The Bias Problem Plaguing America’s Social Media Platforms

Americans deserve the facts, objectively reported. They know media bias is pervasive.

A recent Morning Consult poll found that only a quarter of voters now trust the media to tell them the truth, a record low.

The media savages President Donald Trump and portrays his administration in the worst possible light. Over 90 percent of his network news coverage has been negative, higher than any other president.

The muting of conservative voices by social media also has intensified. Social media companies have repeatedly censored, removed, or “shadow banned” conservative journalists, news organizations, and media outlets that do not share their liberal political views.

Facebook’s new algorithm for what users see on their timeline has disproportionately harmed conservative publishers. They’re getting fewer readers while their liberal counterparts haven’t been impacted to the same degree.

Recently, Google’s employees easily convinced the company’s management to cut ties to contracts with the military.

And Google has long faced criticism from fact-checkers over manipulating search results to slight conservatives. Google also has deleted or blocked references to Jesus, Chick-fil-A, and the Catholic religion. When will it stop?

Also alarming are the guidelines being written by these companies to define “hate speech.” Facebook’s newly published Community Standards, which determine what content is allowed, define these terms for the American people.

It violates Facebook rules “to exclude or segregate a person or group.” So a conservative organization calling for illegal immigrants to be returned to their home country could be labeled a hate group by the platform and their content removed altogether.

Some platforms have allowed liberal interest groups to determine what information is available to the public.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is allowed to influence platform guidelines and sometimes censor content that it deems “hate” speech.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a “hate map” that lists over 900 organizations. These include pro-life, religious freedom, and border security groups—all popular with the American people. And all are unfairly targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It’s no secret that social media organizations are typically controlled and run by individuals who lean liberal, sometimes radically so.

It will require a constant effort by these entities to neutralize this relentless bias if, in fact, they really want to do it.

All media entities should give the American people the facts, not tell them what to think.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Rep. Lamar Smith

Rep. Smith is a Republican who has represented Texas’s 21st district since 1987. Twitter: .

President Putin offers to have Mueller interview the 12 Russians… Mueller declines?

In an article titled “Vladimir Putin Humiliated Robert Mueller” Steven Ahle wrote:

Putin invited Mueller and some of his team to Russia to interrogate the 12 men. Then Putin took it a step further and reminded Mueller that the US and Russia have an extradition treaty and he could have the 12 men sent to the US to meet with Mueller and face the charges. To no one’s surprise, Mueller has decided to do neither one. I don’t blame him after what happened with the first 16 indictments of Russians. One of the companies they named didn’t even exist until after the time frame in which they allegedly committed crimes. Another company has aggressively answered the bogus charges against them. Therefore setting Mueller into full panic mode because he had no evidence against them.

Ahle goes on to note, “Then Putin hit Mueller with the knockout blow, suggesting that the US intelligence agents had helped Bill Browder funnel 1.5 billion dollars out of Russia, with 400 million being rerouted to the Hillary campaign. He asked for Mueller’s help in investigating the matter.”

Who is Bill Browder?

Politifact’s Jon Greenberg reports:

The Russians say that Browder and his partners at Ziff Brothers Investments, a New York venture capital firm, illegally syphoned billions of rubles out of the country.

In the 2016 election cycle, Ziff Brothers Investments gave $1.7 million. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, nearly two-thirds, or about $1.1 million, went to Democratic committees, and the rest to Republicans.

The center listed the firm’s top recipients:

Recipient Amount
DNC Services Corp $296,966
Senate Majority PAC $250,000
Defending Main Street $200,000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $40,000
Democratic State Central Cmte/Louisiana $35,412
National Republican Congressional Cmte $32,400
Democratic Party of Montana $28,622
Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida $27,287
Democratic Party of New Hampshire $27,287
Democratic Party of Virginia $27,287
Democratic Party of Wisconsin $27,287
Georgia Federal Elections Cmte $27,287

Greenberg concluded:

Putin said associates of Bill Browder gave $400 million to the Clinton campaign. The associates appear to be the Ziff brothers. According to public data, Ziff Brothers Investments gave about $315,000 to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

Overall, the firm gave about $1.1 million to Democratic committees around the country.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Conservative Lawmakers Say Trump’s Actions, Not Words, Key in Dealings With Putin

Trump’s Russian Reset: He Says He Misspoke on Election Interference

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, shown testifying before Congress while serving as FBI director in 2013. (J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

Democrats Don’t Fear Brett Kavanaugh. They Fear the Constitution.

Sure, some of the anger aimed at President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is partisan bluster meant to placate the activist base.

Still, most Democrats were going to get hysterical about any pick, because any conservative pick was going to take the Constitution far too literally for their liking.

For those who rely on the administrative state and coercion as a policy tool—forcing people to join political organizations, forcing them to support abortion, forcing them to subsidize socially progressive sacraments, forcing them to create products that undermine their faith, and so on—that’s a big problem.

Some, such as former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, indulged in the histrionic rhetoric we’ve come to expect in the Trump era, claiming that Kavanaugh would “threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.” But almost none of the objections coming from leading Democrats have been even ostensibly about Kavanaugh’s qualifications as a jurist or, for that matter, his interpretation of the Constitution.

“Specifically,” prospective presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., argued, “as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.” Surely, the former attorney general of California comprehends that “health care” is not a constitutional right but rather a policy concern whose contours are still being debated by lawmakers—and probably will be for decades.

What Harris probably meant is that Kavanaugh is an existential threat to the practice of forcing Americans to buy products in the private marketplace against their will. Kavanaugh, incidentally, upheld Obamacare as an appellate judge for jurisdictional reasons even though it displeased him on policy grounds. (He wrote that the law is without “principled limit.”) He did this because he has far more reverence for the law than Harris does.

Leading presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., whose collectivist doctrine clashes directly with the Constitution’s goal of restraining the state and empowering the individual, worries about “workers’ rights, health care, climate change, environmental protection, and gun safety.” He should.

Kavanaugh, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, is a critic of Chevron deference, the practice that allows administrative agencies to ignore their legal charge and have free rein to interpret statutory authority in virtually any way they please. Few things undermine the socialist agenda more than limiting our regulatory agencies’ ability to lord over the economic decisions of Americans.

Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, another potential presidential hopeful, said Kavanaugh “can’t be trusted to safeguard rights for women, workers, or to end the flow of corporate money to campaigns.”

To “safeguard” the rights of women means keeping abortion legal on the federal level, without any genuine restrictions. For Gillibrand and others, invented rights are sacramental, whereas other precedents, such as stopping the “flow of corporate money”—which is to say, the right of free expression codified by the Citizens United decision—should be conveniently discarded.

There is absolutely no guiding principle to any of this other than political preference.

It seems to me that with another originalist justice, we inch closer to a time when the majority of the left will simply dismiss the court as an antiquated impediment to progress. We already see this happening—not only from progressives but from supposed moderates. It’s why flip-flopping partisans such as Ezra Klein are now lamenting the “anti-democratic” position of the court.

By “anti-democratic,” he doesn’t mean the court legalized abortion or same-sex marriage without the consent of states; he means it has recently stopped the federal government from compelling individuals to act in ways he and many others approve of.

Normalizing the idea that the Constitution should be subservient to the fleeting will of politics and progressive conceptions of “justice” goes back to President Barack Obama, who promised in 2008 to nominate justices sharing “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

The left hailed this position as proof of a thoughtful and moral temperament, when in reality it’s an ideological position that allows judges to arbitrarily create law and subordinate their constitutional duty to their personal worldview.

Of course, there are a number of legitimate debates about how we should interpret the Constitution. And all justices aren’t political on all issues. Nor are all conservatives pure. But it’s the left that now embraces relativistic arguments about the intent and purpose of the Constitution.

I wish the Supreme Court were less important. But right now, it’s one of the only institutions preserving constitutional order. And that’s why the left is about to go nuts again.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

Dear Readers

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is among the Democrats who have spoken out against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. (Photo: Ron Sachs/picture alliance / Consolidated/Newscom)

Let’s Be Honest: Mexico Is A Bad Neighbor

This is not a shot at Mexicans. They are humans in the exact same way as Americans, Nigerians, Italians, Indonesians and every other people group. In the Christian view, they are made in the image of God. In the American Founders’ view, they like all men are created with inalienable rights granted by God.

But this is a shot at the Mexican government and, to a degree, the Mexican culture. And despite virtually every media story out there fretting and warning about America being a bad neighbor because of Trump’s policies, the actual evidence that Mexico is the bad actor in the relationship is pretty compelling.

We are treated to liberals and Democrats lecturing Americans on being bad neighbors for Mexico, and apologizing to Mexico and the world for being bad neighbors. If you google ‘Mexico is a bad neighbor’ all you get are endless stories about the U.S. being a bad neighbor. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is hogwash.

If these critics really cared about Mexico’s well-being — and the well-being of Mexicans — they would be more critical of the corruption and culture that has left a fertile land with a great climate, access to two oceans and next door to the greatest economic power in history, in impoverished misery. They would be calling on Mexicans’ better angels, calling them to change and actually become more like the United States with individual liberties and market economics and accountable government.

Trashing America is nothing more than political expediency and opponent demonization that causes yet more division.

So let’s look at Mexico and the United States as neighbors. Who is the better neighbor and worse neighbor?

  • Would a good neighbor send their problems next door? Mexico has an undeniably de facto policy of illegally exporting their poorest citizens, and those of neighboring countries. The 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States today almost universally came here poor, uneducated and untrained. The poorest in a country are always a burden, so Mexico encourages them to head north and does nothing — nothing — to stop them at the border. When we see the trains of migrants from Guatemala or Honduras or other Central American countries, that is being done with the active participation of Mexican authorities. They don’t want those poor people in their country — they have too many of their own — so they usher them on to America. How is that being a good neighbor? Canada doesn’t do any of this.
  • Would a good neighbor criticize you for locking your doors at night so they couldn’t break in? Well, Mexico does. President Trump ran on securing our border with Mexico (because the Northern Border does not require this level of security) and he won election as most Americans understand a sovereign nation needs borders and the ability to determine who comes in and out. Yet Mexican leaders were openly hostile, criticizing Trump, with Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said the U.S. was returning to the “era of the ugly American” and repeatedly called a “useless wall”? Why useless? Because Mexican authorities will continue to find ways to ship the poorest, uneducated residents to their neighbor? They don’t want a wall because they don’t want those residents in Mexico, they want them in the United States sending $28 billion in remittances back to Mexico from America. How is that being a good neighbor? Canada doesn’t do any of this.
  • Would a good neighbor take your generous donations to help them with such ingratitude? The U.S. gives Mexico $320 million in aid annually. Yet is there gratefulness for this generosity? Nothing apparent. They take the money and spend it.
  • Would a good neighbor who has received so many benefits by living next to a generous neighbor openly criticize that neighbor? Absurd, yet that is exactly what Mexican authorities do regularly. Whether it is beefing up our Southern Border security, to increasing citizen IDs or deporting those we find to be here illegally, Mexican authorities criticize the U.S. No gratefulness for unburdening them from their poorest citizens. Just criticism.

