Are you proud to be an American citizen?

If you’re like me, you give thanks to God every day that we live in a country that is free, peaceful, and where citizens have inalienable rights. Most people in history can’t say the same thing—in fact, most people in the world can’t say the same thing even today.

You don’t have to be a historian to see that the long practice of citizenship in America is unprecedented. It’s one of our nation’s great achievements.

But there’s a catch—citizenship requires vigilance and knowledge to maintain.

This is true, especially now, when it faces threats from the Extremist Left and progressive economic policies, illegal immigration, and more. Everyone who wishes to defend freedom in America requires an understanding of the nature and scope of these challenges.

We know that a proper education is the best defense of liberty.

It is up to you to demand Constitutional literacy in your schools and to support organizations that provide such education. Be vigilant and knowledgeable.

Communism In America; They Are Winning, and No One Is Noticing!

 

 

So, is the U.S. a "free country" today?  Hardly!  Not compared to what it once was.  Yet very few Americans today challenge these Marxist institutions, and there are virtually no politicians calling for their repeal or even gradual phase-out.    While the United States of America may still have more freedoms than most other countries, we have nonetheless lost many crucial liberties and have accepted the major socialist attacks on freedom and private property as normal parts of our way of life.  The nation, whose founders included such individualists as Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, James Madison, John Adams and Patrick Henry, has gradually turned away from the principles of individual rights, limited constitutional government, private property, and free markets and instead we increasingly have embraced the failed ideas and nostrums of socialism and fascism.  We should hang our heads in shame for having allowed this to happen.

 But it is not too late to reverse these pernicious burdens and instead enact pro-freedom reforms to put our nation back on track again. It can be done.

 In some ways the Left has a head start over us on the pro-freedom Right.  The enemies of American freedom do admittedly dominate the entertainment industry, television news media, and academia -- but we have the tremendous strategic advantage that reality (including man's nature) is on our side; so, unlike the socialists and "liberals" (welfare-state fascists), we are not in the position of having to advocate a system which constantly tries to "make water to go uphill" -- or force human beings into a rigid utopian straitjacket based on the whims of some clique of central planning bureaucrats.  We know that individual freedom for peaceful people within a constitutional republic works in practice; our country's history demonstrates that.  The piecemeal abandonment of those principles and institutions which once made America great has proved to be a dead-end road to failure. 

Can we be a long-term optimist even though things often look pretty glum in the meantime.  Just as Prohibition was eventually repealed, I feel encouraged that such key statist achievements as the income tax, government schools, fiat money/central banking (the Federal Reserve), "environmentalist" regulations, property forfeiture laws, and other Marxist planks and leftist institutions can be rolled back and repealed altogether, although it may take several decades.

Those who would carry forward the ideas and principles of self-ownership, private property, free markets, laissez faire, the rule of law, and constitutionalism which informed America's founders must become more active on the key ideological battle fronts.  We need more influence not just in politics, but in areas of entertainment, academia, journalism, think tanks, churches individualist in literature, art, and other venues of expression and activism.

To fight Marxism and socialism we MUST understand their strategies as outlined in the Communist Manifesto! How can we put up a fight in a war where we do not understand the rules of engagement? think about it! We are losing to them because WE DO NOT KNOW THEIR PLAY BOOK. 

Communist Won and You Did Not Notice

 

Democrat support for suppression of speech by Big Tech and the Leftmedia is the centerpiece of their permanent-majority strategy.

Fellow Patriots,

Leftist cancel culture shifted into high gear just before the last presidential election, with mass and social media colluding to censor the bombshell story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and his dad’s "Big Guy" ChiCom connection.

After the January 6 Capitol riot, Big Tech unleashed a surge of conservative purges across various social media platforms and is now going after the financial institutions and vendors who support conservatives. 

When publications are targeted because of their constitutionally protected political or religious views, it constitutes what I refer to as "Systemic Redlining of the First Amendment," which is an abject violation of our most fundamental civil rights.

