The Betrayal of America: Who Do You Trust?

“Who do you trust?” is the foundational question in human relationships. Social relationships, family relationships, business relationships, romantic relationships, intimate friendships, professional relationships, political relationships – human relationships rely on trust. The existence of trust or the absence of trust defines human relatedness.

Parents tell their children when they are very young, “Whatever you do don’t lie to me.” Why? Because trust is the foundation of love.

Cheating is a catastrophic betrayal in adult love relationships. Why? Because successful relationships require trust.

So it is in politics. The existence of trust or the absence of trust defines human relatedness in both the private and public sectors.

Our representative government is founded on the principles of trust. We vote for candidates who we believe will keep their promises. Politics in the United States is currently experiencing seismic trust issues. Over the years it has become painfully obvious that politicians make deceitful promises on the campaign trail to get themselves elected. Then came Donald J. Trump, the political outsider who actually meant what he said when he promised to make America great again by putting America first. What happened?

President Trump has been stymied in his America first efforts since he took office by Democrats AND Republicans. Why? What would create a bilateral effort to stop a duly elected President from keeping his promises to strengthen America? If you want to know the motive look at the result.

President Trump’s America first policies are designed to benefit American workers, American families, legal American citizens, the American economy, the American military, and American businesses on Main Street. President Trump’s policies are unapologetically preferential and protective of American national interests. So, why would any American politician reject America first policies?

The motive for the stupefying, well-organized, multi-faceted, well-funded domestic and international campaign to destroy President Trump is GLOBALISM – a synonym for one world government. Globalists need a weakened America to impose supranational one world government. What?

Let me be clear. Globalism does not mean global trade. Global trade is the legitimate international commerce between sovereign countries. Globalism is the internationalized political infrastructure of the new world order under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations.

Globalists are the existential enemy of American sovereignty, independence, and they are desperately trying to destroy America first President Donald Trump and every one of his America first initiatives. Globalism is at war with Americanism.

In case anyone has any doubts about the existence of the plan for a new world order just take a look at the recent United Nations Plan for Global Migration. One world government is not a new idea – it is a plan that has been operational since after WWII – it is just reaching the tipping point now.

Globalist politicians are enemies of the state and serve their own agenda on both sides of the aisle. Their loyalties are to the global enterprise and not to the United States of America. Globalist politicians are betraying America with plenty of institutional help.

Most Americans assume the Federal Reserve System (Fed) is a government agency – it isn’t. The Fed is a private international banking cartel that serves its globalist interests. The Fed “monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”

The Fed deliberately maintained 7 years of zero interest rates during the Obama administration to artificially prop up Obama’s globalist policies. Now the Fed is deliberately raising interest rates to soar the national debt, destabilize the stock market, and destroy President Trump’s stunning domestic economic achievements. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, a Republican nominated by Obama to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in 2011, illustrates the point that globalists are bipartisan menaces to American national interests. I’d like to know who advised President Trump to nominate Powell as Chair.

More institutional help has been provided by globalist extraordinaire Robert Mueller. His entire investigation is a coordinated effort to delegitimize President Trump and protect Clinton and Obama – two of the most corrupt globalist puppets of all time. Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, McCabe, Comey, Strzok, Page, and every FBI and CIA operative who lied, destroyed evidence, and spied on the Trump campaign did so in the service of the globalist campaign to rid the United States of our only America first president in decades.

America first President Trump faces a staggering and well-orchestrated bipartisan multi-pronged globalist attack on Americanism and on his presidency. Schumer and Pelosi lead the charge on the Democrat side aided by McConnell, Ryan, and the legacy of the treacherous late John McCain on the Republican side. These greedy politicians put their financial self-interest above the national interests of the people who elected them.

Democrat and Republican globalists in government, the media, and education conspire to attack Americanism and reject the:

● national sovereignty of the United States
● national borders of the United States
● national culture and Judeo-Christian traditions of the United States
● national currency of the United States
● national language of the United States
● primacy of the United States Constitution and our secular national laws

Democrat and Republican globalists in government, the media, and education conspire to attack Americanism by:

● weakening the US economy
● weakening the US military
● indoctrinating students K-12 through university toward collectivism including socialism, communism, and globalism
● indoctrinating students K-12 through university toward political correctness
● indoctrinating students K-12 through university toward moral relativism
● indoctrinating students K-12 through university toward historical revisionism and American self-loathing

Globalists who own the giant news media companies, Internet behemoths, and entertainment companies conspire to advance their globalist agenda which requires the acceptance of global citizenship. They censor and curate information to propagandize and manipulate the public into accepting their self-serving anti-American objective of one world government.

Activist judges participate in the political attack through judicial overreach that attempts to usurp the power of the presidency. Chief Justice Roberts was right when he said there are no Obama judges, Clinton judges, or Trump judges – but there are judges in America who honor the Constitution, and there are globalist judges who have betrayed their judicial oaths who don’t. The United States Constitution is the premier America first document – it protects the national interest and rejects globalism which is why globalist politicians and activist judges disregard it.

So, why would any American knowingly vote for a a globalist politician? They wouldn’t if they understood that globalism’s one world government is a sinister power grab by the greedy political elite who will rob the people of their independence and liberty. There is no power to the people in socialism, communism, and globalism. Collectivist systems centralize the government and award absolute power to the state and its ruling elite.

Globalists shamelessly lie, cheat, and steal to promote their own self-interest at the expense of the American public. Ask yourself how the political elites in Washington turned their government salaries into multi-million dollar portfolios. They betrayed their constituents by faithlessly ignoring their sworn oaths of office.

It is time for the American voting public to acknowledge this monstrous betrayal and completely reject globalism and its untrustworthy facilitators. The power of the people is a benefit of Americanism’s freedom, independence, and decentralized government. It is time for Americans to proudly embrace Americanism again.

Globalism’s war against America has reached a tipping point. President Trump has exposed the bipartisan treachery and deceit of career politicians in our government who have betrayed the American people and sacrificed the public interest for their own self-interest. Draining the swamp and building the wall are not forgotten campaign promises. They are President Trump’s powerful America first strategies that will defeat Globalism and make America great again.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity. The featured photo is by Bernard Hermant on Unsplash.

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

Despite claims that Antifa fights fascism, the group’s tactics actually mirror those of Benito Mussolini’s regime.


On March 23, 1919, Benito Mussolini, an Italian veteran of the Great War and a publisher of socialist newspapers, created the Fasci di Combattimento (commonly known as the Fascist Party) with the help of a few syndicalist friends.

Nearly one hundred years later, the word fascism remains at the forefront of our political discourse even though fascism is all but dead as a political force, and the word has lost much of its meaning (if not its power).

So why are we still talking about fascists?

On November 8, the late-night TV host Stephen Colbert took to Twitter to condemn a mob that had attacked the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

“Fighting Tucker Carlson’s ideas is an American right,” Colbert wrote. “Targeting his home and terrorizing his family is an act of monstrous cowardice. Obviously, don’t do this, but also, take no pleasure in it happening. Feeding monsters just makes more monsters.”

The attackers consisted of a group who called themselves Antifa. Few Americans had heard the word “Antifa” prior to 2016. But that’s no longer the case.

In addition to the attack on Carlson’s home, numerous high-profile incidents involving Antifa—the “Battle of Berkeley,” the tragedy in Charlottesville, and a series of street battles in Portland—have thrust the loosely organized political group into the national spotlight. (It’s difficult to miss gangs of black-clad individuals who wear masks, tote weapons, and pick fights with political opponents.)

Antifa, if you have not already guessed, is short for anti-fascism. Conduct a Google search, and you’ll see Antifa oppose fascist ideologies, people, and groups.

This is part of the brilliance of Antifa. Unlike most fringe political groups, Antifa is not named for something. Their name expresses opposition to an ideology, one that is at once vile and nebulous.

More than seven decades ago, the British writer George Orwell observed that the term fascism had lost any coherent meaning.

“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable,’” Orwell wrote in his essay “Politics and the English Language.”

Because of the ambiguous nature of the word, Antifa and other alt-left groups have been able to brand thinkers as diverse as Charles MurrayChristina Hoff SommersJordan B. Peterson, and Ben Shapiro as “fascist.”

Moreover, by branding themselves as “antifascist,” Antifa inoculate themselves from the criticism that usually is directed toward extremist groups.

Colbert’s condemnation of Antifa’s attack on Tucker Carlson’s home notwithstanding, there has been a cultural reluctance to condemn Antifa’s political violence and tactics.

In 2017, following the tragic events in Charlottesville, which involved a showdown between white supremacists and Antifa members, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said it was wrong to equate fascists and anti-fascists.

“No, not the same,” Romney tweeted. “One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.”

