Get to know Kamala Harris!

 So what does Kamala Harris actually stand for?

→ Immigration: Like most liberals, Sen. Harris wants to “reexamine” ICE, saying the country should consider “starting from scratch” with the immigration agency. She also supports decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

→ Police: Sen. Harris’s view of law enforcement is still somewhat murky, but it’s not positive. When asked about defunding the police, she called for “reimagining how we do public safety in America.” Earlier this summer, she told The New York Times: "It is status-quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety. That's wrong. It's just wrong." She also applauded Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s plan to slash police funding by $150 million.

→ Abortion: National Review calls Sen. Harris “the most radically pro-abortion candidate to run for president or vice president in the history of our country.” She cosponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would override state’s restrictions on abortion by requiring states to get “preclearance” from the federal government and would destroy states’ rights.

→ Energy/Jobs: Sen. Harris planted herself squarely with the far left of the party, endorsing the Green New Deal and sponsoring an “equity plan” for climate change with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She would also ban all fracking, killing millions of jobs in the process.

→ Health Care: During the presidential campaign, Sen. Harris sponsored Bernie Sanders’ version of socialized medicine, AKA—Medicare for All, before she backed away from it. She also cavalierly called for abolishing private insurance, saying, “Let’s eliminate all of that.” (She has since “clarified” that position.)

→ Executive Power: As a presidential candidate, Sen. Harris promised to use executive power to sidestep Congress and implement her liberal agenda. The list includes restricting gun rights, legalizing illegal immigrants, and implementing equal pay. 
 
Sen. Harris is now competing for the second most important job in this country. Her liberal positions on the biggest issues facing America matter, and they deserve to be studied and questioned. 

Slavery not ‘peculiar institution’ affecting only Western world

Slavery not ‘peculiar institution’ affecting only Western world

Too many people believe that slavery is a “peculiar institution.” That’s what Kenneth Stampp called slavery in his book, “Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South.” But slavery is by no means peculiar, odd or unusual. It was common among ancient peoples such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Armenians and many others. Large numbers of Christians were enslaved during the Ottoman wars in Europe. White slaves were common in Europe from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages. It was only after A.D. 1600 that Europeans joined with Arabs and Africans and started the Atlantic slave trade. As David P. Forsythe wrote in his book, “The Globalist,” “The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom.”

While slavery constitutes one of the grossest encroachments on human liberty, it is by no means unique or restricted to the Western world or United States, as many liberal academics would have us believe. Much of their indoctrination of our young people paints our nation’s founders as racist adherents to slavery, but the story is not so simple.

At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, slaves were about 40 percent of the population of the Southern colonies. Apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections would be based upon population. Southern delegates to the convention wanted slaves to be counted as one person. Northern delegates to the convention, and those opposed to slavery, wanted only free persons of each state to be counted for the purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The compromise reached was that each slave would be counted as only three-fifths of a person.

Many criticize this compromise as proof of racism. My question to these grossly uninformed critics is whether they would have found it more preferable for slaves to be counted as whole persons. Slaves counted as whole persons would have given slaveholding Southern states much more political power. Or, would the critics of the founders prefer that the Northern delegates not compromise and not allow slaves to be counted at all. If they did, it is likely that the Constitution would have not been ratified. Thus, the question is whether blacks would be better off with Northern states having gone their way and Southern states having gone theirs, resulting in no U.S. Constitution and no Union? Unlike today’s pseudointellectuals, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was “a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states” that deprived them of “two-fifths of their natural basis of representation.”

Douglass’ vision was shared by Patrick Henry and others. Henry said, expressing the reality of the three-fifths compromise, “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” With this union, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade by 1808. According to delegate James Wilson, many believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid “the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.” Many of the founders abhorred slavery. 

The most unique aspect of slavery in the Western world was the moral outrage against it, which began to emerge in the 18th century and led to massive elimination efforts. It was Britain’s military sea power that put an end to the slave trade. And our country fought a costly war that brought an end to slavery. Unfortunately, these facts about slavery are not in the lessons taught in our schools and colleges. Instead, there is gross misrepresentation and suggestion that slavery was a uniquely American practice.

Walter E. Williams is an economist at George Mason University.

Globalism vs. Nationalism: The Ideological Struggle of the 21st Century

Globalism vs. Nationalism: The Ideological Struggle of the 21st Century

Much of today’s politics does not surround Socialism, Communism Marxism or Democracy; it is about Globalism versus Nationalism. One could say the displacement of a nation's sovereignty by a Global Power Center.

For much of the 20th century, ideological discussions and debates have centered on liberal versus conservative, left versus right.  No longer.  The ideological divide of the 21st century is emerging as globalism versus nationalism.  Since the end of World War II, global integration and technological progress have fueled a new world order centered on free trade, open borders and interdependent economies.  Goods, capital and people should be able to move freely across borders, which is actually the meaning of globalization.  But Greg Ip of the Wall Street Journal argues that globalism is a “mindset that globalization is natural and good, that global governance should expand as national sovereignty contracts.”  The new nationalist surge has startled and shocked the advocates of globalism. Brexit is a sound example. And to the shock of many, the leadership of Russia by Putin.