No. The case is very strong that the Mexican government is the bad actor in this relationship.

Here’s what America has been doing to be a good neighbor — oftentimes to our own detriment:

  • Accepting some of Mexico’s poorest, providing them with healthcare, schooling and opportunities that they had no chance of getting in their home country. We even teach the children of families that break into our country — in their own language. Now that’s being an awfully good neighbor.
  • Providing $320 million annually in direct financial aid to Mexico. The largest chunk goes to security issues and drug cartel fighting, but also to education and infrastructure. Obviously, a portion of it goes to the graft that is undeniably rampant in the Mexican government.
  • Allowing people who sneak into America to transfer back to Mexico a whopping $28 billion out of our economy and into Mexico’s. We don’t tax it or take a portion of it. We just allow it to exit our country and economy and help the nation on our Southern Border. Of course remittances flow everywhere, but from the United States to Mexico is by far the biggest.
  • Of course, Mexico does not really need to spend much money on a large military because they are an ally and because of their geographic location next to the United States. We essentially act as a deterrent for anyone who would be aggressive against Mexico.

If you look at the relationship, and who benefits the most by far and who gives the most by far, there can be no doubt that the United States is the far better neighbor than Mexico. So maybe American politicians and those supporting them should step back and try to appreciate their own country more, and not paint some romantic and unrealistic picture of Mexico.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Immigration Scandal No One Is Talking About

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured image is from Sopitas.com.

More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents

In the USA there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.

by Mark W. Smith

How is it that so many kids raised on “Harry Potter”, “The Hunger Games”, “Star Wars”, and all the Marvel action figure movies manage to miss a critical point of the stories? The lesson being: If you want to prevail over evil villains, you must have the proper tools to fight back.

Millions of people protect themselves and their families with guns every day in the United States. They choose guns as a means of self-defense for the same reason the Secret Service uses them to protect the president: guns stop bad people from doing bad things to good people.

It’s absurd to speak about the right of self-defense in theory but then deny people the tools they need to exercise that right.

Without a gun, most Americans are defenseless at the hands of a violent criminal. How many of us have training in hand-to-hand fighting, the physical strength, and the mental resilience to react in a fight-or-flight situation to repel an aggressive predator, especially someone who attacks us first and is armed with a deadly weapon?

Does a gun guarantee your safety? No, but it gives you the ability to defend yourself against an armed, physically superior, or mentally unstable attacker (or all three).

Why in the world would anyone not want to have the means to protect themselves and their families against criminal predators and lunatics? Worse yet, why would anyone actively lobby their government to deprive themselves and every other law-abiding citizen of the most effective means to protect themselves?

Guns Are Life-Saving Tools

The gun grabbers are convinced that if we shut down the National Rifle Association and take away guns from law-abiding gun owners, then bad people will no longer have the tools to do bad things.

A gun is a tool, plain and simple. You should own a gun for the same reason you install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, purchase fire extinguishers, and buckle your seat belt. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Smart people are prepared. Foolish people bring a knife—or nothing at all—to a gunfight.

The gun grabbers say: “There is no evidence that guns save lives.” The truth: If there is no proof that guns save lives, then why does every American law enforcement agency, including the U.S. Secret Service, carry guns? What’s the point of the guns?

There is an old saying in the world of investing: “Do what the smart money does.” This means that when you personally invest, it makes sense to buy and sell the same investments as the “smart money” people—large banks, institutional investors, hedge funds, and investment gurus like Warren Buffett. The idea is that these industry leaders have a better understanding of the marketplace and better access to information than ordinary investors do. And that is usually true.

What do the “smart money” people do when it comes to protecting lives?

Virtually all professionals carry guns—and lots of them. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies charged with protecting the streets you walk on all carry guns. The Secret Service protects the president with guns. The federal Department of Homeland Security, with its $44 billion annual budget, issues its own agents handguns and fully automatic rifles (rifles far more powerful than the AR-15s many gun grabbers don’t want you to have to protect yourself).

So, the smart money in the business of protecting lives chooses guns. That’s right. They choose guns!

Guns Are Often Used for Defense

But if you don’t want to follow the smart money on guns, then let’s turn to the statistical scoreboard. Does civilian gun use help in self-defense against criminals?

The U.S. Department of Justice investigated firearm violence from 1993 through 2011. The report found, “In 2007–2011, about 1 percent of nonfatal violent crime victims used a firearm in self-defense.” Anti-gun zealots attempt to use this statistic to discredit the use of a gun as a viable means of self-defense, and by extension, to discredit gun ownership in general.

But look deeper into the numbers. During that five-year period, the Department of Justice confirmed a total of 338,700 defensive gun uses in both violent attacks and property crimes where a victim was involved. That equals an average of 67,740 defensive gun uses every year. In other words, according to the Justice Department’s own statistics, 67,740 people a year don’t become victims because they own a gun. (I suspect that if more states allowed concealed carry to be widespread, the number of instances of defensive gun uses would be even higher.)

Is it significant that at least 67,740 individuals use a gun in self-defense each year? Well, in 2016, 37,461 people died in motor vehicle accidents in the United States; in 2015, the number was 35,092 people. Mark Rosekind, administrator of the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA), called those road fatalities “an immediate crisis.” If the NHTSA administrator considers it a crisis that approximately 37,000 people are dying annually from car accidents, then saving nearly twice that many people each year through the use of firearms is simply stunning.

In reality, the Department of Justice findings about defensive gun uses are very conservative. A 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council found that:

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence… Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008… On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey…”

The most comprehensive study ever conducted about defensive gun use in the United States was a 1995 survey published by criminologist Gary Kleck in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. This study reported between 2.1 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.

Ultimately, the number of defensive gun uses doesn’t matter much to the anti-gun zealots. Whether the number is 67,000 or 2.5 million or anywhere in between, they’ll do whatever they can to dismiss defensive gun uses as insignificant. They want to focus only on the dead people lying in the street rather than those folks who use a firearm to remain standing.

I suspect those people still alive would have a different view.

Reprinted from The Daily Signal

Excerpt from“#Duped: How the Anti-gun Lobby Exploits the Parkland School Shooting-and How Gun Owners Can Fight Back”.

Mark W. Smith

Mark W. Smith is a constitutional attorney and author. Smith currently serves as the vice president of the New York City chapter of the Federalist Society and is also a presidential scholar and senior fellow in Law and Public Policy at The King’s College in New York City.

A Gold Star Mother’s Open Letter to Rep. Cohen on his Purple Heart Comment

We received the below letter from America’s Mighty Warriors. As a combat veteran I was deeply hurt by the comments by Representative Stephen Ira Cohen  (D-TN 9th District) saying to fired FBI agent Peter Strzok, “If I could give you a Purple Heart I would.”

Debbie Lee with her son Marc, a fallen hero.

While serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam during Tet of 1968 my company started out with 140 men. By the end of the Tet Counter Offensive we had 90 men left. Many wounded and killed. Each receiving a Purple Heart. Please read the heart felt letter from Debbie Lee, mother of Marc Lee, the first Navy SEAL killed in Iraq.

Open Letter to Rep. Cohen,

How dare this member of the House of Representatives compare the 10 hours of testimony that are caused by Strzok’s own actions, lies and manipulations of his investigations, to what our brave warriors endure when they are in the midst of combat. Our Purple Heart recipients have been shot, blown up and many, like Marc, gave their final breath and were posthumously awarded the Purple Heart. Many of our purple heart recipients are missing limbs, can’t walk, or give their loved ones a hug. Many will never be able to speak again. I’m sure that Marc would have loved to testify for Congress, or work for the FBI when he left the SEALs or be able to go home at night to his family.

Rep. Steve Cohen, you are shameful and have disgraced and dishonored our Purple Heart recipients, their families and the real sacrifices that have been made. They paid for you to have the freedom to say your uneducated, absurd, hurtful comments, but they are the consequences of your words. I trust that voters in Tennessee see the real you and that your are voted out. Wouldn’t that be justice if it was a Purple Heart recipient. Who in their right mind would compare the sacrifices of our Purple Heart recipients to consequences suffered while subpoenaed to testify before Congress for your action is trying to destroy our country?

There was no blood shed in that hearing room on Capitol Hill yesterday, no loss of life. Mr. Cohen, as to your comment from a few good men, “You can’t handle the truth”, you, sir, can’t handle the truth that you are ignorant when it comes to our military and the contrast between those who would selflessly sacrifice to defend us and those who would do whatever illegal, immoral thing they could to destroy President Trump. Even if it means destroying our country.

I didn’t listen to all of the testimony yesterday but wondering did Peter Strzok correct Rep. Cohen when he compared him to our Purple Heart Heroes? After all, he did serve in the military and every honorable veteran I know would have confronted that and corrected him.

To our Purple Hear recipients, their families and those who died in combat, I am so sorry you have had additional pain inflicted on you from Rep. Cohen for your sacrifices. We at America’s Mighty Warriors will always be here for you. It’s ironic that I just sent out an email earlier this week to our Purple Heart recipients and Gold Star families for a retreat we are hosting on September 7-10 in Texas. We host these to let you know we will never forget and promise to live lives worthy of their sacrifices.

Rep. Cohen, our actions speak louder than your words. Maybe you should come to the retreat for 10 hours and meet these families, hear their heroic stories of sacrifice and we will put you in a chair and let them question you and see if you change your mind and would profusely apologize for your pain inflicted comments.

Appalled in Arizona,

Debbie Lee
Proud Mother of Marc Lee
First Navy SEAL killed in Iraq 8-2-06

RELATED ARTICLES:

Amputee Veteran Criticizes Sacha Baron Cohen for Disrespecting Military Veterans: ‘How Degrading Can You Be?’

7 Takeaways From FBI Agent Strzok’s Testimony Before 2 House Committees

Scorecard: The 45 Goals in ‘The Naked Communist’ to turn America into a Socialist State

It is very important that everyone realize just how far the Communist Manifesto and its goals have been advanced in the United States since the still relevant book “The Naked Communists” was written over 50 years ago.

George Soros and other rich leftists use some of their billions to finance over 250 socialist/communist/leftist groups in the U.S. that are doing their best to “resist”, undermine our President and his agenda as well as our Constitution and Republic. He is a seditionist and I don’t understand why he hasn’t been charged and convicted for treason. He like many establishment, global RINOs advocate for a New World Order in which America is definitely not first.