Romney expressed a common belief, but Antifa is hardly the polar opposite of fascism. An examination of Antifa and the fascists of the 1920s and 1930s reveals striking similarities.

Many historians and political writers describe fascism as a right-wing movement, and the claim has an element of truth to it. When Mussolini and his syndicalist friends created the Fasci di Combattimento, it’s true they embraced Italian nationalism. Yet the party also called for the seizure of church lands, the confiscation of finance capital, and the abolition of the Italian monarchy and Senate.

In fact, Mussolini was an ardent Marxist for years. The son of a socialist-anarchist craftsman, he was well-versed in the works of Karl Marx, whom he praised as “a magnificent philosopher of working-class violence.” The extent to which Mussolini’s fascists simply copied their socialist predecessors has often been overlooked.

In his magnum opus Modern Times, the historian Paul Johnson explains that Mussolini was highly influenced by Kurt Eisner, who was cited several times in Mussolini’s fascist programme. Eisner’s “Bavarian fighting squads,” which inspired Mussolini’s Fasci di Combattimento, were themselves inspired by Lenin’s “men in black leather jerkins,” Johnson points out. Mussolini’s use of the term “vanguard minorities” to describe the shock troops of his revolution was almost certainly inspired by Lenin’s “vanguard fighters” (a term Lenin first used in 1903).

Communists and fascists of the 1920s and 1930s were unified by one thing above all else: their willingness to use political violence to achieve political goals. Mussolini, like Lenin, had no qualms about using violence in his effort to “make history, not endure it” (a Marx quote Mussolini was fond of employing).

The use of violence to attain political goals is a stance Antifa similarly embraces.

Antifa openly advocates and employs violence and intimidation. Like Mussolini’s “vanguard minorities,” they dress in black garb (though Antifa members often also cover their faces) and use intimidation and violence to prevent political opponents from assembling. These tactics include launching feces at law enforcement and using bricks, bats, chains, and knives in their street wars.

The methods are ostensibly reserved for fascists, yet so many have shown a willingness to overlook the fact that Antifa is employing fascist tactics. Antifa is given a pass because labeling the other side as “fascist” automatically makes them “good,” for they are the ones fighting against fascism. It’s a brilliant rhetorical trick. As Chris Cuomo said in defense of Antifa on a carefully-worded CNN segment in August, “fighting against hate matters.”

In a moral universe where the ends justify the means, using fascist tactics to fight fascists (or people deemed fascists) is entirely proper. The dangers of embracing the philosophy of violence, however, are severe. For as Solzhenitsyn observed, the first casualty of violence is the truth.

“Violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood,” the Russian writer observed prior to his exile from the Soviet Union. “Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle.”

Solzhenitsyn’s point is one Antifa should seriously consider. If they do not, and they persist in their defense and employment of violence as a means to their political ends, Antifa will continue to be “interwoven with falsehood.” Their grandiose aims will prove as empty and sterile as those of the Jacobins and Bolsheviks who preceded them.

In our next piece on the rise of Antifa, we will explore the root of their philosophy and examine precisely why they think it’s justifiable to use fascist techniques in the name of fighting fascism.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. Serving previously as Director of Digital Media at Intellectual Takeout, Jon was responsible for daily editorial content, web strategy, and social media operations. Before that, he was the Senior Editor of The History Channel Magazine, Managing Editor at Scout.com, and general assignment reporter for the Panama City News Herald. Jon also served as an intern in the speechwriting department under George W. Bush.

Tyler Brandt

Tyler Brandt

Tyler Brandt is a Content Associate at FEE. He is a graduate of UW-Madison with a B.A. in Political Science. In college, Tyler was a FEE Campus Ambassador, President of his campus YAL chapter, and Research Intern at the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column from FEE with images is republished with permission.

Remembering Our WWII Parents at Christmas Time

The parents of us baby-boomers truly are a great generation. They grew up early, taking on adult responsibilities. Our parents did whatever needed to be done rather than whatever they wanted to do. They won World War II.

One of the great things my black American parents gave me was options which permitted me to select what I wanted to be when I grew up. My parents supported my desire to become a professional artist. Receiving numerous scholarships, I attended the Maryland Institute College of Art and landed a job as a graphic designer at WJZ-TV ABC affiliate television station in Baltimore.

In sharp contrast with mine, Mom’s childhood was horrific. When she was a little girl, her father was accidentally killed and her mother became an alcoholic. Many times Mom and her sister were left alone to raise and fend for themselves. Mom was bright and talented. She told me about the time she was beautifully dressed to apply for a job as a sales clerk at downtown Baltimore’s Hochschild Kohn’s and Hecht’s department stores. Mom said she was offered a job in the kitchen. Mom said it was because of her dark complexion. Though she did not say it. I could tell it hurt Mom deeply.

Never experiencing the racism Mom endured, I thought she had an irrational fear of white people. My sister excitedly wanted to show Mom the new home she purchased in an integrated development. When Mom realized the house was in a cul de sac, she panicked and demanded to be taken home. Mom feared if my sister’s white neighbors attacked, there was only one way out. Mom felt extremely uncomfortable going to integrated restaurants and theaters.

Dad was quite the opposite. Whenever a door opened for blacks, Dad ran through it. I was a little kid when the “Town” movie theater in Baltimore opened to blacks. Dad took me there to see the “Ten Commandments” with Charlton Heston.

Dad worked as a laborer until the door opened for blacks to take the civil service test to become Baltimore City firefighters. Despite outrageously racist working conditions, Dad thrived in the fire department winning “Firefighter of the Year” two times. At 29 years old, Dad was fathering his four kids and served as a surrogate father to my envious five boy cousins born out-of-wedlock. That’s a lot of responsibility for such a young man. I don’t think Dad was particularly unique. Americans seemed to mature earlier back then.

My wife Mary’s white parents were also hardworking, responsible and resourceful at young ages. Their family was two parents and four children. And yet, Mary remembers washing dishes for 11 people. Her parents took in family and friends who were in a financial jam. Mary’s amazing mom always made it work; extending the food and making everyone comfortable. Mary’s mom said everyone lived with them as many as 17 people. This was the character of the World War II generation.

Mary and I marvel over the fact that though our parents were not rich, neither of us ever felt deprived at Christmas. How on earth did they pull that off? We both have cherished Christmas memories.

Compared to our parents, we baby-boomers have had it pretty easy. We are the me, me, me – all about me generation. Not having to be concerned with survival issues like our parents, baby-boomers were free to be self-focused, rebelling against traditional morals, principles and values. This birthed the counterculture hippie movement.

Gifted with scholarships, in the late 1960s, I was among a handful of black students at the Maryland Institute College of Art. Most of my fellow students were white from well-to-do families. The rich white students ranted about the awfulness of America while expressing disdain for their traditional minded wealthy parents. These spoiled brats eventually took over public education and continue poisoning our youths against our country today.

Black Panther activists came to the Maryland Institute to rally us black students. Wearing black leather jackets and berets, the Panthers angrily demanded to meet with the college administrators to discuss our demands. The administrators complied.

I was clueless as to what I was suppose to be angry about. I was there on scholarships awarded to me by white men; a senator, a governor and Baltimore Mayor William Donald Schaefer. All my professors/instructors were excellent and supportive. Because Maryland Institute attracted talented art students from around the world, I was competing on a high level. Life was good. And yet, I joined my fellow black students in viewing the college’s administrators as enemies because I thought it was the black thing to do.

I see the same irrational and erroneous thinking in young blacks today; embracing the false rhetoric of the openly hate-group Black Lives Matter. Mega-millionaire American black actors and athletes who are living extraordinary lives are running around spewing hatred for America, claiming it is a hellhole of racism and social injustice against blacks. I scratch my head hearing millennial blacks in my family rant about America’s rabid racism. Folks, these young blacks have not experienced an ounce of real racism in their lives. Anti-America leftists have taught them that hating America is the black thing to do.

Old counterculture baby-boomers, black and white, have dominated public education for decades. Consequently, our kids see racism, social injustice and the awfulness of America everywhere.

The dirty little secret is even when liberals (old hippies) rant about America’s cruelty to the poor, illegals, women, blacks, gays and so on, it is still really all about them – making themselves feel good and superior. Whenever conservatives offer real commonsense solutions to the so-called wrongs liberals claim to want to fix, liberals always reject their ideas.

World War II generation blacks and whites marched, suffered and died for blacks to be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Sadly, younger Americans believe hiring to achieve racial and gender balance is more important than character and qualifications.

My white baby-boomer friend Peggy told me a great Christmas story from her childhood. Every Christmas her father took their family to dinner at their favorite restaurant. On one occasion, a black couple was seated in the corner. After seating Peggy’s family and returning with drinks, the waitress began taking their food order. Peggy’s dad noticed that the black couple was there before them and had not been served. The waitress said she seated them but had no intention to serve them. She and management hoped the couple would leave. Peggy’s dad expressed his disapproval, removed his family and they never went back. Peggy said that incident impacted her greatly. It taught her to respect all people.

