Government Control of the People – The Progressive Scheme: Making Useful Idiots Out of Useless Idiots

SOCIALISM - One Nation Under Government Control

by Diane Rufino, April 5, 2018

Saul Alinsky, the Godfather of the “Community-Organizing” movement and prophet of the progressive movement, wrote a book that many involved in grassroots politics are familiar with – RULES FOR RADICALS. With that book, he provided a guide for future community organizers to use in uniting and motivating low-income communities, or “Have-Nots,” in order for them to exert social, political, legal, and economic power. In other words, he outlined a plan to turn useless idiots into useful idiots for political purposes. The beauty of his plan is that the “Have-Not’s” are merely pawns; they are really not served in exchange for all their efforts. The ruse, and the promise, is that they will be. And they believe that for their efforts, their cause will be advanced. But the fact is that they are useful for only one purpose – to advance the goals of the progressive elites who need their political contributions to be successful. The ultimate purpose, of course, is the creation of a large, concentrated, socialist government with the power to control the lives of its citizens and the permanent control by the political elite. In fact, Alinsky’s Rules is based heavily on Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto – the grand plan for world conquest by communism. Marx outlined how to foment a political revolution among the lower classes of people.

If government (controlled by a progressive political elite) can control the lives of the people (or at least, a huge chunk of them), if it can control the information they are given, the way they think, the necessities they need to support themselves, and if it can remove from them the burden of education and personal responsibility and even the confines of a marriage to have and raise children, then it doesn’t have to worry about politics. In the government of Saul Alinsky, and in the government of the Progressives, political power is secured as long as people are controlled.

Therefore, the goal of the progressives, the socialists, the liberals (all those who seek a large aggressive government) is political security and the establishment of a permanent ruling class…  no more “red state” versus “blue state”; no more “Republican vs. Democrat.”  They seek the end of the Conservative movement. They seek the end of the country of our founding. They seek a fundamental transformation.

That goal is made clear by Alinsky in the very dedication he wrote in the forward to his book, which, by the way, has the full title “RULES FOR RADICALS: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” He dedicated his work to Lucifer, the original “radical” and “community organizer.” The dedication reads: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

By his own admission, Alinsky’s book is a scheme for transformation – transforming a system “as it is” to one that “is as it should be,” with the “should be” to be determined by progressives. Lucifer took a world modeled by God for good, with parameters established to enrich for goodness and for fruitful conduct and behavior, and by manipulating individuals and appealing to their worst tendencies, transformed that good and decent existence into one plagued with evil and mortal sin. Alinsky praises this radicalization and transformation as a good thing – one that should be modeled and replicated.  One would say that our country – founded on the notion of individual liberty and limited government, predicated on religion and morality in order to provide proper boundaries for acceptable conduct and personal responsibility – is as good a state as humanly and earthly possible and transformation will only destroy the inherent good and Godly in that system.

Which political party has become the party of the Progressive Movement…. The party of transformation?  It is, and has been for many years now, the Democratic Party.

Alinsky’s writings helped mold the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and ultimately, through her husband’s influence, Michelle Obama. Barack Obama studied RULES FOR RADICALS to become the community organizer that he was. His fruits paid off for his own election. How many times have we heard him use to phrase (in one form or another): “the world as it is and the world as it should be…”?  And Hillary Clinton was so enamored and motivated by the book that she characterized Alinsky as her mentor. She invited him to speak at her college, Wellesley College, and gave his introduction. In her college senior thesis, she chose to research and write a dissertation entitled “There is Only the Fight… An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” As Jeannie DeAngelis wrote in her February 3, 2014 article in American Thinker: “That model may be the reason why, after Bill Clinton took office, nasty tactics, shifting blame, and truth-parsing became commonplace in American politics.”

Following in the footsteps of Marx, Alinsky applies a simple model in his scheme to organize the “Have-Nots” to achieve his ultimate goal of transforming America —  he focuses on their poverty and status while pointing to a government that has not done enough for them as the common enemy.

The first task of the community-organizer is that of agitating the “Have-Nots” (the useless idiots). Alinsky explains how to achieve that – by rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. The organizer must play on their sense of apathy – of accepting a situation that has done little for them. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.” Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from the streets, the impoverished communities, corner gangs, minority groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and other non-conformist type individuals.

Once the “Have-Nots” have organized, protested, and gone to the voting booth, the pay-off is abysmal. They are not served, but rather, they are put in a position to be controlled over and over again. They are treated to impressive sound bites and unrealistic promises, and perhaps given a free cell phone here and there, but in reality, they are politically enslaved.

Useless idiots are only useful for one purpose, and that’s at the ballot box. They serve no other meaningful purpose in society; they are a burden and merely pose problems. Useless idiots just want to be taken care of; the worst of them believe they are “entitled” to be taken care of.

Because of their lowly status and because of their tendency for dependency, useless idiots can be manipulated and manipulated they are – and have been. They’ve been manipulated since the end of the 1960’s. Again, they are useful for the ultimate transformation of our country.

I never understood the attraction of a socialist state to the individual, especially in this country, and to so many people. In a socialist state, individuals lose their rights, their freedoms, and their choices to the dictates of government.

Alinsky’s tactics for community organizing would inspire two Columbia University sociologists, Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven to write their now-infamous article “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” In that article, Cloward and Piven articulated a strategy – now known as the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” – which seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, in particular welfare and other entitlement programs (“the welfare crisis:). The inability to meet these demands – required, in most part (according to the article) by the ghetto communities and poor African-Americans – would push the United States into crisis and economic collapse and ultimately usher in a social state – one that would have to be established if it was to be able to effectively meet the demands of the people.  The one particular demand that Cloward and Piven wrote about in their article was the demand of a guaranteed income level. There would need to be major economic reform at the national level to provide this new program of direct income redistribution.  This major transformation of the government – from one that leaves the individual free to exercise their rights to pursue opportunities to one that smothers the individual in their free exercise of rights in order to “take care of certain individuals” – is a good thing, and a necessary thing, according to Cloward and Piven.

One can see how Saul Alinsky’s RULES for mobilizing the “Have-Nots” has motivated and has inspired the Columbia sociologists into advancing their “Strategy” for transforming this country into a social state.

By the way, both the Saul Alinsky book and the Cloward-Piven strategy were written to empower and advance the Democratic Party and to secure a Democratic-controlled government.

Now, there is incorrect information being circulated on the internet about “the 8 levels of government control needed to establish a social state” and that information being attributed to Alinsky and his book.  I’ve actually seen where it is attributed to Cloward and Piven as well. While the information is not addressed in RULES FOR RADICALS, nor in the article addressed above, these levels are nonetheless worth addressing.

These 8 levels, according to the unfounded articles, are those that a government would need in order to establish an effective social (socialist) state. I am discussing them below because they actually make a lot of sense. Each level makes it harder for individuals to break free from the unhealthy dependency on government and makes it easier for government to control the people, especially the young. While there is no actual source cited for the origin of these levels of control, several are actually implicated in Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto and many are mentioned expressly in the Cloward-Piven Strategy. With respect to controlling people for the purposes of manipulating them, Alinsky addresses at least two as being necessary.

The levels of control of which I am referring are:

(1)  Healthcare – A government that controls the people’s healthcare controls the people themselves

(2)  Poverty – people in poverty are easiest to control; hence, it is most beneficial for government to pursue policies that increase the level of poverty or keep individuals and their offspring in poverty

(3)  Debt – government will increase the national debt to unsustainable levels because then it can continue to tax heavily (and to increase taxation; to burden property). Taxation produces more poverty or at least, prevents many from improving their financial situation

(4)  Gun Control – disarming the people allows the government to establish a police state, if need be

(5)  Welfare – welfare allows government to take control of every aspect of a recipient’s life – food, housing, choices, even decisions to marry or to pursue education. Government will never get rid of welfare programs if its goal is socialism

(6)  Education – government needs to take control of what its youth learns…  what they read, what they listen to, and what things mean; it needs to use the education system as a means to indoctrinate its citizens.

(7)  Religion – a belief in God needs to be removed from schools, government, the marketplace, and the public square. A socialist government substitutes itself for the role of God.  A moral, religious people will always question the legitimate role of government and so it must minimize this faction.

(8)  Class Warfare government needs to divide its people into poor and wealthy — the “have’s” and the “have-not’s.”  It also needs to divide people along racial lines – characterizing one group as “victims” and the other as “oppressors” (or as “beneficiaries”). This way it is easier to demonize the wealthy, the empowered, the benefitted classes and therefore, to take from them — their money (through taxation – to benefit the poor), and their positions (through “diversity”-enrichment programs). It is easier to re-engineer society by creating division, hatred, and distrust.

Looking at this list, the federal government has achieved every one of these levels of control – EXCEPT gun control. Is it any wonder that the left is pursuing it at such a rabid level lately?  Is it any wonder that it uses every tragedy to attack the Second Amendment?

If government, in fact, must undertake massive economic reforms to deal with the tremendous burden of our dependent classes (those taking advantage of welfare and other social programs, or using them as a way of life), including the unsustainable burden of immigration, subjugation and control of the American people is the natural consequence. Total control requires people to be unarmed – unable to physically revolt against their government.

Think seriously about the information I’ve written in this article. We are talking about the potential transformation of the country we love. If you are a “useless idiot,” I implore you to resist being manipulated by those who really care little for you and certainly for your improved status. After all, if your position is improved too much, you cannot be controlled and therefore are of no use to them. I also implore you to get angry at the left (the Progressives, the liberals, the Democrats) for characterizing you this way and manipulating you for their purposes. Get angry and take charge of your life, proving to everyone (most importantly, to yourself and your loved ones) that you are a vital part of a society and a country that values every individual and protects their rights to live free), not one that just wants to control him or her and thus limit those rights.

Become involved; become engaged; become educated and informed. Seek out the truth, for the truth will set you free.

This is your home – the United States of America.. The “Home of the Free.”  This is, or will be, the home of your children. This is, or will be, the home of your grandchildren. Help preserve it.  Don’t allow this current generation, and maybe the next, to be the last ones to enjoy the freedoms we’ve come to be known for.

 

References:

Lonestarliberty, “What is Happening in America: Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals,” May 17, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://lonestarliberty.net/alinskys-rules-radicals/

Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” The Nation, May 2, 1966.  Referenced at:  https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx) –  http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

Advertisements

Keep the Second Amendment Secure in North Carolina

SECOND AMENDMENT - Firearm on Constitution

by Diane Rufino, March 27, 2018

My appreciation of the Second Amendment and gratitude for the wisdom and insistence of our Founders and for the States who insisted that it was necessary to be included in our Constitution (or else they would refuse to join the Union) was solidified in an incident that happened to me many years ago.

