An essential reading list for all Patriots

if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

Thomas Jefferson quote from a letter to Charles Yancey

Unfortunately our abysmal educational system, at all levels, has worked very hard at keeping everyone ignorant to the true meaning of our Constitution.  Because of this very few of us have a proper understanding of that most magnificent document which is the foundation of our nation and legal system.  Because of our ignorance the federal government has distorted the true meaning of the Constitution so much that they now use it as a weapon to take away our freedoms, rights, and property.  The only way to reverse this is for all of us patriots to educate ourselves and others about the true meaning of the Constitution. 

I’ve assembled a reading list of seven books that I consider to be essential reading for all patriots who wish to educate themselves about the Constitution,

1. The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen

This is the book that got me started on my journey to becoming a Constitutional scholar.  I consider it to be the best primer for learning about the concepts that the founding fathers used to write the Constitution and build the United into the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed.

2. The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution by W. Cleon Skousen

Every single clause of the Constitution is broken down and explained in great detail using quotes from those that wrote and ratified the Constitution.  This is a lengthy book however it is extremely informative and very interesting.

3, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison

There is no better way to achieve a proper understanding of the Constitution than to study the transcript of the convention where the Constitution was written.  James Madison’s transcripts chronicle the many twists and turns during the entire process of the drafting so you achieve a perfect understanding of the final product.

4. The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

The ratification of the Constitution was very touch and go.  It looked like it would not be passed in several states.  To improve the odds three individuals wrote essays explaining the different components of the Constitution in great detail, often answering concerns of critics of the Constitution.  This is a perfect resource for understanding the Constitution. 

5. The Anti-Federalist Papers by Robert Yates and Et Al

The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection essays from critics of the Constitution.  In most of the essays they raised valid criticism, pointing out actual flaws.  In many cases it took decades for their criticisms to be proven correct.

6. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding by Eugene W. Hickok Jr.

The current meaning of the Bill of Rights is 180 degrees opposite from the meaning understood by those that wrote and ratified it.  The author of this book compares the original meaning and the current understating of every clause of the Bill of Rights,  There is no better resource on the Bill of Rights that I’ve found so far.

7. The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom by Walter Levy and William Mellor

The Judicial Branch is the one branch of the federal government that was restrained the least by the Constitution.  The Supreme Court has issued far too many rulings that contradict the meaning of the Constitution.  This has allowed the federal government to grow so huge that it is now a direct thread to our freedom, liberties, and rights.  This book examines twelve cases that were the most egregious examples of the Supreme Court not following the Constitution.  

Climate Change is not responsible for the Australian bushfire crisis

Almost immediately after the apocalyptic nature of the Australian bushfires became apparent claims that the infernos are either caused by, or made worse, by climate change began to fill news reports and the internet.   A large majority of the Australia bushfire stories falsely point fingers directly at climate change.  

Fortunately there are articles such as this Breitbart article Delingpole: Environmentalists Made Australia’s Bush Fires Worse which actually uses science, historic data, and real facts to determine the true cause of this catastrophe.  I highly recommend reading the original article, it is full of supporting scientific data and charts.  With this quote you can see that there was nothing extreme about the lack precipitation the area has been experiencing

As Paul Homewood pointed out last month, there has been no significant long-term decrease in rainfall or increase in temperatures in the affected regions.

Yes, it has been dry in New South Wales (where most of the worst fires are), but there have been several years, especially pre-1960, when it was drier

The same holds true for the temperature, which rules out climate change.

The same applies to temperature. Yes, this has been a hot spring in New South Wales. But there have been times when it has been much hotter — making a nonsense of all stories in the Australian media about temperatures being the hottest evah

This next quote points the blame directly where it belongs.

So, to be clear, there is zero evidence of any change in climatic conditions that might have increased the likelihood or severity of these bush fires. This is not — repeat NOT — a man-made climate change story, and anyone who claims otherwise is either a gullible idiot or a lying charlatan.

There is, nonetheless, good reason to believe that the stupidity and irresponsibility of man is at least partly to blame for this disaster — just not quite in the way that the left-liberal MSM and the green wankerati would have you believe.

Arson is the number one cause of the catastrophe.

