A recent Breitbart article captured my attention with the headline “Bill Kristol has Strategy to Give White House to Hilary IF Trump Should Win!” Now why would a leading Republican voice want to risk dismantling the GOP by helping the party lose to a criminal democrat who should really be behind bars? The true reason behind this declaration needs a closer inspection.
According to the Breibart report William (Bill) Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe discussing Donald Trump’s campaign. Kristol boasted he had a plan to deprive Trump of the 50% delegates required to secure the Republican nomination and force a brokered convention. He further declared that his scheme included cutting a deal which awards enough delegates to an “acceptable” candidate. He also told Joe Scarborough that “we” have to stop the momentum and ensure Trump loses in both Florida and Ohio in order to keep the race open for another candidate to gain the nomination.
For the past few years the registered Republican numbers were on decline, however since Trump entered the race for POTUS, the numbers are once again increasing. In fact the numbers are up a full 7% with larger than expected voter turnout for the primaries. Logically would it not benefit the party to support such an historic populist front-runner? It appears that the voting majority disagree with Bill about “the Donald” not being an “acceptable” candidate, so why did he state “we” must stop the momentum (of WE the People)? The answers become apparent after a deeper investigation.
First, besides operating The Weekly Standard, who is Bill Kristol? Bill was also the Co-Founder of Project for the New America Century a neoconservative think tank based in Washington DC with the stated goal of “promoting American global leadership” via wars and aggressive foreign policies. Quite the contrast of George Washington’s sage advice in his farewell speech in which he firmly stated “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all”, in addition: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Washington’s speech should be read in entirety by all Americans to confirm that he believed true liberty meant not being aggressive with other countries, but instead not entangle with foreign alliances and focus on the sovereignty of the Republic. Yet the Project’s other co-founder, Robert Kagan, defined himself as “a liberal interventionist”. Others who signed or funded the New America Century included former Vice-President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and media mogul Rupert Murdoch (FOX News). PNAC released a statement back in June 1997 which included the following statement:
“We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order…”
Although some Americans may believe the statement sounds positive, this was not the vision the Founding Fathers laid forth. For instance in 1799 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter advising
“I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty.”
Clearly PNAC’s goal was the complete opposite of the Founder’s intentions. So where did PNAC’s ideas originate? Bill Kristol’s very own father, the late Irving Kristol was nicknamed “the Godfather of Neoconservatism”a label he proudly wore.
CHANGING AMERICAN POLITICS
Irving Kristol was born in 1920, Brooklyn, New York to Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. He was schooled with and supported radical socialism in the 1930s. He later would become a contributing writer to “Commentary” which was a liberal Jewish Monthly Review magazine. “Commentary” provided the intellectual roots for neoconservatism. He also was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The neocon movement was formerly established in the 1960s by a group of socialist democrats which included both Irving and Max Shactman who was a prominent member of the Communist Party USA and considered a leading Marxist theorist. However this group of socialist-communist democrats rejected the hippie counterculture movement and decided to vacate the democrat party and infiltrate the republican party instead.
By 1979 the neoconservative movement had gained notoriety and became the basis of the book released that year titled The Neo-Conservatives: The Men who are Changing America’s Politics. Irving was prominently featured in the book. When he was asked “What is Neo-Conservatism?”, he answered “it is not ideology but persuasion” and that neocons were truthfully “a liberal who has been mugged by reality”.
Why did American politics need to change? Neocons may occasionally refer to the Constitution which is the foundation of our politics but their agenda is clearly not Constitutional. Since the Founding Documents are supposed to be our politics which formed a limited government model espousing the ideals of individual freedom and liberty, then what did they “change” in our form of government? Former President George H.W. Bush, a neocon, announced in a state of the union speech, “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and future generations a new worldorder……….an order in which an incredible United Nations can use its peace keeping role to fulfill its promise and vision of the UN’s founders.” He did not affirm to keep the promise and vision of the Republic’s Founding Fathers, but instead the UN’s.
The United Nation’s is a one world government organization promoting “international cooperation”and was established after World War II to replace The League of Nations. During his Nobel Peace Prize speech, United States Diplomat Ralph Bunche sounded “It is worthy of emphasis that the United Nations exists not merely to preserve the peace but also to make change – even radical change..” Years later Americans would be bombarded with the word “change” during Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign stating “Yes we can”.
