the Constitution working on it is Mark Herr, President and founder of Center for Self-Governance.

“Comments can be made at our website Liberty There are a lot of resources up there including a presentation I made up in Colville that really lays out all of the details on Liberty State. That presentation really answers a lot of questions. A lot of people were asking questions like is it popular? – Yes. Is it constitutional? – Yes. Do we have enough money in revenue to make the state go? – Yes we do. That presentation answers a lot of those questions.”

He stated that some people try to make the claim that it will be the poorest state in the country. He says that’s just not true since it has such vast natural resources. The new state’s geography already generates power in eastern Washington for 11 other states. He states that there is so much area and room for everything from the tech sector to growing plants, to manufacturing and all kinds of other endeavors with more than enough room.

Shea pointed out that one of the newest questions that comes up is whether or not Congress would vote for this because article 4 section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says a simple majority vote in the state legislature is required whereas in Congress they won’t vote for something like this because they argue it upsets the voting balance in the Senate.

He says interestingly, Puerto Rico recently voted to become the 51st state. If balance in the number of states is the main concern, the state of Liberty could, along with Puerto Rico or Northern California (the proposed state of Jefferson movement that’s also underway) be voted on at the same time and then you wouldn’t have that balance upset. Problem solved, welcome to the union, Liberty USA. So… 51st or 52nd, who’s picky, right?