Man-made culprit #1: all the firebugs who have been deliberately starting fires in New South Wales, Queensland, and elsewhere. You won’t be surprised that their involvement has had very little coverage in the left-liberal MSM.

Bad forest management caused by environmentalists is the number two cause.

Man-made culprit #2: well-meaning idiots who don’t understand that unless you manage forested areas with controlled burns, you’re going to end up with out-of-control wildfires.

Jo Nova has a damning story about locals in East Gippsland in the state of Victoria who successfully stopped a planned controlled burn at Nowa Nowa. Two of them were pictured holding signs saying, “Spring burns kill baby birds alive” and “Stop burning nesting birds”.

A you can see from the next three quotes, bad laws passed to solve the mythical boogie man climate change are also to blame.

Man-made culprit #3: Greens  The people most to blame for the Australian bush fires are the greens. Just like in California, their tree-hugging Gaia worship blinded them to the reality that forests need regular clearance and maintenance if they are not to become a major fire hazard.

in large parts of Australia, it remains illegal to remove trees from your land even in order to create fire breaks and protect your property — despite the obvious risk this ban creates to homeowners living in potential bush-fire zones. Trees have been designated a ‘carbon sink’, which supposedly offset Australia’s CO2 emissions.

Liam Sheahan is an Australian fireman who in 2002 was fined $50,000 – and paid another $50,000 in costs – for illegally clearing the trees round his home in rural Victoria. In 2009 he was vindicated when his property was only one left standing after bushfires destroyed his town.

This Breitbart article Police in Australia Begin Massive Criminal Investigation into Bushfire Arson documents just how large a role arson has played in causing the catastrophe

The Conversation reports experts estimate about 85 percent of bushfires are caused by humans. A person may accidentally or carelessly start a fire, such as leaving a campfire unattended or using machinery which creates sparks.

Research has shown about 8 percent of officially recorded vegetation fires were attributed to malicious lighting, and another 22 percent as suspicious. However, about 40 percent of officially recorded vegetation fires did not have an assigned cause.

When unassigned bushfires were investigated by fire investigators, the majority were found to be maliciously lit

18 to 20 year olds can fight and die for our country but they can’t legally smoke or buy alcohol

The oppressive paternalism that has become the hallmark of Washington DC kicked into overdrive this past weak when President Trump signed a military spending bill that also raised the smoking and vaping age to 21 all across the United States.

I am not a smoker.   I have not smoked a single cigarette, or anything else, so this article is not about something I indulge in personally.  I strongly believe that government should not stop us from doing what we want to do, even if it is bad for us.  Allowing the bad along with the good is an essential ingredient to maintain a free society. 

I am well aware of the very negative health consequences of smoking.  I believe that individuals should make up their own minds whether they wish to smoke or not, not have their behavior controlled by the government.

Eighteen has always been the age where we consider individuals to be adults, capable of making decisions on their own.  That is the age anyone can enlist in the military so they can defend our country and die if necessary.  There has been a steady drift in this thinking, which has increased in speed the past few years.  This began with the drinking age, then spread to the age that some states allow the purchase of weapons, now it has spread to smoking and vaping.  It does a tremendous disservice to 18 to 20 if we strip them of their adulthood and coddle them.

Banning something never solves a problem, and if you study the prohibition period, you’ll see banning things only causes more severe problems.  Banning something from teenagers will only cause more demand.  The banning of tobacco products will only make them more appealing because they are banned.  This will result in a  black market for tobacco products and a lot of 21 and over individuals becoming criminals after purchasing tobacco products for those under 21. 

The US Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to ban anything.  The federal government twisted the original meaning  of the Commerce Clause to unconstitutionally grant itself that authority.  The Interstate Commerce Clause only grants the federal government the authority to regulate the large scale movement of goods and services between states by imposing taxes. 

President Trump not only signed the age increase, he celebrated it with this Tweet:

This tweet really disappointed me.  It proved once again that President Trump is a big government Republican type who believes in banning things rather than a truly conservative or libertarian president.  He’s not perfect but he’s infinitely better than Hillary or any other progressive.