When I was 26 years old, I was living on my own in my first apartment – a tiny, one-bedroom place in Plainsboro, New Jersey. My first job out of grad school didn’t pay very much so I had to work a second job to support myself.  One night, after getting home from my waitressing job and taking a shower, I had trouble sleeping. So I put on the TV and found a good Clint Eastwood movie to watch – Any Which Way But Loose. It was a very small apartment and it turns out that the TV stand I had was very close to the apartment door, which was locked. It was about 1:00 – 1:30 in the morning – maybe later. As I was watching the movie, I happened to notice that the door knob was moving. Someone was outside my door, trying to get in. The knob was moving harder and harder, and I was scared like I had never been scared before in my life. (I had learned soon after I moved into the apartment complex that a young woman tenant had been murdered just before I moved in).  As I was shaking uncontrollably and trying to find the number for the Plainsboro Police (the days before cell phones and 911), I heard a man speak through the crack in the door “Open the door; you’re the girl with the silver Fiero, right?”  In fact, I had a silver 1983 Pontiac Fiero. The man trying to break in specifically targeted MY apartment. He was looking for ME. I didn’t know who he was and I couldn’t imagine who he was. I was new to the area and had very few friends and acquaintances. I called the police, using the only phone I had, which was next to the kitchen. It was not in a direct line of view to the door. The police dispatcher told me to stay on the line and that a police car would be there shortly.  I picked up the only knife I had in my apartment – a cheap steak knife. All I kept saying was “Please hurry. Please hurry. I’m so scared.”

I was absolutely helpless. I am 4 foot 9 inches tall and weighed less than 100 pounds at the time. I had a cheap knife in my hand, not even sure if I was capable of overcoming my state of fear to defend myself.

The police arrived before the door was pried open and I collapsed in tears, grateful that someone was there to protect me. The potential intruder told the police that he had been drinking and in his drunken state, he must have gotten confused because he thought he was trying to get into his own apartment.  I told the police that it wasn’t the truth because he had called out “You’re the girl with the silver Fiero.”  Nevertheless, the police believed his story and they let him go. They admonished him for scaring me and told him “don’t do it again.” Turns out that he lived in the building next to my building; a grassy courtyard separated our buildings. He lived on the second floor.  My apartment was a ground-floor apartment. So, it was hard to imagine the police would have believed his story about being confused and thinking it was his apartment.

I never stayed in the apartment again after that. I stayed with a friend for about two weeks and then moved into a new place, in another town.

I often thought what I would have needed to defend myself that night, especially if he rushed in and rushed towards me. Again, I’m short and barely able to keep my composure when nervous. I am prone to anxiety attacks. Would a simple handgun holding 5 bullets been sufficient for me to stop him?  I can’t say for sure. Maybe, but maybe not. I imagine I would not have been composed enough to aim well so maybe not. I would have needed something that didn’t require accuracy. What if there were two men?  Well then, a simple handgun would not have been enough.

What if Plainsboro law required individuals to have guns dissembled in the home?

Self-protection is not a one-size-fits-all model. The Right to Self-Defense doesn’t require a one-size-fits all scheme. The Right to Self-Defense has no limits or conditions; it is merely the RIGHT to defend oneself (against others who intend harm), allowing each individual to decide for himself or herself what is needed to ensure that. The government once re-interpreted its “Necessary and Proper” Clause to mean “anything convenient” to help the government carry out its functions. It reasoned, in direct conflict with the very words of Article I, Section 8, that the government needs to determine, and to do, whatever helps it (“whatever is convenient”) to carry out its functions. We the People interpret the Second Amendment in the same broad sense –  “anything convenient” to carry into the effect the right to defend and protect oneself.

The Right to Life is recognized ever so profoundly in perhaps the most important, most significant document in the world – our American Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The Right to Life is not the government’s to give, or define, to limit, or to take credit for, and the natural Rights to protect it, secure it, and preserve it (known as the Right of Self-Defense and the Right of Self-Preservation) are inherently equal to that Right to Life.

The day the government denies we the people that right to protect, secure, and preserve our lives is the day that we are no longer free but merely subjects, inferior in our status to the government’s right and power to preserve itself. The day that we lose our Right to Have and Bear Arms is the day that we surrender all other rights. The Right embodied in the Second Amendment is the one right that secures all others.

The Declaration goes on to tell us what we the people have the inherent and natural right to expect from government: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,….”  And then it instructs what we also have the inherent and natural right to do when government fails to secure our rights and instead, threatens them: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

Powerful and progressive actors (individuals and organizations) in this country, including Michael Bloomberg, are forcing an evil agenda on the people of this country and on the government which has, as its ultimate goal, the destruction of the rights we are entitled to and the ones we need to continue being a free people. These actors are forcing us to re-evaluate whether our government is becoming destructive of the ends for which it was created and the result is not going to be pretty.  A government (King George III of England) tried that over 200 years ago at Lexington and Concord, MA, and then at Williamsburg, VA, and the result was a revolution for the right to govern as the colonies saw fit, with the goal to never surrender their rights and liberties again. Today’s youth don’t understand this. Today’s youth don’t even know about this.  Today’s progressives don’t care about this.

There are a lot of people out there, including those who marched on DC, who are advocating for the weakening and even the repeal of the Second Amendment. But that cannot happen. Let’s be absolutely clear on that. The Constitution – and thus the legal status – of the Second Amendment is crystal clear on the matter:  The Second Amendment confers the RIGHT to an individual to have and bear arms for SELF-DEFENSE (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010, and Heller v. District of Columbia, 2008).  That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  Furthermore, the ONLY way the Second Amendment can be limited or abolished is through the Article V amendment process.  And there are some legal experts who believe that the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights can never be amended. Amendments, they explain, can be added (for example to include other rights), but the original ten amendments are to remain in force as they are because they recognize what, at the very least, our inherent liberty rights include. Because they are rights that are inalienable to us (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), we are always entitled to them.

What does it mean to have the natural right of self-defense?  It means we can be expected to protect ourselves, in any way that the situation requires. It means that if we are in fear for our lives or serious harm, we have the right to eliminate that threat. Individuals have the right to exercise their rights but only when they don’t seriously impact those of other individuals. I have the right to free speech. But my right doesn’t include the right to shut yours down. I have the right to own a gun, but I don’t have the right to take the life of an innocent person with it. The inherent, or natural, right of self-defense and self-preservation is recognized, and has been recognized historically, in criminal law. A person who shoots and kills an intruder carrying a gun commits homicide which is a serious crime. But under the law, it is considered “justifiable” and therefore not punishable. A woman who stabs and kills a man who is attacking her and intending to rape her commits homicide. But under the law, it is considered “justifiable” and therefore not punishable. “Justifiable” is a term which means that the killing was “justified,” and one of the most common reasons is self-defense.

We don’t need the Second Amendment to have the right to defend ourselves, including with firearms. The Second Amendment confers no such right. Rather, it recognizes the right. If bad guys can threaten lives with guns (which they will ALWAYS be able to do; which they have ALWAYS been able to do), innocent victims have the right to have access to guns to counter that threat. If we continue down the road to governments like the Third Reich, Stalinist Russia, Mao Zedong’s communist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela, and even British King James II, to use the full force of government to ignore individual rights and eliminate political opposition, we know that that its operatives and its armies will threaten American citizens with guns and all kinds of advanced weapons. We have the right to have access to guns, and also advanced weapons, to counter that threat.  Like kind for like kind. That is what is meant by being free and that is what is meant by having a meaningful right to self-defense.

We see a dramatic rise in violence by bad people and we see a dramatic rise in retaliatory violence by persons who are emotionally and mentally unstable. We are seeing something play out that people throughout history have also seen – bad people and evil-intentioned people will ALWAYS find ways to get weapons (or they will make them, such as Timothy McVeigh and the UnaBomber Ted Kaczynski, or they will weaponize other instrumentalities, such as cars, trucks, planes).  The rise in abnormal behavior, in criminal tendencies, in retaliatory mass shootings, in mental instability is something we should be focusing on. It’s the behavior – the diseased mind and the black heart – that seeks out the guns for violence. The guns don’t force themselves on those individuals. We should be focusing on what in our society is giving rise to this behavior – this troubling trend. Specifically, we should be looking at policies that government has forced on our communities through its seeming desire to change our social fabric and our social norms, to force new values on us and to force us to repress old conventional ones. Government – our public schools and our colleges and universities, our public offices, our public hospitals, the main-stream media (undoubtedly, an arm of the government’s establishment) – has been pushing a new agenda now for many years and that is “Diversity.”  We are indoctrinated to believe that diversity is the most important factor in college admissions, in the make-up of a student body and in the classroom, in the workforce, in our police forces, and in government; we are indoctrinated to belief that what we look like – what the color of our skin is, what country we came from, what gender we are, and what gender we want to be – is far more important than the competency and skills we bring to that school or that office. The government disregards the entire sad history of this country from the era when slavery was abolished until Civil Rights legislation was passed when we DID focus only on what a person looked like. Government doesn’t learn from history but rather repeats it. Government, through its willing and reckless refusal to enforce the most important of laws, our immigration laws and its willful blind eye to all the crime and lawlessness that has resulted, indoctrinates us, tacitly, that laws are not really to be taken too seriously. Government, contradicting what our parents used to teach us, undermines the importance of the rule of law and undermines the notion of equality under the law.

Morality is a thing of the past and so is religious observance in our daily lives. The family is no longer the bedrock and the pillar of society, and we see that in the laws of progressive states and in the court decisions in all other areas. We are intolerant to focus on the “nuclear family.” We are intolerant to refer to parents in gender terms. We are discriminatory if we dare accept the psychologists’ and the social scientists’ data that the proper emotional and psychological development of children depend on there being both a female and a male parent in the home and in their raising. We are discriminatory if we dare accept the well-established and reproducible data that children end up living in poverty, with a lack of education, and with psychological or domestic problems when they are raised in a single parent home. We are discriminatory if we dare accept the well-established and reproducible data that those who commit violence, those who commit mass murder, and those who embrace a criminal lifestyle are those raised without a father or without an effective father figure in their lives  We who lived in societies that respected and recognized traditional family values (and legislated to that effect) enjoyed its benefits. Societies were safer and children progressed through their childhood and teen years without incident and went on to become healthy and contributing members, having families of their own and raising their children successfully. We who recognize that reality and who recognize the robust data on the social benefits of a traditional family and the social problems created by the lack of such a family are antiquated and a threat to the progress of society in this country. Most families are no longer intact or have been re-established through second marriages, etc.  Children are psychological playthings – mere social experiments whose well-being comes at the expense of the desires or the recklessness of their parents or is merely considered as less important. Those were not the values of my parent’s day.

So, we don’t need the Second Amendment to exercise our rights of self-defense and self-protection. What we would like is our government to say “Government is prohibited from defining limits to the Second Amendment; the Constitution is clear on that.” We need our government to be of the kind that the Declaration of Independence promises us –  one that has as its primary purpose the security of our individual rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And one way to demonstrate that it is such a government is to respect the Second Amendment and not push to have it limited or as former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens urged, to have it abolished. Should that, in fact happen, and especially if it happens through legislation by the US Congress or by pronouncements from the bench by activist judges, then we have an illegitimate government and the provision in the Declaration which states “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…” is triggered and the people have the natural right to separate from it.

I have proposed a State Sovereignty Resolution to my legislators in the North Carolina General Assembly. I feel very strongly that the General Assembly, our legislative body (“The People’s Body”), should make it clear that the people’s right to have and bear arms is safe and secure in our state.