Very sobering but thank God for POTUS Trump and his Administration who are reversing Obama’s “fundamental transformation” to socialism.

Anyone who would like to add to the examples of how they have achieved their goals in Comments would be appreciated. This is a work in progress.

You are about to read a list of 45 goals that were spelled out in the 1958 book “The Naked Communist” and were entered into the Congressional Record back on Jan. 10,1963, thanks to Hon. A.S. Herlong, Jr. of FL . As you read this, 54 years later, you may be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. Source – Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35, 01/10/1963.

Among sources include the Democratic Socialists of America’s own website.

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

DONE- The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. It is important to note here that the effort was not one of peace in the world but an effort to weaken the United State’s military might worldwide as the Soviet Union at that time was far behind the US in technology and economy. The failed challenge during the Cuban Missile Crisis earlier in the decade was a signal to the Communist world that they would have to use other tactics.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

DONE – See the Stark Treaty, Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and Obama’s actions to undermine the missile defense system in Poland and elsewhere in Europe and to support Putin in his efforts to strengthen Russian power and reduce US influence. Witness Obama’s mike on event where he asked the Russian President to be patient and that he would have more flexibility “after my election.” Failure of SOS Clinton’s “reset” with Russia; Capitulation to Russia on Crimea and Ukraine and now in Middle East. Iran Nuclear Deal which assures IRAN will have Nukes. As evidence that this willingness to capitulate is not a pursuit of peace but rather the intent to weaken the US, we can look to the staunch opposition by socialist liberals to the Reagan administration’s efforts to put into place the missile defense system which ultimately failed. Other developments that did make it into the US arsenal included the Stealth Bomber but also faced huge opposition from the left.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

DONE – OBAMA declared he intends to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 80% and has stated he will not use nuclear weapons. Obama proposed Sequestration as a means of cutting our military and now is laying down a smoke screen that DOD budget cuts are too deep !!! The current attack against our 2nd Amendment by the Administration & UN could also fit into this category.

It is ironic that Obama’s tactics have been implemented at too quick a pace and are now backfiring on him as we see failure after failure throughout the Middle East. Proving out that UN tactics of disarming the US and other nations are failures.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

DONE – US trades with China and Russia and we have a poor trade balance position with both that decreases the price of goods exported to them and increases the price of goods imported from them. This in turn make the value of the dollar go down in the US and up in terms of our growing debt especially to China. US participation in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and recent opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba provide further evidence that this tactic is being pursued.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

DONE – Between 1997 and 2013, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which is an agency of the Federal government, provided $1,946,035,918 in loans and long-term guarantees to banks in Communist China and Russia, according to the Ex-Im Bank’s annual reports. We could surmise that these long term loans were put in place in order to help with the recovery of Russia however we cannot make such a claim for China, a nation that produces at a level second only the US.

It stands to reason that this loan program should have been pulled as a foreign policy tactic when it became evident that both nations intended to continue with their oppressive practices toward their people, were caught many times over attempting to infiltrate and hack into US systems etc. The fact that these loans have continued is evidence that forces in our own government are intent on furthering the cause of Socialism in the US and across the planet.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

DONE – United States foreign aid, similar to United States foreign aid – under the Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe, foreign aid to Russia was in the billions. The current Administration continues to engage in talks with the Russian regime despite the fact they continue as supporters of our enemies like Syria and Iran. Congress has imposed sanctions after Russia’s takeover of the Crimea and incursion into the Ukraine however they have proven largely ineffective as Russia has taken strategic locations that supply most of the oil for Europe and now have a stranglehold on these resources. Europe must now either find another source of oil or capitulate to Russia’s demands as they realize little support in this matter from the US. Let’s not forget the added pressure of the hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees pouring over their borders. Because Russia is in cooperation with Iran and Syria we can reasonably assume that this is a coordinated effort given the weakness of our president and therefore our military forces.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

DONE– not only are then in the UN, they are on the all important Security Council.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

DONE but thwarted when in 1989 the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain fell and Germany was reunified largely due to the efforts of the Reagan Administration. The threat of socialist influence takeover is again imminent as the economic resources of the European Union falter and the nations of the EU fall one by one back into socialist practices.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

PARTIAL SUCCESS was achieved with the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treatyin 1963, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. Neither France nor China signed the PTBT. However, the treaty was still ratified by the United States after a 80 to 19 vote in the United States Senate.[8]

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

DONE–but the former nations under the iron curtain were freed in 1989 with the collapse of the USSR.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

ONGOING – the Progressives in our Congress and the current Administration are constantly pressing for this – this is a primary goal of their chief benefactor – George Soros. Their efforts are being slowly achieved through regulations put into place by Federal agencies such as the EPA. The regulations now being put into place by these agencies are slowly steering the US toward control under the UN and a one world government . The Agenda 21 protocol is most certainly a part of this effort and we see the efforts on the left to engage these tactics at every level of our society.

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

DONE – the Communist Party and the Democratic Socialists of America and many other Communist oriented groups are alive and well in America including our major Unions – see the book Barack Obama and the Enemies Within by Trevor Loudon. This is a classic tactic of the socialist/communist left. They use our freedoms against us i.e. free speech. Our leftist lawmakers protect these groups under the guise of free speech and legislators on the right fail to take on the responsibility of recognizing and dealing with destructive and undermining activities. This has now gone to the extreme in our nation as police are being slaughtered by anarchists across the nation.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

UNSUCCESSFUL – to date but trying hard with the help of the ACLU. Pretty obvious that BHO, his AG, Director of Homeland Security and other Constitutional officers are ignoring their oaths of allegiance to the Constitution.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

PARTIAL SUCCESS– there are international patent protections but Russia, China and other countries conduct corporate espionage and can gain access to US patents. It was alleged that Clinton sold some missile guidance system patents to China for a substantial campaign donation. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger was arrested stealing classified Secret documents from the National Archives believed to have substantiated this deal. He never served a day in prison.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

DONE -there are 65 members of the House Progressive Caucus who associate with the Democratic Socialists of America. Most other Democrats in Congress are socialists and believe in the nanny state. Progressives own the Senate including many RINOs that help the Democrats. (Rush provided excellent insight on this very subject today)

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

DONE – The Supreme Court has made abortions legal, struck down the Defense of Marriage Act at the Federal Level and also ordered that States with Protection of Marriage Laws even when in State Constitutions are unconstitutional. LGBT rights are now considered as a protected class the same as minorities. The attack on American Christianity and traditional customs, traditions and values continues – prayer has been taken out of schools and public events; attempts have been made to take God out of everything including the national Oath, coinage, National Anthem and religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments and Nativity scenes. Our morals and family structure have declined drastically as dysfunctional behavior increases. 40% of all babies are born out of wedlock (73% among blacks), marriage has declined to less than 50%, gang activity has increased, entitlement living has permeated at least 50% of our society who pay no taxes and illegal immigration continues. Attempts to curb such behavior are met with cries of racism, bigotry, hate crimes, violation of women’s rights, an attack on women’s health care or some other civil rights violation. The UN has placed the United States on their list of nations with poor human rights records and our Attorney General has sued states trying to enforce immigration laws.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

DONE – there is no doubt our public schools K-1-12 & Colleges and Universities are bastions of liberalism and progressivism; our public schools no longer teach traditional values/character development nor the Constitution and often use revisionist history and social studies curriculums and textbooks. Our teacher unions and Fed Dept. of Education dominated education system fights attempts to provide voucher or charter school options; eliminate tenure or impose accountability standards. One of the 8 ways Sal Alinsky advocated to turn a country to socialism was #6) Education – take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school. This is happening with COMMON CORE and other Dept. of Education initiatives. Most states have over a 30% drop out rate from free public high school educations, another root cause of poverty.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL – Most student newspapers/newsletters have a liberal and socialist slant. There is also tacit control of Text Books by progressive College/University Professor authors which has definitely slanted our student texts and often distorted or revised history towards a more liberal and progressive view of the world and life.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

ONGOING – look no further than the recent OCCUPY WALL STREET anarchist activities supported by our President, Vice President and many Progressive members of Congress as well as some City Officials and other government officials such as the Mayors of New York, Oakland and Atlanta and the Director of the National Park Services. Also look at the rise of student flash mobs to rob and loot in many of the Democrat controlled cities. On many college campuses, conservative speakers are not allowed and those conservative students views are restricted to “speaking zones” as a result of liberal student protests.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

SUCCESSFUL – in poll after poll over 85% of the press corps admit to being liberal and voting for Democrats. Editorials and Commentaries across the country are unabashedly biased towards Democrat policies and the Current Administration as are so called news programs of the mainstream media. All of the major networks were undeniably in the tank for Obama in the last election with 4 – 1 favorability ratios for Democrat candidates and 1 – 4 favorability towards Republican candidates. The liberal media throws softball questions at Democrat candidates and “gotcha” questions at Republican or Tea Party movement candidates.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

SUCCESSFUL – There is no doubt that the mainstream Television media and Motion Picture industry and their productions are mostly progressive in nature and often show left wing political bias. Reporting is frequently slanted left as are commentaries and movies. The Obama administration has pushed the “Fairness Doctrine” through the FCC but has not been able to instigate it which would destroy the conservative and profitable radio talk shows. Control over the internet using “net neutrality” has now been implemented by the FCC and could lead to suppression of conservative views on the internet as well as free internet for those already receiving govt. benefits. It should be noted that net neutrality was in effect before Ronald Reagan took office. He successfully got rid of that law. The left is now aggressively pursuing reinstating net neutrality, thinking that a new generation of Americans may once again accept it with the correct persuasion and pressure from other areas of our society.

The left wing entertainment industry have also touted the LGBT movement and multiculturalism in the shows and particularly in their commercials.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL – Art is in the eye of the beholder so you be the judge on this one.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

PARTIAL SUCCESS– From my perspective, there are many ugly and offensive so called art pieces in many museums – remember the controversy over the New York museum where one so called artwork featured a urine filled commode in which an American Flag was draped and the 1st Amendment was cited as the rationale for displaying it. The National Endowment for the Arts subsidized by our taxes funds many leftist artists…..let us not forget “Piss Christ” a highly offensive work which included a crucifix turned upside down in a container of urine. The Catholic church made the mistake of not going strongly after that and other highly offensive pieces that have been aimed at the Church.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

SUCCESS – Even network television now uses words that were XXX rated 40 years ago.