The Virginia gun control proposals will result in violence

Almost immediately upon gaining control of both houses of congress and the governorship of Virginia the Democrats announced rather extreme gun control proposals. The proposals are so extreme that a firestorm of dissent erupted from the people, sheriffs, and county officials.  There was so much dissent one representative threatened to sick the National Guard on sheriffs and county officials who refused to comply.  If the proposals are carried out I can see the whole mess resulting in violence.  I’m not the only who came to that conclusion, check out this Washington Times article Virginia Dem mulls National Guard to enforce upcoming gun laws, an idea likely to end in violence

Democrats in Virginia have already pre-filed bills to mandate universal background checks; to limit handgun purchases; to raise age limits on would-be firers; to redefine the term assault weapon and impose bans on buys of certain guns and magazines. And more.

And dozens upon dozens of county officials around the state have rushed to pass resolutions declaring their jurisdictions sanctuaries from the state’s gun control storm and announcing that their police chiefs have no intent of enforcing the Dems’ laws.

Democrat Representative McFachin kicked up the tension on the whole situation into high gear with this proposal.

“I’m not the governor,” said Rep. Donald McEachin, Virginia Democrat, according to a report in The Washington Examiner, “but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the [new gun control] law[s].”

If called by the governor to perform this odious duty the Virginia National Guard would be required to carry it out by law, however, the Virginia Bill of Rights protects the Right to Bear Arms for all citizens,

Granted, this act, signed in 1878 to prohibit federal troops from being used to enforce domestic laws, carves out exceptions for National Guard members operating under the authority of the states. But the spirit of the restrictions should still apply.

With his proposal,  McFachin proved that gun confiscation has always been the end result of Democrat’s plans.

But with one quick quip, McEachin took a situation that’s already boiling with tension and fear — namely, the realities of the new blue Virginia and the realization of Democratic-promised gun controls — and made it worse. He went there; he tapped the darkest worries of the gun rights’ crowd — the deep-seated belief that Democrats’ end game is to obliterate the Second Amendment and destroy citizens’ rights to own firearms. And in so doing, he actually let it slip that yes, Democrats will stop at nothing, even violence, to take the guns.

One Sheriff came up with a novel proposal, Virginia Sheriff Vows to ‘Deputize Thousands’ to Defend Gun Rights.

Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. “Red Flag” laws without due process will create enormous conflict as well.

America has more guns than citizens and murder has long been illegal. At best, the proposed gun restrictions will disarm or handicap our law-abiding in their defense and possibly cause a criminal to choose another tool for evil.

I remain very optimistic that our General Assembly will not pass the proposed bills. Obviously, if passed, there are many of us willing to challenge these laws through the courts. In addition, if necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.

The resistance has spread across the state: Report: Over 90 Virginia Counties, Municipalities Declared 2A Sanctuaries.  This shows how seriously the people of this nation take their Right to Bear Arms.

A report from WDBJ7 shows that more than 90 Second Amendment sanctuary declarations have been made by counties and municipalities in Virginia.

WDBJ7 reports that Rockingham County was one of the most recent sanctuary declarations. Breitbart News reported that over 3,000 residents attended the Rockingham Board of Supervisors meeting to demand Second Amendment sanctuary status.

Hopefully the Virginia Democrats will take not of the heated opposition and back down.

How well do you understand the Bill of Rights?

Sunday, December 15th, marked the 228th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.  That anniversary got me thinking about how so few on all sides of the political spectrum properly understand this most important protector of our rights.  This is because our elected officials on all levels have distorted the original meaning so much that the current understanding is 180 degrees opposite from the meaning as understood by those that framed and ratified it.  Our abysmal education system, which teaches political correct revisionist history rather than civics, the news media, and our entertainment industry are also to blame.

Here are the most common and most dangerous misconceptions about the Bill of Rights that I’ve encountered.

1. The Bill of Rights grants us our rights, 

People on the right and the left regularly spread this mistruth; most commonly by stating the we have First Amendment rights, or something similar.  This is a dangerous notion because our rights could then be taken away by amending the Bill of Rights or disregarding the actual meaning, which has been done too often.

This quote from the Declaration of Independence tells us exactly where the framers of the Bill of Rights believed our rights come from:

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.

2. The Bill of Rights applies to the States

It is abundantly clear from the debates that occurred during the ratification of the Constitution, where the states conventions demanded a Bill of Rights, that the purpose of those amendments was to restrain the federal government only.  This is also abundantly clear from the debates where the Bill of Right s was framed, and the debates where the amendments were ratified by the states.  Thomas Jefferson explained this very eloquently when he wrote the first draft of the Kentucky Resolutions in 1798

3. _Resolved_, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.