This coordinated and well-funded assault on the First Amendment — and the coming assault on the Second Amendment — is now underway. So egregious are these attacks that even the leftist ACLU's legislative counsel notes, “It should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions — especially when political realities make those decisions easier.”

And now the mass and social media “fact-checkers” are employing a catch-all method for shutting down speech: the ubiquitous claim that a hard-hitting post is “missing context” and therefore must be censored. This has prompted shadow bans against conservatives, even to include a nationally syndicated cartoonist.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and their Communist Democrat Party, are the primary benefactors of the Left’s coordinated suppression of free speech, and this systemic institutional redlining is the most perilous threat to our defense of American Liberty.

I ask that you take a stand, get loud to keep the message of Liberty loud and clear.

 The American people rejected radical Socialism on Tuesday

While some House and Senate races are still being decided, it’s already clear there’s no mandate for the policies the far-left dreamed of passing in 2021. 

Democrats were banking on a “blue wave” that would give them a majority in the Senate and a larger majority in the House. It didn’t happen. This takes a lot of policies off the far-left wish list, from packing the Supreme Court, to passing the Green New Deal, to putting identity politics into federal law. While socialism is still rising on the left, it’s no closer to seizing the reins of power.

Still, there was one clear loser in last night’s election: identity politics.

Recall that the summer of 2020 was the summer of wokeness. Everyone was supposedly now consumed with the nation’s systemic racism. Everyone was a rioter. The only cause was anti-colonialism. Nothing else mattered. Right?

No? Most people ignored this narrative about American life.

And, in fact, it turns out that the very voters being targeted most heavily by this scare campaign about pervasive, ubiquitous white supremacism, specifically nonwhite voters, were not persuaded to support Democrats in larger numbers. Instead, those voters increased their support for Trump over 2016 levels. In fact, if he wins, he almost certainly owes his victory to gains among black and Hispanic voters.

This welcome news extended to the state level, too — we’ll see more of that in the coming days. In the meantime, the message from the American people is clear: we don’t want what the far-left is selling, which is why we didn’t buy it on Election Day.

The Socialist State Today In America 

This lecture is given by a renowned scholar that teaches the Constitution. Please set aside the time. I promise you will not regret it!

“The modern administrative state transformed American republic into an oligarchy. Today, an elite and insular administrative class rules without the consent of American citizens. Moreover, administrative rule is both anti-constitutional and pre-constitutional, because it replaces the rule of law with unaccountable regulatory agencies.”

 Liberals, Socialist and Conservatives

I cannot ignore the left’s behavior of late. I will bring one issue forward for your consideration that is at once instructive, but at the same time confounding.

As much as it has become politically popular for the left to resurrect the South with regards to Slavery and the Civil War that followed the behavior and thinking of these very people is much like the South regarding slavery.

The overarching similarity is that if the Constitution and the Republican form of government is agreeable to them, they accept it as the sovereign document and national form of governance. However, if they disagree, then they are inclined to want to destroy the today's Government. That is to destroy the Government to enable them to construe and enforce the Constitution as they see fit on all points. This is exactly what the Southern/slave sates did leading up to the Civil War.

The resemblance is remarkable and unseen by many. As Lincoln asked, what will it take to satisfy the progressives of the left. His answer then was brilliant and stands today. Stop telling them that Socialism is wrong! Then, join them in calling Socialism right!

The founders deeply reviewed history, cultures and societal failures. They studied, democracies, Oligarchy’s and despotism including socialism. They rejected all with much passion that can should be read in the Federalist Papers.

One  must only examine the “natural rights” that are the foundation of our Declaration of Independence that gave birth to the Constitution, to find the answer. After a great discourse from Lincoln and the founders the answer was conclusive. Man’s natural rights come from God. Period.