There is a huge double standard here as the word police want to reduce free speech by conservatives – Rush Limbaugh is ridiculed and boycotted for calling a Democrat hack lobbying for free birth control at a Catholic college a Slut but Bill Maher can call a Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin a Cunt on his HBO special and get away with it. The Federal govt. changes words it doesn’t like to suit its policies “Obama-Speak” like prohibiting the use of the words Islam or Islamists, eliminating the phrase war on terrorism and the word terrorist from its vocabulary replacing it with such phrases as “extremists” “man-caused disaster”, “workplace violence”etc. Muslims in the U.S. want to eliminate any negative use of Islam or Muhammad from our language in clear violation of our 1st Amendment rights.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

DONE – shows on network, prime time TV today would have been rated XXX several decades ago. Nudity bordering on pornography, sexual displays, obscenity, violence, anti-Christian messages, progressive ideologies, etc. are the standard in most of the mainstream television, movie, and print media today. Remember, in order to have Liberty a people need to have Freedom tempered by morality. The intent of our founding fathers upon designing our Republic was the assumption that Godly people would inhabit our nation and would govern themselves for the most part due to their adherence to the Word of God. The Communists are working hard to eliminate morality leaving us with un-tempered Freedom which is nothing but anarchy.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

DONE – The Supreme Court repealed DOMA and ruled in support of the LGBT community demands. They are now free to legally marry, are featured in gay rights parades and in personnel policies of most major corporations as a ploy to convince American Society they are accepted and are a much larger percentage of the population than they really are. LGBT couples adopt children and School Districts adopt books featuring LGBT people as if they are normal. Our lame-stream media assist them in their activities and goals. Obama has now stated he favors same sex marriages. Even though 33 states had marriage protection laws, 29 of which are inculcated in their Constitutions Federal Courts have now ruled these unconstitutional. The military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law has been repealed by Congress and replaced with an LGBT month and active recruitment of LGBTs. Already, the fastest growing trend of sexual assaults in the military are male on male; morale and good order and discipline have suffered under this social experimentation.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

PARTIAL SUCCESS – Black nationalist churches such as that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright attended by the Obama’s for over 20 years are on the rise. Such churches often preach racists hate towards other races and anti-Americanism. The Unitarian Universalist, Humanist and Scientology movements are examples of “social” religion. There is ample evidence of the ACLU working hard to eliminate Christian traditions in this country. Our government also looks for their interpretation of “Separation of Church and State”, a concept not found in the Constitution but begun by a Supreme Court ruling, in order to prevent our churches from actively being involved in politics especially where church values conflict with government values. IRS tax rules also hamstring the ability of tax exempt churches to be involved in politics – pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. are no supposed to spend more than 20% of their time talking politics from the podium or diesis. However, they look the other way when it comes to the so called churches of Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and Louis Farrakhan.

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

DONE – the law of the land has eliminated all prayer from schools and public gatherings. In 1962 the Supreme Court again declared that prayer in school was unconstitutional. In 1963 the Warren Court stopped schools from allowing Bible reading in classes. In 1980 the Supreme Court declared that posting the Ten Commandments in a school classroom violated the Constitution of the United States. Removing the belief in God from the Government and schools is #7 Religion – on Sal Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to turn a country socialist.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

ONGOING – The interpretation of the Constitution as a “living document” is the mantra of liberals and progressive in Congress, the White House and the media. Unfortunately, many in the Libertarian Party have joined the Progressives in this effort. Obamacare is overt proof that progressive politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ignore our Constitution when it suits their legislative purposes. Obama recently challenged the Supreme Court’s authority for “judicial review” as they considered the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Even a Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg recently stated that our Constitution is not a model for developing foreign powers. Now we have University Professors and others calling for the elimination of our Constitution as outdated. POTUS Obama has said he has a pen and a phone and if Congress won’t act on his agenda he will continue to rule by fiat using Executive Orders, Memos and guidance to federal departments to emplace controlling regulations, recess appointments, etc. It should be noted that a major part of this challenge of the Constitution by the president is a result of a Congress that is failing to speak up and do its job as one of the branches of our government using the system of checks and balances put in place by our founding fathers as a protection from just this sort of behavior. See http://majorityleader.gov/TheImperialPresidency/

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

ONGOING – Progressives and the media rarely mention the accomplishments of our founding fathers and when they do usually to criticize one or more like Thomas Jefferson for being a slave owner, completely ignoring all of his accomplishments. Since these men founded their beliefs in God’s natural laws and sincerely believed liberty and freedom came from God not government, they are in direct conflict with the beliefs of socialists, communists and progressives.

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

ONGOING – Traditional educators tend to be liberal and control School District Administrations and often School Boards. As such they control the textbooks used by the School District. Many school districts teach revisionist history from revisionist textbooks choosing instead to emphasize international history and multiculturalism. In many cases America is made out to be the bad guy in this process – a prime example being the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan during WWII. Civics, American History and the role of our Constitution in ensuring our freedom.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture-education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

DONE – our tax laws and other laws awarding welfare benefits as administered by Federal and State welfare agencies have changed the culture of the US to an entitlement state where 50% or more pay not taxes but get money back. Today, a record number of people are on Food Stamps; Housing Assistance; SSI disability & cash assistance; Medicaid; and other assistance such as free cell phones and cable television. The Federal workers Union is the largest of all the unions and the Teachers Union control our education system. Hundreds of socialist organizations now exist such as moveon.org and media matters, and ACORN. Unions such as the AFL-CIO and the SEIU actively participate in politics supporting most liberal causes and transporting members across states to participate in bashing anyone trying to control spending that involves reduction in union benefits or workers paying more of a fair share.

Additionally, all 8 of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for radicals fit in this category and are being implemented by the Obama Administration

1) Healthcare –Control healthcare and you control the people This has started under the ever changing law and rules of Obamacare.

2) Poverty –Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live. Instead of programs to defeat the root causes of poverty which is dysfunctional behavior the govt. and so called minority leaders continue to blame society and racism. Instead action should be taken on the real root causes including dropping out of HS; young, unwed mothers; drug use; gang activity, etc.

3) Debt –Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty. Debt has soared by 7T since 2008 and now totals over $18T headed to $20T+ by the time Obama leaves office. The 10T+ that will have accumulated under Obama is more than every other Presidents debt added together. The Fed prints money under QE to artificially prop up the economy and keeps interest rates low to prop up the stock market which is headed for a fall. POTUS and Democrats in Congress consistently push for more taxes – Obamacare adds 20 new taxes.

4) Gun Control –Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state. The 2nd Amendment is under constant attack with the latest push to force gun registration by those deemed to have some mental problems including PTSD. This could include hundreds of thousands of veterans. The next step after national registration is gun confiscation.

5) Welfare –Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)We now are a nanny state with more people on welfare than people working. Looking for work was removed by executive order as a requirement to receive unemployment benefits. Food stamps, SSI benefits, disability pay outs, govt. subsidized housing, free cell phones, etc. are at an all time high.

6) Education –Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school. Ongoing – newest method is Common Core; no child left behind legislation has also been reauthorized.

7) Religion –Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools –Christianity and Jeudism are constantly under attack by intolerant liberals now joined by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim groups all with the help of the ACLU.

8) Class Warfare –Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor. Obama’s latest campaign is to push for income equality rather than opportunity meaning wealth redistribution a concept which will kill free market incentives and damage the economy. Progressives are calling for higher progressive taxes on the upper incomes and on corporations.

….in short create a generation of dependent slaves……the left in the US has shown to be quite effective at that while at the same time the right is either playing along, or caught like a deer in the headlights and completely ineffective at dealing with these tactics effectively.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

PARTIAL – Communism and its cells and offshoots are not illegal in the United States. This would also imply eliminating the 2nd Amendment as gun control especially registration leading to confiscation would eliminate a means by which the people are able to fight against TYRANNY. This final act of confiscation recently took effect in Australia. They first made everyone register their guns and then they held a mass confiscation which the citizenry largely obeyed without question.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

DONE – Abolished 1975.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

UNSUCCESSFUL but more and more Federal agencies under the DHS are ignoring our Constitutional rights for habeus corpus and the posse coumatatis laws under the guise of the Patriot Act and NDA bill. Our people are much less trusting of Federal law enforcement agencies for these reasons as well as their huge purchases of ammunition, training using Tea Party movement as bad guys, militarization of equipment, etc. Unfortunately, the FBI under Eric Holder has been politicized as demonstrated by their failure to investigate & arrest the Benghazi attackers and failure to investigate the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

DONE – the most recent and overt example is the SEIU – Service Employees International Union founded by Andy Stern, a co-founder of ACORN who has visited the White House more than anyone in recent years. The SEIU gave over $61M to Obama’s 2007 campaign and many of its over 2M members have participated in thugery across this country to disrupt Tea Party rallies and town meetings and to intervene in grass roots movements to reduce union benefit as a means of controlling out of control spending. See Michelle Malkin » SEIU and the “persuasion of power;” Update: … michellemalkin.com/2009/08/06/seiu-and-the-persuasion-of-power/- Similarto Michelle Malkin » SEIU and the “persuasion of power;” Update: …Aug 6, 2009 … In May, I told you how the Service Employees International Union’s $61 million investment in Barack Obama paid off with cabinet appointments,

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL – Large Wall Street investment banking firms that were bailed out by the Obama administration contributed mega millions to his campaign despite being an easy target of Obama bullying. GE, one of our largest international Corps along with GM and Chrysler, two of our largest manufacturers are in Obama’s pocket. So are the crony capitalists in the green industries Warren Buffet campaigned for BHO policies. Many other businesses also contributed more to BHO than RR in the last election. BHO owns the NLRB who constantly go after those businesses that have relocated or built plants in right to work states.

Free market capitalism, proven to result in higher quality of life and greater degree of prosperity and liberty for a larger number of people than any other system in world history is frequently maligned by progressives, while socialistic, all-powerful nanny state has proven to delivery misery, corruption and serfdom throughout history, is celebrated.

We see the end result of this horrible process during the reign of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. During his rule the nation went from a largely successful economic entity to a socialist state. The Venezuelan government now completely owns 95% of all businesses in the nation. The nation has now returned to horrendous poverty and people are looking to escape. Business owners, teachers, lawyers and others who protested this process disappeared over the years of his regime and this practice continues after his death. Elections are now manipulated so that freedom seeking candidates cannot seek or enter office. It will take a revolution to turn the nation around. Similar events have also occurred in Argentina.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

ONGOING -Certainly, the headshrinkers in our country have become more vocal and adept at classifying and identifying what they call mental illness. Like lawyers, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists have a language all their own that mystifies most Americans and their role testifying in our courts have grown exponentially. Also look at the role they now play in identifying learning disorders like ADHD and OCD among children and the integration of government special learning programs in our schools. One seriously frightening aspect of this process is the medicating of our children who display these “behavioral disorders”. It has become far too easy to diagnose a child as ADHD, ADD or oppositional defiant and begin on psychotropic medications which severely affect them mentally and physically to alter their natural behavior. Even more frightening is the parents’ willingness to accept medications for their child without question.

