What's the Constitution? Don't bother asking 70% of Americans: Alarming number of U.S. citizens don't know basic facts about their own country. 1,000 Americans were given the U.S. Citizenship test and it was, not surprisingly, found that their knowledge of the history and running of their own country was seriously lacking. The U.S. citizenship test is administered to all immigrants applying for citizenship. It is comprised of 100 questions across five categories - American government, systems of government, rights and responsibilities, American history and integrated civics. An alarming number of Americans did not know basic information about the Constitution, namely that it was the supreme law of the land, that it was set up at the Constitutional Convention and that the first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.
The cold truth about this crisis among a supposedly self-governing citizenry is stated by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “Knowledge of our system of government is not handed down through the gene pool. … But we have neglected civic education for the past several decades, and the results are predictably dismal.” She also lamented: “Barely one-third of Americans can even name the three branches of government.” We recently learned that even a recently elected member to the House of Representatives did not know the three branches of government.
O’Connor adds: “We face difficult challenges at home and abroad, meanwhile, divisive rhetoric and a culture of sound bites threaten to drown out rational dialogue and debate. We cannot afford to continue to neglect the preparation of future generations for active and informed citizenship.”
A study by the Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning & Engagement at Tufts University has found that most states do not emphasize civic education, which includes learning about citizenship, government, law, current events and related topics.
21 states require a state-designed social studies test — a significant decrease from 2001, when 34 states conducted regular assessments on social studies subjects. Only nine states require students to pass a social studies test to graduate from high school: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Georgia’s will be phased out.
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) today released a survey that shows how little college graduates and the general public know about the Constitution.
According to the study, nearly 10% of college graduates think Judith Sheindlin — commonly known as Judge Judy — is on the Supreme Court; one-third of college graduates can’t identify the Bill of Rights as a name given to a group of Constitutional amendments. Shockingly, 46% of college grads don’t know the election cycle — six years for senators, two years for representatives. Turning to the general population, the report finds that over half (54%) of those surveyed cannot identify the Bill of Rights accurately, and over 1 in 10 (11%) of those ages 25–34 believe that the Constitution must be reauthorized every four years.
Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, is best known for moving Harvard Law School away from the 100-year old “case-law method” of legal study.
But in the process, critics say, she moved the nation’s premier law school away from requiring the study of U.S. constitutional law towards the study of the laws of foreign nations and international law.
As dean, Kagan won approval from the faculty in 2006 to make major changes to the Harvard Law's curriculum.
“My understanding is that she instituted three new courses to the required curriculum and, in so doing, got rid of a requirement to take constitutional law,” Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation stated.
“Currently, at Harvard, constitutional law is not required for first-year law students, or even for graduation,” Alt added.
Indeed, according to Harvard documents, constitutional law is not listed among the law school’s academic requirements, though the catalogue listed more than a dozen elective courses dealing with some form of constitutional law.
But in a Harvard news release explaining the changes, Kagan explained the move away from constitutional law was deliberate: “From the beginning of law school, students should learn to locate what they are learning about public and private law in the United States within the context of a larger universe -- global networks of economic regulation and private ordering, public systems created through multilateral relations among states, and different and widely varying legal cultures and systems.
“Accordingly, the Law School will develop three foundation courses, each of which represents a door into the global sphere that students will use as context for U.S. law,” the guide said.
What we know, is that when somebody, anybody, says something is or is not constitutional; ask them how they know. Ask them if they have ever studied the United States Constitution, the Federalist, or its history. Chances are that they have not, even if they are graduates of a law school. Chances are very good that they are using the bumper sticker phrase, “that is not constitutional” because they have heard it stated by some pundit, who in all likelihood has no idea what is or is not in the United States Constitution.
Two stories that have been buried and never investigated are puzzling because of the wide impact they could have. The house and senate under Republican leadership did not seem to be interested. Nobody has ever explained why. The DOJ under sessions did not seem to be interested. Nobody has ever explained why. And yet there is far more evidence of deep-seated corruption in both of these stories than Mueller has been able to reveal after two years of intensive investigation on the theory of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. The evidence that has been unveiled is that the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation had very close connections with the Russians with favors given and large amounts of money received.
Seth Rich is never discussed in politically correct circles concerning the DNC email leaks. Although Julian Assange explicitly denied that the leak came from Russia, and strongly implied that the source was Seth Rich (though he reiterated "Wikileaks does not reveal its sources.") Also, the electronic records show that the emails were transferred at a data rate consistent with a thumb drive, with physical access to the DNC server (computer). The transfer was too rapid to have occurred over an internet connection, let alone a masked, convoluted link to Russia. Seth Rich was one of only two DNC employees who had regular physical access to that server. He was an outspoken supporter of Sanders.
Seth Rich was shot dead on a Washington, DC street corner, and the murder has never really been investigated. Some reports claim the DC police have been told to stand down. An eyewitness of the shooting has denied the story of a "botched robbery" which never did make any sense, given that Rich was shot in the back, and nothing was taken from his wallet.