Thomas Jefferson and company established America to be a country in which the people governed and were represented by individuals who defended the people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without government dictatorship. In fact, Jefferson confirmed by stating:
“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”
It is alleged that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Sir what have you done?” and allegedly Mr. Franklin replied, “A Republic Ma’am if you can keep it.” Sound the alarm loudly and let it be known that the week of June 21. 2015 – June 27, 2015, the Republic, commonly known as America, was buried 6 feet under. Merely one week shy of the 239th Birthday of “Independence”, the union formed ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ gasped it’s last breath which was already on life support.
Perhaps some readers will laugh at what they believe is alarmist, others will ignore, and some will actually celebrate the foundation of this “new’ United Statism of Amerika. However a large number of individuals who understand the Founder’s intent for this country, will share in mourning the demise of the once great beacon for true freedom and liberty.
Back on July 8th, 1776, the Liberty Bell rang when the Declaration of Independence returned from the printer. Two days prior the Pennsylvania Evening Post became the first newspaper to print the Declaration of Independence and in stark contrast another Pennsylvania paper, the ironically named PennLive/’Patriot’-News printed a declaration of oppression on June 26th, 2015 stating: “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.” Would Benjamin Franklin approve of this silencing of free speech due to personal opinion? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! In fact here is one of his most notable quotes, “Without Freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom;and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”
This past Friday, June 26th the Supreme Court proclaimed same-sex “marriages” to be legal in all 50 states. Many in the country cheered and demonstrated loudly that now there was truly “real” freedom in the nation and anyone voicing another viewpoint were bullied and threatened in order to be “silenced”, thus already displaying “free speech” issues. Regardless of opinion however, the term marriage is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights nor any other amendments, although Bill Clinton signed the “Defense of Marriage Act” into law back in 1996, the Supreme Court originally struck it down in 2013. Since the Constitution does not delegate powers to the federal government in regard to marriage, the powers for this issue were delegated solely to the states according to the Tenth Amendment. Regrettably Justice Kennedy abused the 14th Amendment by stating, “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (were extended with the amendment.)” What part of the original amendments or any statement from any of the authors of the Constitution lead him to believe such nonsense? Perhaps the only quote including the word ‘intimate’ is from George Washington who warned, “Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence.” Perchance a more befitting quote for Kennedy, personally spoken by Washington, is the following, “I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.”
Back in 1792, Declaration Signer James Wilson, one of original six justices appointed by President Washington wrote in his “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals” document, “The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend.” Justice Wilson, nor any other Judge during Colonial Times would have agreed with the current Supreme Court, since homosexuality was a death-penalty-punishable-crime. In fact General George Washington court martialed anyone “attempting to commit sodomy”. Plus Noah Webster’s dictionary defined sodomy as a ‘crime against nature’. Thus to claim the 14th Amendment would extend to same-sex relationships is seriously flawed and deceptive. Furthermore, the 1874 case “Minor vs. Happersett” based on discrimination due to gender/sex (in relation to voting) lost: “The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.”
Albeit the 14th Amendment may be one of the most discussed, debated additions to the Bill of Rights, the ratification in 1868 was expressly for Black Americans whose inalienable rights were being ignored as freed slaves. Every descendant of Chattel slaves should thus be questioning the misuse of the amendment. In addition, every freedom loving individual should be examining closer the unconstitutional decision of SCOTUS established by the case Obergefell v. Hodges. Not only did the outcome shred state’s rights and misinterpret the 14th Amendment, the Justices also unlawfully stretched beyond their role clearly defined in Article III of the Constitution, section 2, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…” Since the Constitution had no federal authority for marriage granting only states this power, the Supreme Court created a new law which caused dissenting Justice Scalia to decry the verdict, “a threat to democracy”. He continued his statement writing, “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.” Naturally those applauding the determination scoffed at Scalia’s cautioning words labeling him everything from cantankerous to predictably homophobe simply for expressing the lawful truth. Though even the quite conflicting dissent from Justice Roberts stated, supporters of gay marriage should celebrate, “but do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
This new same-sex marriage ruling by SCOTUS gave increased power to the Judicial Branch while stripping powers from the Legislative Branch and the States, thus affecting “the people”. Despite the fact same-sex “marriage” supporters and participants strongly voice “the people won”, this thought is not aligned with the original framers of America. In point of fact, Alexander Hamilton who wrote in the Federalist Paper, “[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment..,” also affirmed, “The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation.”