BHO has issued many Executive Orders in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings renewing calls for all kinds of actions on mental health.

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

SUCCESSFUL – When nut jobs like Harry Reid are high-fived by the liberals and someone like Ted Cruz is called a whack job the work is almost done. In the USSR under “Pappa Joe” Stalin any dissent was ruled as insanity. Even more frightening is the trend of so called veterans help organizations like the VA that encourage them identify if they are suffering from PTSD and have a psychiatric exam. We then have pressure from government entities to make these discussions disclosed to government agencies. These agencies can then seize weapons from these veterans. Veterans who have experience with weapons, could use their training to train civilians interested in protecting themselves from a tyrannical government. The implications here are alarming.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

ONGOING -The breakdown of the core family and the ever increasing divorce rates as well as decreasing rates of marriage and increases I births at a younger age and out of wedlock has certainly occurred. The family is no longer neatly defined as a married man and woman with children but now includes single parent homes; homosexual parents; unwed parents; and very young people as parents. The root causes of poverty are related to dysfunctional behavior. All of this discredits the family unit. #2 on Saul Alynski’s Rules for Radicals is to increase the poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live i.e. a generation of slaves. Under the Obama Administration poverty has increased along with food stamps, disability compensation, free cell phones, govt. housing assistance, etc.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

ONGOING – The importance of the positive role of 2 parents in nurturing and mentoring children has often been replaced with a lack of parenting and the adverse impacts on children. Phyllis Schlafly, who writes a syndicated Commentary, points out that besides Communists, many groups had a motive for wanting to abolish the American nuclear family including the Feminist movement and their cry “Liberation” which meant liberation from husband, family, and care for children as demeaning. In the ’70s and again in 90’s with Hillary Clinton the liberal establishment’s mantra was “It Takes a Village” to raise a child meaning all sorts of government busybodies such as public school administrators, hired consultants, psychologists, custody evaluators, women’s studies courses, and especially, family court judges. Nowhere in this definition can be found parents. Today, the U.S. Census Bureau shows Family Court judges now control the private living arrangements of 46 M Americans and have the power to transfer $40 B between households.

She goes on to write “Political strategists advise candidates to stick to fiscal issues and not talk about social issues, but taxpayers’ money is spent on 78 types of taxpayer handouts to deal with social problems, including 12 food programs, 12 social services, 12 educational assistance, 11 housing assistance, 9 vocational training, 3 energy and utility assistance, school lunch and even breakfast and 3 child-care programs. Nothing but marriage can cut these costs.

It should be noted here that a common practice of communist controlled nations is to remove children from their parents at a very young age and educate/train them so that there is no chance to learn any other philosophy except that of the state. Organizations such as Head Start take children as young as three years of age and begin training them under the influences of the left…..it is free, paid by taxpayers and usually targets children of color

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.

ONGOING -One has to look no further than the incidents of Flash Mobs, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the Black Lives Matter movement to see this in action. Our current Administration has allied themselves with this 99/1 movement invoking Marxist principles of “fairness” to encourage income redistribution through more taxes on the affluent and on corporations. State and local Police are being marginalized by denigrating their importance, overemphasizing police brutality and a call for a national police force. The current move for gun control and limiting of the 2nd Amendment could fit into this category.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

NA -The United States does not have colonies unless Puerto Rico and the American Samoa are considered. Certainly, Barack Hussein Obama is an anti-colonialist as was his father. This has led to some very poor foreign policies headed by appeasement.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

DONE -President Carter, a progressive liberal insured we lost control of the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

UNSUCCESSFUL – So far, we have resisted giving the WC power over US sovereignty despite UN pressure to do so.

Following is from the Preamble of the Democratic Socialists of America in describing Where We Stand.

In the United States, we must fight for a humane public policies that will provide quality health care, education, and job training and that redirect public investment from the military to much-neglected urban housing and infrastructure. Such policies require the support of a majoritarian coalition of trade unionists, people of color, feminists, gays and lesbians and all other peoples committed to democratic change. Our greatest contribution as American socialists to global social justice is to build that coalition, which is key to transforming the power relations of global capitalism.

A strategy for the Next Left involves Social Redistribution–the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society – this will require:

1. massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, and

2. a massive shift of public resources from the military (the main user of existing discretionary funds) to civilian uses.

HuffPo maligns ‘white Christians’ says ‘White evangelicals will never make America great again’ – Take Action!

Huffingtonpost.com’s most recent racist anti-white, anti-Christian column titled “White evangelicals will never make America great again” was published on July 1, 2018.  If a HuffPost.com article ever denigrates “black” Christians it would most likely lose all advertisers including Hewlett Packard.  But some advertisers are okay with racist articles directed at white Christians.

The Huffington Post has published numerous articles that promote Islamist propaganda.  Huffington Post articles have defended the Muslim Brotherhood, fundraised for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), blamed Christian Islamophobia for worldwide conflict with Muslims, promoted an anti-Semitic blog, encouraged Islamist demagoguery, and promoted other Islamist propaganda.  The Huffington Post has former Al Jazeera journalists writing articles and Huffington Post Arabic is led by hard line Islamists from Al Jazeera.

The Huffington Post published an article written by Ben Piven on January 12, 2017 titled “Why Al Jazeera America Failed, And Why We Need It More Than Ever.”  The subtitle stated “America desperately needs something similar to pioneer this new era of uncertainty and misinformation.”  Ben Piven “was at Al Jazeera for over 5 years, including several years at AJAM in New York City and also in Doha at AJE during the height of the Arab Spring.”

Huffingtonpost.com calls America’s finest, our soldiers racist in its article titled “Becoming A Racist: The Unfortunate Side Effect Of Serving Your Country?” In addition to smearing America’s finest with the racist title it trashes our police as well.

Twenty one examples of Islamist propaganda articles have been provided to Hewlett Packardofficials.

Why  is  it  important  to  urge companies to stop advertising at Huffingtonpost.com?

  • The Huffington Post’s large number of readers and high volume of pro-Islamist reports makes it a leading proliferator of Islamist propaganda in the United States.
  • Islamophobia propaganda is the top tool Islamists use to influence Americans to ignore advancement of Sharia doctrine in the United States.  Unfortunately, it intimidates people to the point of stifling free speech in a manner that hurts public safety and allows Sharia to thrive.
  • The  Huffington  Post’s  frequent  pro-Islamist reporting feeds the Hate America crowd with more reasons to defend Islamists and ignore the harmful direction that results from its acceptance.
  • HuffPost and HuffPost Arab employ several former Al Jazeera reporters and Islamist advocates who have pushed the Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood agenda.
  • Florida Family Association’s opposition campaign educates thousands of officials at American companies about the harm caused by erroneous Islamophobia propaganda and pro-Islamist reporting.  The thousands of emails that company officials receive reveal that there are many Americans who find Islamist propaganda deceitful, harmful and offensive.

Hewlett Packard certainly has the right to advertise in whatever forum it chooses. You have the same right to voice concern regarding the content on such forums and choose to patronize companies that will not spend your consumer dollars supporting Islamist propaganda and spewing hate at Christians, Jews and white people.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to encourage Hewlett Packard officials to stop supporting Huffingtonpost.com propaganda with its customers’ money.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email to encourage Hewlett Packard officials to stop supporting Huffingtonpost.com vitriolic and Islamist propaganda with its customers’ money.

RELATED ARTICLE: Harvard scholar is wrong: Leviticus NEVER approved of gay sex

Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh

President Donald Trump announced on Monday night his nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh, who was included in The Heritage Foundation’s original list of potential Supreme Court nominees, is a very promising choice.

The battle lines were already drawn before Trump made his announcement, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declaring he would not vote for any of the individuals on Trump’s short list.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., promised the confirmation vote would happen this fall. Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the process of reviewing Kavanaugh’s judicial record and background, with a hearing coming later this summer.

Let’s take a closer look at Kavanaugh.

Born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Bethesda, Maryland, Kavanaugh is 53 years old, Catholic, and married with two young daughters (whose basketball teams he coaches). He obtained both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. After law school, Kavanaugh clerked for 3rd Circuit Judge Walter Stapleton and 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski.

Following a one-year fellowship in the office of Solicitor General Ken Starr, Kavanaugh clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court (along with fellow law clerk, and current Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch).

Kavanaugh next joined Starr at the Office of the Independent Counsel, where he led the investigation into the death of Vince Foster (an aide to President Bill Clinton) and was the principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

He also served as a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, a prestigious law firm where his practice focused on appellate matters. Kavanaugh took on several pro bono matters, including representing Adat Shalom Congregation in its fight against Montgomery County, Maryland, which sought to halt construction of a synagogue, and representing 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez after immigration authorities decided to return him to Cuba.

Prior to his appointment to the bench, Kavanaugh served as associate counsel, senior associate counsel, and then staff secretary to President George W. Bush.

Kavanaugh is no stranger to a tough confirmation process. Although he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit (which is often regarded as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court) in 2003, the Senate did not confirm Kavanaugh until 2006, by a vote of 57-36. Four Democratic senators voted in favor of his confirmation, but none remains in the Senate today.

As Kavanaugh explained at a Heritage Foundation event in 2017:

I think Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, both of whom had substantial White House experience, would probably say that their White House experiences likewise have made them better jurists. But at the time of my confirmation in 2006, it is fair to say that certain senators were not sold on that. They were not sold that the White House was the best launching pad for a position on the D.C. Circuit.

Indeed, one senator at my hearing noted that I had worked at the White House for more than five years and said in his remarks, this nomination “is not just a drop of salt in the partisan wounds, it is the whole shaker.” And this is true. After the hearing, my mom said to me, “I think he really respects you.” As only a mom can.

Approach to Judging

An outstanding writer, Kavanaugh has written approximately 300 opinions during his 12 years on the bench, many dealing with controversial topics that will likely come up during his confirmation hearing. Kavanagh has also written extensively on the separation of powers and statutory interpretation, and has co-authored a book on judicial precedent (along with Bryan Garner and 11 appeals court judges, including then-Judge Gorsuch).

Drawing from his experience working in the Bush White House, Kavanaugh argued in a 2009 article that Congress should consider enacting a law that would protect a sitting president from criminal investigation, indictment, or prosecution while in office. He explained:

The indictment and trial of a sitting president … would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Kavanaugh is a committed textualist. As Kavanaugh succinctly stated in a book review published in the Harvard Law Review, “The text of the law is the law.” He has reiterated this view in many of his opinions.

In Fourstar v. Garden City Group, Inc. (2017), he wrote, “It is not a judge’s job to add to or otherwise re-mold statutory text to try to meet a statute’s perceived policy objectives. Instead, we must apply the statute as written.” And in District of Columbia v. Department of Labor (2016), he write, “As judges, we are not authorized to rewrite statutory text simply because we might think it should be updated.”