Globalism: A Utopian Nightmare; thoughts on this election

Globalism: A Utopian Nightmare

Do you sometimes feel that the America you grew up in is vanishing before your eyes? You are not imagining things. Sadly, you’re seeing the noxious result of efforts by a relatively small group of globalists who contend that we must “fundamentally transform” America to fit into a new global order.

Throughout the centuries, numerous attempts have been made to establish a worldwide government without acknowledging or honoring God in the process. These attempts have met with failure. The first recorded attempt at a one-world order followed the Great Flood. After the Flood, Noah and his family were told by the Lord to multiply and fill the earth. For a time, they followed God’s loving plan of decentralization: “The peoples spread out on their own lands, each with his own language, by their families within their nations.”1

However, a few generations later, Nimrod, one of Noah’s great-grandsons and the founder of Nineveh, created a scheme for centralized world power. He built numerous cities and enticed all the families of the earth to submit to his scheme of government. In direct rebellion against God’s command, the people under Nimrod arrogantly set out to build the first “skyscraper”—a so-called tower into heaven.2

The Tower of Babel was man’s first attempt at salvation through a counterfeit Messiah—“state” [government] worship disguised as religion. The Lord prevented this by confusing the languages of the people and forcing a worldwide dispersion of families and tribes.

National rulers are warned of the danger of scheming and conspiring together against the Lord. Psalm 2 says: “The kings of the earth band themselves, and the princes [rulers] are assembled together against the Lord, and against His Christ… But He that dwells in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision [contempt].”

The Ruler of the Universe then offers hope: “Be instructed and warned you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with reverent awe and worshipful fear. Rejoice and be in high spirits with trembling. Kiss the Son [bow, pay homage] lest He be angry and you perish in the way… blessed [happy, fortunate] are all those who seek refuge and put their trust in Him.”

All pagan empires since Babel have been throttled by God in their drive for world domination. Nebuchadnezzar was turned into a grass-eating beast, crawling about on all fours. Alexander the Great died unexpectedly at the age of thirty-three on the verge of conquering the known world. Julius Caesar’s dream of world conquest ended with his assassination in the Roman senate. Napoleon’s plan of world empire ended on the blood-drenched fields of Waterloo. Adolf Hitler’s plan of world dominion by the Third Reich ended with his suicide in a Berlin bunker.

America’s Christian ancestors formed families, churches, towns and colonies that created a level of personal liberty unknown in history. They lived out the divine plan to liberate and disciple the nations through personal, voluntary transformation of individuals rather than top-down, forced coercion. They did not succumb to the big-government, forced centralization which enslaved the world in their time.3

Then our Founders led the colonies together to form a nation. They created a decentralized, representative government that closely followed the republic established by Moses.4 They crafted a divinely inspired plan for limited government, memorializing it in our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. America’s founding documents drive almost all power back to the “people” and the “States,” away from centralization and globalization.5

Our Founders stood in unity against any all-powerful national government, let alone a global government. Thomas Jefferson represented the view of our Founders when he wrote in 1816: “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one [governing] body…”6

What about today? Whatever the results of the election this month, we can be assured that the long-term prospects for globalists do not look good. Even now the European Union, with its unelected rulers, is crumbling in large part because of the brave English vote for BREXIT in June. The United Nations has failed as a world peace maker and is in chaos. And the communist dictators (in Russia, China, etc.) who still promote the lie of Karl Marx’s utopian “workers’ paradise” will fail like all others before them.

Will Americans continue to be pulled into the “utopian nightmare” of globalism? We don’t need to be. Instead we can boldly reassert our God-given rights and responsibilities to be self-governing and hold our representatives accountable to the Constitution. As Jefferson said, we must “bind the tyrants down with the chains of the Constitution.” Only then, can we leave our children an America that is a shining “City on a Hill” once again.

— Marshall Foster

1.  Genesis 10:5

2.  Genesis 10:8-10; 11:1-4

3.  Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 4:18-21

4 . Exodus 18:21-23; Deuteronomy 1:13-17

5.  10th Amendment to the Constitution

6.  Thomas Jefferson: Liberty and Power (FEE.org) 

Brexit Is Part of Internet Reformation Building Around the World

Brexit Is Part of Internet Reformation Building Around the World

By Anthony Wile - founding editor of The Daily Bell

After years of struggle against the EU, which we documented at The Daily Bell, anti-EU forces have finally removed Britain from the European Union.

The tribes of Britain were the first to make the jump back into fuller nationhood. But there will be other countries trying as well. It’s a great day for Britain and a good day for The Daily Bell that has had as one of its main missions analysis of the “Internet Reformation” and the freedom building because of it.