The Rich family has sued different people who have investigated the murder, with no explanations.
The case of Imran Awan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s mysterious Pakistani IT guy, has so many questions unanswered and yet there seems to be no interest by the Republicans or the DOJ.
Yet bank fraud was the stated charge on which Awan was arrested at Dulles Airport, just as he was trying to flee the United States for Pakistan, via Qatar. That is the same route taken by Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, when she suddenly fled the country, with three young daughters she yanked out of school, mega-luggage, and $12,400 in cash.
Proceeds of a fraudulent $165,000 loan they’d gotten from the Congressional Federal Credit Union had been sent ahead. It was part of a $283,000 transfer that Awan managed to wire from Capitol Hill. He pulled it off — hilariously, if infuriatingly — by pretending to be his wife in a phone call with the credit union. Told that his proffered reason for the transfer (“funeral arrangements”) wouldn’t fly, “Mrs.” Awan promptly repurposed: Now “she” was “buying property.” Asking no more questions, the credit union wired the money . . . to Pakistan.
As you let all that sink in, consider this: Awan and his family cabal of fraudsters had access for years to the e-mails and other electronic files of members of the House’s Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. It turns out they were accessing members’ computers without their knowledge, transferring files to remote servers, and stealing computer equipment — including hard drives that Awan & Co. smashed to bits of bytes before making tracks.
They were eventually fired, all except Imran, that is. He continued in the employ of Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Marxist/Progressive (Democrat), former DNC chairwoman, and Clinton crony. She kept Imran in place at the United States Congress right up until he was nabbed at the airport.
This is not about bank fraud. The Awan family swindles are plentiful, but they are just window-dressing. This appears to be a real conspiracy, aimed at undermining American national security.
At the time of his arrest, the 37-year-old Imran Awan had been working for Marxists/Progressives (Democrats) as an information technologist for 13 years. He started out with Representative Gregory Meeks in 2004. The next year, he landed on the staff of Wasserman Schultz, who had just been elected to the House.
Congressional-staff salaries are modest, in the $40,000 range. For some reason, Awan was paid about four times as much. He also managed to get his wife, Alvi, on the House payroll . . . then his brother, Abid Awan . . . then Abid’s wife, Natalia Sova. The youngest of the clan, Awan’s brother Jamal, came on board in 2014 — the then-20-year-old commanding an annual salary of $160,000.
A few of these arrangements appear to have been sinecures: While some Awans were rarely seen around the office, we now know they were engaged in extensive financial shenanigans away from the Capitol. For their IT “work,” the Pakistani family has reeled in $4 million from U.S. taxpayers since 2009.
Xavier Becerra, the then chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, barely reacted when he learned the caucus server had been infiltrated in 2016, although he loudly decried the hack of the Democratic National Committee that happened around that same time. No one has faced punishment for the caucus server infiltration. It has not even been investigated.
The then-congressman, who is now California’s attorney general, refused to articulate even the barest details of the cyber breach at a press conference, and would not say whether he would seek criminal charges against longtime IT aide Imran Awan and his family. Becerra never did. Apparently, some things are better buried than investigated.
Members of the Awan family logged on to the Caucus server 7,000 times without authorization between October 2015 and August 2016, according to a House investigation. The logins suggested “the server is being used for nefarious purposes and elevated the risk that individuals could be reading and/or removed information,” it said.
The IG’s were never interested. The FBI was not interested. The DOJ was not interested. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) were certainly not interested. The Republicans were not interested. The media was so not interested they buried these stories. Yet, all of the above are interested in pursuing some story based on a fictional dossier, funded by Clinton and the DNC, that fictionally puts forth a story that Russia and the Trump campaign collated to defeat Clinton. Clinton needed no help. She was a terrible candidate and succeeded in defeating herself.
Just how deep does the swamp run in Washington D.C.? I would like to know. Would you????
MARXIST/PROGRESSIVES (DEMOCRATS) OPEN BORDER POLICIES ADHERE TO MARX AND ENGELS PHILOSOPHY – WHICH THEY SHOULD SINCE THEY ARE ALL COLLECTIVISTSRead Now
The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party advocates open borders. This is no surprise. The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party is now a party advocating for collectivist (Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Progressive, or Democrat) policies. Yes, The Democrat Party of the United States has become a group of collectivists.
Open borders have long been a dream of the collectivist (Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive and new Democrat). Collectivist policies have never succeeded. They have not succeeded because they restrict and attempt to eliminate human ingenuity, human competitiveness, and human desire to excel. They have not succeeded because they believe wealth and human accomplishment are finite, when they both are infinite.
Collectivist policies always fail because they require conformity, they strive to become and teach to the average which always lowers standards for all and creates poverty and a degeneration of society in all aspects. Collectivist policies always have and always will lead to tyranny. It is important that we who support achievement and growth, or individualist understand the warped thinking of the collectivist in all aspects, including their warped ideas on open borders.
Following is an excellent summary on the misguided and warped ideas of the Collectivist concerning open borders which was supported by Marx and Engels.