Peggy’s dad is gone. My wife Mary’s dad is gone. My mom and dad are gone. Our parents were members of the great World War II generation – a time when manliness was considered a good thing and women realized the power of their femininity.

My grown up Christmas wish is for more young Americans to realize the greatness of their World War II grandparents and great grandparents – embracing traditional principles and values which bring stability. I am seeing signs of my wish coming true. Traditional marriage is making a comeback among millennials

Have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Blessed New Year!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Vitor Pinto on Unsplash.

TRUMP’S BATTLE FOR A BORDER WALL: National security, public safety, and Americans’ jobs are “on the line.”

The immigration debate has been raging for years.  Advocates for open borders can be found on both sides of the political aisle and in a wide variety of special interest groups who have come to see the immigration system that delivers an unlimited supply of cheap and exploitable labor, an unlimited supply of foreign tourists, and unlimited supply of foreign students and, for the lawyers, an unlimited supply of clients.

That was the premise for my article, “Sanctuary Country – Immigration failures by design.”

Now the debate about the construction of a border wall is coming to a head.

A line has been drawn, and not in the sand, but along the highly porous and dangerous U.S./Mexican border that permits huge numbers of illegal aliens to enter the United States without inspection and permits huge quantities of narcotics and other contraband to be smuggled into the United States as well.

President Trump is arguably the first U.S. President in many decades who truly understands that border security equals national security.   He also understands that flooding America with exploitable foreign workers from Third World countries is not compassionate for those foreign workers and certainly not for the American workers that they displace.

President Trump is determined to build that wall but incredibly, the Democrats are adamantly opposed to the construction of a border wall.

As I noted in my recent article “Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Of The House – The Sequel (Worse Than The Original),” Pelosi and her Democratic Party colleagues have incredibly declared that a border wall would be as Fox News reported Pelosi’s assertions, “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

Pelosi and company have created the false illusion that the border wall would seal off the United States from Mexico when, in point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth.  The  border wall would not block access to U.S. ports of entry along that border but simply funnel all traffic to those ports of entry so that the aliens can be inspected and vetted and records of their entry into the United States can be created.  Similarly all cargo would be subject to inspection to keep drugs and other contraband out of the United States.

How could any rational person not want to act to combat the flow of those drugs into the United States?

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employs approximately 60,000 employees that include the U.S. Border Patrol, the CBP Inspectors at ports of entry and support staff.  The annual budget for CBP is nearly $14 billion.  It makes absolutely not sense for the United States to not secure the U.S./Mexican border against the un-inspected entry of aliens into the United States and against the smuggling of tons of heroin, cocaine, meth, fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into the United States that cost tens of thousands of innocent people their lives in the United States from drug overdoses.  The drugs also provide a huge revenue stream for the drug cartels and, as I noted in previous articles for Hezbollah, the client terrorist organization of Iran.

Drug are also a major factor where transnational gangs operating in the United States are concerned, leading to more violence and more senseless deaths, most often of children living in ethnic immigrant communities across the United States.

Of course the wall that President Trump is determined to construct would not, by itself, end illegal immigration or stop all illegal drugs from flowing into the United States, but would represent a major element of what needs to be a coordinated system that plugs all of the holes in the “Immigration Colander.”

Finally, as I have written in previous articles, the wall would pay for itself.  Illegal aliens provide cheap and exploitable labor for greedy and immoral employers but, as the saying goes, “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”

The cost of educating illegal alien children who are cannot speak, read or write English has been estimated to be 20% to 40% more than for educating children who are English language proficient.

Illegal aliens often use emergency rooms as their primary healthcare provider, creating long lines of those patients who, although they cannot pay for their treatment cannot be turned away.

Illegal aliens send as much of their illegal earnings back to their families in their home countries.  For Mexico the remittances sent by their citizens working illegally in the United States amounts to more than $25 billion annually.  Furthermore, not all money is sent via quantifiable wire transfers.  Money is also smuggled out of the United States to the countries of origin of the millions of illegal aliens who have taken jobs that should be taken by U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants

That money is lost to the U.S. economy and “multiplier effect” exacerbates this loss of money that would otherwise circulate through the U.S. economy if that money was earned by Americans who would spend and invest that money in the United States.

Flooding the United States with Third World workers suppresses wages and working conditions of America’s working poor and, as a consequence, has contributed to increasing homelessness among America’s poor.

If only a fraction of all of these negative results of illegal immigration was prevented, the wall would pay for itself in short order and, as a consequence, enhance national security, public safety and, public health by preventing the entry of un-inspected aliens.

However, many well-intentioned Americans have fallen for the bogus mythology created by the immigration anarchists who advocate for open borders and ineffectual enforcement of the immigration laws from the interior of the United States by promoting the absurd notion that advocates for border security to prevent the illegal and un-inspected entry of aliens into the United States is a bigot and a xenophobe.

In reality the immigration laws of the United States make absolutely no distinction about the race, religion or ethnicity of aliens but rather objectively and dispassionately seek to prevent the entry and continued presence of aliens in the United States when those aliens pose a threat to public health, public safety, national security and the jobs of Americans.

Given the perilous era in which we live, it is unthinkable that anyone would be willing to board an airliner if some of the passengers on that airliner were observed sneaking past the TSA screeners, yet today we live in cities where we live with huge numbers of illegal aliens who have entered the United States surreptitiously by evading the inspections process conducted at ports of entry.

Worse yet, consider how many “sanctuary cities” and even “sanctuary states” have been created across the United States, while “leaders” of the Democratic Party openly call for dismantling ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) altogether.

The immigration anarchists have become proficient at conning huge numbers of Americans into accepting near-anarchy where immigration law enforcement is concerned.

Prior to the Second World War, the enforcement and administration of our nation’s immigration laws was primarily the responsibility of the Department of Labor.  The goal was to make certain that American workers would be shielded from unfair foreign competition for jobs.  Remember at that time the United States was struggling to emerge from the “Great Depression.”

Authority for the enforcement and administration of the immigration laws was shifted to the Department of Justice at the beginning of the Second World War when it became readily apparent that enemy spies and saboteurs were attempting to enter the United States, posing a serious threat to national security.

Ironically, after the terror attacks of 9/11 the responsibility for the enforcement and administration of those very same laws was shifted to the newly created Department of Homeland Security but in a way that undermined that very mission.  This was an issue I wrote about in my article,  Caravan Of ‘Migrants’ – A Crisis Decades In The Making.  When the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created, in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, the administration of President George W. Bush apparently failed to follow the Homeland Security Act (HSA), the enabling legislation that created DHS resulting in what Congressman John Hostettler, the Republican Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims referred to as “Immigration incoherence” during a hearing on the topic, New ”Dual Missions” Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.

Here are two excerpts from his statement at that hearing:

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

[ … ]

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the U.S. with-out weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting, and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

It is time for our “leaders” to put America and Americans ahead of their greed-driven political agendas and take Chairman Hostettler’s lament and observations to heart.

RELATED ARTICLE: WATCH: Stephen Miller Absolutely Savages Wolf Blitzer Over Immigration

RELATED VIDEO: Brian Kolfage of We The People Will Fund The Wall Interview With Laura Ingraham

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. Border wall photo © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0

MOVIE REVIEW: Film ‘The Favorite’ could have been titled ‘My Favorite Lesbian’

I love movies. I love historical movies. Therefore, I went to see the movie “The Favorite” about Anne, the former Queen of England and Scotland.

Artist, historian, entertainer George S. Stuart wrote this about Queen Anne:

Last of her line and very uncomfortable.

Anne became Queen of England in 1702. Three years later she became the first sovereign of the Kingdom of Great Britain with the political union of England and Scotland. Anne’s reign was marked by the development of the two-party system. Anne personally preferred the Tory Party, but endured the Whigs. She was the last monarch to use the royal veto. Anne suffered from severe arthritis and heart trouble doubtlessly caused by her many miscarriages. Anne was childless and the last Stuart monarch. She was succeeded by a German second-cousin, George of the House of Hanover.

The film “The Favorite” may have been loosely based upon the book Queen Anne: The Politics of Passion by Anne Somerset. The movie portrayed Queen Anne as a sickly (historically accurate), obese (historically accurate) incompetent (not historically accurate) and immoral (historically accurate) woman.

From Hollywood’s perspective her only social redeeming value at the box office is that Queen Anne was a lesbian.

I didn’t think Hollywood could go any morally lower, but it has. However, there is a bright side. It shows how women, and lesbians in particular, are untrustworthy, plotters, devious, liars, seekers of power and just plain evil.