Some of the readers of this article might strenuously disagree with the fact that the Bill of Rights does not pertain to the states.  This was done by the framers of the Bill of Rights on purpose because they believed granting the federal government all of that power would result in a gigantic and oppressive federal government.  We have this now because the federal government granted itself unconstitutionally the power to extend the Bill of Rights down to the states. 

The Bill Rights is a hands off list for the federal government.  Our rights are too precious for the federal government to interfere with in any way.  The framers believed that state and local governments were the proper levels to make decisions regarding these rights because the people could better oversee the state and local levels.

All state constitutions have a Bill of Rights which protects the rights of the citizens of that state.  Here is what Clause 13 of the Virginia Rill of Rights has to say about the right to bear arms.  The current governor of Virginia should take note.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

3. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level

As you can see from the actual text of  Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that amendment was never meant to extend the entire Bill of Rights down to the states.  The only clause that was extended was the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court created the unconstitutional doctrine of incorporation by disregarding the text of the amendment and the transcripts of the debates where it was written and ratified.  Incorporation has resulted in tremendous harm such as the banning of most things religious from the public square,  setting criminals free because of a technicality, and so much more.

4.  The Fourteenth Amendment granted the Supreme Court the authority to overturn state laws involving the Bill of Rights.

Using the unconstitutional doctrine of Incorporation, the Supreme Court single handedly granted itself the power to overturn state laws.  As you can see from the actual text of Clause 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment  “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  that power was specifically not granted to the Supreme Court by the amendment, but instead granted to the US Congress through the formal legislative process.  That was because the Dred Scott ruling stood firmly in the minds of those that wrote the amendment. 

The only way to restore the original meaning of the Bill of Rights is by using the internet to educate others.  Please help me do that by sharing this article on social media.  Also, please consider contributing to this website by using the Tip Jar.

Massachusetts’ draconian transportation funding proposals

Get ready to have your money sucked away rapidly by the Massachusetts tax man and be prepared to have Big Brother riding with you everywhere you drive because Massachusetts lawmakers are formulating a plan to raise more money to pay for transportation.  The current proposals have many odious provisions which are documented in this CBS Boston article Massachusetts Lawmakers Propose Expanding Highway Tolls, Charging Drivers By The Mile.

Several key House members have hinted that they are likely to include an increase in the state’s 24-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax in a transportation revenue bill that Speaker Robert DeLeo is eyeing for release next month, but other ideas put on the table during a Transportation Committee hearing on Thursday could supplement that revenue stream.

Rep. Thomas Stanley warned his colleagues that over the long term the gas tax will be insufficient to meet roadway and public transit needs. Rising fuel efficiency in vehicles, he said, means that even the same frequency of driving will result in motorists purchasing less gas, generating less revenue for the state.

Instead, Stanley suggested Massachusetts embrace legislation (H 3010) he co-filed with Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier to create a pilot program to test fees based on the miles people travel rather than the amount of gas used.

As if all of these driver fleecing proposals aren’t ridiculous enough, there are more being investigated.

The first bill (S 2060) would instruct the Department of Transportation to report on the feasibility of implementing all-electronic tolling on state and interstate highways “not currently subject to a toll,” taking a look in particular at tolls along the state’s borders.

The second (S 2062) would expand tolls to stretches of Interstate 93, Interstate 95 and Route 2 in an attempt to apply equal charges to drivers across the greater Boston region. That bill also calls for implementation of dynamic “peak pricing” where the toll varies based on roadway conditions.

As a libertarian who values personal freedom and privacy very deeply, Massachusetts Bill H3010 really bothers me on a fundamental level.  Here are the details:

SECTION 3. PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) The department of transportation shall develop, implement and oversee one or more statewide pilot programs to assess owners of motor vehicles a user fee that is based on the number of miles traveled on roads in this state by those motor vehicles.

(b) The pilot programs shall include at least 1,000 volunteers across the commonwealth who are representative of drivers of trucks, passenger, and commercial vehicles and throughout the commonwealth, who will have on-board vehicle-mileage-counting equipment added to their vehicles, administered in a manner the department of transportation deems appropriate.