In reality, national borders are made by and for the rich and powerful--to enforce or ignore at their will. As Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote in 1848 in the Communist Manifesto, "The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere."
Corporations move across borders and conduct business however they please, but the same rules don't apply to workers. Immigration rules and penalties are set up to control--but not stop--the flow of workers into the U.S.
And while the U.S. economy depends on a large pool of immigrant workers, the capitalist system thrives by keeping these workers' wages low. Marginalized immigrant workers, susceptible to arrest and deportation, are more likely to work low-paid, dangerous jobs--and less likely to speak up for their rights.
So, the terror that immigrants face crossing the border through harsh desert climates or wading across rivers doesn't end there. It's an inevitable part of punitive border policies. This is true everywhere in the world where poor or persecuted people flee their native countries in search for better lives.
All the while, immigrants are vilified by politicians who claim they are "stealing jobs" and "sponging off the government." If they get away with this scapegoating, it can deflect some of the blame for stagnating wages, substandard living conditions or the gutting of social services away from themselves.
This age-old tactic is effective, but not always. The key is for all workers, no matter where they were born, to see who their real enemy is--the bosses and politicians who try to divide them. And beyond that, they must see the divisions in society created between workers of different ethnicities or nationalities as the means to keep each group divided to conquer all.
A united working class has the power to put an end to the exploitation and oppression of capitalism--and create a new socialist society in which the equality of all people is assured, and the priority is on meeting human needs, not enriching a tiny few.
Considering that national boundaries only benefit our rulers, it stands to reason that this society would dispense with these borders. Workers and the goods that people need would travel without restriction, from place to place.
Today, if a country is short of oil, its workers and the poor pay skyrocketing prices--or figure out how to do without. In a socialist society, workers from an oil-rich country would simply send this vital resource to those who need it. This would be impossible under capitalism, because there is no profit in it.
For socialism to succeed in any country, the struggle has to be international, embracing the demands of the working class of all nations and spreading those demands from country to country. In the words of Marx and Engels, "Workers of the world unite!"
We deserve better than the system we live under today--a world where no one is "illegal," a world without borders, a socialist future.
Beijing announced an “action plan” this week for monitoring residents’ behavior, adding that the city expects to have its social credit system fully implemented by the end of 2020.
Beijing plans to reward and punish its residents based on data that will be collected from various departments monitoring citizens’ social behavior, according to a detailed “action plan” posted on Monday to the city’s municipal website.
By the beginning of 2020, the announcement declares, China’s capital city will have all residents officially locked into the permanent surveillance program, part of a broader effort to have every Chinese citizen rated on a “social credit system” decreeing what public services a person can use based on their obedience to laws and loyalty to the communist regime.
Andrew Yang, a New York entrepreneur and Democrat who hopes to run in the 2020 presidential election, wants to implement a government-run app to reward citizens with “digital social credits” for good behavior.
His website states: “As individuals rack up DSCs, they would have both a permanent balance they’ve earned over their lifetime and a current balance. They could cash the points in for experiences, purchases with participating vendors, support for causes, and transfer points to others for special occasions. As their permanent balance gets higher, they might qualify for various perks like throwing a pitch at a local ballgame, an audience with their local Congressperson or meeting their state’s most civic-minded athlete or celebrity.”
Karl Marx said we should have a classless society. All must conform to the dictates of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” This is a totally conforming society. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have supported total conformity by requiring political correctness and by supporting the MOB action of Black Lives Matter and Antifa in their demand to allow only those who conform to the Marxist movement to speak publicly.
I have stated often, because it is true, that Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) despise, and want to obliterate the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. They are doing this by not teaching their accurate history or meaning, by declaring these documents are living documents and thus have no meaning at all, by confirming judges at all levels of the judiciary who have not studied these documents and thus pay them no heed, and by supporting activist judges who reveal their ignorance of the meaning of these documents by making rulings based only on their personal political beliefs.
What the Communists are doing in Beijing is exactly what the Communists in the United States, the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats), have been promoting for years. Just as the Communists are again taking China on “The Road To Tyranny,” the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) want to take the United States on the same road. Tyranny is defined as arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power.
Socialism doesn’t work. Just ask the Pilgrims.
Most Americans are familiar with the story of the Puritans landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620, but few perhaps understand their early experiment with socialism and how its failure led them to embrace individual-driven capitalism.
Dr. Judd W. Patton, professor of economics at Bellevue University (Nebraska), tracks the development of the Pilgrims’ settling of New England and their brief flirtation with socialism in an op-ed titled “The Pilgrim Story: Vital Insights and Lessons for Today.”
According to Patton, the Pilgrims began in England as Puritan Separatists, Christians so dissatisfied with the Church of England that they decided to separate from it. Persecuted by the English government, a group of about 100 fled to Holland.
“But it soon became apparent that their new homeland was far from ideal,” Patton wrote. “They also feared that a European war was on the horizon. Thus, after much discussion, they voted to go to America.”