According to the author of Queen Anne: The Politics of Passion,

Against a fraught background—the revolution that deposed Anne’s father, James II, and brought her to power . . . religious differences (she was born Protestant—her parents’ conversion to Catholicism had grave implications—and she grew up so suspicious of the Roman church that she considered its doctrines “wicked and dangerous”) . . .

[ … ]

tells the extraordinary story of how Sarah [Churchill] goaded and provoked the Queen beyond endurance, and, after the withdrawal of Anne’s favor, how her replacement, Sarah’s cousin, the feline Abigail Masham, became the ubiquitous royal confidante and, so Sarah whispered to growing scandal, the object of the Queen’s sexual infatuation.

The film focused exclusively on three bi-sexual lesbian characters: Queen Anne, Sarah Churchill, wife of John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough, and “the feline” Abigail Masham.

If you want to understand how vicious lesbians can be then go see this movie. This movie is the poster child for the lesbian #MeToo movement. The lesbian Sarah is deposed by the bi-sexual Abigail. The lesbian Queen Anne uses both women for her “wicked and dangerous” promiscuous sexual pleasure.

In the end both Sarah and Abigail lose. Sarah and her husband Duke of Marlborough are banned from England by Queen Anne. Abigail, after poisoning literally and figuratively Sarah, becomes Queen Anne’s confidant and lesbian sex slave. The winner, if you can call her one, is Queen Anne.

The debauchery in this film is stunning. The sins of the flesh can have real consequences including war, poverty, taxation without representation and in the end three lost souls.

I now understand why our Founding Fathers started the American Revolution. The British monarchy was, and remains today, politically and morally corrupt. Perhaps Henry VIII shouldn’t have left the Catholic Church so he could divorce his wife and marry his lover?

RELATED MOVIE REVIEW: Is MARY POPPINS RETURNS Safe for Families?

RELATED VIDEO: Queen Anne: Excerpt from the historical monologue “400 Years of English History” presented by artist/historian George S. Stuart as part of an exhibit of his Historical Figures at the Ventura County Museum of Art and History in Ventura California.

EDITORS NOTE: The modified featured photo is by Shirly Niv Marton on Unsplash.

Is Michael Savage the Latest Victim of TDS and the Left’s “Pacification Effort”?

There’s a rather odd story that, as with everything concerning the man at its center, hasn’t gotten much media attention. Or, at least, it would be odd if we didn’t live in a time of fascistic corporate activism. Michael Savage, the radio rebel and raconteur dubbed “the Godfather of Trumpmania,” is poised to “go dark” at New York’s powerhouse WABC and a few other big-city radio stations — despite earning them millions of dollars.

That’s according to the Washington Times, which conducted an interview with Savage’s attorney, Daniel Horowitz. The radio giant himself read part of the Times piece on air yesterday, clearly disturbed by this apparent “deplatforming” effort. You should be, too, because it’s part of a cultural revolution. Deep-pocketed Deep Business is now simpatico with the Deep State and, along with deep academia, media and entertainment is pursuing a pacification effort — and you, I and all opposing the establishment are in the crosshairs.

WABC isn’t saying Savage is soon being dropped. In fact, writes the Times’ Cheryl K. Chumley, “a recent news release from the station indicates Savage will be moving into a new, fresher format designed to take advantage of emerging media, one that will see him do one hour of radio alongside one hour of podcast.”

But behind-the-scenes murmurings tell a different tale. Horowitz says that “emails back and forth” between Savage and radio bigwigs indicate the host is set to “go dark” Jan. 7.

Moreover, it’s “not just on WABC: Horowitz said media powerhouses in Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C., are all giving the boot to Savage, as well,” Chumley also informs.

Troubling here is that the issue isn’t ratings. As Chumley tells us, a 2016 Newsmax piece related Savage’s West Coast dominance, calling him a “Tour-de-Force on Bay Area’s KSFO.”

Additionally, in “late 2017, Talk Stream Live listed Savage, with 14.8 million listeners, as the second most-listened to top talk radio voice in the nation, behind only Rush Limbaugh’s 16.5 million listeners — but far ahead of third place Laura Ingraham’s 6.8 million,” Chumley further writes.

Moreover, she continues, “In 2016, Savage made the National Radio Hall of Fame in the category of Spoken Word On-Air Personality, based on the votes of the listening American public.”

Even more strikingly, the February Newsmax articleSavage Rules New York Talk Radio” stated that since April 2016, “with the key demographic of Adults 25-54,” “‘The Savage Nation’ has consistently ranked as the #1 program on WABC….” Yet WABC now, apparently, wants its number-one show gone. Good business?

It’s Deep Business. Savage’s syndicator, Westwood One, did state in September that pundit Ben Shapiro will go national as Savage cuts back to one hour. But Chumley suggests that new-blood nattering doesn’t explain the dumping of one’s star performer.

“More likely,” she writes, “it’s this: Political distaste for Savage’s fiercely independent streak.”

As Chumley relates, “‘The only reason I can see,’ Savage said in a telephone interview, ‘is because of politics. … It makes no sense. I have a loyal, large audience. Why not at least do reruns at night?’”

Unfortunately, it makes perfect sense. First, Savage has been called “the Godfather of Trumpmania” because he supported Trump early on; had him on his show; influenced the president’s platform with his “borders, language, culture” credo; and even wrote a book titled Trump’s War: His Battle for America. In fact, Trump bluntly said last year, putting his arm around Savage, “I wouldn’t be president without this man.”

So given how the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) Left — and establishment right — want to destroy the president and all supporting him (hey, they’re “deplorables”), imagine their feelings toward the man credited as instrumental in creating his presidency.

Yet there’s something far, far more ominous here. I warned in 2012 that what everyone was still calling the “culture war” was no such thing — that war was well over.

What we were, and are now, experiencing is a pacification effort.

No one was listening.

This isn’t about Trump or Savage. It’s about a cultural revolution that will, barring something that upsets the apple cart, consume each and every American who won’t bend to the Left’s demonic will.

The Left long ago largely purged academia, with conservative, thought-criminal academics being denied tenure or forced to resign; entertainment, with conservative actors blacklisted; and media, with conservatives either never hired or being ousted.

Now big business has joined the phalanx. Big Tech has been “cleansing” dissident voices via deplatforming (Alex Jones) and methods such as Twitter’s shadowbanning, Facebook’s censorship, and Google’s blacklists and burying of conservative search results. Companies also eliminate ideologically non-conforming employees (e.g., Mozilla’s Brendan Eich, Google’s James Damore).

So the Left’s new Red Guards are moving from one sector of society to another, stamping out visible dissent’s last vestiges. They didn’t figure on having to do this in the government’s Executive Branch, but then Trump won in 2016. Make no mistake, though: Trump is just the anti-establishment dissenter who captured the White House. Similar treatment would have befallen Pat Buchanan, Savage (who once briefly considered a presidential run) or any other “disobedient” citizen who could have, against all odds, climbed that mountain.

And the cultural revolution continues apace. Statues come down, longstanding religious symbols and celebrations are purged, history is revised, Western heroes are demonized, sexual morality is undermined, nation-rending migration is encouraged and even classic old songs are condemned. No stone will be left unturned, either, ‘cause, baby, it’s dangerous outside.

From the French revolutionaries to the Stalinists to the Maoists to the Khmer Rouge, the Left has never brooked dissent — it’s the only tradition it perpetuates. Savage is the anti-establishment guy who made it big in radio, but none are safe. The demonic Left won’t even tolerate a lowly Christian baker unwilling to violate his conscience through his profession, and it won’t tolerate you. It’s our time’s pacification effort, courtesy of the Ideology of Peace.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Kristina Flour on Unsplash.

The LGBTQ Hart Attack is a Good Thing

I am not suggesting that we should experience schadenfreude (feel pleasure from witnessing someone’s troubles, failures or humiliation). However, LGBTQ enforcers viciously seeking to destroy the career of comedian/actor Kevin Hart for tweets he made 9 years ago is encouraging. Finally, even leftists are beginning to see the take-no-prisoners intolerance and bullying LGBTQ enforcers have been applying to everyone who does not celebrate their lifestyle.

Many of us have been sounding the alarm for years that LGBTQ enforcers are relentlessly targeting Christian businesses for destruction; solely for the purpose of forcing Christians to betray their God by bending a knee in worship of leftists’ god of debauchery.

German pastor Martin Niemofller was imprisoned in Dachau concentration camp from 1941-1945. In his famous poem, Niemofller laments that when they came for the Communists, Socialists, Trade Unionists and Jews he did not speak out because he was none of these. Niemofller wrote, “And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

Not only did leftists not speak out against LGBTQ bullying, they cheered when LGBTQ bullies came for Sweet Cakes by Melissa. The Christian bakery happily served their lesbian customer for several years. When she asked them to bake a cake for her lesbian wedding, the owners said to do so would betray their faith. The husband and wife bakery owners with five kids were driven out of business. 