The text of my proposed State Sovereignty Resolution is provided below:

NORTH CAROLINA STATE SOVEREIGNTY RESOLUTION

A Bill Announcing the Intention to Nullify any and all Unconstitutional federal Gun Control Bills that the State of North Carolina and its People believe to be an Infringement of their Natural Rights of Self-Defense and Self-Protection as Recognized by the Second Amendment

The State of North Carolina asserts the following

A warm attachment to the Union of the States, to which it had pledged its loyalty in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, the compact that created it, and to that end, it has a duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of that Union, because only a faithful observance of them can secure its existence and the public happiness;

Its recognition and respect for the lawful and constitutional process for altering the terms and meaning of the Constitution, including the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, which are the two procedures listed in Article V (the Amendment Process);

The Second Amendment recognizes that a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed;

The Second Amendment also recognizes that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed;

The Second Amendment recognizes the natural right of Self-Defense and Self-Protection, both on behalf of the State (“a free State,” by the way) and of the individual;

The Second Amendment doesn’t grant these rights but rather, it protects them, without condition or limitation, from the reaches of the federal government, especially the US Congress and its law-making power;

The phrase “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is clear and instructional on its face;

To affirm the point above further and to support it greater, the States specifically included a Preamble to explain the reason for the ten amendments to the new Constitution (amendments that were demanded by them and without them would have jeopardized and prevented the ratification of that document. The Preamble reads: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution”;

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes abundantly clear that the Constitution established a federal government of limited powers, and that in those limited objects of government, the federal government is limited even further by the ten amendments added (ratified by 3/4 of the States) on Dec. 15, 1791;

Just as the Supremacy Clause asserts the supremacy of the federal government with respect to the powers delegated to it, which are “few and defined” (Federalist No. 45, written by the same man, James Madison, who authored the Constitution), the Tenth Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights assert the supremacy of the States with respect to the powers reserved to them;

That one of the reserved powers of the State is the responsibility, the duty, to prevent unconstitutional federal laws, policies, executive actions, and court opinions from infringing on the rights of its people;

The Second Amendment has a very purposeful history; the rights recognized were not rights pulled out of thin air but rather stem from Natural Law and the concept that certain rights are endowed by a Creator (inherent in our very humanity);

Our Founders were not talking about hunting when they demanded that the Second Amendment be added to the Constitution; they were concerned about the freedom of the individual, and also the populace in general, to be armed in the face of a powerful and aggressive government – one that may send out a standing army in times of peace, one that may try to enact laws for gun and ammunition confiscation, and one that may eventually try to outright or effectively disarm its people;

The history of England, and indeed the history of many other nations, teaches us that when individuals are unable to defend themselves and their rights, they essentially have no rights. Rather, they have temporary permission from government to exercise rights until they somehow pose a serious threat to those in power.

James Madison once said: “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary.”  But what if it was the federal government that was not the angel?  The Second Amendment is the contingency plan in such a case;

James Madison also wrote (in Federalist No. 28): “If the representatives of the People betray their constituents, there is no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”;

In addition to the natural right to defend one’s life and property, as well as those of family members and perhaps fellow citizens who are vulnerable,  there are other components of self-defense and self-protection other than the actual confrontation and neutralization of a violent intruder or attacker, that the people recognize – one being DETERRENCE;

Gun-Free Zones, homes without effective firearms, and individuals of sound mind disenfranchised in their right to have and bear arms serve as attractive targets for criminals and evil-intentioned, mentally-disturbed individuals;

The State of North Carolina, under the Tenth Amendment and according to compact principles, reserves the right to determine when the federal government has over-stepped its constitutional bounds with respect to legislation on gun control;

The State of North Carolina will NOT comply with any federal gun control law or policy that hinders or burdens its citizens in their free exercise of the natural right of self-defense and self-protection recognized by the Second Amendment;

In furtherance of its DUTY to prevent unconstitutional or abusive acts of the federal government on its citizens, and in furtherance of its DUTY to prevent the God-given and Natural rights of its People, the State of North Carolina will interpose using whatever means necessary to ensure that such gun control laws or policies (including judicial opinions), or any laws, policies, or court opinions for that matter in violation of the Constitution generally or the Bill of Rights specifically are not enforced in the State.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

 

Notice that the Resolution only recognizes a rightful limitation of the right and ability to purchase and possess guns when it comes to persons who have a history of violence or mental instability. It is only in these two instances that individuals are unable to appreciate or respect the rights of others and therefore have been deemed to have forfeited their rights under the Second Amendment.

The Resolution that I have written (above) can easily be modified for a Sovereignty Bill or a Nullification Bill. If it is modified for such a bill, it should include the various types of interposition (action) that North Carolina would be willing to pursue (and will pursue) in order to shield its citizens from the effect of unconstitutional federal gun control laws. In other words, the bill should list the various types of action that the state and its officials will carry out in order to prevent such gun laws from being enforced on the citizens – including such things as arresting and jailing federal officers who attempt to come into the state to enforce the laws, not recognizing federal court opinions that erode or limit the Second Amendment, removing and disbarring judges from the bench who attempt to punish NC citizens under the federal law, empowering Sheriffs to not enforce the law or to share information with the federal government, refusal to allow its state officials to cooperate in the enforcement of the law, and challenging the law in court.

If you agree with the sentiment expressed in this article and if you agree with the points articulated in the Resolution, please share with others. If you agree that North Carolina should adopt this, or a similar, resolution affirming the Second Amendment, please contact your representative and send them a copy of what I have written. If you are not from North Carolina but would like your state legislature to adopt such a resolution, please contact your representative(s) and share this article – or at least the resolution.

All tyranny needs is for good people to do nothing.  The powerful progressive movement in our country will continue to misuse and manipulate elements of our government – the liberal, progressive, activist courts and the politically-deranged members of Congress – to strip our rights away. Our rights are what allow us to stand up for the truth and stand up against our aggressive government.  We cannot remain silent and we must not allow their agenda to continue to move forward. The Second Amendment – the right to have and bear guns for self-defense is where we must draw the line, as our founding generation did. That is what Patrick Henry was talking about when he exclaimed: “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”  Without the right of self-defense and the right to use firearms for self-defense, we effectively have no secure rights. Without the Second Amendment, we have no effective way to protect the others.

Saul Alinsky, building on Lenin’s original plan for world conquest by communism, wrote a book entitled “Rules for Radicals” in which he outlined a plan to turn useless idiots into useful idiots for political purposes. The ultimate purpose, of course, is the creation of a large, concentrated, socialist government with the power to control the lives of its citizens. I never understood the attraction of a socialist state, especially in this country, and to so many people.  In a socialist state, individuals lose their rights, their freedoms, and their choices to the dictates of government. Alinsky, like Lenin, examined the various levels of control that a government would need in order to establish an effective socialist state and those levels are, in order:

(1)  Healthcare – A government that controls the people’s healthcare controls the people themselves

(2)  Poverty – people in poverty are easiest to control; hence, it is most beneficial for government to pursue policies that increase the level of poverty or keep individuals and their offspring in poverty

(3)  Debt – government will increase the national debt to unsustainable levels because then it can continue to tax heavily (and to increase taxation; to burden property). Taxation produces more poverty or at least, prevents many from improving their financial situation

(4)  Gun Control – disarming the people allows the government to establish a police state, if need be

(5)  Welfare – welfare allows government to take control of every aspect of a recipient’s life – food, housing, choices, even decisions to marry or to pursue education. Government will never get rid of welfare programs if its goal is socialism

(6)  Education – government needs to take control of what its youth learns…  what they read, what they listen to, and what things mean; it needs to use the education system as a means to indoctrinate its citizens.

(7)  Religion – a belief in God needs to be removed from schools, government, the marketplace, and the public square. A socialist government substitutes itself for the role of God.  A moral, religious people will always question the legitimate role of government, and so, it must minimize this faction.

(8)  Class Warfare – government needs to divide its people into poor and wealthy — the “have’s” and the “have-not’s.”  It also needs to divide people along racial lines – characterizing one group as “victims” and the other as “oppressors” (or as “beneficiaries”). This way it is easier to demonize the wealthy, the empowered, the benefitted classes and therefore, to take from them — their money (through taxation – to benefit the poor), and their positions (through “diversity”-enrichment programs). It is easier to re-engineer society by creating division, hatred, and distrust.

Looking at this list, government has achieved every one of these levels of control – EXCEPT gun control. Is it any wonder that the left is pursuing it at such a rabid level lately?  Is it any wonder that it uses every tragedy to attack the Second Amendment?

So again, if you agree with the sentiment expressed in this article and if you agree with the points articulated in the Resolution, please share with others. And if you live in North Carolina, please contact your state rep and send him a copy.

There was a time when North Carolina was the most liberty-minded of all the colonies and all the states. She has a profound and impressive history. My hope is that her legacy will live on with her respect for its citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

[NOTE:  I wanted to include this disclaimer, after the fact. Doing research for my April 5 article, I learned that the 8 Levels of Government Control to Establish a Social State is not included in Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals,” and in fact, is not attributable to him at all. Some, however, have attributed some of the levels to Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven (“The Cloward-Piven Strategy”).  In my article: “Government Control of the People – The Progressive Scheme:  Making Useful Idiots Out of Useless Idiots,” I discuss Saul Alinsky and his book, and its potential for transforming the character of our country, but I also address this misinformation about the 8 levels.  The article is posted here:   https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2018/04/05/government-control-of-the-people-the-progressive-model-making-useful-idiots-out-of-useless-idiots/ ]

- 2018 (gray shirt, March 24, 2018) - BEST

The Open-Mindedness of Liberals; It’s a Dangerous Thing

OPEN MIND

by Diane Rufino, Nov. 25, 2017

In 1886 Sir Edward Clarke delivered a speech in the U.K. House of Commons and in polite way of insulting someone, he said: “The mind was indeed so open that it had nothing in it at all.”  In 1908, a periodical called “The New Quarterly” published excerpts from “The Note-Books of Samuel Butler,” and in Butler’s notes, he commented: “Cursed is he that does not know when to shut his mind. An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. It should be capable of shutting its doors sometimes, or it may be found a little draughty (empty).”

In 1940, Professor Walter Kotschnig at Holyoke College once told his students: “Keep your minds open—but not so open that your brains fall out.” (Some credit Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer and author, with the phrase, but they are wrong).  We’ve all heard this line. I’ve even seen it in a fortune cookie – several times.

Shortly thereafter, Kotschnig gave in the campus chapel at Smith College in which he repeated his “open mind” expression. In part, he spoke: “Let us keep our minds open by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mold the world. But don’t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out! There are still things in this world which are true and things which are false; acts which are right and acts which are wrong.”

And in 1951, then-president of Smith College, William Allan Neilson, addressed its graduating class: “Go out and face your new job with an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.”  He explained that viewpoints should not be so fixed that there is no possible chance to investigate new and sometimes better ideas, but in contemplating situations, the urge to bring about change should not blind the person from using reason and intelligence.

The point is that colleges use to employ professors who urged students to keep an open mind to further the advancement of society, to improve our country, to enrich our body of thought, and in general to further our culture and civility; they urged students to keep an open mind to show intelligence and a willingness to improve, always to be dignified human beings, worthy of the brain that God gave us in order to sustain us as a species exponentially more intelligent than any other.