Since the Pilgrims did not have enough funds to outfit for the journey and establish a colony, they sought help from the Virginia Company of London and the Virginia Company of Plymouth, companies known as “adventurers,” which were organized to fund and equip colonial enterprises.
One of the key points of the contract between the Pilgrims and the Adventurers said that all colonists were to get their food, clothing, drink and provisions from the colony’s “common stock and goods.” In addition, during the first seven years, all profits earned by colonists would go into the “common stock” until they were divided.
“Today we would call this a socialist commune,” Patton wrote. “In other words, the Pilgrims accepted the socialist principle, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’ Each person was to place his production into the common warehouse and receive back, through the Governor, only what he needed for himself or his family. The surplus after seven years was to be divided equally, along with the houses, lands, and chattels, ‘betwixt the Adventurers and Planters.’”
The Pilgrims actually wanted to own their own lands and homes and to work two days a week for their own gain, but the adventurers would not allow it.
Once the agreement was signed, two ships were outfitted for the journey, the Speedwell and the Mayflower. But the Speedwell proved unseaworthy, so everyone still willing to make the journey—102 persons—crowded aboard the Mayflower and set sail.
Patton wrote that after landing on Dec 21, 1620, the Pilgrims suffered horribly their first winter, with around half the colonists perishing. Aid from the now-famous native, Squanto, helped them survive with new planting techniques, but the harvests of 1621 and 1622 were still small.
The colony’s governor, William Bradford, wrote that its socialist philosophy greatly hindered its growth: Young men resented working for the benefit of other men’s wives and children without compensation; healthy men who worked thought it unjust that they received no more food than weak men who could not; wives resented doing household chores for other men, considering it a kind of slavery.
Governor Bradford wrote that to avoid famine in 1623, the Pilgrims abandoned socialism, Patton said.
“At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land,” Bradford wrote.
The colonists, each of whom now had to grow their own food, suddenly became very industrious, with women and children who earlier claimed weakness now going into the fields to plant corn. Three times the amount of corn was planted that year under the new system.
When a drought threatened the year’s harvest, Governor Bradford called a day of fasting and prayer to “seek the Lord by humble and fervent prayer in this great distress.” God answered that same night with rain that continued in coming days, and the year brought a plentiful harvest.
“By the fall of 1624, the colonists were able to export a full boat load of corn!” Patton wrote. “And the Pilgrims settled with the Adventurers. They purchased the Adventurers stock in the colony and completed the transition to private property and free markets.”
And the Pilgrims learned a valuable lesson about socialism and hard work.
THE EVIL OF IDENTITY POLITICS AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS USED BY MARXIST/PROGRESSIVES (DEMOCRATS) SAME AS USED BY LENINRead Now
This is an exert from “America’s Permanent Mobs” by Ronald w Dworkin. It is insightful and well worth taking an extra minute to read. You will better understand the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party tactics of today and how these tactics, proven to be successful by Comrade Lenin, have been put into place by Comrades like Obama, Jarrett, and Holder.
A striking difference between identity politics and other political ideologies is the former’s focus on non-economic issues. Feminism combats sexism. Black Lives Matter combats racism. LGBT groups combat so-called homophobia. These issues touch on economics only tangentially, which is why identity politics is usually somewhat vague on policy matters. Socialists have precise proposals, such as national health insurance and a higher minimum wage. Feminists, on the other hand, dislike how some men treat women, but then are vague about how to get men to change their behavior. Black Lives Matters is similarly vague on how to improve relations between the police and African-Americans. At times, different groups within the identity politics movement voice support for progressive taxation and more government regulation. This conjures up the ghost of Marx among some conservatives, who then call identity politics “cultural Marxism.”
This is wrong. Marx would have disagreed with too many aspects of identity politics to be associated with any such movement. Marx rejected censorship. He rejected “tribalism.” He believed strongly in industry and material progress. He supported the withering away of the state, not the transformation of the state into an aggressive monitor of everyday life. Identity politics does not share these ideals.
The key to understanding identity politics is to take its vagueness at face value and not to look inside for any conventional system of policy ideas—because there is no such system. Indeed, most Americans accurately sense that identity politics is a form of theater. In the media or on the internet they see dramas play out involving accusers and accused, dramas that are staged to both entertain and edify. The accused have said something or done something politically incorrect, something racist, sexist, or homophobic; accusers then arrive on scene to place the correct interpretation on what viewers are watching and hearing, so that viewers can benefit from the lessons as well as from the warnings they might contain. Like all good theater, the drama unfolding on the screen has the power to affect viewers personally and directly; the accused are familiar to them, or at least like them, they are people in whose place viewers could without great stretch of the imagination imagine themselves. And so viewers are meant not only to be entertained and edified but also to be horrified, and perhaps terrified, by a spectacle that hits very close to home.