(c) The pilot programs shall test the reliability, ease of use, cost and public acceptance oftechnology and methods for:

(1) counting the number of miles traveled by particular vehicles;

(2) reporting the number of miles traveled by particular vehicles; and

(3) collecting payments from participants in the pilot programs.

(d) The pilot programs shall also analyze and evaluate the ability of different technologies and methods to:

(1) protect the integrity of data collected and reported;

(2) ensure drivers’ privacy; and

(3) vary pricing based on the time of driving, type of road, proximity to transit,          vehicle fuel efficiency, participation in car-sharing or pooling or income of the driver

The freedom to travel wherever we wish is under assault by this bill.  The government will be punishing us for traveling too far by taxing us on every mile we wish to drive.  That is unacceptable.  The technologies to implement this will result in Big Brother riding with us in every vehicle.  That kind of government surveillance is beyond unacceptable.

Angela Merkel vs. Rob Schneider on free speech

Angela Merkel and Rob Schneider both made a big splash on the internet recently with comments regarding freedom of speech.  One demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the concept, the other proved not to understand the concept at all. 

You’d expect the Chancellor of Germany to be the individual who understands freedom of speech, however, this Breitbart article ‘Freedom of Expression Has Its Limits!’ – Merkel Rails Against Free Speech proves she holds some dangerous misconceptions.

Chancellor Angela Merkel railed against free speech in the German parliament, declaring that freedom of expression which offends “the dignity of other people” must be censored to secure a truly free society.

“We have freedom of expression,” the migrant crisis architect began dubiously, in a speech to the German federal parliament, or Bundestag, uploaded to social media by state broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW).

“For all those who claim that they can no longer express their opinion, I say this to them: If you express a pronounced opinion, you must live with the fact that you will be contradicted. Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost!” she warned ominously, to applause from the assembled politicians.

“But freedom of expression has its limits. Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated!” she continued, gesticulating wildly.

“This house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was,” she concluded, somewhat contradictorily.

This Tweet from Rob Schneider had me cheering because he posses an understanding of freedom of speech that is comparable to that of the founding fathers of the United States and the framers of the First Amendment.

Angela Merkel should carefully study this Ben Franklin quote, and so should progressive college professors and their badly misinformed snowflake students.

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

Here is a George Washington quote that should be spread far and wide on college campuses.

For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.

Since students have been brainwashed by multiculturalism into not respecting white males, here is a Fredrick Douglass quote they should take note of.

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech.

To ensure victory next year the Republicans desperately need to learn how to fight

The Republican party on a national level has one great failing; most of the members elected to office are spineless.  This failure has plagued the Republican party for decades.  In order to comfortably retake the House of Representatives and retain the Senate this must be fixed soon.

I’m by no means the first to bemoan the Repulican party members for being spineless.  It has been an all too frequent topic of discussion on conservative websites.  Check out this American Thinker article When will the timid GOP wussy boys step up to the plate?

As the Democrats plow ahead in their hollow quest to bring President Trump down, the absurdity of their pitiful scheme becomes ever more pathetic.  But we can say this for the Dems: they stick together, and they stick to their plan, no matter how futile it is.

The Republicans?  Not so much.  They do not stick together; they don’t stick to any plan.  They seem to barely agree on what conservatism is, let alone be true to it, to their party’s basic principles.  They cower.

The Democrats, on the other hand, will lie, cheat, and expose their monstrous hypocrisy for all to see while the Republicans quake in their boots and go wobbly for fear of being spoken of negatively by our moonbat lefty pseudo- journos in the media.  There are of course a few truly great, courageous Republicans in Congress: Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Doug Collins, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, and Ron Johnson come to mind.  Others who we thought would be great — Ted Cruz, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee, and Tom Cotton — are sitting on their hands as though they are scared to death of bad press. 

I am not advocating that the Republicans embrace the Democrats tactics of cheating, lying, or using strong arm tactics.  I am suggesting very strenuously that they stand up and fight back, something they seem loath to do.  The period leading up to the public impeachment hearings is a perfect example of this.

The faint-of-heart Republicans have decided to be bystanders in the passing parade of democrat chicanery in service to their goal of exorcising Donald Trump.  All of this points to the essential difference between left and right. 