Well now, LGBTQ enforcers have come for Kevin Hart who many leftists consider one of their own.

Leftist Snoop Dogg who shot president Trump in the head in his music video passionately expressed his support for Hart. Several leftist celebs are expressing their support for Hart. As I stated, the good news for America in the Hart attacks is leftists are waking up and smelling the tyranny coming from their side of the political aisle by LGBTQ enforcers.

“The Devil’s greatest achievement is convincing people that he does not exist.” LGBTQ enforcers’ greatest achievement and deception is convincing people they are the victims and we, mainstream Americans, are the aggressors.

Kevin Hart was scheduled to host the Oscars. In a video, Hart said, “I swear man, our world is becoming beyond crazy. My team calls me, Oh my God Kevin. The world is upset about tweets you did years ago. Oh my God.” LGBTQ enforcers deemed Hart’s nine-year-old tweets anti-homosexual.

Hart received a call from the Academy telling him to apologize again for his old tweets or be replaced as host of the Oscars. Hart said he has repeatedly addressed the issue and acknowledged the rights and wrongs. Hart said he has evolved since making the tweets years ago. Hart said to apologize again for something so far in the past would be a step backwards rather than moving forward. Therefore, he chose to pass on hosting the Oscars

The American left’s response was mixed. Many rallied behind Hart. Others were furious over Hart refusing to apologize, calling him defiant. Leftist Kathy Griffin disturbed millions with her photo in which she held a bloody severed head of president Trump. In response to Hart refusing to apologize again, Griffin said, “F*** him”. 

Hart did not realize that LGBTQ enforcers have zero-tolerance for anyone who does not fully embrace the lifestyle. Anyone who dares to dis the LGBTQ lifestyle in the slightest must fall on their face and beg forgiveness or suffer complete personal destruction.

Many Americans believe the LGBTQ community is 23% or more of the population. The truth is, they are 3.4 percent

Witnessing LGBTQ enforcers’ relentless media assault on Hart and their efforts to destroy him, I could not help thinking, “Welcome to our world, Mr Hart.” This is the tyrannical assault on free speech Americans face everyday by the LGBTQ thought police. Again, I take no pleasure in seeing Mr Hart suffer.

It was stunning to hear even extreme leftist Joy Behar and leftist women on The View say the attack on Hart puts all comedians at risk. Numerous other high-profile leftist voices are speaking out in agreement.

Folks, LGBTQ enforcers attacking Hart is a real eye-opener for many Americans – a small victory in the war between totalitarian political correctness and constitutional free speech.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Kevin Hart’s Facebook page.

It’s Next Tuesday already: Automatic Hate Speech Disabler

Glorious news from our labs here at the State Science Institute. This is not a project I’ve been personally involved in — I specialize in warming my globes in front of an open fireplace — but our Comrades two buildings over from me deserve credit for this important work:

Two Brains Are Better Than One: AI and Humans Work to Fight Hate

An Artificial Intelligence tool being developed by our Top Scientists in conjunction with the Anti-Capitalism Defamation League called the “Online Hate Index” will allow our Comrades at Twitter, Facebook, Google and others to prevent any “Hate Speech*” from ever appearing on Social Media, thereby keeping the thoughts of The People pure.

This important Tool is already keeping The People from hearing nary a discouraging word about Socialism.

* Defined as: “any thought, idea, criticism, naysaying or other hooliganism that casts doubt on Socialism or any of the Dear Leaders who are fighting the Great Evil of Capitalism.” Anything from “there are only two genders” to “Make America Great Again” qualifies.

Red Square notes:

The answer is best expressed through the following musical composition from our bottomless archives…

All they got is hate, All they got is hate,
All they got is hate, hate. Hate is all they bleed
All they got is hate. (All together now).
All they got is hate. (Everybody).
All they got is hate, hate. Hate is all they bleed
Hate is all they bleed
Hate is all they bleed
(Oh yeah)
(They hate him, yeah, yeah, yeah)
(They hate him, yeah, yeah, yeah)

And lest we forget this:

Love and Hate: Instructional Video

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire with images by Mikhail Lysenkomann originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Misogyny on 34th Street

I can still remember the many happy occasions I spent shopping at Macy’s on 34th, as a child, my pockets filled with hot chestnuts; later, as a new fashion designer fresh out of the Fashion Institute of Technology, either killing time between job interviews or checking out the new styles;  and then as a newlywed, shopping for our first apartment.

It is very difficult to fathom how this company, that produces the world-renowned Macy’s Parade; the magnificent Christmas windows, with incomparable set designs and moving figures that mesmerized crowds of eager spectators, would one day turn on its customers – when Macy’s owners, its board of directors and staff would consent to introduce a line of oppressive clothing to their female clientele.  Known as the veil or hijab and forcibly imposed in tyrannical, misogynistic Islamic regimes, these alone were selected by Macy’s from the world’s many kinds of fashion.

Macy’s headquarters have fallen for the leftist line, that it is prudent to strive for multiculturalism in a country that has long been a thriving melting pot that elicited the envy of the world.  America’s past success has clearly been due to the immigrants’ fervor to live and let live, whereas Islam, by stark contrast, is mandated in their Koran to dominate and subdue all other cultures by any means necessary.  Multiculturalism is repulsive to Islam.

In addition to the denigration of Western religions, the re-writing of our history, the destruction of our statuary, and the attack on gender identity, the public is now being conditioned to accept the appearance of these oppressed, shrouded forms on city streets.

Introducing  Islamic styles to the American public is yet another way of attacking America’s culture and femininity, as the full niqab, burqa and abaya are a means of dehumanizing women, enforcing the devalued female to cede control to the male in the Islamic shame-honor society, and denying her any societal interactions.  The garment serves as an isolation chamber, causing sensory deprivation problems and disrupting bonding with her infant, even if she removes the shroud at home.  There is also a high physical price to pay, for the wearer is deprived of absorbing Vitamin D in northern climes, thereby causing pelvic fractures during childbirth, and triggering iron deficiencies and hypocalcaemic seizures in the child.

The cost of naively introducing these sheathes into American society will eventually destroy the thriving fashion industry as we know it, eliminate the entertainment industry, and affect all other related businesses, in creativity and in employment, until our country is transformed into another backward Islamic country.   Conquest is achieved, not only through war, but also through stealth, slowly, through government, business, schools, and now the shopping sector.  But there will be blood on the hands of those who acquiesce – their own and the blood of their loved ones.

Could it be that Macy’s was visited by CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations) and made compliant, or that they never considered that “multi” would mean the influx of many whose intent it is to destroy the host culture, or that the concept of jihad may apply to race and religion, but never to culture?  Was Macy’s coerced into accepting “diversity and inclusivity” to accommodate an oppressive ideology that itself rejects both diversity and inclusivity?  How long before the Macy’s parade, begun in 1924, with its colorful, imaginative merriment, costumes, music, and introduction to a heartwarming holiday season, will be considered an offense to Islam and halted?

We must learn from history, particularly from the history that is playing out now in real time, in much of Europe, that once a substantial number of Muslim women begins to wear these coverings, those who do not accept the veil become fair game, the quarry, for the terrorist, including kidnapping for sexual slavery, and mass rape on the streets (taharrush), an horrific assault when as many as 20 men will rape one young victim repeatedly.  Sweden’s acceptance of multiculturalism has led to the title, Rape Capital of Europe.

Rape is the method by which Islamic terrorists, jihadi, force the women to discard western clothing for the “safety” provided by the confining veils, and the native men to acquiesce politically.  Rape is also indirectly abetted by our socialist school system’s introduction of techniques that are emasculating our boys, diminishing their importance in studies and for courtship, and eliminating man’s instinctive protectiveness toward family and property.

As with academia, Macy’s personnel have elected to speak of diversity and inclusivity out of a mistaken sense of morality, while choosing to endanger their own fellow-Americans, themselves, their families.  The seventh century ideology of Islam is patient and persistent, and this misplaced tolerance will be a stepping stone to further surrender, one store at a time, one city at a time.  Is this how the company functions, without thought to consequences of its decisions?

While the West speaks inanely of reforming Islam, the clerics emphatically insist that it was perfect from its inception and can never be changed.  In light of this, consider that Islamic intolerance has resulted in 690+ million people killed worldwide over 1400 years (600 million Hindus), that the  centuries-long Islamic invasions into India left mountains of skulls.  Most virulent of all is the undying hatred and persecution of Jews long before Israel’s statehood in 1948, and the constant barrage of rockets and fire bombs into Israel since that date.