Identity politics and political correctness are first and foremost tactics. The media spectacles and the opportunities for public shaming arise by chance, as moral panics tend to do—for example, the Harvey Weinstein case that sparked the #MeToo movement or the Ferguson police shooting that fueled Black Lives Matter. The method of identity politics is to exploit opportunities as they arise by taking seemingly unconnected incidents and showing how they purportedly fit a pattern that, taken as a whole, sums to an indictment of the American status quo. Indeed, identity politics synthesizes patterns into a meta-pattern called “intersectionality,” meaning that abuses in the area of race are intimately connected to those in the area of gender and sexual orientation, as well as in business and the environment.
Armed with a unified theory of America’s evil, identity politics activists seek to subject people to politically correct theater for the greater part of their lives. They strive to make it constant and intensive even in unexpected places—for example, in sports or children’s literature—in order to spur people to develop a new mental background with fixed orientations and conclusions.
When they succeed the critical thinking faculties of their targets become blurred such that the ability to distinguish between the real and the imaginary is lost. Objectivity goes begging, and people start to invest even the simplest events with political meaning. In theory, they remain free people, but they are not free people; they are politically correct people; they have been educated in the awareness that their every email exchange or daily doing could be instantly discovered, discussed, condemned, and punished—and rightly so, they think, for identity politics has convinced them that the desire for objectivity betrays a desire to distance oneself from the identity politics cause, which betrays doubt in the cause’s goodness. Thus, people begin to worry if, for example, putting a flag up at home is a fascist act, or if singing an ethnic song is an example of cultural appropriation. In a recent BBC comedy sketch, one person wondered if water is racist.
In this respect identity politics owes more to Lenin than to Marx. Russians used to say that Marx is for theory, Lenin is for practice. In other words, Lenin is for tactics. Lenin developed many of his ideas in response to events, so much so that Leninism is not a “system” (like Marxism), but merely a bunch of scattered observations organized around a specific purpose: social control. Lenin’s ostensible goal was to erect a new regime that would make life better for the abused, but he spent far more time on revolutionary tactics than on any specific policy ideas for how a communist health care system or wage system might work. His policy ideas were vague, just as today’s identity politics practitioners’ policy ideas are vague. Indeed, Lenin’s first act after creating the Communist Party was not to issue policy directives but to create a newspaper for purposes of propaganda.
The emphasis on tactics in identity politics surfaces in another way. When judging an action, Lenin had a straightforward test: “Is it or is it not good for the Revolution?” Lying, cheating, and killing innocent people were fine if they helped the Revolution. As for the question of morality, “Morality is whatever serves to destroy the old exploiting society.”1 Everything that serves that aim is good, he said, while everything that hinders its realization is bad. Marx believed in some moral norms, but morality had no steady meaning for Lenin; it was a wholly instrumentalized concept. Until the Revolution, and even after as the Revolution tried to defend itself, writing a magazine article existed on the same moral plane as gunning someone down.
Adherents of identity politics adopt a similar approach. From their perspective, hounding innocent people who may simply not share their views (think the recent campaigns to boycott In-N-Out Burger and Chick-fil-A), shouting them down (think visiting speakers on college campuses, a tactic that used to be called “revolutionary intolerance”), lying about them (think Duke lacrosse players or the University of Virginia rape case falsified by Rolling Stone), or destroying their reputations (think the young man terrorized by Mattress Girl at Columbia University) are no different from disseminating revolutionary literature or preaching on the radio. If such activities show the rot in the American system, then they are all morally equivalent and good, according to the logic of identity politics.
Besides, no one with power can really be innocent, say the adherents of identity politics. That is because all power is acquired through exploitation of one kind or another, from which often follows the enigmatic verdict in cases of people who are able to prove their innocence: “Not guilty, but does not deserve lenient treatment.” Although the Duke lacrosse players may have been innocent on the night in question, they were likely guilty at other times, so there is no reason to hold back. As the old Soviet prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky once said, “Give me a man and I will find the crime.”2 The crime is always there, somewhere.
Another Leninist tactic was to dehumanize the accused, not just to sow contempt for the old regime, but also to render obsolete the normal rules of assessing individual guilt or innocence. Lenin called businesspeople “dogs” and “pigs” unworthy of humane consideration, which cast a compelling spell on those asked to judge them. During the show trials of the 1920s, evidence was deemed superfluous because the accused had already been stigmatized as “carrion,” “vermin,” and “degenerate.” Similarly, in the United States today, accused murderers and thieves enjoy the benefit of conventional standards of evidence during trial, but those accused of sexism and racism by identity politics vigilantes are called dogs and pigs at the outset; hence actual evidence is unnecessary.
This tactic surfaced in the recent Brett Kavanaugh hearing. If Judge Kavanaugh had been accused of murder, evidence would have to be presented, but since he was accused of sexual misconduct, he was suddenly a “pig”; evidence became unnecessary as the identity politics crowd pronounced him guilty on day one. Indeed, the act of even asking for evidence was judged sexist and piggish: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand declared that forcing his accuser to testify was tantamount to silencing her—which was more Orwellian than merely nonsensical.