Today, colleges employ professors who indoctrinate their students in the opposite direction – to open their minds so completely that in fact their brains fall out. And so, we see the extent of social decay that their empty skulls have produced.

There are many examples that can be given as to the ridiculousness of the liberal mind, and the insane policies and insane circumstances that exist because of it, such as the creation of “safe spaces” so that certain fragile liberal individuals can retreat in safety from harsh words and uncomfortable situations, the chilling of free speech for fear that certain words, terms, and certain thought might hurt someone’s feelings, the removal of historic monuments and the Confederate flag because liberals believe there can be no explanation for their existence than it supported or represented slavery, or the violent protests on campus or when conservative guests are set to speak simply to prevent their message from reaching any audience at all (common sense tells us that if one believe he/she holds the superior position, then he/she shouldn’t be afraid of the other side), or the creation of the violent, terrorist liberal group known as Antifa, or the near-fatal assault on Republican congressmen at a baseball field, or the mock beheading of President Trump, or the mock gangland style execution of Trump in a music video, or the direct (and indirect) calling for the assassination of Trump, or the first-time ever on-air commentary during a presidential inauguration imagining what would happen if Trump were assassinated and who would take over (they happily concluded that Obama would continue as POTUS), or the willing acceptance by a woman that she doesn’t need to be married or have a father around to have a baby and then raise it, or indoctrinating our youth to think that gender shouldn’t follow a strict “male” or “female” choice, or indoctrinating our youth to think that sexuality is a choice (and not determined by birth, or genetics; imagine that logic?), or indoctrinating our youth to believe that gender is fluid (it can change depending on what the person feels), or pushing the narrative that raising a child by a same-sex couple is equivalent to a mother-father couple (each gender teaches a child certain qualities; it’s not about the child not getting enough love or care), or the destructive belief that because others have so much more than they need, that wealth should be redistributed so others can be comfortable. The liberal mind disavows religion, disavows the laws of Biology, promotes implicit theft (by all-too-willing to take from others; jealousy), promulgates poverty, and furthers the decay and erosion of society and the dysfunction of its members.

I have gone into a few chosen examples below of what liberals believe and what the liberal mind has produced, and I apologize that they are disjointed and perhaps not the best of examples, but they happen to be the ones I’ve chosen for this article.

SOCIALISM –   Liberals want stuff; they believe government should take care of them and they don’t care at what cost it is provided.

Today’s liberal colleges and universities, today’s Democratic Party, and today’s minority groups clamor for a socialist government – one that provides the country’s non-achievers and underachievers every essential service and benefit for a comfortable life. They claim that these are what every individual is “entitled to” from their government. Why should they be constrained by a lack of education, or lack of ambition, or lack of a job, or lack of a father to the children they willingly bear?

Socialism is a system of government control over the economy of a nation. In a socialist country, the individual is unimportant when compared to the welfare of the group.

To accept this is to reject the Declaration of Independence. To reject the Declaration of Independence, in favor of socialism, is to reject the very premises on which this country was founded: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….”  The premises, of course, are four-fold: (1) That every individual enjoys certain inalienable rights (rights that can never be surrendered to a government), including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (ie, property and all the efforts and rewards in obtaining property); (2) That government is instituted among men, deriving its powers from the consent of the governed (individual sovereignty; government derives from the people – they decide, through consent, which powers government will have over their lives and communities; (3) That the primary role of government is to secure and safeguard the individual’s inalienable rights; and (4) That when government fails in this primary purpose or otherwise becomes destructive of its ends, the people have a right to alter or abolish it (including deciding to separate or secede from the body politic tied to that government, thus breaking allegiance/political bonds with that government).

To reject these foundations is to accept the notion that government, and not the people, hold all political power and that government can rule over the individual in any way it thinks is best for the “good of the collective” (the general good) and make decisions accordingly, including suspending rights that can no longer be viewed as “inalienable.” Under socialism, individual rights become temporary until they need to be surrendered or regulated for the good of others.

Benjamin Franklin’s words remind us of the consequences: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”  But the consequences are far worse. Far from “not being deserving of Liberty,” the liberal who adopts socialism over the assurances in the Declaration, actually will surrender his liberty, probably never to regain the notion of individual sovereignty again.

Willing ignorance and rejection of our founding ideals isn’t “open-mindedness”; it is sheer idiocy.

ALINSKYITES –  Liberals see themselves as change-agents, with total disregard to the norms, institutions, guidelines, and boundaries that help provide a framework for acceptable conduct in civilized society and total disregard for acceptable tactics.

Because liberals are often one-issue individuals (gay rights, transgender rights, BLM, abortion rights, open immigration, no racial profiling for Muslims, freedom from religion, anti-Trump), they are often passionate about that issue and also oblivious to the views of others. We recognize many of them as protesters; We see them with their faces covered up in some instances, we see them protesting whenever and wherever they can, we see them all over college campuses, we see them carrying signs that most would find offensive (yet they are the first to cry when something offends them), we often have a hard time figuring out if they are males or females, we hear them chanting rehearsed, pre-fed lines and sound bites, and we spot them all over social media. The one thing we know is that when we hear them speak or see what they write, we know they are clueless, essentially functionless, and unfortunately, useless to society. They offer nothing positive. They don’t want to take us forward down the road, only backward.

And hence, they are perfect Saul Alinskyites. These functionless idiots serve a purpose to someone like Saul Alinsky, to a party like the Democratic Party, to socialists and communists like Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

In 1971, a rabid progressive/liberal named Saul Alinsky wrote a book titled Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Essentially, he wrote it as a playbook for those who think like him and who desire radical change through politics. His book would be the foundation for today’s Democratic Party’s “community-organizing” initiative. It would outline how to use subversive tactics in order to seek political power. It was such an influential book that some very notable persons subscribed to it, including Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Frank Marshall Davis, and President Barack Obama. [One might recall how Obama was a protégé of Ayers and Dohrn, and that his mother was linked to Frank Marshall Davis].

What Rules for Radicals teaches, specifically, is how Liberals and Progressives (ie, the Democratic Party) can effectively use the weaknesses in our political system, as well as the weakest members of society, and how they can ultimately bring about the socialist state that they ultimately seek. In fact, he begins the book: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”  Alinsky then provides a collection of rules (12 to be exact) to guide the process. If anyone should doubt that the playbook he outlined is for ignoble (shameful) goals, just read his forward, in which he acknowledges who inspired him: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

[Taken from Steel-On-Steel; see reference that follows] Progressives exploit the weaknesses inherent in the system, made weaker by pitting opposing forces against one another. They also oppose independent, morally strong, educated people because those individuals, especially in groups, can’t be manipulated easily. They attempt to end-run constitutional rights with social contract and dialectic consensus methods. Alinskyites engage in large-scale social engineering, attempting to unfreeze a society using chaos, and to then refreeze it in a new predefined shape. The dividing lines they polarize people on are most often racial, economic, religious and political. The main goal of Alinskyites is to cause social instability through subversive and divisive rhetoric. One method is to control the outcome of the education system by lowering the standards of education so that it creates a dependent class. As adherents to the Cloward-Piven strategy, they use their political platforms to overload a society with social spending programs and class warfare to the point that hatred and division cause social panic. Once they’ve created a problem, they propose themselves as the answer and use wealth transfers and the trumping of rights as the method to bring about “equality.”  [https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/ ]

In his book, Alinsky further discusses the eight (8) levels of control that must be obtained before a true social state can be created and how, once again, to turn America’s “useless idiots” into “useful” ones in order to achieve that goal. The eight levels of control are:  Healthcare (control healthcare and you control people), Welfare (take control of every aspect of their lives), Poverty (increase the poverty level; poor people don’t fight back when everything they need to live is provided to them), Debt (increase the  debt as high as possible; that way taxes have to be increased, this producing more poverty), Gun Control (remove the ability of people to defend themselves from government; that way government can establish a police state, if necessary), Education ( thought control), Religion (remove the belief in God from the government and schools), and Class Warfare (divide people into the wealthy and the poor and vilify the wealthy; this will cause discontent and make it easier to tax the wealthy even more to support the poor). “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they’ve come to revere.”

Question:  How many liberals and progressives know that through their activism, their one-issue politics, their participation in community organizing efforts, they are moving the United States towards socialism?  Do they even know what “socialism” is?  Do they know that Alinsky merely simplified and modernized Vladimir Lenin’s original scheme for world conquest by communism (under Russian rule, of course)? Do they know that the same levels of control were originally embraced and promoted by Karl Marx?  Do they know that “useful idiots” (that is, useless idiots “weaponized” for political power) have destroyed every nation in which they happened to seize power and control?  And if they actually knew and understood all this, do you think that they would willingly seek the destruction of this country?  Question #2:  How many levels of control have been obtained already in the United States?  All but one, right?  All levels of control have been achieved except gun control, and we see how aggressively and rabidly liberals are seeking it. You have to ask yourselves why it is such a top priority for them. President Obama sought gun control and Hillary Clinton was even a stronger advocate. She, as most other liberals do, immediately turn a shooting incident into a mandate for gun control laws (even though most incidents could have been prevented if the government had been diligent in actually enforcing the laws already on the books!)  As you can see, the Progressives have done their homework, have embraced the Alinsky model, and have been successful at fundamentally transforming not only the character of too many people in this country but transforming the country in general.  Question #3:  How have the “useless idiots” (the ones targeted through so-called “community-organizing” efforts) been benefitted?   Who has really benefitted by the Alinksy method?  Feeling empowered by the hype and promises made in community-organizing, and feeling empowered by being part of a social-change movement, liberals open their minds so much to grasp this power that, in the process, they lose reason, accountability, common sense, and yes, even grey matter. They become like Stepford Wives… totally submissive to the party and robotic in their speech and actions. They are pawns without realizing it, and having no understanding of how politics works (the intense adversarial nature of it), they don’t see how they are simply being used for the benefit of others. In what world would a government that has complete political control allow a large group of people to breed without consequence and without responsibility, while providing little or nothing by way of economic benefit?  At some point, the free ride will end and they will be treated like the liability and burden that they are. By the way, Josef Stalin was the one who coined the term “Useful Idiots.”  (Once he concentrated his power by manipulating them, how did his regime treat them?)

Ironically, if you look at the history of the Alinsky model and its place in progressive/liberal politics, you’ll notice that making temporary “useful” idiots out of “useless” idiots, for social change often does nothing meaningful for those “idiots.” They may get a bone here and there, but the real benefits are to others (ie, the wealthy political leftist elite)

Conservatives are finally catching on the Alinsky method and are familiarizing it for several reasons:  (1) They want to help identify and defeat the divisive tactics of the left; (2) They want to use those same tactics to their own advantage or to counter the left; and (3) They want to help explain to certain groups that they are intentionally being manipulated. As we on the right can easily see, many of the people (drinking the “kool-aid”) aren’t even aware that they are being manipulated (“Being, in essence, weaponized against their fellow man.”  Steel-On-Steel)

As political elites and strategists have known for a very long time now, certain groups, including the poor, the dependent, and the overly open-minded liberal, are easily manipulated. Hillary Clinton herself remarked that they are stupid and easily manipulated. James Carville, a onetime Democrat political consultant and former Bill Clinton campaign manager, came right out and said that “not only are most Democrats politically clueless; they’re easily manipulated by the puppet masters of their party as well.”