Moreover, Justice Roberts announced concern for First Amendment protection, “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty.” Confirming Robert’s concerns, Justice Thomas penned, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect. Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty…………. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”
Isn’t religious freedom one of the main reasons British colonists escaped King George’s theocracy? Obviously the creators of the founding documents believed religious freedom was the most important foundation to a Free Republic by ordering it to be first! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….” Does this new SCOTUS resolution stab the very heart of the formation of America? Now if one opposes homosexual unions based off religious convictions, does it not now put them at risk of lawsuits and public persecution? Persecution of Christian bakers, photographers, florists, restaurants, clergy and individuals already began prior to the unlawful court decision, so now any protection for religious freedom under the First Amendment has certainly been further eroded. Certainly the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) who sacrificed life, blood, family and fortune are crying from their own graves. For instance John Adams said in a speech to the military in 1798, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Perhaps the same-sex issue was the final nail pounded into America’s coffin, but it was not the only death nail which occurred last week. In addition the Supreme Court also upheld the unconstitutional Obamacare with their 6-3 decision of King v. Burwell. Once again the Constitutional Justice on the Supreme Court, Scalia wisely warned in his dissent, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”
This case was brought forth due to the fact Senate created a separate bill from the House and titled it “The Affordable Care Act”. Furthermore this “act” included a long list of ‘taxes” disguised as “fees” and “penalties”. According to the Articles of the Constitution however, it is the House of Representatives and not Senate which is allowed to initiate tax measures. Even Justice Roberts admitted to this fact in addition he divulged “the Constitution does not allow the government to force people to buy consumer products.” Yet SCOTUS once again ruled against the people while dismissing key components of the Constitution.
On a roll for tyranny, the Justices infringed upon property rights which is a key agenda in collectivism. Veritably Karl Marx wanted to abolish private property as defined in his Communist Manifesto because he believed property was oppression of the poor. In contrast, the role of the Republican form of limited government is to simply protect life, liberty, and property. However last week SCOTUS became traitors of property rights by ruling 5-4 in a case initiated by Inclusive Communities Project which claimed discrimination with the Texas Housing Authority in Dallas, Texas. The Texas department defended their position by stating, “ the Fair Housing Act of 1968 required that plaintiffs show intentional discrimination”. The lynching continued with newly oathed attorney general Loretta gloating, “The Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act with every tool at its disposal.”
Not cheering the decision was Texas Governor Abbot whose office issued the following statement, “If Congress wanted to allow people to bring ‘disparate impact’ claims, it would have said so. Worse, the court’s opinion raises serious constitutional problems because it potentially forces housing authorities to commit intentional racial discrimination to avoid unintentional ‘disparate impacts.'” In addition, property owners lose control and are prohibited from renting their homes to individuals as they see fit to protect their investments. Unfortunately this decision against property owners is in line with Obama’s radical “Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative” which includes federal grant money and HUD rules to end segregation in all neighborhoods across the country.
Not backing down from the deconstruction of America, the Supreme Court also infringed upon state’s rights by blocking Texas abortion-clinic rules. In what seems to be a trend with the nine judges, the ruling was 5-4 with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito agreeing to allow the state to move ahead with regulations requiring abortion facilities to be constructed like surgical centers.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court refused to protect America by not taking voter ID cases from both Arizona and Kansas. Each state requires voter applicants to provide proof of citizenship, however the U.S. EAC denied the states to apply their laws on the federal form. Two years ago the Supremes ruled that state proof-of-citizenship laws couldn’t be applied when people try to register with the federal form. By not hearing the case, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Arizona and Kansas. UC-Irvine Professor Rick Hasen wrote on his election law blog, “This is a very big deal…. had the potential to shift more power away from the federal government in administering elections toward the states.”
Therefore with a few strokes of the pen, the Supreme Court aided in the growth of a centralized government while shredding the Constitution and original foundation of the Republic.
Therapist Nathaniel Branden, the former intimate partner of Ayn Rand while she was writing “Atlas Shrugged”, penned: “The policy of seeking values from human beings by means of force, when practiced by an individual, is called crime. When practiced by a government, it is called statism .” The noun ‘statism’ is defined as a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. In contrast, the Founders of America, formed a republic form of government, a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of the people entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly by them. Factually, in 1787 the Continental Congress drafted the Articles of the Constitution not to manage the people or the states, but to limit and manage the government itself. The intention was to establish a structure affording true freedom with some law preventing anarchy or the creation of an oligarchy, an organization of a small group controlling every aspect of the country. Disastrously, in present day USA we are witnessing total chaos which the JBS’ “Overview of America” documentary perfectly details as a calculated movement of “anarchists breaking down the existing government via looting, rioting, killing and terror.”