Identity politics tactics, like Lenin’s tactics, are immensely flexible. A person is accused of sexism, racism, homophobia, or any other bias, and the rest follows naturally. Thought leaders prepare the spectacle for presentation to public opinion; the proper ideological blanks are filled in, although the background is painted with a few distinctive colors to give the event an accent of singularity; the spectacle is then linked to other similar spectacles and presented to the public as a coherent whole. The distinction between truth and illusion in people’s minds grows ever more blurred. People make artificial connections between isolated incidents of alleged wrongdoing, and start to imagine that if the American system were only destroyed once and for all, peace and justice would reign.
The spectacles also remind people of the dangers besetting them from those whom identity politics calls the enemy. In a curious way, by helping people keep up their nervous tension, and by encouraging them to be on guard for racism and sexism, identity politics, like Leninism, shrewdly raises people’s self-esteem. Most people sense that they are non-entities in daily life. But if suddenly they are told that vast forces are arrayed against them, including the patriarchy and the white race in general, and that these forces are tied in with the big banks and corporate America, then people suddenly come to realize that their lives have colossal value as victims and even martyrs. They are important after all, for otherwise why would these great forces be out to get them?
Until recently, many of the accused played the role in the drama allotted to them. They confessed their crimes and admitted their need to be re-educated in the hope of receiving leniency. Now that the accused realize that leniency is rarely given, and that careers and lives are typically ruined, they increasingly refuse to admit guilt—at first. The identity politics crowd then sets to wear them down through Twitterstorms and other social media crusades. Sometimes this works. After all, without repentance, the accused would be outcasts, enemies of the people, cut off from humanity. Yet the accused—who very often hail from progressive enclaves—can themselves feel a certain loyalty to the cause of identity politics; they think that a confession on their part would be a service to that cause, so they give one, or at least pay their respects to identity politics.
Thus Aziz Ansari, the comedian recently accused of sexual misconduct, announced how he very much supported the goals of the #MeToo movement that was now devouring him. His behavior is indistinguishable from that of the old Soviet official who suddenly found himself in the dock falsely accused, but who confessed his crimes anyway because he remained loyal to the Communist cause—even though that cause had grown disfigured and debased beyond recognition. For without a cause, some people cannot live.
There are others who do persevere in their defense against false charges of sexism and racism, which then often calls forth more aggressive tactics to destroy them. In some ways the old style of torture to the death was kinder, as torture “to some extent” can go on for decades.
We are told we must be tolerant of those who profess to follow the teachings of Mohammad. We are told the Muslim Religion is a Religion of peace. Western Europe, at the encouragement of the EU, Merkel, and Soros has not only welcomed but encouraged open migration of Muslims into Europe. Several of the members of the EU, Hungary, Poland, Austria, and Italy to name some, have said they are closing the borders to this Muslim invasion, and with good reason. Australia is doing the same. President Trump has reversed the Jihadist favoring policies of Obama.
News outlets in the United States ignore the constant and daily atrocities occurring in Western Europe. They also ignore the many atrocities occurring in the Untied States. Here are just a couple of the types of hideous crimes that are taking place under the name of the "peaceful" religion, Islam.
14 Moroccans sexually abuse girl and knife her boyfriend in Spain – Mainstream media silent.
The youths followed the couple out of the train compartment and inserted themselves inside an elevator in the train station with them and proceeded to knife the young man as he defended his girlfriend, and violently sexually attack the young lady.
The group were arrested by the local police of Santa Coloma de Gramenet this past Sunday, November 11th, in the house they were squatting in.
As they were diagnosed with scabies, an infectious skin disease, the police have had to disinfect the vehicles in which they were transported and the police station itself.
Two of the 14 Moroccan youths captured were minors, and several of those involved had already been arrested a couple of times in recent days by local police for various violent robberies. The wounded young man, who had come out in defense of his girlfriend, is out of danger.
The municipal government has asked the Catalan government to address the situation urgently as these unaccompanied youths are dedicated to “committing different crimes and delinquencies, generating alarm and insecurity.” They have also asked for more policing of the zone.
There is virtually no mention of this immigrant crime in the mainstream media, and when there is, it is usually to ask for compassion and leniency for the sexual attackers.
Unable to Reach Asia Bibi, Pakistan’s Muslims Attacking Random Christians.
These Muslims are so mad for the blood of one poor Christian woman, who has already suffered on death row for eight years, that they are taking out their bloodlust on random Christians within the country. This is a human rights abuse of monumental proportions, but you won’t hear a word about it from the United Nations or the world “human rights” organizations. They’re too busy looking for new ways to condemn Israel.
Trudeau silent about brutal attack on Jewish teens by Muslim horde, “Hitler is coming back,” beaten with fists, boots and racial slurs.
Some are expressing concern about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s lack of condemnation, or even comment, on the horrific alleged hate attack on four Hasidic teenage boys who were hit with fists, boots and racial slurs, which included being told “Hitler is coming back.”
Another day another gang rape: Woman raped in Swedish playground by three Muslim migrants.