Kavanaugh is a critic of Chevron deference, under which courts show considerable deference to executive branch agencies in interpreting arguably ambiguous statutes. In his view, “Chevron itself is an atextual invention by courts. In many ways, Chevron is nothing more than a judicially orchestrated shift of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.”

And in 2017, while delivering the Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at The Heritage Foundation, Kavanaugh spoke eloquently about the judiciary’s essential role in maintaining the separation of powers and concluded:

Statutory interpretation is inherently complex, people say. It is all politics anyway, some contend. I have heard all the excuses. I have been doing this for 11 years. I am not buying it. In my view, it is a mistake to think that this current mess in statutory interpretation is somehow the natural and unalterable order of things. Put simply, we can do better in the realm of statutory interpretation. And for the sake of the neutral and impartial rule of law, we must do better.

His record as a judge reflects a skepticism toward Chevron deference. Indeed, Kavanaugh has written or joined dozens of opinions finding an agency’s actions unlawful as well as many dissenting opinions (some of which were ultimately vindicated by the Supreme Court) in which the court’s majority upheld agency actions.

For example, he dissented from his court’s ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency could disregard cost-benefit analysis when considering a proposed rule in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (2012). The Supreme Court later reversed that decision, citing Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion.

And in U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (2017), a case involving net neutrality, Kavanaugh dissented from the court’s refusal to hear the case en banc. He argued that the Federal Communications Commission was not entitled to Chevron deference because Congress had not explicitly delegated authority to the FCC to treat the internet like a public utility subject to regulation.

Other Notable Opinions

In terms of the separation of powers, Kavanaugh dissented in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2008), arguing that limitations on the president’s ability to remove members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board violated the Constitution. He stated that the “President’s power to remove is critical to the President’s power to control the Executive Branch and perform his Article II responsibilities.”

Similarly, in PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2016), Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion holding that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—an independent agency headed by a single individual who can only be removed for cause—was unconstitutional.

When the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc reached the opposite conclusion, Kavanaugh wrote a powerful dissent suggesting that the Supreme Court might wish to reconsider its holding in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935), which upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies.

Separation of powers was also at the heart of the 2016 per curiam (unsigned) opinion that Kavanaugh joined in al-Bahlul v. U.S., in which the court upheld the conviction before a military commission of Osama bin Laden’s driver for conspiracy to commit war crimes. While the majority declined to reach the issue of whether Congress had the authority to make conspiracy a triable offense before a military tribunal (because it is not an offense under the international laws of war), Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion stating that “federal courts are not empowered to smuggle international law into the U.S. Constitution and then wield it as a club against Congress and the President in wartime.”

This opinion echoed Kavanaugh’s earlier concurrence in al-Bihani v. Obama (2010), in which he argued that international law should not present a judicially enforceable limit on the president’s statutory authority to detain enemy combatants unless Congress expressly incorporates international law norms into U.S. law.

As for the Second Amendment, Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia (2011)—a follow-on case to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling acknowledging the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms. Kavanaugh would have held D.C.’s ban on the possession of semi-automatic rifles unconstitutional, stating that “Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”

Anticipating the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Kavanaugh ruled in Emily’s List v. FEC (2009) that the commission’s regulations limiting independent political expenditures by non-profit organizations violated the First Amendment. Kavanaugh also wrote the majority opinion in South Carolina v. Holder (2012), upholding South Carolina’s voter ID law.

Kavanaugh has been criticized by some on the right for not going far enough in opinions he wrote involving religious liberty (Newdow v. Roberts and Priests for Life v. HHS), abortion (Garza v. Hargan), and Obamacare (Seven-Sky v. Holder).

In 2010 in Newdow, the D.C. Circuit rejected an establishment clause challenge to prayers offered at the presidential inauguration and to the inclusion of “so help me God” in the presidential oath. While the majority held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and therefore did not reach the merits of the case, Kavanaugh concurred, stating that he would have reached the merits (which is why he has been criticized by some conservatives) and squarely ruled against the challengers, finding that “both ‘so help me God’ in the Presidential oath and the prayers at the Presidential Inauguration do not violate the Establishment Clause.”

In 2015 in Priests for Life v. Burwell, the court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not prohibit the Obama administration from requiring religious non-profit groups who objected to the so-called contraceptive mandate to file forms with their insurers that would have facilitated contraceptive coverage, including abortifacients, for their employees.

In a dissenting opinion, Kavanaugh stated that he would have invalidated the mandate as a violation of the deeply held religious convictions of those organizations, arguing that even if the government could, for the sake of argument, establish a compelling interest in ensuring that women have access to contraceptive services, the Obama administration should still lose because there were less restrictive means available to accomplish that objective.

A Key Abortion Case

Somewhat unfairly, even entertaining this possibility triggered the objections of some conservatives, who sought to cast Kavanaugh as a weak champion of religious liberty. Kavanaugh’s position was ultimately vindicated by the Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell (2016).

Moreover, as far as Kavanaugh’s commitment to religious liberty, it is worth noting that during the recent oral arguments in Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, a case challenging D.C. Metro’s ban on religious advertising, including Christmas ads, Kavanaugh asked some tough questions of Metro’s lawyer, stating his view that the ban was “pure discrimination” and “odious” to the First Amendment.

In 2017, in Garza, Kavanaugh voted twice in favor of the Trump administration’s legal argument that an illegal immigrant minor in U.S. custody does not have a right to an immediate government-facilitated abortion on demand.

In the initial panel decision, Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, reversing the district court ruling in favor of the illegal immigrant minor. When the full D.C. Circuit reviewed the case and ruled in favor of the illegal immigrant, Kavanaugh dissented, stating that the court had “badly erred” in adopting a “radical extension of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence” and inventing “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.”

His dissent fully endorsed the government’s “permissible interests in favoring fetal life” and “refraining from facilitating abortion.” In a separate dissent, Judge Karen Henderson concluded that as a noncitizen, the young woman had no right to an abortion.

Some conservatives have criticized Kavanaugh for not joining Henderson’s opinion. However, Kavanaugh not only didn’t need to go as far as Henderson did to rule in the government’s favor, the government’s attorneys had conceded that an unlawful immigrant minor is assumed to have a right to an abortion.

Finally, in 2011 in Seven-Sky, the D.C. Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate under the Commerce Clause in a surprising opinion by Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee and a highly-respected conservative jurist.

Kavanaugh dissented, writing that the mandate was “unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and predicting that it would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit” (forecasting the dissenting views of Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).

Rather than taking the majority’s commerce clause argument head-on (which is what Kavanaugh’s critics would have preferred), he explained that it was premature to rule on the individual mandate’s constitutionality and that the case was not ripe for adjudication under the Anti-Injunction Act because the mandate had not yet taken effect, a defect which Kavanaugh believed deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider the case.

In evaluating each of these decisions, it is worth remembering that Kavanaugh sits on a court in which a majority of the judges were appointed by Democratic presidents and would certainly not be considered conservative jurists.

Moreover, a good conservative judge might well decide to fashion an opinion in a way designed to maximize the likelihood that a closely-divided Supreme Court would ultimately agree to hear the case and adopt his position, a strategy that Kavanaugh has effectively utilized on several occasions over the years. As Kavanaugh stated during his Story Lecture at Heritage, “[W]hen Justice Kennedy says something, I listen.”

In short, Kavanaugh has been playing the long game to advance an understanding of the laws and Constitution that is faithful to the text and original meaning.

Approach to the Law

In a 2017 speech at Notre Dame Law School, Kavanaugh spoke about Scalia’s impact on the law and the late justice’s view that federal judges “should not be making policy-laden judgments.” Kavanaugh remarked, “I believe very deeply in [the] visions of the rule of law as a law of rules, and of the judge as umpire. By that, I mean a neutral, impartial judiciary that decides cases based on settled principles without regard to policy preferences or political allegiances or which party is on which side in a particular case.”

He elaborated on what Scalia stood for as a judge:

[R]ead the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the Constitution as written, mindful of history and tradition. The Constitution is a document of majestic specificity defining governmental structure, individual rights, and the role of a judge. Remember that the structural provisions of the Constitution—the separation of powers and federalism—are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are essential to protecting individual liberty. … Remember that courts have a critical role, when a party has standing, in enforcing those separation of powers and federalism limits.

Though Kavanaugh was speaking about Scalia, his words could very well describe his own approach to the law and his commitment to the Constitution.

Americans undoubtedly will learn more about Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court, and the important, but limited, role judges should play in our government as the confirmation process unfolds in the Senate.

While Schumer and other Senate Democrats have already announced their intention to block any nominee, they will have a hard case to make given Kavanaugh’s impressive record, fidelity to the Constitution, and respect for the rule of law.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research. Twitter: .

Portrait of Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She co-hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Right Choice for America

8 Things to Know About Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh

27 Reactions From Liberals on Kavanaugh

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz Dismisses Liberal Hysteria Over Trump’s SCOTUS Pick

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, speaking last year at The Heritage Foundation, to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. (Photo: Willis Bretz for The Heritage Foundation)

Getting to Know Parkland Student Kyle Kashuv — Who is Standing for Our Rights

In an email Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School student Kyle Kashuv wrote:

Up until February 14th, I was just your normal high school kid living in Parkland, Florida.

Then everything changed. After witnessing the horrible tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, our school and classmates were thrust into the national spotlight for all of the wrong reasons. News teams from all over the country wanted to talk to my classmates about their reactions and stances on gun control.

While David Hogg hogged the national spotlight by sensationalizing this tragedy and blaming this horrific act on guns, myself and some of my classmates felt largely ignored. We too were survivors, but no one wanted to talk to us because we didn’t fit their pro-gun control narrative.

That’s when I decided I couldn’t let this dangerous narrative go unchallenged. I chose to speak up and become an outspoken advocate of the Second Amendment and argue against gun control.

I’ve had several incredible opportunities since speaking out, like meeting the President of the United States and his wonderful First Lady, Melania Trump.

Now I’m ready to take on the next chapter in life. I’m proud to announce that I have accepted the job as Turning Point USA’s High School Coordinator! In my new role, I plan to defend our Second Amendment rights and bring Turning Point USA’s messages of free markets, free people, and limited government to high schoolers across the country.

Watch Kyle talk about his efforts during media interviews:

Netflix Investigated for Allegedly Allowing Child Porn on Site

Netflix is under investigation for allowing what could be considered child porn on its streaming site.

The Argentinian film “Desire” is the movie in question because it includes a graphic scene where two underage girls engage in “sexually suggestive behavior.” The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is currently investigating the movie, according to the Daily Mail.

dcnf-logo

“Sexually explicit content” does not have to depict “a child engaging in sexual activity,” according to Department of Justice guidelines. The movie could still be considered child pornography if the content meets the threshold of being “sufficiently sexually suggestive.”