Last week the calculation was observed with a mob rule demanding the removal of the Confederate Flag from the public square triggered by a mysterious shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina in which 9 people, including the senior pastor were murdered. Worthy to note, this Episcopal Church which is nearly 200 years old has long been at the center of various ‘anti-slavery’, ‘civil rights’, and ‘black lives matter’ movements. Mainstream media quickly established a narrative that the shooter Dylann Roof was a white supremacist and displayed images of him with guns and Confederate flags. Instead of the controlled media questioning how Roof learned to be a frontsight expert and adroitly reloading his gun 5 times? Or delving into his big pharmaceutical addictions and prior drug arrests? Researching his entire history and answering why an alleged ‘racist’ resided in a majority Black-American neighborhood? They focused on a false flag account which caused a national commotion on the real history and symbolism of the old battle banner. Media outlets and politicians pushed only a one-sided viewpoint while Amazon, Wal-mart, and manufacturers banned Confederacy merchandise. Some radicals are now demanding the removal of the Stars & Stripes with American flag burnings across the land sparked by lies, myths and distortions of America history.
What the “flag” wars proved last week is that collectivism reigns with mob rule and traitors in power. No longer can individualists live, speak, or worship freely without dire consequences or retribution. Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow with the Ayn Rand Institute, once noted, “Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism.” Thomas Jefferson’s following quote confirms the direction of this land, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Clearly last week with the removal of historical flags and unconstitutional court rulings, the mob ruled and rights of the majority were stripped.
In addition to the mobs, media, and the highest court in the USA, ‘elected representatives’ aided in the final destruction of America the Republic with the passage of the Trade Promotion Authority/Trade Authority Agreement commonly nicknamed Obamatrade which POTUS signed into law yesterday. The agreements granted unconstitutional powers to the Executive Branch allowing the president to make deals with just mere Congressional votes without discussions or amendments. In rare form, democrats actually attempted to derail this bill in order to protect Americans, but republicans organized with support to assist moving the bill forward. During the signing, Obama actually thanked republicans for the victory.
People from all walks of life and political views rallied to prevent the passage of this detrimental law. The first vote proved a win for the people, but the GOP insisted on bringing it back for a second vote which proved a loss for the people. Before the vote “Economy in Crisis” cautioned: “Fast Track also allows the White House to work in secrecy with negotiators and lobbyists from large multinational corporations to rewrite policies that affect areas from job security for average Americans, to the health and safety of our food. In the past, utilizing Fast Track has resulted in foreign entities attacking our domestic health policies and environmental standards.” Moreover, Wikileaks provided a sneak peak of the deal by posting text of the ‘secretive’ document revealing that indeed Americans should be concerned. For one, the Fast Track allows for more foreign workers in the following private sector fields of computer programming, construction. engineering, healthcare, management, and the service industry (hotel/restaurants). Sadly, due to the Fast Track’s international business and environmental laws, American businesses and wages will be negatively affected.
For decades globalists have been implementing new trade deals while the media campaigns benefits and job growth to those who will listen, yet the real numbers show a strikingly different reality. According to a report which cites the US Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are poor or low income; 41% earn $20,000 or less annually, and labor statistics continue to decline. Perhaps we cannot predict the future, but as cited by the Economic Policy Institute “Trade and globalization policies have major effects on the wages and incomes of American workers and on the vitality of American industries such as manufacturing.” With the combination of a rising national debt and the above economic/labor statistics, how can American families survive financially? The original liberty defenders of the Republic wisely realized that personal finances were an instrumental portion for overall freedom. In his first Inaugural Address on March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson spoke the following words, “A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
Encompassing all aspects including social issues, religion, politics, media, and economics, the liberty of the majority were adversely affected last week. Co-architect of the New Deal, Harry Hopkins once admitted, “We shall Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference”. Harry was right! Too many in America either ignored the words in the Founding Documents, choosing instead to just “live their lives” placing blind trust in their politicians and alleged ‘news” sources or they allowed themselves to be willingly indoctrinated with falsehoods creating misunderstandings and division. In the meantime, in secretive Bilderberg, Tri-lateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and Congressional meetings, the deconstruction of the Republic was plotted throughout the generations from the implementation of the criminal Federal Reserve to this past Monday’s White House signature of the Fast Track. The complete promised “transformation of America” is complete.