IMMIGRATION –  Liberals see immigrants (lots of them) as essential to their cause – to their plan for social and political change – and don’t care about the legality part

I just happened to have been in Washington DC this past January for the Women’s March. I traveled to the nation’s capital to celebrate the inauguration of Donald Trump as president and decided to spend a couple of extra days enjoying the beautiful and vibrant city and taking advantage of all its history lessons; I did not know in advance about the march. But getting out and observing the march, noticing the various individuals marching and protesting, I was given a unique peek at the tactics of the liberal/progressive movement (ie, today’s Democratic Party). Under the guise of protesting for their individual issue, the protesters were invited and encouraged to march together the day after the inauguration so that the Democratic Party could claim that “the people” are rejecting Trump as their president.  In other words, they scheduled the event to say “F U,” in as colossal a way as possible, to Trump. The various groups were “collected” – and yes “manipulated” on account of their one-issue politics – into serving the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party, which is to discredit, distract, delegitimize, and obstruct Trump in any and every way possible in order to frustrate his tenure and success as president. Alone the groups are small, weak, and even inconsequential. For example, the large group of feminists at the rally were protesting for equal rights, equal right in the workplace and equal pay. I guess they never heard of all the gender equality laws (and amendments and Supreme Court cases). I guess they’ve never read or even heard of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which is posted in every Human Resources Department in every place of employment. I guess they forgot that Roe v. Wade and further cases give women the exclusive right to kill and destroy a baby growing inside, even though that baby has a father.  Alone the liberal groups might be small and weak, yes, but pooled together, they make a more powerful political statement.  And they are happy to collaborate, because in the end, it’s about moving their one issue forward.

The liberal/progressive movement has now targeted immigrants. The more, the merrier!  They have politicized immigrants, including illegals, turning them into victims who have a gripe and can, with the help of the collective group of liberals, seek demands.

California has by far the largest number of unauthorized immigrants, about 2.3 million in 2014. About six-in-ten unauthorized immigrants live in the six states with the largest populations of unauthorized immigrants—California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas. And in six states, the numbers of illegal immigrants has greatly increased – Virginia, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The great influx of Latino immigrants has changed California from a purple state to a blue one.  California’s Proposition 187 (“Save Our State” initiative) would have denied all public services to illegal immigrants and forced all state employees to immediately report illegal immigrants to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for deportation.  It appeared on the ballot in 1994 when California Republican governor Pete Wilson was running a very hard-fought campaign for reelection, which he won. Prop 187 was approved by the voters, but it galvanized the Hispanic vote against the GOP from that year on. California is now known for its high progressive income taxes and high welfare benefit levels (ie, wealth redistribution) – a haven for immigrants who don’t come to the United States with skills to fully support themselves and their families. California rewards its Hispanic immigrants and they reward the Democratic Party. We see the same in New Jersey and New York.  We see states that want to turn or remain “blue” (Democratic) supporting policies that attract Hispanics and other immigrants (those that take advantage, and even scam, welfare and other assistance programs). Low-skilled immigrants go where they can best afford to live.

Refer to the Pew Research Center data below:
A = Unauthorized immigrant population, 2014

B = Unauthorized immigrant share of population, 2014

C = Unauthorized Share of immigrant population, 2014

D = Unauthorized immigrant share of labor force, 2014

E = Share of K-12 students with unauthorized immigrant parent(s), 2014

F = Share Mexican of unauthorized immigrants, 2014

G = Change in unauthorized immigrant population, 2009-2014

__________A_______B____    C______D____     E______F_____G_

Total               11,100,000      3.5%           26%            5.0%           7.3%           52%           n.s.

Alabama         65,000             1.3%           39%            1.8%           2.8%           52%          -15,000

Alaska             10,000             1.3%            17%            1.9%            2.4%           13%           n.s.

Arizona           325,000           4.9%           35%           6.6%           12.2%          81%           n.s.

Arkansas         70,000             2.4%           48%           3.5%            6.0%          70%           n.s.

California        2,350,000        6.0%          22%           9.0%           12.3%         71%        -190,ooo

Colorado         200,000           3.8%           37%           4.9%           10.2%         72%           n.s.

Connecticut    120,000           3.4%            24%           4.7%             5.5%         18%           n.s.

Delaware         25,000             2.7%            31%            4.0%             4.2%         43%           n.s.

DC                   25,000             3.9%             26%            4.9%             6.6%           3%            n.s.

Florida             850,000           4.2%           20%            6.2%             7.6%          19%           n.s.

Georgia           375,000           3.6%             36%            5.2%             8.4%          56%        -55,000

Hawaii             45,000             3.2%            18%             4.6%             5.2%            3%            n.s.

Idaho               45,000             2.7%             42%             4.0%            6.8%           87%           n.s.

Illinois             450,000           3.5%             24%             5.0%            7.2%           71%       -55,000

Indiana            110,000           1.6%               32%            2.2%            3.5%           63%           n.s.

Iowa                40,000             1.3%                26%            1.8%            3.2%           62%           n.s.

Kansas             75,000             2.5%                35%           3.4%             6.7%           74%    -20,000

Kentucky        50,000             1.1%                30%            1.7%              2.1%           50%           n.s.

Louisiana        70,000             1.5%                36%            2.2%             2.2%           39%     15,000

Maine              <5,000             0.3%                8%              0.4%            0.4%           N.A.          n.s.

Maryland        250,000           4.2%                27%            5.9%             7.5%            11%           n.s.

Massachusetts 210,000           3.1%               19%            4.0%             4.6%            2%      35,000

Michigan         130,000           1.3%                20%            1.7%               2.3%           35%          n.s.

Minnesota       100,000           1.9%                23%            2.7%              3.8%            45%         n.s.

Mississippi      25,000             0.8%                37%            1.3%              1.3%             69%        n.s.

Missouri          55,000             0.9%                24%             1.3%              1.8%             39%        n.s.

Montana          <5,000             0.3%                14%             0.4%              0.1%            N.A.       n.s.

Nebraska         45,000             2.5%                38%             3.2%               6.7%            61%       n.s.

Nevada            210,000          7.2%                36%             10.4%             17.6%           70%     -30K

New Hamp      10,000             0.8%                14%             1.0%                1.3%            2%         n.s.

New Jersey     500,000           5.4%                24%              7.9%              7.6%           24%       45K

New Mexico   85,000             4.0%                37%               5.6%              10.1%         91%         n.s.

New York       775,000           3.9%                17%                 5.9%              6.0%           25%       n.s

N. Carolina    350,000           3.4%                43%                5.0%             8.7%           60%       n.s

N. Dakota         <5,000          0.5%                13%                 0.7%             0.7%           N.A.       n.s.

Ohio                95,000             0.8%                19%                 1.1%              1.5%           28%       n.s.

Oklahoma       95,000             2.4%                41%                 3.4%            6.3%           71%        n.s.

Oregon          130,000             3.2%                32%                 4.8%            8.6%           71%       n.s.

Pennsylvania   180,000         1.4%                22%                 2.0%           2.6%           20%     50K

Rhode Island   30,000           2.9%               21%                  4.0%             6.4%           6%        n.s.

S. Carolina       85,000           1.8%                37%                 2.6%              3.9%          64%   – 15K

S. Dakota           5,000             0.6%                21%                0.8%              0.6%         22%       n.s.

Tennessee       120,000           1.9%                37%                 2.8%              3.9%          49%      n.s.

Texas              1,650,000        6.1%                35%                 8.5%               13.4%         71%       n.s.

Utah                100,000           3.5%                39%                 5.4%                7.4%         72%      n.s.

Vermont          <5,000             0.3%                8%                   0.3%              0.0%        N.A.      n.s.

Virginia           300,000           3.5%                28%                 5.0%               6.5%        14%    35K

Washington     250,000           3.6%               27%                5.0%             8.8%          52%    40K

West Virginia <5,000             0.2%                15%                 0.2%             0.3%           N.A.      n.s.

Wisconsin       80,000             1.3%                27%                 1.9%               3.2%           74%     n.s.

Wyoming        5,000               1.0%                27%                 1.4%                2.3%          58%      n.s.

Note: All numbers are rounded independently and are not adjusted to sum to the total U.S. figure or other totals. Percents and Change calculated from unrounded numbers. (90% confidence in rounding)

“N.A.” – Not available. Base of percent is too small to produce a reliable estimate.

“n.s.” – Change is not statistically significant.

Download data on unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., 2014.

Source: Pew Research Center estimates for 2009 and 2014 based on augmented American.  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/

Why does immigration matter and why is it such an important issue for Democrats that the US have an open-door policy, that states be able to have sanctuary cities, and that illegals be granted amnesty?  It’s because immigration has the potential to the demographics – and hence, the electoral power – of the states that Donald Trump depended on to win the presidency. Immigration is a power play – a strictly political issue, and NOT a moral one, as they might claim. Immigration has the potential of being a game-changer for the Democratic Party and the liberal-progressive movement. It has the potential of changing the political landscape in a major way in favor of liberal-Democratic policies. Just as Lyndon B. Johnson realized the potential of poor blacks when he signed the Aid to Families With Dependent Children legislation (the welfare program as we know it today) and greatly enlarged other assistance programs (his “Great Society”) when he said: “I’ll have those n*** voting Democratic for 200 years,” todays liberals know the potential power of having a majority of people existing or at least dependent on the government for their essential needs. The power to control is the power to manipulate.

If you question LBJ’s logic, which is the same logic of the Democratic Party, just look at the results of his programs. They were intended to lift blacks out of poverty; yet the poverty rate is almost the same today as it was in 1965 (17.3% in 1965; 15% in 2012).  This is despite the now 92 + federal programs designed to help lower-income Americans. For instance, there are dozens of education and job-training programs, 17 different food-aid programs, and over 20 housing programs. Instead of giving people the temporary assistance they may need to become employable and become self-sufficient (ending dependency), democratic government policies have done the opposite – they have discouraged work and education, and have helped destroy the one institution that is most important in determining success – families. Rather than being temporary programs and helping to lift individuals and families out of poverty, government programs have become true social programs, or permanent programs. Instead of moving people out of poverty, they are now designed to make people “comfortable” in their poverty…. So much so that it is no longer worth investing in an education or a meaningful employable skill. Liberals and Democrats have taken LBJ’s scheme, saw the political brilliance in it, and have run with it.  The scheme, of course, is to entangle politics with hand-outs and freebies, including a Get Out of Jail FREE card. And we see it quite clearly with immigration. The Liberals have politicized them. They are participating in Antifa, they are participating in violent protests, they are bashing the US flag, they are hostile to the current administration, they are frustrating our court system, they are demanding rights, they are flocking to sanctuary cities.