When examining the course of action by the Democrats of the left, we can see a clear pathway to drive God’s word from the public discourse and now overtly attempting to trample free speech and other liberty’s guaranteed by the “Natural Rights” that are NOT given by man nor can be taken away by man. They simply “are”.

There is not doubt the success of the Southern Succession would have become the end to a great Nation. Why? The liberty and freedoms given to citizens would have to be removed as the context of slavery begin to overtake our nation. It would have been the ruin of all. All men would be subject to the control of other men/people without any redress. It would become the natural right of the Oligarchy that had the power and means to subvert others. So it is with the current progressive/liberal movement. Once man has lost his "Natural Rights" he is doomed to misery and ruin!

The Preservation of Government and It's Permanence - George Washing circa 1796

 

An excerpt from George Washington's Farewell Speech. As we can learn from reading the entire speech, Washington fully embraced how fragile the miracle of our formation and the constitution are. There are many admonishments of where and how what we created through great sacrifice can and will be lost. What follows is a stark warning about what I see occuring in our Nation today. Please read this, re-read and take very seriously. This what we face and we must a patriots of this great nation stand up to!

Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of Governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing Constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion, and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a Government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a Government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the Society within the limits prescribed by the Laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. This leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. - George Washington, 1796

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

 

Federalist 9 Excerpt

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

For the Independent Journal.

A. HAMILTON

From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily, for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.

But it is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals from which they were taken. If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible. The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. To this catalogue of circumstances that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new Constitution; I mean the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT within which such systems are to revolve, either in respect to the dimensions of a single State or to the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy. The latter is that which immediately concerns the object under consideration. It will, however, be of use to examine the principle in its application to a single State, which shall be attended to in another place.

 

Federalist 55 Excerpt

A. Hamilton

Last page

Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

PUBLIUS.

The State Shutdown Racket!

 

The State Shutdown Racket

 

Judges are standing up to governors who have overstepped their authority during the pandemic. Over the weekend, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously struck down Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s sweeping restrictions. Last month, a federal judge did the same thing to Democratic Governor Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania. These rulings make a point that many politicians have forgotten: Government power is limited, even during a pandemic. While elected officials are right to take swift action to keep citizens safe, they are wrong to think they can do whatever they please. In Michigan, Gov. Whitmer unilaterally banned paint sales at large stores, motor boating, landscaping, and golf, among many other things. When the legislature refused to extend her restrictions, as required by law, she extended them anyway. Whatever you call that, it isn’t democracy. As the Michigan Supreme Court said about Gov. Whitmer, “no individual in the history of this state has ever been vested with as much concentrated and standardless power to regulate the lives of our people.” Here’s hoping more states get the message and move to protect their citizens in ways that are safe, smart, and constitutional.

Kamala Harris: Was she “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

 Why not simply answer the question rather than deny the merits of the question?

Were Harris’ parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of [the 1898 Supreme Court case] Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth — that is, a natural-born citizen — and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers — Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother — and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.

Despite the Democrats’ “open border” agenda, which subordinates the law to their political objectives, the notion of “birthright citizenship” is erroneous. It is clear that the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment never intended it to confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. Leftmedia “fact-checkers” who dismiss Harris’s parents’ status as irrelevant completely ignore that aspect of the question. In fact, parental legal status is the entire premise of the “anchor baby” debate.

As noted by Eastman, the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is key, regardless of the media effort to ignore rather than address the real argument. Contrary to the constitutional mandate, the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) of 1952 establishes in U.S. Code what “jurisdiction” means, and, according to the State Department, that includes children born to illegals.

2016 Election: Hillary is still not sure!

2016 Election: Hillary is still not sure!

Hillary wondering out loud “I'm still trying to figure out how I lost the election. I thought we had the thing bought and paid for!”

