Jan 212021
 
President Donald Trump

by Elizabeth Morris

I will continue to refer to our elected Commander-in-Chief as President Donald J. Trump. I will refer to the person currently sitting in the office as Joe Biden, and his running mate as Kamala Harris – with no titles – because neither currently holds elected office.

That is, obviously, a very mild form of Civil Disobedience. But under the current vindictive and threatening environment – it is the safest act I can perform. But even a mild stand such as this, in the current environment, can bring a person trouble – as any suggestion the election was stolen is grounds for punishment.

That said, recognizing that Donald J. Trump is our elected President also means I will not obey executive orders signed by Joe Biden, who has no elected authority to institute executive orders. The executive orders signed by our elected president Donald Trump continue to be the legal authority.

Constitutionally, Congress had no choice but to certify the state’s election results. Nevertheless, that does not make Joe Biden the elected president. If President Trump in fact received the votes necessary to win the individual states – then he is, in fact, the elected president. Based on the sworn, eye-witness testimony of hundreds of poll workers and poll watchers from November 3rd on – testimony the main stream media purposefully ignored and did not allow the general public to see – there is more than enough evidence that “irregularities,” if not outright fraud, took place.

This is the evidence that several states and federal legislators were acting upon when they protested the election. These legislators are now being vilified for acting upon the evidence they were shown. They are being punished for believing and standing up for their constituents – some of whom showed documented evidence.

NO, Joe Biden – there can be no unity with this. Not ever.

Unfortunately, the state legislatures did NOT understand the Constitutional power and authority they had over the electoral votes. Neither did President Trump’s legal team fully understand. The courts were not the venue for the battle. The state legislatures were. In fact – the state legislatures have full constitutional authority – NOT the governors. The state legislatures did NOT have to have permission from the governor to hold a special session with regard to electoral votes.

Please read the opinion of constitutional authority and Senior Advisor to the Convention of States, Rob Natelson1, on the issue:

Natelson also wrote this article:

AND – here is another article Natelson wrote on the subject, in question and answer format:

Q&A for state legislators and citizens: The Constitution and how to settle the election

By: Rob Natelson|Published on: Nov 18, 2020|Categories: Constitution, Elections, Electoral College

Irregularities in the presidential election returns of six states have sparked the question “What next?” The states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Should their state legislatures intervene? Confusing the issue are media and other claims that are dead wrong.

This column corrects the mistakes and clarifies duties and options.

Why the mistakes? Many in the media are strongly motivated to secure the election of Joe Biden—or, more accurately, the defeat of Donald Trump. They have been uncurious about alleged election irregularities or how the Constitution and federal law address presidential election deadlocks.

Even most experts are unfamiliar with this subject. On average, law school constitutional law courses spend 2/3 of their time on two percent of the Constitution (the 1st Amendment and two sections of the 14th) and largely ignore the presidential election process. Most law professors are unaware of the Constitution’s presidential election rules or the history behind them.

Now some questions and answers:

Q.Why are state legislatures involved?

A. You don’t learn this in school, but the Founders put the state legislatures near the heart of the political system. So much so that during the public debates over ratification of the Constitution, one of the most popular pro-Constitution writers (Tench Coxe) affirmed (pdf) that once the Constitution was ratified, ultimate sovereignty would lodge in a combination of state legislatures and state conventions.

Q. How is that relevant to presidential elections?

A. The Constitution gives state legislatures power to determine how electors are appointed. This power was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year in Chiafolo v. Washington (pdf). The Court held that state legislatures not only control choice of electors but can even direct them how to vote.

Q. Are there roles for Congress in the presidential election system?

A. Yes. One is that the Constitution’s Same Day Clause or Presidential Vote Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 4) authorizes Congress to select a uniform national day for voting by presidential electors and a (necessarily uniform) national time for voting for president electors. Congress has responded with legislation whose current version was enacted in 1948: December 14 for voting by electors (3 U.S. Code §7) and November 3 for voting for electors (id., §1).

Q. But this year many people voted by mail and the balloting continued over weeks . . .

A. Yes, and that was a violation of both the Same Day Clause and federal law. Some of the election irregularities were those the Same Day Clause was adopted to prevent.

Q. So, where does the state legislature come in?

A. Federal law, 3 U.S.C., § 2, recognizes state legislatures’ continuing power to choose electors after November 3 if the election on that date fails. It reads:

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

Q. Is that relevant to all states this year?

A. No—only to the six states with contested elections. Investigations over the next few weeks may show that preliminary results in some of these states are accurate. Then the law will apply only to states (if any) where the results remain helplessly muddled.