I watched an episode of FOX News this morning. In discussing amnesty for illegal immigrants, Juan Williams said that morally, the United States has a moral obligation to take care of illegal immigrants who are here in this country by providing them healthcare, welfare, education opportunities, etc.  His opponent responded by telling him to take that argument to the average middle-class taxpayer, who is already watching his tax dollars go to pay for a huge amount of social services (of which he himself, and his family, is not eligible for) instead of for his own family’s needs. Illegal immigrants and their children are costing the American taxpayers $135 billion, the highest ever. This price tag includes healthcare, welfare, other freebies, education, prison costs, and increased law enforcement expenses –  http://video.foxnews.com/v/5591274873001/?#sp=show-clips

According to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IFLI), illegal immigration to the U.S. costs federal, state and local taxpayers a staggering net cost of $116 billion a year – an increase of some $16 billion compared to previous estimates – according to a new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study is the most comprehensive to date on the cost to federal, state and local taxpayers of the nation’s 12.5 million illegal immigrants and their 4.2 million citizen children.

The report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,” examines the cost of illegal immigration through a detailed analysis of federal, state and local programs that are available to the nation’s illegal immigrant population, their U.S.-born children, or accessed via fraud.  The study tallies the impact on education, medical, justice/enforcement, welfare and other government programs. The report notes that the $116 billion cost of illegal immigration falls on state and local taxpayers disproportionately – by a ratio of roughly 2 to 1 – with state and local expenditures totaling $88.9 billion and Federal expenditures totaling $45.8 billion, with only approximately $19 billion recouped in taxes. [http://www.irli.org/single-post/2017/09/27/New-FAIR-Study-Illegal-Immigration-Costs-116-billion-Annually?gclid=Cj0KCQiAjO_QBRC4ARIsAD2FsXOUPz-giyM_Ptgcrt1mC4ar6rPbB2qdsd1kkxncvKxiQwuT8aO-2dYaAtUPEALw_wcB ]

Democrats and liberals love to say that illegals pay taxes, but they are intentionally misleading and deceptive. They pay consumption taxes, like sales taxes and gas tax, which everyone pays as a function of being a consumer. But they do not pay federal income tax. In fact, the taxes they pay are wholly inadequate to cover the costs that they incur and the burden they pose on actual taxpayers. Here are the facts:

  • The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.
  • All told, the nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.
  • On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.
  • At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).
  • The study also includes cost and tax revenue estimates per state. The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion). [Ibid]

Mexicans remain the majority of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population; the “estimated” number of illegal Mexican immigrants (aliens) was 5.8 million in 2014. On top of this, the number of unauthorized immigrants from all other nations – especially those from Asia and Central America – is growing. In 2009, the number of illegals from all other nations (other than Mexico) was 325,000. In 2014, that figure rose to 5.3 million. As if these numbers aren’t staggering enough, remember our laws allowing chain migration and recognize that illegals are breeding like crazy. Their numbers are growing very rapidly.

On one of Tucker Carlson’s shows, he commented: “Millions of low-skilled workers are flooding into the country and clearly something needs to be done. Facts rarely matter in the national debate surround immigration, including in Washington DC; instead, to supporters of an open immigration policy, it’s about morality and emotion. But facts must be addressed because they have real consequences for legal Americans. Illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $135.8 billion dollars each year. Illegals pay about $19 billion in taxes which leaves a deficit that the American taxpayers are on the hook for of $116 billion. To put that into perspective, Americans spend $70 billion each year on college tuition. If we didn’t have the immigration burden that we have, that $116 billion could provide a college education for every American child, with about $50 billion left over. That sum could go towards fixing roads, it could be spent on healthcare, etc.”

Tucker then brought on a spokesman, Mr. Dan Stein, for the Center for Immigration Studies, the organization which compiled the data referenced. The spokesman explained that the typical immigrant in this country is related to someone already here. “Every initiating immigrant has already brought 3.5 family members with him/her to the country. This is known as chain migration. Each legal immigrant from Mexico has already brought an average of more than 6 others with him/her to the United States. Most have low prospects of contributing economically (of getting a good-paying job). 24% of those who have come here through chain migration are over 50 years old (and not able to speak English) and hence, they barely work or don’t work at all. But they will be able to collect social security benefits, after never paying into the system. If 700,000 DACA recipients receive amnesty, they stand to bring millions more under our policy of chain migration. The only reason to excuse this situation is because for the left, its is a chance to gain and hold onto political power. On the right, Republican politicians are being pressured by the business lobbyists (who fund their campaigns and have a lot of power) who want to keep labor costs low. Ordinary Americans are ignored. They are losing their jobs to these immigrants. They need their taxes lowered because they have had stagnant wages for years and have watched as costs have gone up for everything. The average immigrant makes about $36,000 per year (below the poverty line) and therefore, has a negative federal tax liability.”

To continue an immigration policy at the current rate and with the consequences it brings ensures that actual taxpayers will never get a break. They will continue to subsidize the lifestyles of others….  and most offensively, subsidize the lifestyles of those that shouldn’t even be here. The American taxpayer, and the legal citizen should NOT have to subsidize and fund an insidious policy that is political in nature and designed only to effect a shift in party allegiance. It is simply politics at its worst and is outrageous.

For Liberals to embrace open borders and an open immigration policy is just insane. It’s just as insane as them piling more people on social welfare programs, offering more entitlement programs, and driving the nation further into debt. Clearly, the cost of allowing illegal immigration to continue is far too high. Anyone with an ounce of grey matter can understand this. Combine this with the fact that the federal government is specifically tasked – is REQUIRED – to enforce a rational and meaningful immigration policy, and we see that liberals are simply beyond ignorant and reckless on this issue. But then again, open immigration isn’t about what is moral and compassionate (as the Pope likes to espouse, while never once offering to open the Vatican coffers to fund their social costs); it is a “kool-aid” issue that masks a more sinister goal – to bring in more potential Democrats. The political ambitions of today’s liberals continue to destroy brain cells and continue to put the health and vitality of the country at risk.

[Jeffrey S. Passel an D’Vera Cohn, “Overall Number of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrants Holds Steady Since 2009; Decline in share from Mexico mostly offset by growth from Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa,” Pew Research Center, Nov, 3, 2016.  Referenced at:  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/ ]

NYC TERRORIST ATTACK –  Profiling and Vetting are Highly Offensive to Liberals, even when innocent American lives are at stake

On Halloween Day, October 31, in New York City, a legal permanent resident who came to the US from Uzbekistan committed an act of terrorism that mirrored those being committed in European nations, especially France and England. Sayfullo Saipov drove a rented Home Depot truck down a New York City bike lane, intentionally targeting and plowing into pedestrians and bicyclists, before slamming into a school bus, killing 8 and wounding 12. He got out of the truck and shouted “Allahu akbar” (“God is great” in Arabic) before the NYC police were able to subdue him. When the police later were able to go through Saipov’s effects, they learned that he had pledged loyalty to ISIS and had plotted the attack for weeks before carrying out in the name of the Islamic State.

How did someone so hateful of America come here?  It turns out that Saipov came to the United States seven years ago from Uzbekistan under the Diversity Visa (DV) Program, a State Department program which offers a no-questions-asked (with respect to ideology and terrorism) lottery for people from countries with few immigrants in America. The DV program makes up to 50,000 immigrant visas available annually, “drawn from random selection among all entries to individuals who are from countries with low rates of immigration” to the U.S., according to the information provided on the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services website. Applicants must prove they have a clean criminal record, have a high school diploma or its equivalent, or have at least two years of work experience within the past five years in order to qualify. The program originated as part of a bill introduced in 1990 by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, then a member of the House. Schumer’s measure to make a set number of visas available to “diversity immigrants” from certain countries was absorbed into a larger House immigration bill, which was sponsored by Schumer and 31 others.

The House legislation passed in a bipartisan, but contested, vote (231-192), while the Senate version passed more easily (89-8). The bill went on to be signed by then-President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Up until that point, the US was essentially only acknowledging terrorism abroad, primarily with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. In 1979, Iranians kidnapped fifty-two American diplomats and citizens and held them hostage for 444 days (until Reagan took office in 1981) and in 1988, a suitcase bomb exploded aboard New York-bound Pan Am Flight 103, killing all 259 passengers and crewmembers, along with 11 people on the ground, in Lockerbie, Scotland. (Libya’s leader, Gaddafi, finally claimed responsibility in 2003).

In light of the rapid and violent escalation of terrorism all over the world and especially here in the United States, our Congressmen never thought to get rid of the DV program in favor of a more sensible immigration policy – a merit-based one, one rationally related to our national interests, the most important being safety and self-preservation. They never thought it important, for safety reasons, to come together in a non-partisan fashion, and repeal the policy?  How many “Allahu Akbars” did they need to hear shouted before innocent American lives were taken?  Do they not bother to look at the data that entire executive departments are tasked to gather regarding terrorism, radicalism, and countries in which both are thriving?  It took someone like Donald Trump, vaulted to the presidency by common-sense Americans, to think along such lines. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) sponsored the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act, which calls for its elimination and President Trump has come out in support of it, calling the DV program “outdated,” adding that it “serves questionable economic and humanitarian interests.”

In their infinite wisdom, Democrats provided a beauty of a program that was able to bring potential and actual terrorists into our communities in the aftermath of the 9/11 NYC terrorist attack.

Liberal federal judges want to keep that door open as well.  How many liberal circuit courts of appeal have struck down President Trump’s common-sense travel ban so that officials can know, with some degree of confidence, who exactly is coming into our country.

TEXAS CHURCH SHOOTING –  As greater numbers of people reject religion and its tenets, a crowning achievement for liberals, violent crime (mass shootings, that is) has increased

The incidence of violent crime (mass shootings, that is) has risen as greater numbers of people reject religion and its tenets.  Conversely, violent crime decreases as greater numbers of people are religiously active in their community. Religion establishes a strong moral climate for its believers.

The rise in this phenomenon of ‘Man’s inhumanity to his fellow man’ forces us to assess whether the social engineering of liberals/progressives starting in the late 1940’s (with the “Wall of Separation” decision, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947) has created a social climate that feeds man’s dark side. In today’s America, everyone is a victim, and as a victim, others must be pay or be punished.

On Sunday, November 5, a gunman walked into a small Baptist church in the very small town of Sutherland Springs, Texas, and began shooting all its parishioners. The gunman, Devin Kelly, was an Air Force veteran who was dishonorably discharged and confined for a year for severely beating his wife and her baby son.  As Kelly walked into the church, he said: “Everyone die.” He killed 26 people, including toddlers and the elderly. The youngest victim was a baby in its mother’s womb, just 2 months or so from birth, and the next was only 18 months old. The eldest was 72. As Kelly walked from pew to pew, he shot point blank at the terrified church-goers, who were cowering and covering their loved ones. He pumped bullets into the bodies of those who were cowering, and took care to make sure that if anyone appeared to still be alive he would shoot them some more.

Clearly his intent was to shoot all 50 or so parishioners. If it hadn’t been for a neighbor who sprang into action, got his rifle, and began shooting at him, he may have succeeded in his mission. But he did more damage and was responsible for more carnage than a person can ever imagine. In such a small town, and with the church being as much of a family gathering as a church service, the deaths were particularly heart-wrenching. One family lost 8 members, and probably everyone in the small community lost someone close to them. The pastor lost his 14-year-old daughter.