The scene shows two young girls, 7 and 9 years old, experimenting sexually by playing “horse” on pillows, reported Faithwire.

PJ Media writer Megan Fox originally reported the film to the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Wednesday, and described the scene in question as “graphic and includes an orgasm.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Netflix Host Michelle Wolf Leads Pro-Abortion Salute: ‘God Bless Abortions’

EDITORS NOTE: Department of Justice guidelines on child pornography state:

Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is of the Netflix logo pictured on a television in this illustration photograph taken in Encinitas, California, U.S., January 18, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo.

How bad is the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety [and gun control] Act?

This article encapsulates all the reasons why the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act is a horribly bad piece of legislation (with the exception of  the Marshall, Guardian and/or Safety Officer piece to put armed school officials or an armed security guard at all schools – basically PCSO Sheriff Judd’s plan).  The rest is just scary and/or an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that adds more power and control to state and local governments – in fact much of it is down right Marxist in my opinion.

Any Republican in the Florida Legislature who voted Yes for this law along with Governor Scott who signed it should be ashamed of themselves.

I just read all 105 pages of the law again very slowly and it scares the hell out of me especially the part about the ex parte and Risk Protection Orders allowing the courts to seize all firearms of a person  from their home or elsewhere  accused (and must prove their innocence) of being a threat or risk to themselves or others without DUE PROCESS and in my view in clear violation of our 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights.

I highly recommend you read this law for yourself (here) especially pages  27 – 47 and 57 – 61 and send it out to others to read for themselves.  If this doesn’t scare you/them then you are much too trusting of  our system of Justice and its corruption by the left and establishment types in many areas than I am.  At the Federal level they are trying the same thing called “Red Flag” laws.

I really don’t understand why the NRA is only going after the lowering of the age piece and not the ex parte order piece which is clearly dangerous for all legal carry permit holders and gun owners regardless of age especially in the hands of liberal judges, liberal prosecutors and  LE officials in Democrat controlled areas (counties and cities).

We can’t deny that these ex parte order and Risk Protection Order pieces of this terrible law will facilitate the weaponizing of the law against 2nd Amendment rights! This is especially so where there are Liberal Judges and Prosecutors based in liberal districts, counties and cities.

Wake Up

This law is mostly about gun control rather than school safety!  It is about solidifying the leftist base that wants to take away all firearms.  It is simply a knee jerk reaction to leftist propaganda and politicizing dead children killed by a lunatic who should have been in jail or at least disarmed and this would never have happened.

The terrible Parkland High School shootings resulted from a failure of the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff and his Department to do their job in protecting schools including a Broward Coward Deputy on scene who refused to run to the sound of the gun and 3 other deputies who arrived while shooting still ongoing and hid behind barricade.   Co – responsible is the School Superintendent and Board who put in place Barack Obama & Eric Holder’s Promises program to not identify or arrest criminal minority teenagers.

Where is the condemnation and firing of Sheriff Israel, his on school site Deputies who hid behind barriers as the firing continued for 4-6 mins and the on Site Captain scene commander who wouldn’t allow Fire Chief & his EMTs to render aid to the wounded for over 20 mins and the Superintendent of Schools of Broward County & his School Board who put in place the ill-conceived Obama Promise Program to cover up teenage minority criminals including the shooter – Cruz?

We need to be on a crusade about these 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment violations of our rights in this very dangerous, slip shod, knee jerk reaction law which is based on emotional outbursts from the left seeking gun control.  The Parkland shootings are a clear result of a failure of law enforcement at the Federal and County levels and school board officials in Broward county and not every law abiding gun owner in Florida.

It seems to me that only a few folks seem concerned about this as all I hear from many conservative group and 2A advocacy circles are crickets.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act

Please feel free to send back your comments/feedback.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Florida Launches Gun Confiscation Program, 467 Forced To Surrender Guns

We need to harden our families, not our schools

6 Common Media Myths About Gun Control

The United Nations Report on American Poverty Is Just Plain Wrong

Daniel J. Mitchell The UN insists that the US is mired in poverty, but their report is full of deception and bad data.

by Daniel J. Mitchell

When writing about the statist agenda of international bureaucracies, I generally focus my attention on the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Today, let’s give some attention to the United Nations.

Based on this story from the Washington Post, the bureaucrats at the UN have concluded that America is a miserable and awful nation.

…a new United Nations report that examines entrenched poverty in the United States…calls the number of children living in poverty “shockingly high.” …the report, written by U.N. special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights Philip Alston, says the United States tops the developed world with the highest rates of youth poverty… The results of the report are not out of line with a number of others…in recent years by different organizations in which the United States has turned up at or near the top on issues such as poverty rates.

But I’ve learned from personal experience (see here and here) that the United Nations is guided by statist ideology, and I should be extremely skeptical of any of its findings.

For instance, when it intervenes in policy (global warming and gun control, for instance, as well as the Internet, the War on Drugsmonetary policy, and taxpayer-financed birth control), the UN inevitably urges more power and control for government.

So, let’s take a jaundiced look at some of the assertions in this new report, starting with that dramatic claim of record child poverty in America.

The United States…has the highest youth poverty rate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)… The consequences of neglecting poverty… The United States has one of the highest poverty…levels among the OECD countries… the shockingly high number of children living in poverty in the United States demands urgent attention. …About 20 per cent of children live in relative income poverty, compared to the OECD average of 13 per cent.

So is it true that poverty is very high in the USA and is it also true that America has the highest rate of child poverty among all OECD countries? Even higher than Mexico, Greece, and Turkey? And what is the source of this remarkable assertion?

If you look at footnote #51, you’ll see reference to an OECD publication that contains this supposedly damning chart.

But if you look at the fine print at the bottom, you’ll discover that the chart on child poverty doesn’t actually measure child poverty. Instead, the bureaucrats at the OECD have put together a measure of income distribution and decided that “relative poverty” exists for anyone who has less than 50 percent of the median level of disposable income.

In other words, the United States looks bad only because median income is very high compared to other nations.

Which is the same dishonest data manipulation that the OECD uses when exaggerating America’s overall poverty rate (other groups that have used this deliberately dishonest methodology include the Equal Welfare Association, Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics, and the Obama Administration).

The bottom line is that the key finding of the UN report is based on a bald-faced lie.

By the way, I’m not surprised to see that the UN report also cites the IMF to justify statist policies.

In a 2017 report, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) captured the situation…, stating that the United States economy “is delivering better living standards for only the few”, and that “household incomes are stagnating for a large share of the population, job opportunities are deteriorating, prospects for upward mobility are waning, and economic gains are increasingly accruing to those that are already wealthy” …A much-cited IMF paper concluded that redistribution could be good for growth, stating: “The combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution—including the growth effects of the resulting lower inequality—are on average pro-growth.”

For what it’s worth, the IMF’s research on growth and inequality is embarrassingly bad.

Here’s another big takeaway from the UN report.

The United States…has the highest…infant mortality rates among comparable OECD States. …The infant mortality rate, at 5.8 deaths per 1,000 live births, is almost 50 per cent higher than the OECD average of 3.9.

I’m not an expert on infant mortality. Indeed, I’ve never looked at infant mortality data. But given the UN’s reliance on dodgy and dishonest numbers in other areas, I’m skeptical whether these numbers are true.

And, according to Johan Norberg, the numbers about high levels of infant mortality in the United States are false.

The UN report contains many other ideologically motivated attacks on the United States.

For instance, America is a bad country because taxes supposedly are too low.

The United States has the highest rate of income inequality among Western countries. The $1.5 trillion in tax cuts in December 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and worsened inequality. …The tax cuts will fuel a global race to the bottom, thus further reducing the revenues needed by Governments to ensure basic social protection and meet their human rights obligations. …There is a real need for the realization to sink in among the majority of the American population that taxes are not only in their interest, but also perfectly reconcilable with a growth agenda.

While the above passage is remarkable for the level of economic illiteracy, I confess that I chortled with glee when I read the part about how the recent tax reform “will fuel a global race to the bottom.”

As I wrote last year and this year, the fact that other governments will face pressure to reduce tax rates is something to celebrate.

Here’s one final excerpt. The UN report also bashes the United States because we don’t view dependency as a human right.

Successive administrations, including the current one, have determinedly rejected the idea that economic and social rights are full-fledged human rights, despite their clear recognition not only in key treaties that the United States has ratified… But denial does not eliminate responsibility, nor does it negate obligations. International human rights law recognizes a right to education, a right to health care, a right to social protection for those in need and a right to an adequate standard of living.

Needless to say, a problem with this vision of “positive rights” is that it assumes there will always be a supply of chumps willing to work hard so the government can tax away their money to finance all the goodies. But Greece shows us that it’s just a matter of time before that game ends with disaster.


In other words, Thomas Sowell is right and Franklin Roosevelt was wrong.

Let’s close with some good news. As the Washington Post just reported, the UN’s dishonest anti-American screed apparently will prove costly to that bloated bureaucracy.

Alston arrived in Washington last fall on a mission from the U.N. Human Rights Council to document poverty in America. …he was told by a senior State Department official that his findings may influence the United States’ membership in the human rights body. …“I think I was being sent a message.” Two other people at the meeting, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed Alston’s account. …Nikki Haley announced this week that the United States would withdraw from the Human Rights Council.

Good for Ambassador Haley.

Her actions stand in stark contrast to some of her predecessors, who apparently believed in taxpayer-financed self-flagellation.

Alston said he was initially invited by the U.S. government under President Barack Obama to study poverty in America. The invitation was extended again by U.S. officials under then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in 2017, he said. “We look forward to welcoming Mr. Alston to the United States for a country visit this December,” Flacelia Celsula, part of the U.S. delegation at the United Nations, said in a meeting of the Human Rights Council on June 8, 2017.

It goes without saying that Mr. Alston should have the freedom to write leftist reports. He also should have the freedom to spread lies in those reports. But I don’t want American tax dollars to finance his ideological bilge.

Which brings us to the obvious takeaway. As seems to be the case with all international bureaucracies, the United Nations wastes money at a prodigious pace. With any luck, Alston’s nonsense will convince American policymakers that deep budget cuts for the UN are long overdue.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

VIDEO: A Watched Gun Hasn’t Fired for Nearly One Year — GunCam Miracle?

Will the gun on 2ndVote GunCam make it through an entire year without committing a crime? The countdown is on.

American left and its allies in the media have long insisted that it is guns, and not people, that commit acts of violence. Pieces at Psychology TodayThe NationThe Washington PostThe Huffington PostRolling Stoneand even the editorial board of the Journal of the American Medical Association have all supported the alleged accuracy of this notion.