• ·       Was it the Russian Uranium Deal?
• ·       Was it Wikileaks?
• ·       Was it Podesta’s Emails?
• ·       Was it Comey?
• ·       Was it having a sexual predator as a husband?
• ·       Was it Huma Abedin’s sexual predator husband Anthony Weiner?
• ·       Was it because the Clinton Foundation ripped off Haiti?
• ·       Was it subpoena violations?
• ·       Was it the congressional testimony lies?
• ·       Was it the corrupt Clinton Foundation?
• ·       Was it the Benghazi fiasco?
• ·       Was it pay for play?
• ·       Was it being recorded laughing when I got a child rapist off when I was an attorney?
• ·       Was it the Travel Gate scandal?
• ·       Was it the Whitewater scandal?
• ·       Was it the Cattle Gate scandal?
• ·       Was it the Trooper-Gate scandal?
• ·       Was it the $15 million for Chelsea's apartment bought with Clinton Foundation money?
• ·       Or my husband's interference with Loretta Lynch & the investigation?
• ·       Or when I happily accepted the stolen debate questions given to me by CNN?
• ·       Or my own secret server in my house and my disdain for classified information?
• ·       Deleting 30,000 emails after I was told not to?
• ·       Or having my cell phones and computers destroyed with hammers and Bleach-bit?
• ·        Was it the Seth Rich murder?
• ·       Was it the Vince Foster murder?
• ·       Was it the Gennifer Flowers assault & settlement?
• ·       Was it the $800,000 Paula Jones settlement?
• ·       Was it calling half the United States deplorable?
• ·       Was it my underhanded treatment of Bernie Sanders?
• ·       Was it Bill's impeachment?
• ·       Was it the lie I told about being under sniper fire in Bosnia?
• ·       Was it the $10 million I received for the pardon of Marc Rich?
• ·       Or the $6 BILLION lost while I was in charge of the State Dept.?
• ·       Or was it because I’m perceived as a hateful, lying, power-hungry, overly ambitious, greedy, and nasty person?

The So Call "KEY FINDINGS OF FACT" From Schiff & Co.

KEY FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on witness testimony and evidence collected during the impeachment inquiry, the Intelligence Committee has found that:

I.                 Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

II.                 In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump—directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

III.               As part of this scheme, President Trump, acting in his official capacity and using his position of public trust, personally and directly requested from the President of Ukraine that the government of Ukraine publicly announce investigations into

(1) the President’s political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden, and

(2) a baseless theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. These investigations were intended to harm a potential political opponent of President Trump and benefit the President’s domestic political standing.

IV.              President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anticorruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.

V.               President Trump used the power of the Office of the President and exercised his authority over the Executive Branch, including his control of the instruments of the federal government, to apply increasing pressure on the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government to announce the politically-motivated investigations desired by President Trump. Specifically, to advance and promote his scheme, the President withheld official 35 acts of value to Ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by Ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests:

A.     President Trump—acting through agents within and outside the U.S. government—conditioned a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine desperately sought to demonstrate continued United States support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, on Ukraine publicly announcing the investigations that President Trump believed would aid his reelection campaign.

B.     To increase leverage over the President of Ukraine, President Trump, acting through his agents and subordinates, conditioned release of the vital military assistance he had suspended to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine’s public announcement of the investigations that President Trump sought.

C.      President Trump’s closest subordinates and advisors within the Executive Branch, including Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Energy J. Richard Perry, and other senior White House and Executive Branch officials had knowledge of, in some cases facilitated and furthered the President’s scheme, and withheld information about the scheme from the Congress and the American public.

VI.              In directing and orchestrating this scheme to advance his personal political interests, President Trump did not implement, promote, or advance U.S. anti-corruption policies. In fact, the President sought to pressure and induce the government of Ukraine to announce politically-motivated investigations lacking legitimate predication that the U.S. government otherwise discourages and opposes as a matter of policy in that country and around the world. In so doing, the President undermined U.S. policy supporting anti-corruption reform and the rule of law in Ukraine, and undermined U.S. national security.