Devin Kelly was a deeply, deeply disturbed individual. He was violently, physically abusive as well as psychologically abusive. His depravity knew no bounds. His ex-wife detailed how he abused her: “He would choke me, punch me, kick me. There would be times where I would be on the floor curled up and having to protect my organs because he would be violently kicking me on my side. He kicked me like I was less of a person; that’s how it made me feel.” She said he once pulled a gun and held it to her head while they were driving on an empty road, and asked her: “Do you want to die?'” He threatened to kill her, her son, and her family if she ever told anyone about him hurting her or pulling a gun on her. As he put it: “I could just bury you somewhere here in the desert and nobody would ever find you.”  He smacked her infant son around so hard that his skull was fractured. Kelly pled guilty to charges of abusing his then-wife and hitting his stepson “with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm,” according to documents.

Where does such evil come from? How do monsters arise among us?  And why do they?

I give a lot of thought to those questions. And I invariably think back to an old Cherokee parable that I had shared with my kids many years ago. The parable goes like this: An old Cherokee chief was teaching his grandson about life. He told him: “A fight is going on inside me… It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego. And the other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. This same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too.”  The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf will win?”  To which the old chief simply replied: “The one you feed.”

I think it’s true that everyone has a fight going on inside them, inside their hearts and in their head, and some days the angel wins and some days, it seems like the angel doesn’t hold up too well.  Who doesn’t feel the demon winning sometimes when things go bad or tragedy strikes?  Who wouldn’t feed that demon when, say, a child gets gravely ill or passes? Or when someone they love dies unexpectedly? They question the sense it makes and why good doesn’t prevail, as we expect it should. Who wouldn’t feed the demon when debts pile up, the house bills can’t be met, and the stress level is almost unbearable?  Or when a person loses his or her job at the worst possible time?  Or is mistreated by a horrible boss?  Or mistreated by their spouse?  Who wouldn’t empower the internal demon in an environment that is consumed with division and hatred, pitting one group of individuals against another? Or when there is injustice?  Or in a politically-charged environment, with critical issues at stake?  Or in an environment where individuals continue to have “diversity” shoved down their throats when in fact, diversity has often resulted in a great loss of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, self-censorship, a cold-impersonal workplace, lowered standards (as in education), changes to the holidays and traditions that have been part of our nation’s history for so long (holidays like Christmas and Columbus Day being renamed, Easter being eliminated, and now establishing a new “special” month — Hispanic History Month or Hispanic Appreciation Month…  c’mon), challenges in how history is taught and viewed (we can’t offend anyone in any way), a sense of insecurity, and even instances of anxiety (being forced to exist with others that clearly don’t share similar values, customs, and norms).  Some people cannot cope when they lose control of the important things in their life.

Without being properly grounded and guided, without a clear understanding of boundaries and expectations, without proper preparation for the real world, and without proper love and support, a person can feel lonely and helpless as the internal war wages on. Without the sense of community and a tangible feeling of compassion and care, a person can go further down a dark road and sink further into despair. Unfortunately, the progressive era has destroyed, eroded, and undermined all those indispensable supports and guidelines that individuals need to keep the demons at bay. They’ve taken religion and morality out of our schools, out of our public square, and out of government.  I remember we started every morning during my public school years with a prayer (up until high school) and then with a time of silence (last years of high school, where the home room teacher would encourage us to say a prayer to start the day out strong). As short and seemingly inconsequential as those early morning moments may seem, I remember being reminded every day of right versus wrong, that I was grateful for my life and its possibilities were in my own hands, and that all said-and-done, I would be accountable to God for how I conducted myself. It grounded me and yes, it pushed me to be the best version of myself I could be.  It brought me back to my Sunday school and my church service lessons which taught me about God’s grace and God’s love, how faith doesn’t depend on anything visible or provable, but in simple belief and acceptance, how Jesus calls us to live according to God’s laws so that we can best love and help serve on another.  It reminded me of the people I grew up in the church with – learning that each of them had their own cross to bear, in one way or another, yet they were there for others and their crosses. I used to spend many days in my church not because I was a sponge and wanted to soak up the Scripture; I just enjoyed and felt comforted being with such a warm and generous and selfless group of people. They were always happy.

In an era when anything goes, that’s exactly what we’re seeing – everything goes, including one’s mind, one’s composure, and one’s conduct. We’ve mocked and rejected the immutable laws of Biology. We’ve destroyed the notion of a stable nuclear family and even the tradition understaning of what a family even looks like. Up until about 40 years ago, a man and a woman planned for marriage so that they could be in the best position to start a family and provide for their children – in every way possible… with a stable home, with the intent for a good education, with some savings for their college, with a mother who nurtures them and a father who provides and protects them. The family stayed together because there were priorities and there were social norms and there was the notion of a life-long commitment for the sake of the family, for the well-being of the children. Now, the traditional family unit is mocked and sex is the reason that couples come together rather than true companionship and a desire to build a life together. And as a result, couples stay together only as long as things are good and each isn’t too miserable. Children are born before a walk down the aisle and certainly before the “planning.”  Without the planning, unnecessary stress is placed on the parents and a marriage is strained. In some cases, children are born just for a government check and a way to opt out of the work force, thus they grow up in a home without a father, without proper structure, and without proper influences and role models. How many women do you see today pushing a stroller and maybe another little one tagging along without a ring on their finger and without a husband?  Over 69% of babies born in Greenville, NC are born out-of-wedlock. The statistics show that children raised in single-parent households perform poorer in school, are more likely to drop out of school, to have or cause a teen pregnancy, to have spotty employment records, to go on to live in poverty, have psychological and/or emotional issues, and to experience a divorce in adulthood. In short, children who are not raised in a stable two-parent home have a lesser chance of success as an adult. Again, years ago, the priority for young men and women was to find someone they love and to raise and provide for their children so that they could have even a better life than them.

A decent, productive society needs its proper institutions and the values that keep them on strong footing. It’s just common sense.  It’s just common sense that taking away the lessons of love and goodness, the traditional norms of right versus wrong, personal responsibility, and acceptable social behavior will only have deleterious effects on the individual and the community in general. Turning the public school system into a social experiment without proper standards leaves a child without a sense of personal boundaries. And allowing and even glorifying conduct that condemns Christians and mainstream America as a bunch of nut-jobs and fanatics while embracing conduct that exceeds the bounds of acceptable behavior and defies historic religious tenets and the laws of Biology leaves them questioning what exactly is right or wrong. They question the authority that defines morality and what is right or wrong. Liberals and progressives have left and are leaving communities in decay because of their lack of values and their outward rejection of common sense. Parents, what happens when you don’t establish clear boundaries for your toddlers and young children with respect to conduct and expectations?  They become little monsters; they walk all over you, they control you, they are disobedient. And they carry that superior, uncontrolled personality with them into adulthood.

Liberals and progressives thrive on hatred, jealousy, class division, racial tension, religious intolerance, gender confusion, and the notion that each individual is far more important than he or she really is (in the grand scheme of a community; it pushes socialism of wealth and services but individualism in political issues and in everything else).  These are the conditions now in which children are raised and the conditions under which Americans live.  We see an increase in the dissolution of the family. We see an increase in drug use, and an increase on dependency in general. We see more people content to live at the so-called poverty level. We also see an increase in aberrant human behavior and in alternative lifestyles and gender confusion, and are told depression runs very high in those circles. Our homes are not safe; our streets are not safe. More people than ever are falling apart and having emotional and nervous breakdowns. Is there any reason that we see an increase in violence?  Kelly had issues and certainly had the devil winning too many battles inside his head and heart. I’m not excusing his behavior by any shade of the imagination and I am glad he is no longer with us. But society may have helped create that monster by not providing the support and guidance he needed or emphasizing and re-enforcing throughout his childhood (including in the school system) the lessons that nurture the human heart and shape the human mind.

In all too many instances, we are seeing individuals feed the wrong wolf.  And in a godless society, devoid of morality, and corrupted by the godless and the power-hungry, it is becoming far too easy and commonplace to feed that wolf.

As we see with liberals, as Mr. Joseph Heath of the University of Toronto writes: “All too often, when we study social problems, there is an almost irresistible temptation to study what we would like the cause of those problems to be (for whatever reason), to the neglect of the actual causes. When this goes uncorrected, you can get the phenomenon of ‘politically correct’ explanations for various social problems. Many of these explanations trickle down from the Ivory Tower into public consciousness through the media, as well as through direct instruction in colleges and university, becoming the ‘conventional wisdom’ that shapes our political debates. Most academics (liberals) prefer that the cause of a given social problem be one government can do something about.”  The excuse or the explanation that liberals give for mass shootings is that it is too easy to get guns. Yet it was a firearm in the hands of a healthy-minded neighbor who shot at Kelly, distracted him, and prevented further carnage. “If only we had gun control, we wouldn’t have these shooting.” “Another deadly mass shooting because people can get guns.”  The shooter himself, as a person with free will, is never to blame. They never look to the character, the mind, or the intent of the person pulling the trigger.  No, liberals make excuses for him. “It’s the gun’s fault.” They fail to realize that a person intent on killing someone will find a weapon to do so, or weaponize something like a truck or a tank of propane. Most of the shooters, if not all, were left-leaning. Most of the shootings could have been prevented if the government had enforced the laws that are already on the books?  For example, in the case of Devin Kelly, the Air Force failed to provide information about his criminal conviction to the FBI database used in the background checks for gun purchases, and as a result, he was able to get the guns used for the shooting. (A recent Air Force review has turned up “several dozen” similar cases where the Air Force has failed to provide such information to the FBI).  In the case of the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, although he purchased 33 out of his nearly 50 guns individually (those 33 were rifles; the authorities, ATF, are only notified when there are multiple gun sales – two or more handguns in an individual purchase), the fact that he purchased all of those 33 in less than a year should have set off a red flag. The ATF dropped the ball.

The rise in mass shootings speaks to the rise in mental health issues and the fact that as a society we are so consumed in not hurting anyone’s feelings or making anyone feel uncomfortable or feel less than completely normal that we allow such mental defects to go untreated. Aberrant behavior is excused, marginalized, or even swept under the rug. Being that most, if not all, of the shooters were liberal thinkers or otherwise left-leaning, we have to look at why such individuals become so violently unhinged. Also, the rise in gun violence and mass shootings speaks to the climate of our communities, the low expectations of our citizens, and the pressures on individuals, all of which are the direct result of liberal government policies.

HIGH SCHOOL LIBERALISM –  High schools have become a field day for liberals and for social experimentation

The open-mind policy of liberals has given us this beauty (true story, although the name of the school and the students are kept anonymous, for obvious reasons):  Two high school football players were caught (by many) in the act of sodomy in the school’s bathroom, using peanut butter as a lubricant. Students entering the bathroom and others just passing by heard their very loud grunting. One student stood on the toilet in the adjacent stall, and filmed the encounter while other students peered into the stall of the sex-crazed lovers and took videos on their cameras. Finally, teachers arrived and then the school police officer. The officer broke up the coupling and within minutes, news spread throughout the school. My son came home from school and shared all this information with me. Later that night it was corroborated by his best friend, whose mother is a teacher at the school. Teachers and administrators were treated to a recap of the event.