Given this conclusion, it is nothing short of a miracle that 2ndVote’s GunCam video has recorded zero deaths and zero crimes committed by a gun which we have closely observed for nearly a year. Don’t take our word for it! Check out the live stream video below:

Perhaps we’re being unfair to those who believe inanimate objects can choose to kill human beings. That’s why we’re carefully scrutinizing GunCam. Will this pistol suddenly jump up and run away? Will it pivot and target the video camera by which it is being observed?

We doubt it. And like several companies which have recently separated from Dick’s Sporting Goods over its anti-Second Amendment corporate decisions, we’re very confident that no other guns will commit any crimes of any sort under their own volition. Like those companies, we know that millions of Americans safely use guns — many to defend themselves and their families.

Then again, Enterprise seems to disagreeSo do dozens of other companies. Who is right — 2ndVote and America’s Founders, or these companies’ leaders who are afraid of anti-gun zealots?

The answer is still in the Great Unknown. So we shall continue our careful scrutiny of GunCam to ascertain the answer!

Help us continue developing the content and research that conservatives are using to hold corporations for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

Socialism is Not Built on Compassion. It’s Built on Dehumanizing Others.

Barry Brownstein How is it possible to insist that the next socialist regime will be different?

by Barry Brownstein

Some claim capitalism dehumanizes individuals. Others claim Horatio Alger stories are a myth, believing individuals have little social or economic mobility under capitalism and cannot rise above the circumstances into which they are born.

If you believe capitalism does a worse job than socialism on social and economic mobility and that socialism treats people more humanely, please spend time in a collectivist country such as North Korea and report back.

In my essay, “People Are Less Selfish Under Capitalism,” I explore why individualism and free exchange make people more altruistic and trustworthy. The flip side of this issue reveals how and why collectivism dehumanizes individuals.

Collectivist Societies Are Held Together by Hate

In The True Believer, a seminal book on mass movements by social philosopher Eric Hoffer, Hoffer writes: “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually, the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.”

Hoffer recounts the story “of a Japanese mission that arrived in Berlin in 1932 to study the National Socialist movement.” British journalist Frederick Voigt “asked a member of the mission what he thought of the movement.”

Demonstrating the need for a tangible “devil,” the member replied, “It is magnificent. I wish we could have something like it in Japan, only we can’t, because we haven’t got any Jews.”

Without stirring primitive hatred pitting “us” against “them,” there can be no unwavering allegiance of the population when a mass movement fails to deliver on its promises.

When socialism’s inevitability fails, the ruling elites have to shift the attention of the population to a scapegoat. Someone or some group other than the political leadership needs to be blamed.

When human beings are not consumed by thoughts of differences and hate, they naturally connect with the humanity in others. As psychology professor Nour Kteily observes, “We have this incredible capacity for cooperation; it’s what makes us human in many ways. And yet we have this capacity for othering.”

Hatred begins when we dehumanize others. We lump individuals into a single homogeneous group. This other group becomes the target of hate when we believe ‘I am suffering because of them.’

Philosophy professor Michelle Maiese provides insight into how othering leads to deindividuation, which leads to dehumanization and opens a moral loophole to justify harming others:

Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated. It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one’s opponents.

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

The Nazis depicted Jews as rats. Hutu officials in Rwanda called Tutsis cockroaches. Stripped of their humanity, Jews and Tutsis became victims of genocide.

Like the Japanese, North Koreans have no Jews, but the North Koreans have made a “devil” out Americans—and much of their own population.

North Korean defector Hyeonseo Lee grew up thinking her country “was the greatest nation on earth.” In her book, The Girl With Seven Names, Lee explains how she was taught that “South Korean children were dressed in rags” and “scavenged for food on garbage heaps and suffered the sadistic cruelty of American soldiers, who used them for target practice, ran them over in jeeps, or made them polish boots.” Lee’s teacher showed “cartoon drawings of children begging barefoot in winter.”

Those in North Korea suffer unimaginable deprivations and do not understand how much better off the rest of the world is. The North Korean house of horrors is held together by brute force, unrelenting propaganda, and indoctrinated hate.

Like Hyeonseo Lee, Yeonmi Park is a North Korean defector. In her book, In Order to Live, Park tells of North Korean school children learning arithmetic by counting the number of dead “American bastards.”

Stirring up hatred against Americans, however, is not enough to keep the Kims in power in North Korea. Few North Koreans will ever encounter an American.

Sadly, the greatest hatred of the ruling elites in North Korea is reserved for their own people when their allegiance to the state is judged as less than absolute. According to the NK Hidden Gulag blog, a project supported by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, this class of citizens allegedly harbors “counter-revolutionary attitudes or associations, including being guilty of what North Korean gulag expert David Hawk describes as ‘wrong-doing, wrong-thinking, wrong-knowledge, wrong-association, or the wrong-class background.’”

A Feudal System

North Korean people live under seongbun, a rigid system of social classification from which there is no hope of escape. Once classified, the only possible social movement is down.

All 23 million North Koreans are classified into one of three categories: “loyal, wavering, or hostile.” Hyeonseo Lee describes the seongbun system:

Within the three broad categories there are fifty-one gradations of status, ranging from the ruling Kim family at the top, to political prisoners with no hope of release at the bottom.

The irony was that the new communist state had created a social hierarchy more elaborate and stratified than anything seen in the time of the feudal emperors. People in the hostile class, which made up about 40 per cent of the population, learned not to dream. They got assigned to farms and mines and manual labour.

An essential feature of seongbun is the doctrine of yeon-jwa-je for the collective punishment of political crimes. As the yeon-jwa-je edict, issued by Kim Il-sung in 1970, states, “The seed of factionalists or enemies of class, whoever they are, must be eliminated through three generations.”

Lee describes how the Bowibu, the secret police of North Korea, rely on neighbors “to inform on neighbours; children to spy on children; workers to watch co-workers; and the head of the neighbourhood people’s unit, the banjang, [to maintain] an organized system of surveillance on every family in her unit.”

Collective guilt, yeon-jwa-je, creates a population that lives in a state of fear and paranoia.

Lee adds that the “Bowibu weren’t interested in the real crimes that affected people, such as theft, which was rife, or corruption, but only in political disloyalty, the faintest hint of which, real or imagined, was enough to make an entire family–grandparents, parents and children–disappear. Their house would be roped off; they’d be taken away in a truck at night, and not seen again.”

Sitting on a newspaper with a Kim’s face” is a “crime” that can send three generations to North Korean concentration camps.

Worship of the Kim dynasty is demanded of the population. Lee describes one manifestation of this worship:

Our entire family life, eating, socializing and sleeping, took place beneath the portraits. I was growing up under their gaze. Looking after them was the first rule of every family. In fact they represented a second family, wiser and more benign even than our own parents. They depicted our Great Leader Kim Il-sung, who founded our country, and his beloved son Kim Jong-il, the Dear Leader, who would one day succeed him. Their distant, airbrushed faces took pride of place in our home, and in all homes. They hung like icons in every building I ever entered. From an early age I helped my mother clean them. We used a special cloth provided by the government, which could not be used for cleaning anything else.

Relentless North Korean propaganda has claimed that some gave their lives to save the “sacred” portraits:

Each year, stories of portrait-saving heroics would be featured in the media. My parents would hear a radio report commending a grandfather who’d waded through treacherous flood water holding the portraits above his head (he’d saved them, but sacrificed his own life in the attempt), or see a photograph in the Rodong Sinmun, the national daily, of a couple sitting precariously on the tiled roof of their hut after a catastrophic mudslide, clutching the sacred portraits. The newspaper exhorted all citizens to emulate the example of these real-life heroes.

Here is the ultimate dehumanization: all that truly matters in North Korea are the lives of the Kims. “Even those dying from starvation…they said ‘I’m worried about Kim Jong Il, the leader. His health. His safety.’”

There Is Nothing Unique about North Korea

In the vast system of North Korean concentration camps, North Korean guards treat their fellow North Koreans brutally. Indoctrinated in seongbun and yeon-jwa-je, guards see prisoners as less-than-human, counter-revolutionary “others.”

In his book Long Road Home: Testimony of a North Korean Camp Survivor, Yong Kim offers a searing testimony of the brutality in North Korean concentration camps. Yong Kim is one of the only known survivors of camp No. 14. Yong Kim details the plight of inmates forced to work over 12 hours a day doing dangerous and hard work on “three handfuls of corn kernels accompanied by a little rough salt and a bowl of watery soup—a portion deliberately designed to starve inmates to slow and excruciating death.”

As Yong Kim writes, “Prisoners were beyond the point of feeling hungry, so they felt constantly delirious. But what was really killing us was psychological and emotional torture. No family members were allowed to stay together.” (Recall that three generations of North Koreans are imprisoned for political crimes.)

If you believe the horrors of North Korea are an aberration, you are wrong. History shows socialist states dehumanize others, grouping them into hostile classes, as UCLA professor Kim Suk-Young explains in her introduction to Long Road Home:

We find practices similar to the North Korean seongbun, which marked undesired social groups and stigmatized them permanently in the aftermath of the socialist revolution. Richard K. Carton notes that “every Communist assumption of power—in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania—was accompanied by mass arrests aimed primarily at the elimination of the opposition. Some prisoners were interned and others were assigned to forced labor.” Likewise, in the People’s Republic of China, as Philip F. Williams and Yenna Wu’s study shows, a similar process of grouping undesirable people took place on a massive scale: “Justification of large-scale political arrests … would recur in the legal policies of and criminal law instituted by successive Chinese Communist regimes throughout the twentieth century. This general pattern was much the same for Leninist regimes throughout Eurasia, especially during the phase of consolidation.”

The ruling class needs the hostile class to be a scapegoat and also a source of labor, as Suk-Young points out:

What is intriguing about this effort at massive elimination of certain social classes, however, is not only the creation of the so-called antirevolutionary class but also the fact that most of the antirevolutionaries ended up being absorbed by the state as a source of free labor. As Williams and Yu argue, “Because of their bad class background and the government’s need for cheap labor, able-bodied rich farmers and landlords who were charged with no crime at all were also often conscripted for coercive service in the hard labor brigades.”

An essential feature of socialism is to dehumanize others. Like millions in Pol Pot’s Cambodia or Mao’s China, millions of North Koreans have been taught to hate others. Millions in the “hostile class” have been starved, brutalized, and murdered. Socialism will never produce a different outcome. How is it possible to insist that the next socialist regime will be different?

ABOUT BARRY BROWSTEIN

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. To receive Barry’s essays subscribe at Mindset Shifts.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Politics Distorts Our Perceptions

What’s Really Wrong With Inequality?

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.