This is Sweden now. This is also Sweden’s future. Rape jihad is entirely permissible under Islam. Sex slavery is sanctioned under Islam. As it has been explained numerous times, sex slavery and rape of the infidel is sanctioned and rewarded under Islam. Muslim clerics all over the world confirm the right to have sex slaves. It is in the Qur’an — the word of Allah. Sex slave auctions are rife throughout across the Muslim world. There are even sex slave auctions in “moderate” Muslim Turkey. Politicians can keep turning a blind eye, law enforcement can keep ignore it, so this pox on our communities will continue to get worse.
Collectivism is an all-encompassing term for the philosophies that have been identified with what is termed the left. Collectivism is what we call Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and Progressives. Collectivism is what the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party of today is advocating. Collectivism advocates that the group or collective is supreme, and all policies and practices must be evaluated based on what they would deem to be in the best interest of the collective. This is in direct contrast to the philosophy upon which the United States is based; that is individualism. Individualism advocates that the rights of the individual are paramount and rights that are defined as natural rights such as life, liberty and property are not under the preview of man or government because they are rights granted by the Creator who is ultimate sovereign of all.
Individualism is the most difficult for the individual because individualism requires individual responsibility. For instance, the individual is responsible for their own decisions and it is the individual that must accept the consequences of their decision, good or bad. Individualism also stresses that the outcome is not final because the individual always has the right to and is encouraged to never settle. If the outcome was successful, they can and should strive to reach even higher. This is why the fabulous musician never stops practicing. This is why the researcher continues to do research. This is why the athlete continues to try to run faster, jump higher, or score the perfect 10. This is why the business person pursues better and more efficient methods of production or sales. This is why man has always looked beyond their known borders, be it mountains, plains, oceans, or space. The inner spirit of man is to reach for the stars and this is the heart of an individualist.
Collectivism stresses the collective over the individual. Collectivists believe the good of the collective is paramount. The collectivist believes it is the collective that should dictate the borders or the limits and those few individuals who would counter the perceived borders are damaging the good of the collective because they make the many within the collective who wish to settle, uncomfortable. The collectivist believes that the collective as a whole is responsible for all and that the responsibility of the individual is assumed by the collective.
The collectivist believes that the consequences of the decisions of the individual, good or bad, are the results of the actions of the collective as a whole. The collectivist believes that the family unit is a detriment to society because under the concept of the family unit, individuals are taught different values that may or may not coincide with the collective’s values. The collectivist believes all values should be taught in public institutions such as schools. The collectivist believes that the over achiever is detrimental to the collective as a whole because their achievement makes others within the collective uncomfortable. Thus, the collectivist would say that the person who prefers not to provide for his family or even himself is the result, not of the individuals making, but of the collective and is therefore the responsibility of the collective to provide for the individual. The collectives believe the bad behavior of a person is not the choice of the individual but the result of the collective as a whole and thus the responsibility of the collective and the individual should not suffer consequences for their bad behavior. The collectivist believes financial success of an individuals is not the result of choices made by the individual but is a result of decisions made by the collectivist community and thus financial success must be shared with all.
Individualism is a philosophy embraced by independent minded people like our founders. Individualism is embraced by self-reliant minded people. Individualism is embraced by those willing to accept the consequence of their own decisions, good or bad. Individualism is embraced by achievers. Individualism is embraced by truly compassionate people who love others and will encourage others to reach for the stars, that even failure is better than never striving but simply settling.
Collectivism is embraced by people who believe it is the duty and the right of government, or the so-called elite within society, to dictate to each individual what role they are to play in society and that their thoughts are only acceptable when they conform to the dictates of the elites. Karl Marx called this a classless society. A collectivist believes that they are relieved of their parental responsibility because it is the responsibility of the schools to teach their children morals and values. The collectivist believes it is the duty and obligation of the state to accept ultimate responsibility for the financial welfare of all. The collectivist believes that bad behavior is a result of society and not the decision of the individual. The collectivist believes that life, liberty, and property are granted by the state and thus the state should have complete control. The collectivist has no compassion for his fellow man because the collectivist deems the individual to be inadequate and must accept the role as determined by the elite.
Collectivism always fails. Collectivism denounces self-responsibility and self-reliance. Collectivism brings division, it breeds hatred, it promotes identity politics, it promotes victim hood, and it brings a government reliant society. Collectivism creates devastation and then promotes the policies that created the devastation as the policies that will rescue the devastated.
The only answer for recovery from the devastation created by the collectivist is the philosophy of individualism which proclaims our natural rights are from our Creator and under the domain of our Creator, that we are all responsible for our own decisions, and that true compassion and love is to give a helping hand. A helping hand is given through charity and has the expectation that the individual receiving the help will use that help to recover and then give a helping hand when another needs it. This is in direct contrast to the uncompassionate system of the collectivist or the government welfare system which is designed to create a slave or serf to the state which builds a permanent power base to maintain the control of the elite or state.