Every year the Liberty Bell rang in honor of President Washington’s birthday, until 1846 when the crack grew to the present size we see today. However throughout the years the bell was ceremoniously tapped until 1976 when the historical symbol of freedom was permanently displayed as a monument. More alert members of “we the people” may have realized the original freedom and independence declared by the Founders were already a memory of the distant past. Since the bicentennial, many liberty defenders have worked tirelessly trying to educate and wake up others before the tyranny grew too big and we developed into a new country completely opposite of the original. Regrettably their voices were overshadowed by the noise of the deceiving collectivists who worked aggressively for radical “change”.
Vladimir Lenin once confessed, “The goal of socialism is communism.” While Mao Zedong dictated, “Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer for which we use to crush the enemy.” Maybe Mao’s comment was brutal, but at least he was honest about the goal. In contrast of honesty, the “most transparent” administration, exempted the executive branch from Freedom of Information Act requests. Why the exemption? Does the Obama office have something to hide? What has not been secret is Obama’s associations with Mao during his tenure including a Christmas ornament in honor of the communist dictator. So were the events of last week ‘a crushing of the enemy’? Maybe, but regardless history will prove it happened during the Obama administration.
Rewind to the 2012 campaign season, the Dinesh D’Souza documentary “2016: Obama’s America” forewarned that POTUS’ reshaping of the country would be finished by the end of his second term leaving behind a system completely devoid of any likeness to what the Founding Father’s established. With 18 more long months to go, if the current course continues, D’Souza’s predictions will be the new reality. Nonetheless, last week indeed ended a Constitutional Republic.
Three days from now “Americans” will be honoring July 4th with picnics, camping, music, games, drink and fireworks, however it shan’t be “independence” the people will be celebrating, because now true freedom and liberty is a memory. But no one should mourn! Enlightened individuals should instead recharge and remember what the first tea partier, Samuel Adams stated, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”
It is time ‘sunshine patriots’ to wipe away the tears, to shut down social media outrage, and instead join active oath keepers and defenders across the land and spark another brush-fire! Heed the advice from Thomas Paine, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” The time to stand up tirelessly is NOW! The Liberty Bell cannot ring again until the believers of REAL liberty stand up with faith and “to alter or…abolish … and …. institute (a)new Government’ established with liberty containing free and independent states for ALL the people!
Be strong, bold, and encouraged by the following words from John Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Adams is correct, history proves that people do not enjoy the constraints of tyranny, since it really only benefits the power elite as confirmed by Ayn Rand, “Ask yourself why totalitarian dictatorships find it necessary to pour money and effort into propaganda for their own helpless, chained, gagged slaves, who have no means of protest or defense. The answer is that even the humblest peasant or the lowest savage would rise in blind rebellion, were he to realize that he is being immolated, not to some incomprehensible noble purpose, but to plain, naked human evil.”
America was not lost overnight, it took generations of plotting evil men (and women) to destroy the Republic, so patriots cannot expect a new Republic to be born overnight as it will take generations of faith, diligence and dedication to the cause of liberty to regain what we the people lost. It is best we begin by getting on our knees and repenting! Then with courage, wisdom and unity move forth with Founding Father-like rebellion and God’s guidance! May “we the people” prevail as permanent tyranny is not an option! Let’s proclaim that by the will of God, the Liberty Bell will ring again! “WOLVERINES!”
Capitalism is evil….well from a communist’s perspective! In light of the recent elections in Greece, the Ferguson-inspired riots in America, and increasing minimum wage discussions, communism has dominated news headlines. Since America’s existence, the country has enjoyed leading the world in economic prosperity.while ranking at the top, or near the top, of the freedom index. The United States has been the beacon of light for millions of immigrants escaping their homeland oppression. So the perplexing question is…why do communists despise ‘capitalism’?