The Left has no scruples, no allegiance to its constituents.  Leftists seek power above all else, and Trump is an impediment to that power.  The Republicans want to be nice, always nice.  They loathe the confrontation the Left purposefully generates and try to avoid it.

Why did no Republican jump to his feet in a rage when Schiff read his false narrative of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky of Ukraine?  Because they are always polite.  No Republican would ever bring fried chicken to eat in a House committee hearing room. Not in a million years.

There is hope.  During the public impeachment farce last week several Republicans demonstrated real fighting spirit and it made quite a difference.  This was noted by the Washington Examiner in this article When Republicans fight back.

Republicans grew a backbone in the hearing and pushed back against House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff’s impeachment narrative. This is the sort of thing we’ve come to expect from Rep. Jim Jordan, but the fact that Reps. Elise Stefanik and John Ratcliffe also came out swinging speak volumes. These three are all quite different breeds of Republican, but for once, disparate House Republicans all brought the same level of intensity to a high stakes hearing.

Republicans challenged the Left’s narrative not only on the facts but the process as well. They’ve done good work to expose this investigation as the sham impeachment hearing it really is. We haven’t seen this sort of energy and poise from Republicans since the Kavanaugh saga, and we have rarely seen it at all throughout President Trump’s time in office.

For so long, the GOP has been afraid of its shadow. When things get tough, they turn tail and run. We’ve seen it on budget votes, shutdown standoffs, and stunningly, Obamacare — the single issue they railed against for years on the campaign trail but failed to repeal under unified government.

The Republicans really need to build on the uncharacteristic performance that they showed last week.  They need to stand up to the Democrats in congress and they absolutely need to stand up to the corrupt and biased liberal media.  The Republicans need to learn that any coverage of them will always be negative no matter what they say.  They should just say what they believe to be right and say it loudly.  It has worked exceptionally well for President Trump. 

Progressive indoctrination in US schools has reached dangerous levels

It is difficult to pinpoint just when progressive indoctrination began at the college level in this country, it began slowly and under the radar at first.  What is abundantly clear today is that indoctrination has reached levels that are hazardous to our constitutional republic.  You can see just how dangerous the level of indoctrination has become from the Federalist article 4 Reasons Socialism Is More Popular Among Americans Now Than Ever Before

The supporters of socialism are not simply the young, but they’re disproportionately young people who are college-educated. The more college they have, the hotter for socialism they get. According to a 2015 poll, support for socialism grows from 48 percent among those with a high school diploma or less, to 62 percent among college graduates, to 78 percent among those with post-graduate degrees.

Those on the left probably jump immediately to the conclusion that support for socialism is just a natural outgrowth of big brains and elite educations. But there is, in fact, a less obvious but ultimately far more compelling explanation: Something — something bad — is happening at universities to pull students toward the (far) left.

We have already seen above that what’s not happening at even elite universities today is a whole lot of education in important subjects such as history. What we are getting instead is a lot of groupthink and indoctrination. Universities have always skewed a bit left. But beginning in the early to mid 1990s (for reasons I’ve explained in some detail elsewhere), ideological diversity began to vanish entirely, as the leftward deviation turned tidal.

Unfortunately the progressive indoctrination has spread down to high schools and grade schools because progressives infected teaching colleges.  The indoctrination has also been spread down to this level by teacher unions. 

Multiculturalism has always been a vehicle used to spread progressive indoctrination. Here is a particularly ridiculous example I found on Breitbart  Seattle Schools Plan Curriculum to ‘Explore’ Cultural Appropriation of Math.

The Seattle school district is putting into place a K-12 curriculum that encourages students “to explore how math has been ‘appropriated’ by Western culture and used in systems of power and oppression.”

Here is a quote from the Breitbart article that was originally from an article in Education Week

In most places, if schools offer ethnic studies at all, it’s usually in a stand-alone course in high school. But increasingly, schools and districts are starting to sprinkle ethnic studies across the K-12 spectrum. Seattle is taking a highly unusual approach by weaving the field’s multicultural and political questions not just through all grade levels, but into all subjects.

Politically correct revisionist history has been a mainstay of progressive indoctrination.  It is a particularly dangerous one because it is meant to undermine the entire foundation of our constitutional republic.  This Daily Signal article Woke History Is Making Big Inroads in America’s High Schools chronicles the spread of this revisionist history.