The wanton destruction and sexual crimes in Sweden, Berlin and Paris are a mere prelude to total control, and once Islam has been established, no country has ever returned to freedom.  Even Spain, conquered by the Muslims in 711 and reconquered by the Spanish in 1492, is once again succumbing to Islamic oppression.

The Muslim Brotherhood has announced its goal: “to get in and impose sharia law to establish an Islamic state.”  Yusaf al-Qaradawi promises conquest, but assures it can be done peacefully – to get all the women to wear the veil and all the men to wear the beard.  If not by war, “it will do so through predication (pronouncement) and ideology.”  Is Macy’s listening?

Macy’s is deceived, and its accommodation of Islam’s lifestyle is foolhardy, for with Islam, there can be only one lifestyle, and it will consume all others.  We ask Macy’s to reconsider their actions and return to being American.

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Ged Lawson on Unsplash.

You’ve Got to be Taught … to HATE!

No baby comes out of the womb a racist or hater.  Hate is an emotion. Emotions must be learned someplace. Either parent’s teach their children to hate or it is coming from school reinforced by media and Hollywood. How do you get children to hate, just feed them plenty of hate filled adjectives. Children will remember the “Nationalist” President, the “racist president, dictator president.”  They remember the worst president, who hates minorities and stops them fro entering America…illegally.”  Although illegally is never used.  Re-defining words to suit a hate filled agenda is one goal of school.

This week I took a step back and reviewed what the Obama legacy left for President Trump and America.  Obama called for the TRANSFORMATION of AMERICA. What exactly did that mean? To transform something means you must destroy its current status. Obama’s battle cry left me with a question…why are Americans are so ready hate fellow Americans and to give up the American way of life which has brought so much greatness to America and humanity?  Why do so many Americans demonize anyone who disagrees?

Would you be surprised to learn that students learn to hate America in school and it is reinforced by the media and Hollywood? Students learn that humans especially Americans are responsible for all of the bad in the world especially the environment. They are taught that the people supporting American values are evil. “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

Are Americans ready to give up their life, liberty and personal property?  70-78% of the population aren’t. So why is this happening? Why are we so divided and full of hate?

School starts the hate train. Hate, the emotion is reinforced by our vocabulary which has been altered.  Words may sound the same but definitions are altered to meet the needs of each specific group. This is identity politics and along with political correctness (censorship), makes communication/conversation almost impossible.  Example: The right loves the Constitution of individual rights and limited governmental powers.  The right teaches the constitution as the bedrock of society one set of rule for ALL. The left teaches the constitution is “living” and can be altered at any time for any group.  Attorney’s no longer learn or read the constitution.  They only case law which is altered to fit a case. How can one document provide opposing viewpoints?  In school, leftist teachers teach only the con side. There is no balance. Opposition will get the teacher fired or the child expelled.

Where is all this hate coming from?  Hate is an emotion which must be learned. No one is born with the desire to hate, yet here we are hating each other and allowing 535 people in Congress, in the CFR, the IMF, the UN, Club of Rome, the media and Hollywood to determine who and what we should hate.  We watch, as they hype words in meaningless comments all designed to boil our blood while creating mobs.  Mobs create fear which gets the New World Order (NWO) Globalists power to control 300 million people.  How? We are now trained to give up more rights to make the pain go away. After Parkland, which was created due to government breakdown, we were told it is the fault of the gun.  Hate the NRA. It is their fault.  When we give up our guns, the government can stop the hate. We must give them the power.  After all, they are richer, smarter and more powerful and must make all of the decisions to control every aspect of our lives.

Would you believe the majority of Americans really want the same things and don’t hate anyone? Hate addresses about 10% the population. However as students learn they are victims, envy, fear, jealousy and hate surfaces. Students have no way to express questions or opposition.  They learn that opposition is evil and should be hated.    Students leave school with reading deficits, and are mediocre, lack innovation, curiosity, common sense logic and the ability to reason. Instant gratification is their demand.  Their thoughts and action must turn to something to keep them occupied, so they learn: hate, envy, destroy.  The media hypes HATE, providing the personal attention students crave. They learn that this attention gets more attention as they watch their numbers grow…. This is the plan:  Create a society of hate. Stimulate hate to create riots and destruction. Call in the government to make hate go away. Start all of this hatred in school. Can this be stopped?

Let’s understand first up that this political game is about POWER, not service to country, environment, children, education, animals, health or humanity etc.  It is all about power. Globalists want it. You are in the way because the only way to get power from you is if you give it to them. So let’s not give it to them, simple.  Wrong, nothing in life is simple. We allow these massive lies and manipulation to focus on hate so much so we stop paying attention to the real threat, the destruction of American values.

In order to stop HATE, we must accept the premise, everything happens for a reason and every action has a consequence.  Why are students taught to hate?  Hate is the chosen emotion eliciting the fastest negative response while promoting divide and conquer. Once the nation is divided, conversation is minimal, trust is gone. If family and church are demonized where do the students go to form relationships?  Why on line with other haters. They feed off each other.  Confused students with broken value systems make them the low hanging fruit easy for another group to come in and feed hate and envy then turn little heads from a loving family, church, country to one of hate and envy.  To be accepted (which is all most people want) you belong to a group. You must pick up the mantra of the group.  Your loving comes from the group who hates all those not following their cause in their group.

When I was a child my parents took me to see the play South Pacific.  This song stuck with me, called: You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught.

You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a different shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

Our schools follow this song to the letter.

Again I ask:  Is America worth saving? If yes what are our doing to help “save” America?  It is up to us. Will you stop the teaching of Hate in school? POTUS gave us the opportunity to control our state curricula but if we leave it to the present crowd, we will get more HATE.  This is our chance to make a difference.

Will you go to floridacitizensalliance.com and sign up to become a textbook reviewer?  http://floridacitizensalliance.com/liberty/want-stop-indoctrination-children-sign/

Will you go to your school board and expose the texts full of hatred?  Will you correct your children, friends, family and neighbors?

Remember: Either you are a victim or an activist. You can’t be both. Slavery or Freedom?  The choice is yours.

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by DESIGNECOLOGIST on Unsplash.

Why President Trump Should Consider Intervening In The Case Of Mathew Golsteyn.

All too predictably, The New York Times is hyperbolically criticizing President Donald Trump for saying that he would review the case of Major Mathew L. Golsteyn, a Green Beret accused of killing an Afghan man in 2010.  Consumed with its biased vitriol, The New York Times called the President “impulsive” and accused him of exercising “undue command influence.”  But in point of fact, Golsteyn’s case is exactly the situation for which the presidential pardon must be considered.

By all accounts, Golsteyn was serving in Afghanistan in 2010.  His service took him to the battle for Marja in which more than 15,000 coalition troops fought.  Dozens of Americans were killed during that battle including two members of the Green Beret who were working with Golsteyn; the victims of an Afghan roadside bomb.

While clearing homes around Marja, Golsteyn and his team captured a suspected Taliban bomb maker.  To identify the prisoner, he was taken to an Afghan tribal leader secretly working for the United States.  The tribal leader identified the man as a member of the Taliban and expressed his fear of being killed by them if the suspected bomb maker ever revealed the tribal leader’s cooperation with the Americans.

After completing their investigation of the bomb maker’s identity, the American forces concluded they were not authorized to kill this particular individual.  As best as can be told, the bomb maker was to be released.

Afraid of the suspected bomb maker’s ability to kill more Americans after his release and of identifying the local informant, Golsteyn and another soldier took the Afghan bomb maker off base and killed him seemingly without authorization to do so.

Golsteyn’s involvement in the man’s murder first came to light when he interviewed for a job at the CIA.  As part of his application, he was asked to identify any illegal acts or indiscretions in which he may have participated.  His confession led to an investigation resulting in the withholding of Golsteyn’s employment with the CIA, but without charges being brought against him.

Golsteyn’s story may well have ended here if it weren’t for a 2016 interview with Bret Baier where he admitted to having killed the suspected Afghan bomb maker on television.  His admission led to the reopening of the case and with the presentation of formal charges against him for first-degree murder.

This case brings up an interesting set of moral questions.  First, we are once again reminded that war sucks, with many being placed in situations they would never encounter under any other circumstances.

Second, it is understandable for Golsteyn to conclude that he had to kill the bomb maker.  If he let him go, the man was likely to continue his task of creating explosives aimed at killing American soldiers, and in that environment, he would have likely succeeded.  As such, more Americans would have never come home.  More families would have been left without their dads and husbands, and more parents would have never seen their kids again.

Additionally, the Afghan bomb maker now knew the identity of an American informant in Afghanistan.  He would have, most assuredly, turned the informant  over to the Taliban and had him killed.