Recently a self-proclaimed communist tweeted me a message asking why I liked the Constitution and Capitalism? I simply tweeted back, “freedom and liberty”. Not satisfied with my reply, he continued to barrage me with a series of tweets in an attempt to ‘change my view’. Unfortunately for his time, he only confirmed my resolve to defend a Free Republic. However I did observe his only argument for collectivism, “workers earn more money and the elite are ‘forced’ to give”. So is his point regarding communist workers earning more money true? First, one must understand that communism is both an economic and ideological system for which all citizens are supposed to be considered equal in most areas including wages. In Communist China the average wage per day (in US dollars) is $15 with an annual minimum wage of $2,472 ; ; ; Cuba’s average income is $20 per month with an annual minimum wage of $108; limited data for North Korea states the average income is $1 per day; and the average Russian income seems to average approximately $250 per month with an annual minimum wage of $2,161. In stark contrast, the United State’s average annual income, according to the latest Census, is $51, 371 with an annual minimum wage of $15, 080. Furthermore, when you examine the freedom index, America is ranked 12th proving the country ranks strong in both dollar and cost of living compared to the majority of countries around the world.
Many collectivist essays online want everyone to believe that communism wipes out poverty, but if this was true, why the real life stories and news from people in communist/socialist/marxist countries crying out for help to end poverty? Why the mass border invasion into America from socialist countries like Mexico and South America? In fact is it not the communists shouting at Americans wanting secure borders that the “undocumented workers” are only coming here for a better life? If the socialist-communist economic system was “better” than would it not be Americans illegally crossing into the border of Mexico instead? What exactly am I missing because their reasoning makes zero sense to me?
Well the communist tweeter also claimed that under communism, the wealthy are “forced” to give. Personally, I rebel against force! And frankly is it really “giving” with a generous heart under duress? Moreover according to the latest World Charity Index, the CAPITALIST-leaning countries the United States and Myanmar tie for first place of most charitable! Intriguing considering Communist China is home to the most billionaires in the world. Therefore, based on the communist philosophy, China should have topped the world’s “charity” list. Wait! How can a communist country be host to both the most billionaires and oppression? How does this fit into the definition of communism? Google and you will find nervous collectivists attempting to claim China has become a crony-capitalist country. “They have eyes but cannot see…..”
The brilliant author of “Atlas Shrugged” (on every capitalist’s bookshelf), Ayn Rand, lived under both a communist system and a capitalist system. She admitted that capitalism was not perfect, but it was less evil than communism. Besides writing about John Galt, she also declared the following, “Government ‘help’ to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off” From Thomas Jefferson to Ronald Reagan, many have shared Ms. Rand’s exact sentiment. Confirming this idea, F.A. Hayek warned in his enlightening book, “The Road to Serfdom”, .“It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now–independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbors–are essentially those on which the of an individualist society rests. Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far as it already has destroyed then it has left a void filled by nothing but the demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to what is collectively decided to be good.”
Thus the only two “points” attempted by the annoying communist tweeter are completely debunked by actual facts, examples, and statistics. Despite the debunking, Rasmussen revealed in a poll that 11% of Americans preferred communism. Since the poll is now 4 years old, my guess is that the number may now be within the 15-20% range. However the poll proves that the February 16th, 2009 Newsweek cover was mere propaganda with their headline “We Are All Socialists Now”. The article certainly read like a “sales pitch” towards a socialist United States. As a matter of fact the magazine’s editor Jon Meacham wrote, “Whether we want to admit it or not the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.” And in stark contrast to former President Ronald Reagan’s warning that “government was the problem”, the European Newsweek editor Michael Freedman penned, “…….government can actually be a part of the solution.”
Frankly since all statistics prove individuals are freer and wealthier in a free market, limited government system, I agree with an archived article at http://www.mises.org regarding people still attracted to statism being due to issues involving personal accountability. The author of the article, Luca Ferrini, brilliantly wrote the following synopsis:
“……. some people, by virtue of having been socialized under statist conditions, are not attracted to the responsibility that comes with the idea of freedom.
To believe in private property rights and a free society means to make a great call for responsibility: what society should do should be done by you, or by others in cooperation with you, but not by the collective. The obligation falls on individuals, and everyone is made responsible for his actions. If you make a mistake, you pay. If you succeed, you get the benefit and are free to choose what to do with it.
In contrast, the enlargement of the state always means an attack on responsibility. Under a communist regime, self-responsibility is eliminated. The more a government intrudes into citizens’ lives, the less people feel a sense of responsibility for their actions. Bureaucrats do not typically have full responsibility for their actions. Politicians, central bankers, and judges do not pay for their mistakes. They experience a kind of immunity from bearing blame for the consequences of their actions during the time they are in power.”