VII.            By withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner government engaged in an ongoing military conflict illegally instigated by Russia, President Trump compromised national security to advance his personal political interests. VIII. Faced with the revelation of his actions, President Trump publicly and repeatedly persisted in urging foreign governments, including Ukraine and China, to investigate his political opponent. This continued solicitation of foreign interference in a U.S. election presents a clear and present danger that the President will continue to use the power of his office for his personal political gain. IX. Using the power of the Office of the President, and exercising his authority over the Executive Branch, President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and frustrate and obstruct the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry by: 

A.     refusing to produce to the impeachment inquiry’s investigating Committees information and records in the possession of the White House, in defiance of a lawful subpoena;

B.     directing Executive Branch agencies to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of all documents and records from the investigating Committees;

C.      directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees, including in defiance of lawful subpoenas for testimony; and

D.     intimidating, threatening, and tampering with prospective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry in an effort to prevent, delay, or influence the testimony of those witnesses. In so doing, and despite the fact that the Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment,” the President sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own misconduct, and the right to deny any and all information to the Congress in the conduct of its constitutional responsibilities.

The Left is neither Republican or Democrat - They are evil!

Why You Can't Argue With a Leftist

By Owen Benjamin, Prager University

If we do, we can disagree—even strongly disagree, and still have a productive discussion. We might even reach a compromise. But if we don’t share the same goals? Then what?

Then, rhetorically speaking, we’re at war. And only one side can win.

Let me explain.

My parents and brother lean more to the liberal side of the political spectrum than I do. We argue. We slightly nudge each other. We change opinions a little bit. And then we go back to Scrabble.

They were very upset when President Trump withdrew from the Paris climate accords. I was happy. We argued about it, but it was all good because we share the same goals.

We all want clean air and water for our children. We all want to develop clean energy; we want America’s economy to prosper; we want to be less reliant on fossil fuels.

I thought the accords were a bad deal for America. The best way to lower carbon emissions, in my opinion, is to let the free market and American ingenuity loose on the problem. They, in contrast, think the government needs to step in, fund the research, and keep the corporations in line.

Doesn’t matter, because we have the same goal: a healthy planet.

We also disagree on gun control. My brother is a little more with me, but my dad wants a lot more regulation because he wants fewer school shootings. So do I. So does my brother. But I believe if a potential killer knew he’d encounter teachers and administrators well-trained in the use of weapons, we’d have less shootings. Different solutions. Shared goal.

I’ve always thought that this is how America is supposed to work. Liberals and conservatives respectfully arguing over the best solution to a shared goal.

But now there’s a third party in the game: the left. And they’re changing the rules.

When I was growing up, the left was on the fringe. But now they’ve moved into the mainstream. They’ve pretty much taken over our educational system. They’re in the media. In corporate HR departments. And, more and more, sad to say, in the Democratic Party.

The left doesn’t share the same goals that liberals and conservatives do. They have a whole different set of goals.

Let me give you some examples.

Raising kids without a gender identity or encouraging them to question their sexual identity. This, to me, is a form of child abuse. I don’t care who’s doing it—parents, teachers, doctors. Their goal is not my goal.

Here’s another one: Demonizing white people and males for the world’s problems is not part of my value system. There is no shared goal in that.

I believe in merit and character over race. But now it’s cool to say that white males have done all the bad things in the world.

I have two little boys. I get angry just thinking about people telling them they’re responsible for racism and sexism—beautiful little children who just dance in the kitchen and smile. So that’s not a shared goal.

Here’s a third example: People can differ about how many legal immigrants America should allow into the country. But when it comes to whether America should have “open” borders—well, there is no shared goal there. A country with open borders ceases to be a distinct country. And I want America to remain America.

All these ideas—and I could give you a dozen more—are coming from the left. They want to turn the history of Western Civilization, of America—a history I’m very proud of—into a highlight reel of human errors. These ideas threaten everything I cherish—my family, my community, my country.