Unquestionably, if this bomb maker were indefinitely detained or killed, the world would be that much safer and suffering would have been that much less.

But then there’s the rule of law, an article above which none of us can be placed.  Golsteyn was given specific orders.  He is part of the greatest fighting force in the world, a fighting force whose greatness proceeds from its soldiers’ discipline, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for the chain of command.  It is not up to Golsteyn to decide who lives and who dies.  No man should have that kind of unfettered authority. He is a soldier, and his job is to follow orders, to carry out his mission faithfully, and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and by extension, its laws.

With the information given, Golsteyn broke the law and then made the unforced error of brazenly bringing attention to that fact through a national television broadcast.  Unquestionably, there is much more evidence to be uncovered, some of it potentially exculpatory, but if the facts stand as they are, if there is nothing more of substance to consider, Golsteyn’s stood outside of the boundaries of the law, and he must be held to account.

But there are times when the law is too harsh; times when society’s punishment is either illogical or inappropriate for the circumstances.  Under these conditions, an escape clause must be configured.

Alexander Hamilton said it best, as he so often does, in The Federalist Number 74, “The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”

And such is the case with Golsteyn.

It frequently astounds me how often the writers and editors of The New York Times display their ignorance of the Constitution and the manner in which it is supposed to function.  Here we have yet another example. The New York Times worries about the perception of the American justice system in the eyes of Afghans.  It ruminates over the effects a presidential comment about considering an action and whether such consideration will impede the wheels of justice.

Once again, The New York Times is off in its assessment.

Let the wheels turn as they may.  Let the Army investigate the case, and let it, if it finds probable cause to do so, bring charges against our heroic Major Golsteyn.  And let the President, as he is charged to do under the Constitution consider whether the outcome in this case is one where justice wears a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.  And if so, let the President access his exception for this man’s unfortunate guilt and pardon Major Mathew Golsteyn, just as the Framers would have intended.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Specna Arms on Unsplash.

As For Me and My House

Candidly, I have not written in a while because I’ve been in a funk. I caught Rabbi Jonathan Cahn on TV sharing devastating stats confirming we (Conservatives) have lost the culture war; the battle for the hearts and minds of America.

New York city has legalized a “third gender” on birth certificates. Not that long ago, over 40 states passed resolutions supporting God’s definition of marriage – between one man and one woman. According to the Public Religious Research Institute, a majority of Democrats, Republicans, blacks, whites, Latinos, Catholics and white mainline Protestant denominations support same sex marriage. The majority of evangelical Millennials support redefining marriage.

Years ago, LGBTQ activists claimed openly homosexual leaders admitted into the Boy Scouts had no intention to change the organization from its founding on Christian principles. As it turned out, first on the LGBTQ agenda was to remove “morally straight” for the Scout Oath

“On my honor, I will do my best. To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.”

We are living in a pretty sick time when morally straight is deemed hateful and offensive.

Recently, “Boy” has been removed from the name of the organization, changed to “Scouts BSA” to appeal to girls. The Girl Scouts are in a huff. They are suing the Boy Scouts because they feel the Boy Scouts is now in competition with them for girls. The Girl Scouts has also been changed, infected with radical feminism – promoting transgender-ism, lesbianism and abortion. Girl Scouts of Western Washington returned a $100,000 donation, a fourth of their annual fund-raising goal, because the donor requested that their gift not be used to support transgender girls

Leftists’ war on gender includes absurdly claiming that having separate organizations for boys and girls is hateful and discriminatory.

The Bible says in the last days, man will seek to change nature, moving toward what is unnatural. We are seeing this happen. First leftists claimed they only desired tolerance for the unnatural. Today, anyone who does not fully approve the unnatural is high-tech executed.

After 34 years, Disney World has canceled its annual Christian Music Festival

Six thousand to 10,000 churches close each year in America, over 100 per week

In Dover, Ohio, a Nativity scene and a Ten Commandments display were removed from public property after an atheist group complained

The new “Batwoman” TV series will feature the first lesbian superhero on television. 

‘Whiteness Forum’ seeks to ban the Christian cartoon “Veggie Tales”, claiming it is racist. 

A Virginia middle school banned Christmas songs with ‘Jesus‘ from their winter concert. 

Children seeking to transgender themselves has skyrocketed; 4,500 percent for girls and 1, 250 percent for boys. My wife Mary alerted me to this horrifying truth. U.S. doctors are performing double mastectomies on healthy 13 year old girls who think they want to be boys. Leftists have launched a war on gender which far too many Americans have either embraced or are afraid to talk about or push back against.

Over the holidays, I will be celebrating with various family members. Many of them see nothing wrong with practically every TV show, movie and commercial promoting homosexuality. If I dare mention the media blitz intended to normalize what the Bible says is wrong, I will be viewed as the crazy, intolerant and hateful old patriarch who is out-of-touch with the times.

After listening to Rabbi Cahn describe our nation’s moral and cultural decline, I felt discouraged, heartbroken and angry. Rabbi Cahn encouraged Christians to remain faithful, fighting and standing up for what is right. Still, I couldn’t shake feeling why I should continue writing articles when a majority of Americans embrace leftists’ evil agenda.

Angrily, I questioned, why stupid parents gleefully support drag queens reading LGBTQ stories to their children at libraries? Any idiot can see that leftists are purposely sexing our kids as early as pre-school with homosexual Christmas children books like “Santa’s Husband”. 

An Austin Texas teacher at a poverty level school expressed her frustration. The students struggle with reading, writing and math. And yet, the school principal made it top priority for teachers to instruct students to embrace all things LGBTQ. The frustrated teacher who sounded the alarm said she was tasked with explaining and presenting homosexuality in a positive light to pre-k 4 year olds

Frustrated, I asked God, why do the wicked prosper? Discouraged men of God in the Bible asked God the same question. God revealed to his faithful servants that the wicked prosper only for a season and will eventually receive their just reward. (Psalms 73)

God instructs, “ Trust in the Lord and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart.” (Psalms 37:3-4)

I repent from allowing myself to become discouraged; not trusting God. I will continue fighting back, standing up for what is right. Leftists are evil masters of deception – portraying themselves as all powerful – winning everything. They are not.

I cannot, nor do I desire to control others. “But, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by John Cafazza on Unsplash.

Why Political Polarity? The irresistible force versus the immovable object.

In the political polarity of America today, neither side trusts the other, Left or Right, thus making it impossible to compromise or reason together, leaving us with more than just a Congress in gridlock, but the whole country as well. The two perspectives of America are truly incompatible and requires some explanation.

Liberals are at a complete loss as to why anyone would support President Trump. As one reader recently wrote to me, “I want to know if any of the crimes Trump is alleged to have committed, the factual information coming forth, the involvement of his family and the blatant lies he told and continues to tell has any bearing on your unwavering support of the man?”

Conversely, conservatives do not understand why others do not support the President. As another reader wrote, “The American voters that voted for the Communist Democrats are the traitors to our country, and the rest of us true Americans.”

The polarity of the two sides is such that neither understands the other, nor cares to.

As another example, on December 11th (2018), President Trump and Vice President Pence met with Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer in the White House to discuss a Congressional spending bill to include $5 billion in funding to accelerate building of the southern wall. Both Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer steadfastly refused to agree to it in front of television cameras. In fact, they felt awkward discussing it in such a venue. The President made it clear he would unashamedly close the federal government if he doesn’t get the money to tighten border security. The Democrats tried to browbeat the President by making the point that Mr. Trump would be solely responsible for the shutdown, not the Democrats. The President readily conceded the point with the caveat he would be doing so to protect our border and the citizens of this country, something his Congressional opponents are not willing to do.

Afterwards, Republicans applauded the president’s handling of the meeting by seeking “transparency” in front of the cameras, something the Democrats obviously felt uncomfortable doing. The Right saw the president on top of his game and outfoxed his opponents as any other businessman would do.

Liberals didn’t see it this way. Instead, the President was characterized as a bully throwing an indignant temper tantrum. His character and intelligence was again questioned, and he was described as a megalomaniac, as well as all the other usual derogatory adjectives du jour.

Democrats are quick to accuse the President of improprieties resulting from the Mueller investigation, regardless if it is true or not. Republicans see the investigation as a frivolous political distraction since nothing of substance has yet to be produced. Democrats want the investigation to continue unabated for as long as possible. Republicans have had enough and want it shut down.

Again, both sides simply do not understand the position of the other, nor wants to.

So, why the difference?

First, Democrats are more inclined to accept the news emanating from the media. Regardless if it is right or wrong, it is embraced as unbiased and factual, and is parroted as such, except that resulting from Fox News which is perceived as fallacious. The Republicans, on the other hand, are more skeptical and do not trust the news media at all, least of all print journalism, which is all perceived as an organ of the Democrats, certainly not fair and balanced. They believe the media is following a political agenda, which involves spinning the news, not accurately reporting it. Consequently, the only news they believe in is that which they see or hear themselves first-hand.