Two years ago, the Indiana Legislature mandated that high schools offer an ethnic studies elective. As approved by the state’s Education Department, the class teaches about the contributions of ethnic and racial groups, various cultural practices, as well as such concepts as privilege, systematic oppression, and implicit bias. And now three states—California, Oregon, and Vermont—are trying to create authoritative statewide templates that, advocates hope, will make it easier for schools to adopt ethnic studies.

The statewide California ethnic studies curriculum was proposed in June by an advisory committee, composed of ethnic studies teachers and professors, and met with public outcry that such classes are designed to recruit students into political activism, indoctrinate them with ideological jargon, and promote the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

Multiculturalism may seem warm and fuzzy on the surface however it is meant to tear down one particular culture, the culture of the United States.  Here are two great Thomas Sowell Quotes which sum up this sham.

Much of what is promoted as “critical thinking” in our public schools is in fact uncritical negativism towards the history and institutions of America and an uncritical praise of the cultures of foreign countries and domestic minorities.

What “multiculturalism” boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture—and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.

It will be extremely difficult to turn the tide back on this progressive indoctrination but it is something we must do to save our constitutional republic.  Ending Common Core and all other federal intrusions, while taking local control of K-12 schools, are important steps in the process, along with completely relaxing the iron grip of teacher unions.

A political horror story – This is what the US would be like if the Democrats win in 2020

In honor of Halloween I decided to write a truly horrific article.  This is the absolutely scariest scenario I could possibly imagine for the United States as we know it – the Democrats not only taking the White House, but also taking control of the Senate, while maintaining control of the House. 

For proof of the truly catastrophic consequences of this scenario we only need to examine the campaign promises of the Democratic presidential candidates, the Democratic party platforms, and the track record wherever Democrats and other leftists have been in control to implement their policies. 

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other Democratic presidential candidates are pushing wealth distribution.  There are no betters examples of the devastating consequences of this tragically flawed economic policy than Venezuela and California.  History has provided everyone with numerous other examples of the economic carnage that would result from this deeply flawed idea, but that won’t stop the Democrats from implementing it here if they won control.  The entire US would rapidly be transformed economically into California, then into Venezuela. 

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have openly talked about nationalizing different private industries, and I believe others would do the same.  ObamaCare was an attempt to nationalize the entire US health industry and that was a disaster.  All industries were nationalized in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, with epically horrific results.  The same would happen here.

Nothing can strangle a business more rapidly and thoroughly than government regulation.  The Democrats would overburden US companies with so much red tape the economy would quickly sputter to a halt.

The Second Amendment would quickly be gutted if the Democrats won control.  They would not accomplish by altering the Constitution.  It is clear to everyone that they would enact extremely strict gun control through unconstitutional legislation and activist judges who would gut the Second Amendment,  Only criminals and the government would have guns making everyone vulnerable to criminals and government tyranny.  One candidate has even talked about out right gun confiscation, that won’t end well at all.

Free speech would be a thing of the past.  Political correctness would become a universal standard  of  speech.  Opposing idea would be labeled hate speech and those daring to offend would be punished. If you think this is an overstatement just look at liberal controlled college campuses and countries like Great Britain.

There would only be one religion allowed in the United States and that would be the religion of Progressivism.  That would be done in the name of enforcing the mythical wall of separation between church and state.  Beto O’Rourke has openly called for punishing churches who dare oppose the Progressive orthodoxy.  Other Democrats would do the same if given power. 

Medicare for all would become the law of the land.  The entire US healthcare system would be transformed into the British National Health Service or the VA.  American medical innovation would grind to a halt and wait times would explode.  Health care rationing would soon follow.  Socialized medicine has always resulted in tremendous suffering.

Crime would explode everywhere in the United States like it has wherever Democrats have gained control.  This is a direct result of the policies Democrats impose.

Our economy would collapse because the Democrats would impose the Green New Deal,  all in the name of combating the mythological beast known as climate change. 

There would be so many other horrific consequences of the Democrats gaining control but I think this article would become so scary it would cause nightmares if I continued to list them.  I think I’ve listed enough for now.  Happy Halloween.