Statist leaders tend to impose “cult of personalities” and God-complexes believing that only they can take care of you and unfortunately too many follow due to “self-responsibility” and state-controlled propaganda which starts in their public “education” programs and continues via ‘media’ and arts & entertainment.
The truth is there is ONLY one God! Fortunately in Communist China, Christianity is growing at an extremely rapid pace with experts citing the country will be the leading Christian nation in the world within the next 15 years. Naturally President Xi Jinping is cracking down with increased police state actions and persecutions against these believers. Collectivist rulers are threatened by Christians due to the “freedom” one feels with enjoying a personal relationship with Christ. Christians do not need anyone to “take care of their lives” as we believe in personal accountability for our actions. Since a very centralized government is in control in China, it could take several years before the world sees any political changes, however just like Christianity affected Roman politics during the early days, the Chinese government will most likely one day reflect the faith of the majority.
In contrast as government is growing in America, Christianity is rapidly declining. Perhaps the statistics are appealing to the growing number of non-believers in the United States, however this should alarm every liberty-loving individual irregardless of belief system since historically freedom coincides with a society’s morality. In fact 19th Century-French classical liberal author and economist, Frederic Bastiat noted in his enlightening book “The Law”:
“Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”
More concisely Founding Father and America’s second president, John Adams stated in a 1798 speech, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The vibrant, rich history and attraction of the United States over other countries is simply due to the Republican form of government and free market system created nearly 250 years ago. However statists hate America and the associated values of the once great Free Republic, thus the current resident presiding in the Oval Office campaigned with the promise to “fundamentally transform” the country and an ill-informed people elected for this radical departure from a constitutional foundation. Bastiat also composed the following in his book, “The law has been perverted under the influence of two very different causes: unintelligent selfishness and false philanthropy.”
During his “hope and change” campaign, on June 28, 2006, Barrack Obama clearly stated the following words, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation…..” Accidentally omitting words or not, his declaration accompanies the disturbing political reconstruction of the USA today. Intelligently Bastiat also composed the following accurate observation, “The law has been perverted under the influence of two very different causes: unintelligent selfishness and false philanthropy.” which plagues America today.
Scripture warns us about an oppressive ‘one world order’, however believers and non-believers alike may not be aware of Albert Pike or his eerie plans for the world inked in his infamous 1871 “Three World War Letters”. His ultimate goal for the world was to fully embrace Lucifer and in order for this to be fully implemented the Illuminati must empower communism while destroying all religions via allowing the dominance of Islam in order to weaken Christianity. Is it possible that former President George H.W. Bush agreed to these plans which is why he stated in a 1990 speech the words, “Welcome to the new world order”?
Perhaps the Bush patriarch is ‘secretive’ about his intentions, but Rockefeller patriarch, David certainly was candid on page 405 of his “Memoirs”: “Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” Besides being “proud”, Mr. Rockefeller is also the founder of the Trilateral Commission, director of the “secret cabal”, Bilderbergs, and former director of the Council on Foreign Relations. These secret, elite groups include both prominent republican and democrat world leaders who meet to discuss and implement world policies. Whistleblowers have confirmed that the Bilderberg attendees were responsible for the foundation of the European Union.
If these world leaders are following the blueprint Pike set forth, then those who practice Islam or the political and economic systems of communism and/or socialism are simply pawns being used for the complete fulfillment of the one world order prophesied in the Bible including the descriptive Book of Revelations, Chapter 13 which includes the following message,
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
One does not need to be a follower of Christ to see the oppression increasing throughout the world. Whether being orchestrated by the Illuminati or not, the times are definitely ‘a-changing” towards bigger government and less virtue.
Recently I watched the excellent and moving film “American Sniper” and was moved by a line which stated there are 3 types of people in the world – wolves, sheepdogs, and sheep. The world leaders meeting behind closed doors for secret meetings are most definitely the wolves, however unfortunately the majority population are sheep following these leaders into their own slaughterhouse.
If capitalism was the ‘evil’ system, Albert Pike would have drafted his plan to include empowering the free market system worldwide. Perhaps capitalism is not perfect, just like imperfect human beings, however like Ms. Rand declared, it is ‘less evil than communism’.
Despite history and statistics, some will always be blind to the truth, however eventually the TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS! Let’s pray for all liberty-loving Americans the truth will shine a light sooner than later so all people can be set free!
Chelene Nightingale 