I asked my son what was going to happen to the students and so he told me he would find out the next day at school or get the 411 from his friend. Well, the next afternoon when my son came home from school, I asked for an update. He started off: “Mom, you’re never going to believe this….”   Turns out that instead of the students talking about a rightful expulsion of the two football students and the inappropriateness of such an act in a high school bathroom, there were a good many of them who wanted to excuse the incident and instead, use it as an opportunity to promote the equality of homosexuals and teach about homosexual sex in school. Now, one could have used the opportunity to talk about acceptable conduct as a teenager, or the morality of teen sex, or abstinence, or sexually-transmitted diseases, or the appropriate uses of peanut butter.  But only individuals whose minds are so open that they are incapable of common sense or rational thought (ie, liberal-thinking) could think this conduct is acceptable or that it is a teachable moment on inclusion OR Biology. Years ago, students would be traumatized over such an incident, and they would run home to their parents and tell them. The parents, of course, would hurry over to the school and camp out in front of the principal’s office, if need be, to get a favorable promise of how the incident would be handled and what policies and courses would be put in place to make sure that it did not happen again.  Years ago, teens were taught right from wrong and taught morality at home, by their parents, according to the dictates of their conscience. Today, thanks to liberal policies, the public school system teaches them what and how to think about sensitive issues. And so they think, just as these 14-18-year-olds did, from the most liberal point of view.

CONCLUSION

Make no mistake, Liberals are destroying the United States with empty-headed logic and policies…. They suffer from a mental defect that renders them incapable of allegiance to and accepting of the values and principles of liberty that the country was founded on and on which the country was once great.

In 2005, famed radio personality Michael Savage wrote a book entitled Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. You can guess what point he was seeking to make. And in 2011, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, Jr., a board-certified clinical psychologist, wrote a book entitled The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness in which he diagnosed the ideology of the left as a tangible mental illness. In The Liberal Mind, Dr. Rossiter writes: “The Liberal Mind is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda’s madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains.”

Others, on the other hand, have characterized liberalism not so much a novel mental disorder, but rather as special class of illness already widely studied since the late ‘60s – narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Rusty, in the “Political Insider,” writes: “The Mayo Clinic defines NPD as ‘a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration.’  This seems in tune with the fact that liberals – along with their degenerate offspring asking for ‘safe spaces’ and hiding from chalk – believe their policies and platforms fall in the majority – or the 99% if you will – despite being outnumbered by conservatives in 47 of 50 states.” There are other symptoms that define NPD and the left alike… For example, liberals ignore the first rule of nature, that only the strong survive, and instead, want their kind treated differently, like victims or like snowflakes, offering a long list of reasons for their failures and situation and blaming others (such as “white privilege” or the “greedy wealthy”). Ignorance obviously plays a central role in their wholesale claims of racism and “white privilege.”  Indeed, ignorance on various levels, defines a liberal.

Liberals also like to rebel against social norms; they don’t believe they need to be confined by them. As Dr. Rossiter explains: “Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded….. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.  A social scientist that understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do. … A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”  Liberals have no conscience when they see how others are harmed – robbed (ie, overtaxed), regulated, silenced, vilified, punished (punished for being white – a non-protectable overly-broad racial group; punished for being successful, punished for having a job, punished for scoring well on the SAT, etc) – when they act out or to further their goals.

Liberals are notoriously intolerant (even though one of their “issues” is tolerance) and sanctimonious. They love to claim moral superiority. Sadly, although they love to argue their points, they abhor facts and have no stomach for robust debate on the merit of issues. Rather than pursue a real discussion, they try to insult the other side with foul language and name-calling or by discrediting with any one of their “isms”(racism, fascism, etc) or “phobes” (homophobes, islamophobe, etc). Or they may simply try to shut the other side down with their common phrase “white-privilege” (thus showing which group of people see nothing else about a person except skin color !!)  Liberals — this is the group that stalks on social media, hides behind dozens of fake Facebook profiles, and shows up at rallies, speeches, and presentations NOT to respectfully offer an alternative viewpoint, but only to shut that event and that speech down with the conduct of a 2-year-old brat or a gutter rat.  They loudly and brutishly impose and vomit their non-existent set of self-righteous morals on the world from every conceivable soap box they can find.  The only reason racism still exists (and perhaps is now even on the rise) is because of liberals emphasizing all-too-loudly and all-too-often the differences between the races, exaggerating claims, and making mountains out of mole-hills. They took the cue from Barack Obama, who had an uncanny knack of turning every incident into a racial incident.  Some might say that they are have an innate ability for applying Alinky’s “rules” for radicals.

And still the list of symptoms of this mental disorder, this derangement syndrome, this NPD (these neuroses) continues. Rusty writes, “Furthermore, they expect constant praise and admiration. This is a staple of college liberals and their constant ‘look at me’ attitude.  The need to feed their pride consumes them, fueling a self-importance that must continue to grow through perpetual media coverage. Protesting sidewalk chalk, protesting topless sunbathing, protesting the right to have a ‘safe space,’ protesting the First Amendment, etc. And all the while they look for support for their protests, they look for praise, they look for admiration – which the media usually obliges. There is a meme that demonstrates what earned praise back in 1944 and what earns praise today. It reads: ‘1944: 18-year-olds storm the beach at Normandy facing almost-certain death.  2016: 18-year-olds need safe spaces because words hurt their feelings.’”

Rusty continues: “The very premise on which the liberal platform of wealth redistribution and social justice are based, is jealousy. They want what others have, and they want it without cost to themselves, either monetarily or based on time. They are envious of those with wealth, health insurance, homes, etc. It is a common attribute upon which all liberal protesters rally around. Is there anything that personified this more than the Obamacare fight?  An Obama legacy measure that was opposed by a wide margin, 54-41 percent.  Yet it was still rammed down the collective throats of the American people.  Why?  Because liberals honestly thought that once the plebeians had a chance to see their ideas, they would go along with it. The liberal movement amounts to nothing more than making excuses to legitimize a platform of laziness and entitlements.  We’ve seen these in campus protests, minimum wage protests, anti-Wall Street, anti-capitalism protests, and advocates of perpetual welfare.   Their solution to counter corporate greed is to steal from those that have worked hard to attain their level of wealth, and give to those who refuse to reach such a work ethic. ‘Tax the Rich’ anyone? Money for nothing, or entitlement, seems to be a birthright for the left. All of these symptoms – the narcissism, the righteous indignation, the intolerance, their sense of moral superiority, the ignorance, the need for praise and admiration, the jealousy and sense of entitlement – seem to define an individual who is unable to express their frustration in a rational manner – hence the campus protests.  The Mayo Clinic diagnosis of NPD (“In order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better”) seems to speak to liberals directly.  That’s practically a tailor-made diagnosis for Trump protesters these days…..   In the end, Savage was right. Liberalism is a mental disorder.”

Some have even characterized progressive liberalism as a religion, albeit socio-political in nature. “For liberals, their sermons are driven by quasi-intellectual discussion prompted by observations made with extreme cognitive bias and uses books such as Rules for Radicals, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (by Peggy McIntosh) and After Hegemony (by Robert Keohane) as their bibles. Their savior, of course, is the Democratic Party, or perhaps Karl Marx.”  (News24)

Liberals have gladly and willingly taken the advice of today’s college professors: “Keep an open mind.”  The difference between today’s wacko professors and the ones in the mid-20th century, like Professor Walter Kotschnig at Holyoke College and William Allan Neilson of Smith College, is those professors added a “BUT” after that same bit of advice. Today’s liberals have rejected any limit as to how open their minds can be, and as a result, their brains have indeed fallen out.

 

References:

Quote Investigator.  https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/

Travis Fedschun, “NYC terror attack suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, entered US through Diversity Visa Program,”  FoxNews, Nov. 1, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/01/nyc-terror-attack-suspect-sayfullo-saipov-entered-us-through-diversity-visa-program.html

Children in Single-Parent Families.  Referenced at:  http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/106-children-in-single-parent-families?loc=1&loct=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA84rQBRDCARIsAPO8RFxtQe0V4yKBsvhsT2Lc8UFyBHKOCL39MjspttNi_NpFc5bRJSHdaGAaAktIEALw_wcB#detailed/1/any/false/573,869,36,868,867/any/429,430

Bruce Ashford, “To Anyone Who Thinks Antifa is Good for America,” Bruce Ashford blog, August 25, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://bruceashford.net/2017/to-anyone-who-thinks-antifa-is-good-for-america/

James Lewis, “Atifa is Unamerican,” American Thinker, August 21, 2017. Referenced at:  http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/antifa_is_unamerican.html

IRLI Staff, “New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually,” Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), September 27, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.irli.org/single-post/2017/09/27/New-FAIR-Study-Illegal-Immigration-Costs-116-billion-Annually?gclid=Cj0KCQiAjO_QBRC4ARIsAD2FsXOUPz-giyM_Ptgcrt1mC4ar6rPbB2qdsd1kkxncvKxiQwuT8aO-2dYaAtUPEALw_wcB

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals, Steel On Steel (News Radio with John Loeffler).  Referenced at:  https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/

Rusty, “6 Reasons Why Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” Political Insider, May 4, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://thepoliticalinsider.com/6-reasons-why-liberalism-can-be-considered-a-mental-disorder/

“Liberalism: True Political Ideology or Mental Disorder?.” News 24, Oct. 22, 2013.  Referenced at:  https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Liberalism-True-Political-Ideology-or-Mental-Disorder-20131022

W.W., “Culture of Violence in America,” The Economist, June 23, 2013.  Referenced at:  https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/mass-shootings-and-gun-control

David Briggs, “No Time For Crime: Study Finds More Religious Communities Have Lower Rates Of Black, White and Latino Violence,” The Huffington Post, Dec. 4, 2013.  Referenced at:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/no-time-for-crime-study-f_b_4384046.html

Emily Shapiro and Karma Allen, “Texas Church Shooter’s Ex-Wife Says He Held a Gun to Her Head,” ABC News, Nov 14, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-church-shooters-wife-held-gun-head/story?id=51112194

The Real Reason Hillary Clinton Refers to Saul Alinsky as Her “Mentor”

hillary-and-saul-alinksy

by Diane Rufino, Nov. 7, 2016

In 1971, notorious community organizer Saul Alinsky published his now infamous RULES FOR RADICALS with the intent of enabling the readers to change the world into what they want it to be…  that is, to consolidate power for the ones seeking it (by convincing communities to get out to vote and help them advance their agenda).  Used as a guidebook, RULES FOR RADICALS laid down the war plans for the radical leftist assault on our political system.  Hillary Clinton idolized Alinksy, studied him, called him her mentor, and introduced him on her college campus as “my friend.”

As a preface, Alinsky dedicated his book to the figure who inspired him to write it – Lucifer.  Look what he wrote:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

It is important to note why Alinsky wrote the manual (the playbook for radicals – ie, liberals/Democrats) —  to win a kingdom.  Not just “a” kingdom, but “his” kingdom.  He acknowledges this right in his preface.  If political groups can use his rules effectively, and mobilize the poor, minorities, inner-cities, etc, they can win elections and gain the political control (“the kingdom”) they seek.

This is what Hillary seeks – her own “kingdom” where she is above the law and has supreme power to do whatever she wants.  This is what she sought ever since her years in college, in law school, and in government with her husband. She was merely biding her time, laying the groundwork, raising money, buying political allies, and consolidating her power and position within the Democratic Party and among political progressives and liberals.