John Boehner and Paul Ryan fought the Conservative agenda for years. Both Boehner and Ryan pushed big spending Omnibus bills that skyrocketed the national debt and gave first Obama everything he wanted, and then gave Pelosi and Schumer. We have heard for years that the Republicans support the non-funding of planned parenthood because we were told the Republicans believed in the sanctity of life and not the murder of innocent unborn children. Planned Parenthood is still funded and continues to murder innocent children under the euphemism of a “women’s right to choose.”
The Republicans won the election in 2016 because they promised to close our borders. Many of us believed that meant that a wall would be built as promised by Ryan. Small amounts were funded so teasers could be built. Meanwhile Ryan turned away bills by other Republicans to truly fix the immigration mess. Ryan has talked about the stopping illegal immigration, but no wall is built, and huge dollars are spent every year, far more than the cost of the wall, to provide for these illegals.
Boehner and Ryan were the present to the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) that just kept on giving. Their sidekick, Kevin McCarthy, was with them all the way. Now the Republican House has elected McCarthy as Minority leader. Freedom and Independence lost under Boehner and Ryan and will continue to lose under McCarthy. McCarthy, in his remarks, sang the song as to how he would fight the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) agenda and promote a Freedom Loving, Constitutional adhering agenda. McCarthy, we heard the same from your buddies, Boehner and Ryan.
It appears the house will be in danger in 2020, even if President Trump is at the top of the ticket. Ryan lost the house in 2018 and another Ryan is incapable of winning it back. We Freedom Loving Americans will be energized and tireless to set brush fires of freedom in the minds of Americans even more vigorously if we have dedicated Freedom Loving Americans leading the fight in the house.
I hope I am wrong, but it appears the Republican members of the house fall into Einstein’s definition of insanity; doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
The Marxist movement has been alive and well in the United States for a long time, at least 100 years. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are more open about their collectivist (Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive) ideals than ever, even more now than in the days of FDR when his administration was dominated by members of the Communist Party of the United States. The Marxist/Progressives are advocating big government that dominates the lives of all citizens, central planning of the economy by government, government allocating resources per Marx, and transforming from receiving based on personal effort to receiving based on perceived need. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are using the courts and the swamp that is Washington DC to accomplish their ends.
When I am perplexed about what is happening and what can be done to prevent the United States from becoming a collectivist (Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive) nation, I look to the wisdom of those who formed the foundation of the United States based on Individualism. Individualism demands a capitalist system, rule of law, limited government, divided government, and sovereignty of the people. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are transforming the United States from an Individualist nation to a collectivist (Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive) nation. What they are doing is something that was foreseen by men with great minds. If we are to stop this collectivist (Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive) movement we must learn why these great minds said it could happen and employ the principles they advocated, those of Individualism which promotes individual freedom and liberty.
The Warnings of Thomas Jefferson
During his two terms as President, Jefferson detected some evil and subversive trends which were luring the American people away from the original Constitution. Notice how direct he was in pointing the finger of accusation at the judiciary for corrupting the original constitutional plan: "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidation first, and then corruption.... The engine of consolidation will be the federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." In other words, the Supreme Court uses its judicial mandates to draw more and more power to Washington; then the Congress and the Executive use this new power to shatter the Constitution and corrupt the dual federalism which was designed to balance the political powers between the government and the states. Once Jefferson's distant cousin, John Marshall, became chief justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall set himself and his associates up as the "final arbiter" on all constitutional issues. Nowhere in the Constitution was the federal judiciary given the power to enforce its will on the states or the other two federal departments. Jefferson had the Supreme Court in his gun sights when he wrote: "The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the [state] governments into the jaws of that [federal government] which feeds them."
The Warnings of James Madison
Madison was known to be the philosophical soul-mate of Thomas Jefferson, but sometimes his contemporaries considered him somewhat paranoid and suffering from fears for the nation that would never happen. But the passing of time was to prove him more insightful than many of his contemporaries had thought. He said: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely, for the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, the establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
The Warnings of Alex De Tocqueville
In 1830 a young judge from France arrived in America. His name was Alexis de Tocqueville. He came to study the American system. He and his friend soaked up more information about the great American experiment in ten months than most scholars absorb in a lifetime. Returning to France, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote a two-volume work entitled, Democracy in America . De Tocqueville saw the people of the United States passing through several distinct stages. First of all, he saw the strength of character and moral integrity that would make them prosperous. But as they became self-sufficient he saw that they would be less concerned about each other and much less concerned about the principles that made them a great people. This would leave them vulnerable to the manipulation of clever politicians who would begin to promise them perpetual security if they accepted certain schemes contrived by some of their leaders. He then described what modern students have been led to identify as "democratic socialism.": "That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. "For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances -- what remains, to spare them all the care of thinking and the trouble of living." "After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. "The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided -- men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till [the] nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." Are not these warnings sobering? Can we not see every one of them in fulfillment today? Yet in spite of all these dire predictions, the Founders assured us there is a manifest destiny for America that would cause her to rise from the ashes. It is this prophecy that keeps us going. Is each of us doing all we can to help? Have you had a seminar for your friends in your area yet? Can you spare a little of your resources to help us continue? Thank you for all you do or will do.