Second, Democrats have become past masters of Identity Politics. If you do not agree with their position on an issue, you are vilified as either a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, Fascist, or just not smart enough to understand what is really happening in the world. In turn, Republicans see their opposites as anti-patriotic anarchists bent on destroying the country. They consider the members of the Left as the true racists who will cheat at all costs to win an election.

And third, the platforms of Left and Right are as different as night and day. Ultimately, it is based on our interpretation of morality; what is right and what is wrong:

Left versus Right –

  • Anti-Capitalists versus anti-Socialists.
  • Agnostic versus Religious.
  • Control of rights (e.g., free speech and guns) versus protecting the Bill of Rights.
  • Free entitlements versus prosperity through hard work.
  • Big government versus small government.
  • Globalization versus Nationalism.
  • Political correctness versus Results orientation.

Yes, our differences are based on our fundamental belief of morality; always has been.

As fervently strong as Democrats believe in their interpretation of America, Republicans feel equally strong. Neither side is willing to acknowledge they are wrong, nor apologize for it; they are absolutely convinced they are correct, not their opposition. This belief in right versus wrong explains why there can never be any compromise.

It is this fundamental sense of morality which is responsible for the irresistible force versus immovable object in American culture today, as well as in the world. Unless one side conquers the other, we will have gridlock for many more years to come, assuming we do not kill ourselves first.

Just remember, in a contest of stubbornness, man will beat the jackass every time.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. The featured photo is by NeONBRAND on Unsplash.

The Curry Wall: Preventing access to public information. Maybe we should “recycle” politicians?

Putting stuff into the yellow-topped curbside recycling bins may make homeowners feel virtuous, but it probably isn’t saving the taxpayers any money.

The popular notion is that the garbage is sold and the operation breaks even or makes a profit.

Not quite.

The city does get $1.5 million in revenue, but it spends $2.2 million, not even counting the cost of collection. (It also avoids using space in the landfill.)

What is more, the prospects are dim for improving the situation.

Waste Management, which is heavily involved in trying to make recycling work, has been closing recycling centers and its CEO has noted: “To be sustainable overtime, recycling operations must make economic sense.”

The reasons that recycling is losing ground are that processing costs are up and commodity prices are down.

Contamination is a major problem and is the main reason much of the material collected after considerable time and expense ends up in a landfill, by a circuitous route.

Homeowners can help by recycling all empty bottles, cans and paper, and keeping food, liquids and loose plastic bags out of the recycling bin.

Turning garbage into gold isn’t magic.

Duval County collected nearly 3 million tons of solid waste last year. Only five other counties had more.

One interesting note: Among the largest counties, Duval collects the most waste per capita – an eye-opening 17.3 pounds per person per day. That number has been growing since 2013.

Duval had a recycling rate of 58 percent, which was better than the top five but more waste went into landfill than four of the top five, because Duval burns almost no solid waste. Hillsborough recycles less but burns 27 percent of the waste it collects and Palm Beach burns 36 percent.

At one time, Duval burned much of its waste. During the 1980s there was a proposal to build an incinerator that would produce energy, but it failed to pass the City Council.

Florida, incidentally, has an ambitious goal of reaching 75 percent recycling by 2020, but isn’t even meeting the current 60 percent goal.

One reason is that the commercial sector generates two-thirds of the waste. Household recycling alone simply won’t do the job.

Since recycling, burying and burning all entail a cost, the question is whether Jacksonville is using the most cost/efficient mix of waste disposal.

It affects everyone. Currently, using recycling is optional. It could become mandatory and even more burdensome on the homeowner if he is required to separate materials himself.

We wanted to ask City Hall about this and other matters pertaining to solid waste disposal but were unable to break through the Curry Wall, which prevents access to public information.

As the recent Task Force on Open Government noted, the Curry administration seals off access to public officials in order to “control the message,” which is one way of saying “spin it in the mayor’s favor.”

We couldn’t find the information on the city’s Web site (also criticized by the task force) so we went to the people who are supposed to provide the public with information.

Mayor Lenny Curry’s highly paid public information officer gave us several snarky replies to our requests, then basically told us to go get the information ourselves from the state government. That is where we obtained the figures about waste collection and disposal.

It doesn’t tell us anything about whether the city’s costly recycling program is efficient or worthwhile, but Eye on Jacksonville will continue to seek ways to climb Curry’s Wall and obtain information.

COLUMN BY

LLOYD BROWN

Lloyd was born in Jacksonville. Graduated from the University of North Florida. He spent nearly 50 years of his life in the newspaper business …beginning as a copy boy and retiring as editorial page editor for Florida Times Union. He has also been published in a number of national newspapers and magazines, as well as Internet sites. Married with children. Military Vet. Retired. Man of few words but the words are researched well, deeply considered and thoughtfully written.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Eye on Jacksonville. It is republished with permission.

The Conceit Behind California’s Bad Idea to Tax Text Messages

State bureaucrats are moving to impose a texting tax on California residents in the name of providing mobile services to the poor.


California routinely makes national headlines for its big government policies. This week is no different, as bureaucrats move to impose a texting tax on state residents in the name of providing mobile services to the poor.

In a November proposal by the California Public Utilities Commission, Commissioner Carla J. Peterman laid out the “proposed decision” exploring the potential effectiveness of the tax.

According to that 52-page report, California’s budget continues to increase even as tax revenues fall:

“A review of California’s total reported intrastate telecommunications industry revenue, which is used to fund universal service, shows a steady decline in revenue from $16.527 Billion in 2011 to $11.296 Billion in 2017. At the same time, California Public Purpose Program budgets show a steady increase from $670 million in 2011 to $998 million in 2017…”

California’s Public Purpose program, which adds a surcharge to consumers’ bills for utilities like gas in order to provide universal services to those who can’t afford them, would be tasked with facilitating the proposed text tax. And though the analysis refers to “industry revenue,” the funds would come from taxing individual wireless customers.

Mercury News, a San Jose-based news outlet, noted that while it is still unclear how much consumers would be forced to pay, the fee would “likely would be billed as a flat surcharge per customer” as opposed to a per-text rate.

While the Commission’s analysis acknowledges opposing arguments—including carrier companies’ assertions that the tax “would not preserve and advance universal service because it does not broaden the base of universal service consumers”—the commission ultimately advocated the additional tax burden.

Parties supporting the collection of surcharges on text messaging revenue argue that it will help preserve and advance universal service by increasing the revenue base upon which Public Purpose Programs rely,” they write. “We agree.”

Business advocacy groups like the Bay Area Council, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group estimated that the proposed tax could generate $44.5 million in tax revenue per year. However, “they add that under the regulators’ proposal the charge could be applied retroactively for five years—which they call ‘an alarming precedent’—and could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers,” Mercury News reports.

“It’s a dumb idea,” said Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council business advocacy group. “This is how conversations take place in this day and age, and it’s almost like saying there should be a tax on the conversations we have.”

Wunderman also questioned the necessity of additional taxes, referencing California’s current budget surplus:

“While perhaps well-intentioned, the specific programs that the commissioners are hoping to fund with your tax dollars already has around $1 billion to spend. These programs are not in need of greater funding from texting or any other source, and even if they were, there is already an approved, transparent process at the commission to raise the necessary funds without the need to create new taxes.”

Further, the proposed fees make even less sense considering the rise in popularity of internet-based messaging services like Facebook Messenger, Skype, WhatsApp, and Telegram, which would not be subject to the tax. In fact, the tax could very well push consumers further toward these internet-based apps to avoid extra costs.

The November document is not legally binding, but it does assert the Commission’s alleged power to impose a texting tax.

Whether or not the proposed tax becomes actual policy come January, the simple fact that it has been suggested at all illustrates the misguided yet pervasive belief in California that government omnipotence can create prosperity.

It’s precisely this type of thinking that has caused the Golden State to squander one of the largest economies in the world, driving away businesses and individuals alike and inflating costs of living with the imposition of convoluted, interventionist policies. Because of restrictive zoning laws and bureaucratic regulations that make housing inaccessible to the middle class and the poor, for example, California continues to claim the highest rate of poverty in the country despite the billions of dollars it spends on welfare and social services.

Despite the best—and heavy-handed—efforts of politicians and bureaucrats, the people they claim to represent continue to suffer under their policies. This should all come as no surprise. As economist Friedrich von Hayek observed:

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”

COLUMN BY

Carey Wedler

Carey Wedler

Carey Wedler is a video blogger and Senior Editor for Anti-Media.

RELATED VIDEO: The Spending Monkeys.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by JESHOOTS-com on Pixabay.