Q. How do lawmakers learn if claims of irregularities are true?

A. They should see how the lawsuits challenging the election unfold in their states over the next few days and weeks. I also recommend that legislative committees hold hearings of their own.

Q. To overturn an election, do you have to show fraud?

A. No. Any irregularities altering the results may be sufficient. These include (1) election officials treating different votes in different ways, in violation of the 14th amendment (Bush v. Gore, pdf), (2) changing election procedures during or after the election—or before the election in a way that confuses voters, and (3) even innocent mistakes, including software or machine errors.

Q. I read an article saying that fraud is sufficient to upend an election, and that there is no need to show it changed the result. Is this correct?

A. No. A court is unlikely to set an election aside if the results would have been the same anyway.

Q. If a state legislature finds that the results are hopelessly muddled, what should it do?

A. The principal options are (1) call a special election limited to presidential electors only or (2) choose the electors itself. Some may gripe about a quick election repeat, but successive elections are common in some other democratic countries.

Q. Is it true that only the governor may call the legislature into special session?

A. It is true in some states. Of course, this is no problem if the governor is cooperative. Some state constitutions allow a petition signed by a certain number of lawmakers to call a special session.

Q. My state’s law says only the people, not the legislature, can choose electors. State law further requires a 60-day notice period before a special election. Doesn’t this prevent our state lawmakers from acting even if federal law would seem to authorize them to do so?

A. No. If the legislature can come into session it may—either with gubernatorial cooperation or by a veto-proof majority—change the laws as necessary and allow the people to vote.

Q. What if the governor is not cooperative and there is no veto-proof majority?

A. Then the legislature may call itself into session and choose the electors itself.

Q. Huh?

A. This is one of those things not taught in law school. Here’s the background:

The Constitution delegates power to federal departments and officials. But it also assigns responsibilities to persons and entities outside the federal government. These persons and entities include state governors, presidential electors, convention delegates, voters, jurors—and state legislatures. The courts refer to the exercise of these responsibilities as “federal functions.” (See my forthcoming article on the subject in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.)

When the Constitution assigns responsibility to the “state legislature,” it may mean either the state’s entire legislative apparatus, including the governor, or the representative assembly standing alone, without the governor.

Q. Go on . . . .

A. The Constitution gives state legislatures power to regulate federal elections. In this case, the delegation is to the entire legislative process including the governor. Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n. (pdf). But when state legislatures act in the constitutional amendment process or elect functionaries themselves, they act alone, without gubernatorial involvement.

Q. For example?

A. Before the 17th amendment, the state legislatures elected U.S. Senators, and the governor had no say in the matter. Choice of presidential electors is almost certainly subject to the same rule. Federal law seems to recognize this when it provides, “Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed . . . in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” Surely Congress did not expect the legislature to go through the entire law-making process in a constricted period of time. It contemplated the legislature choosing the electors itself or setting up an expedited process.

Q. Okay, but if the state constitution says only the governor can call a special session, how can the legislature call itself into session?

A. When a state legislature exercises a “federal function,” its power comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, and it is not bound by state rules. The judiciary has said this repeatedly. The leading case is the Supreme Court decision in Leser v. Garnett (pdf), written by the celebrated justice, Louis Brandeis.

Q. Of the six contested states, all but Nevada have Republican-controlled legislatures. I’ve heard it suggested that they not choose electors at all. That way, neither Trump nor Biden will have 270 electors (a majority of the whole number of 538), forcing a run-off election in the House of Representatives. Although the Democrats will have a slim majority in the new House, the GOP will hold a majority of state delegations. Since presidential voting in the House is by state, it will elect Trump.

A. The suggestion is unwise. First, state lawmakers would, justifiably, take at least as much political heat for simply punting as for calling a new election or choosing the electors.

Second, the 12th amendment says that only if no presidential candidate receives “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” does the election go to the House. If none of the five contested states with Republican legislatures appoints electors, then there will be only 465 “Electors appointed.” If, as is almost certain, Nevada goes for Biden, then that would give him 233 votes—a majority of 465. No House run-off.

If fewer than five Republican legislatures abstain, then Biden will win the remaining states, and with them the Presidency.