And what does the left offer in its place? Nothing constructive that I can see. What are their goals? Kids with no clear sexual identity; group-think based on race, gender, and class; no national pride or borders. Are you okay with that?

My issue is not with liberals like my brother and my dad and a lot of my friends. We can argue until the cows come home. My issue is with the left because we don’t share goals.

This war of goals isn’t coming. It’s here. You need to decide which side you’re on: the liberals’ and conservatives’ side, or the left’s.

Your future depends on it.

“That is not who we are…” (U.S.) Then, who are we?

“That is not who we are…” (U.S.)

Then, who are we.....

It is of importance to know what one speaks, and not to mistake the American impulse for some narrow and impractical ideology. For intellectual development, the first necessity is to define one's terms. If we can enlarge the understanding of Americanism's first principles, we will have begun a reinvigoration of the America’s imagination. The great line of demarcation in modern politics.

A historical perspective of American behavior the generate the “Being American” principles.

·       Enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

·       Two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul and the outer order of the commonwealth.

·       Custom, convention, and continuity. It is custom that enables people to live together peaceably

·       The principle of prescription. The sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.

·       Guided by the principle of prudence. Chief among virtues.

·       The principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.

·       Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerable ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order.

·       Freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic leveling is not economic progress.

·       Uphold voluntary community, as we oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily.

·       In the name of an abstract democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction--why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity. For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed.

·       Perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human Passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one's fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic.

·       A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web-of restraints upon will and appetite--these are  approved as instruments of freedom and order.

·       Not opposed to social improvement, although the people doubt whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The people know that any healthy society is influenced by two forces; its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that give us stability and continuity.

·       Change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of the whole; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host.

An 'Independent Judiciary' Reality Check

An 'Independent Judiciary' Reality Check

Chief Justice John Roberts's assertion that we have an "independent judiciary" lacks credibility.

Let's set the record straight...

You may have heard that President Donald Trump is adamant about defending our southern border. Most recently, that defense has been focused on the migrant mobs attempting to breach our border between Tijuana and San Diego.

In a setback to Trump's efforts, one of Barack Obama's appointees on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Jon Tigar, blocked Trump's order requiring that illegal alien asylum applications, the free ticket to America, be processed at legal points of entry. (There's a reason that circuit is also known as the Ninth Circus and the Nutty Ninth.)

Trump responded to the ruling, "You go the 9th Circuit and it's a disgrace. And I'm going to put in a major complaint because you cannot win — if you're us — a case in the 9th Circuit and I think it's a disgrace. This was an Obama judge."

On that note, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in an unprecedented rebuke of a U.S. president, chastised Trump for stating the obvious: that an Obama-appointed federal judge "was an Obama judge."

Roberts declared, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

It would have been proper for Roberts to say nothing about Trump's remark, but, ostensibly endeavoring to protect the integrity of the courts, he apparently felt compelled. Obviously, Justice Roberts knows full well how highly politicized the federal courts are — and his assertion that we now have an "independent judiciary" defies reality. The objective of impartial "blind justice" is certainly what our Founders prescribed for the judicial branch, but they knew that attaining equal justice under the law was a high bar.

The most recent skewering of then-SCOTUS nominee and now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh is an airtight case in point. So one might conclude that Roberts was projecting what he believes should be the nonpartisan nature of the courts. But as he stated it, he's flat wrong.

Responding to Roberts, Trump said, "I have a lot of respect for [Roberts] but I think we have to use some common sense. This 9th Circuit, everybody knows it's totally out of control and what they're doing, what they're saying, the opinions are very unfair to law enforcement, very unfair to our military, and they're very unfair, most importantly, to the people of our country because I'm keeping them safe."

Trump added: "Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have 'Obama judges,' and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an 'independent judiciary,' but if it is[,] why there are so many opposing view cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned[?] Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security — these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise! Judges must not Legislate Security and Safety at the Border."