While I am no longer involved in an ownership position with The Daily Bell, I remain proud of our accurate commentaries and predictions.

We saw very early on that the Internet’s truth-telling would change the world.  And despite many negatives and considerable controversy, it certainly has.We’ve published dozens over the years, and much of what we reported is taking place.

We published many interviews that dealt, at least in part, with the EU. I was looking through past Daily Bell issues and found some British interviews. Like The Daily Bell’s statements on the EU, theirs anticipated Brexit.

Lord William Rees-Mogg provided an interview on the EU in 2010, two years before his death. Rees-Mogg, who was president of the Oxford Union in 1951, became a writer for The Financial Times in 1952, moved to The Sunday Times in 1960 and then served as editor of the London Times from 1967 to 1981.

I think the EU will survive but the EU in its present shape probably won’t. The strain the euro is putting on the weaker economies is more than they will be able to sustain …

I find that younger people tend to hold increasingly liberalist views. Liberalist is a difficult word because it means different things in different places. In the classical sense, the meaning is that liberty is the essence of sound political structure.

Rees-Mogg certainly predicted what’s going on: “The EU in its present shape won’t survive.”

John Browne, a well-respected financial observer and free-market commentator, is also a distinguished former member of Britain’s Parliament. He was a close associate of the late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Here’s a bit of what he said in 2009:

“The Germans tolerate the stage strutting of the French to offset the British threat …   When she feels more secure, Germany will discard France and rule in a decidedly Prussian manner. It could lift Europe into a top superpower. It could be great for Europe. However, all Europeans who do not speak German as their mother tongue will be second-class citizens …”

Europe is likely to make a futile attempt at becoming a “United States of Europe.” Germany will pick up the pieces, and the EU will become the New German Empire.

Browne knew that Europe’s attempt at becoming a United States of Europe would be futile. (At least, any such integration with Britain would be.) Let’s wait and see if Germany picks up the pieces.

Robert Oulds is the director of the London-based, anti-EU Bruges Group. He is also a Conservative Councilor in Chiswick.

The Bruges Group is working to take Britain out of the European Union … Our independence is our strength allowing us to be free to follow our own policy agenda and put the national interest above party political considerations …

[Our] inspiration was Margaret Thatcher’s Bruges speech in September 1988, in which she remarked that, “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level.”

Oulds and his group worked hard to remove Britain from the EU and now their hard work has paid off. These folks and many others will surely turn their energy to creating a nation that can prosper as external regulatory chains fall away.

Nigel Farage is head of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) since 2010 and is leader of the Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group.

UKIP stands for independence from the EU and the ability to make our own laws and control our own borders … Like Communism, it is a good idea that has gone badly wrong …

The Euro will endure a slow, lingering death that will condemn the euro zone to a lost decade. Getting government spending under control is vital. However, for the southern euro zone devaluation is a higher priority. Competent or not, the euro is fatally flawed.

As we can see, Farage was correct about the euro, certainly for Greece and increasingly for other EU countries, especially in the South.

Farage was a City broker and commodities trader before he joined UKIP – so it’s possible he traded precious metals. If he were trading gold, he might have made a good profit post-Brexit, as gold and silver both went up hard. At the same time, stocks crashed.

From an investment standpoint, investors should be very careful about how they are adjusting their portfolios. The Daily Bell has always advocated holding precious metals in one’s portfolio as a way of securing wealth and ensuring portfolios against uncertain times.

But in the past, I’ve personally made the point that gold and silver stocks are paper, not precious metals.

I’ve pointed out many times that there is a big difference between “paper plays” masquerading as gold and silver and the real thing. Be careful about rushing into the gold and silver stock market anytime soon.

We can see that Brexit offers both promise and problems. In fact, there are globalist forces in the world that may have anticipated this Brexit and even supported it – for malevolent rather than positive reasons.

Much is in flux. There is already speculation that EU officials will try to rewrite the EU-British relationship and then try for another referendum. Additionally, both Scotland and Northern Ireland are unhappy with the results of the referendum and may seek to declare independence.

However the future, unfolds what the Daily Bell calls the Internet Reformation has given a voice to those who wouldn’t have had a voice otherwise. And this voice is causing major changes. I’m confident that the removal of Britain from the EU is part of a larger evolution of freedom and free markets – just as we predicted years ago.

The US, for instance, is in the middle of shedding its dependence on a two-party system that is so homogenized that most can’t tell the difference between candidates. Donald Trump’s presence and campaign is changing all that and whether or not you are a Trump fan, he’s indicative of positive political changes.

Let’s not lose sight of the larger trend: Just as we anticipated, the Internet and related factors are supporting a resurgence of markets and freedom around the world.

Progress is slow and may not be easily noticed. But it’s taking place and surely will continue. I’m proud of our coverage of these serious issues and I’ll be happy to write another article about the accuracy of further predictions. Hopefully I can do that sooner rather than later.

Anthony Wile is founding editor of The Daily Bell.