Q. So what should state lawmakers do in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?

A. Ignore the media gaslighting and exercise their constitutional responsibilities. Monitor the state election challenges closely. If no clear winner appears in, say, two more weeks, then either call a snap election using old-fashioned paper ballots in fixed polling locations or, if the governor does not cooperate, call themselves into session and choose the state’s presidential electors. In the latter case, lawmakers can blame it all on the uncooperative governor. Remember that the process has to be complete before the electors meet on December 14.

This column first appeared in the Epoch Times.

Tags: Election 2020, Elections, Electoral College, state legislature

  1. Rob Natelson: In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been repeatedly cited in U.S. Supreme Court opinions and published or cited by many top law journals (See: https://i2i.org/author/rob/) He co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). He was a law professor for 25 years and taught constitutional law and related courses. He is the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

———————

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004.  Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy.

Ms. Morris graduated with a Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and earned her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019.  Her Master Thesis is titled: “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also earned a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

Jan 042021
 

Civil Disobedience is an act of peaceful defiance to the government in order to gain concessions. Civil disobedience is not a disregard for law or a disrespect of law-officers. It is a nonviolent “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands” and is usually done collectively, although not always. Gandhi referred to it as “satyagrahi,” which meant “truth-focused, non-violent non-cooperation.”

Civil Disobedience draws attention to the difference between constitutional ‘rule of law’ and illegitimate power grabs. It is a last resort after properly organized petitions, legal voting, respectful lobbying of officials and other steps have failed. Although it is non-violent and careful not to infringe on the life, liberty or property of others, one must be prepared for possible jail time or other punishment when practicing Civil Disobedience.

With respect to Civil Disobedience, St. Paul urged the Church of Christ living in Rome to “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship,” and “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:1b-2a). He goes on to explain how we are to use our bodies and skills for God’s glory – reflecting his love, service, humility and mercy. But also, to hate what is evil and cling to what is good (Romans 12:9b). In hating evil, he warns, do “not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath . . . Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” (Rom. 12: 19 & 21).  In the face of profound and intractable disagreement, Christians are to stand as ambassador’s in chains. While Romans 13 instructs Christians to submit to state authorities, Ephesians 6:10-17 instructs Christians to

10…be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Ephesians 6:10-17

The balance is in prayerful, peaceful, Civil Disobedience.

Many of the “protests’ that took place around the nation in 2020, including Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland, as well as in Baltimore in 2015 and Ferguson and St. Louis in 2014, were not examples of Civil Disobedience. They were riots, often ending in criminal vandalism, arson, and theft.

Many of their methods maliciously disregarded the lives, liberties and property of others in their community. They destroyed the shops of struggling, low income neighbors; injured or murdered innocent bystanders and law-enforcement officers, and robbed people of their liberty by preventing them from trans-versing the roadways on their way to work, school; daycare to pick up children; hospitals for medical care, and more.

Despite rhetoric otherwise, those types actions did not bring wide sympathy or popular support to the cause they were touting. While many who were repelled by the violence (as well as increasingly nonsensical policies involving pediatric gender transitions, abortion of full-term children, and other social extremism) did not speak out due to intimidation by the ‘cancel culture’ rooted within the anarchy, their true feelings were evidenced by the push-back at election time – with an increasing number of citizens fleeing the Democratic Party as it seemed to support the lawlessness.

It is now time for citizens to stand up for truth and justice through the use of genuine civil disobedience – while doing nothing that would harm the life, liberty or property of your neighbors.

PASSIVE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Passive Resistance is the determination not to cooperate with government overreach, in particular where there is no rule of law involved. Go on with life as you normally would. Simply refuse to do as expected or listen to new directives.

This can be as simple as refusing to take down political yard signs – (or putting them back up if you have already taken them down). Refuse to concede that a lawful election has been completed. Continue supporting your candidate with a lawn sign.

Refuse to stop working or going to church when ordered. Continue using proper antiseptics in cleaning, social distance if possible, and wear masks if you feel necessary, but knowing that varied doctors and scientists are not in agreement as to the benefit of various public health directives, refuse to allow the government to sabotage your life, liberty and property any longer.

Refuse to accept a vaccine that uses the cells of innocent children. Determine you will not condone government claims that protection of citizens requires the murder of defenseless babies – nor be an accomplice to it.

Refuse to use any pronoun other than the common pronouns of the 20th Century, and apply them as you feel most appropriate. This is not about hurting the feelings of those who want to choose their own pronouns. The reality is that far left activists do not get to dictate grammar. Many doctors believe it actually does a teenager more harm than good to play along with what might be just temporary confusion or rebellion. Politely, calmly, but resolutely, disobey the language authoritarians.