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a former federal prosecutor and a strong candidate for a Circuit Court nomination once he retires from the House, declared, "I wish Chief Justice Roberts were right. I wish there were not a politicization of the judiciary."

Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, added, "Every print article that you will go find ... refers to judges based on the president that put him or her in office. And you see terms like conservative and ultra conservative and liberal and moderate, which are political terms. ... So I wish Chief Justice Roberts were right. I wish that we did not refer to judges based on which president put them in office as if that is somehow going to inextricably lead us to the conclusion."

The fact is, federal judges have proven to be partisan for generations, and there is most assuredly a very distinct division and partiality on the federal bench.

Judges nominated and appointed by Republican presidents are partial toward Rule of Law and the Liberty enshrined in our Republic's Constitution. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they honor their oaths "to support and defend" our Constitution.

Conversely, judges nominated and appointed by Democrat presidents are clearly partial toward the so-called "living constitution" embraced by those who reject Rule of Law in deference to the rule of men, the irrevocable terminus of which is tyranny.

Of the latter, Thomas Jefferson warned they would "make the Judiciary a despotic branch." As the venerable former Sen. Sam Ervin (D-NC) once put it, these are judges who "interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if [they], instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it." Jefferson warned that such interpretation would render our Constitution "a mere thing of wax ... which [judges] may twist and shape into any form they please."

As James Madison cautioned, "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

As for partiality on the Supreme Court, over the last 18 months, according to The Daily Wire, "The four left-leaning judges on the Supreme Court are far more consistent about voting together as a bloc than the conservatives on the court; Elena Kagan votes with Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg an average of 89% of the time; Breyer votes with his cohorts an average of 91% of the time; Ginsburg also votes with her pals an average of 91% of the time, and Sotomayor joins them 90.3% of the time."

The assessment notes further, "By contrast, among the four right-leaning judges, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts, Gorsuch sided with them an average of 82.7% of the time; Thomas 86.3% of the time; Alito 85.7% of the time, and Roberts 80.7% of the time."

As Cal Thomas concludes, "If all judges thought the same, as Roberts seems to suggest, why are there so many 5-4 rulings by the high court?"

And regarding significant immigration decisions by the lower courts since Donald Trump took office, according to a Washington Times review, "53 of the 54 Democrat appointed judges who issued or signed onto opinions in immigration cases ruled against the Trump administration's get-tough approach." The Times study noted further, "By contrast, among GOP-appointees to the federal bench, 15 judges have backed the administration in immigration cases and 13 have not."

As I have noted, judicial opinions are not about "Right" versus "Left"; they're about Liberty versus tyranny. Thus, in 2016, when I voted for Donald Trump instead of his leftist opponent, Hillary Clinton, I voted for the Supreme Court. And indeed, President Trump has consistently nominated constructionist judges to both the upper and lower courts.

And finally, what debate about the Supreme Court would be complete without Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offering one of his mind-numbing observations. In an opinion that sounded far more satirical than senatorial, Schumer offered an affirmation of Roberts's assessment of judicial independence, while in the same breath accusing Roberts of partisanship in his decisions: "I don't agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political. ... But I am thankful today that he ... stood up to President Trump for an independent judiciary."

Yes, you heard that correctly: Schumer sided with Trump about the Court's partisan nature, then laughably implied that he supports "an independent judiciary."

But no sooner had he sucked up to the chief justice than he was back to his old obfuscatory games. This week on the Senate floor, Schumer, singing the Demos' midterm "rigged election" theme song, declared, "Justice Roberts will go down in history as one of those who worked to take away voting rights when he authored the Shelby decision and stated that he didn't believe that ... more or less, he stated that he didn't believe that discrimination existed any longer, so we wouldn't need Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act."

Of course, Roberts never wrote that. In fact, quite the contrary. In that decision, Roberts noted, "At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that."

Never let it be said that Schumer allowed inconvenient facts to get in the way of a partisan cheap shot.