  • English subject pronouns include I, you, he, she, it we, and they. English object pronouns include me, you, him, her, it, us and them. Possessive variants include my, mine, your, yours, his, hers, its, ours and theirs. Toss a “self” on the end of the possessives if you want to be reflexive or intensive. And that is it.

PROACTIVE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Active Civil Disobedience involves setting aside a portion of time for rebellion, knowing it could bring unpleasant repercussions.

Participate in Peaceful marches – While it began as a peaceful and licensed protest – not an act of Civil Disobedience – DC officials have taken steps to make the day there unpleasant. Thus, marchers will be showing up in defiance of public officials. The March to Save America Rally begins at 7am on Wednesday, January 6 at the Ellipse in Washington DC. Find out more at https://trumpmarch.com/

Participate in Peaceful Sit-ins – on Tuesday, January 5th, beginning at 9 am, citizens are called to stage ‘sit-ins’ at the offices of their governors, Attorneys General, and Secretary of State. If you do not live in or near your state capitol, stage a ‘sit-in’ at the closest state office of your US senator or congressman – or at the election office of your local city hall or county courthouse. If you are not allowed in the building, you should gather outside the main doors – peacefully ‘sitting-in’ for justice and liberty, demanding that

  • 1. A genuine investigation of voter fraud be conducted, and
  • 2. Safeguards be enacted to ensure honesty in future elections, and
  • 3. NO stimulus funds be spent on congressional pork or foreign quid-pro-quo. Instead, debt relief for struggling US citizens is needed.

Read more at https://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/2020/12/25/day-of-civil-disobedience-tuesday-january-5th/

Participate by Peacefully chaining oneself to structures – Without damaging the structure in any way, including with permanent paint – and without infringing on the free movement of other citizens.

These are just some examples. There are many ways citizens can peacefully resist illegitimate authorities.

Dec 272020
 

In most states, business owners who own a Public Service Commission license are required to serve citizens in every corner of their counties.  This, obviously, is because certain areas of the counties – due to distance or other factors – might not be as profitable to support, but need service nonetheless.  So the State mandates service to meet the needs of even the far flung.

That is essentially what the forefathers did when designing the process for electing the president. Although the 13 States had suffered together under British monarchy, they had never been united. They were each governed independent of one another, with their own laws and customs.  While most of the colonists wanted to come out from under the British tyranny and knew they needed some type of unity for defense against England and other foreign nations, none wanted to lose their unique identities and culture to a federal system. They did not want to subject themselves to a new tyranny.

Some of the 13 states were quite large and populated; others were not. So it was natural for the smaller and less dense states to be afraid they would be overpowered within a united Congress. Thus a lot of the negotiation within the Continental Congress and later on in the writing of the Constitution concerned preservation of the voice and sovereignty of the individual states. 

The government they devised was extremely unique to the world at that time. Each state would maintain their sovereign independence with equal voice and representation in the federal government. This system bore resemblance to some historical republican senates (‘republican’ being a descriptive adjective, not a noun), but there were differences.  Importantly, the new government would be a democratic republic. (in this sentence, the word ‘democratic’ is the adjective).

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and primary author of the Bill of Rights, repeatedly emphasized that the United States is a “republic” and not a “democracy.”  Meaning, the federal government was designed to give all the states equal representation.

It was up to the states to ensure that all their citizens had an equal voice in who represented their state in the federal government.

The Electoral College was an essential part of this. It was designed to ensure that each state has a voice in the election of the president. In this design, small states and rural citizens are just as franchised in the process of electing the president as are the large states and cities. It works to unify the country and ensure a government that is representative of all regions and interests – meeting the needs of even the far flung.

Later on, amendments were added to further ensure the equality of citizen voices and votes within the states. Remember – this system of government was extremely unique to the world at that time and was essentially an experiment in design. It needed some amendments along the way.

That said, the goal had always been that residents of very small, rural cities in low population states – often, the bread basket or fuel resource of the rest of the nation – would not be mere subjects to – or ‘serfs’ of – the residents of large cities or the wealthy. 

[This is also why some members of the Continental Congress lobbied for anti-slavery laws, and some northern state legislatures [early-on] passed anti-slavery laws and lobbied for similar laws in the federal Congress]

Without the electoral college today, there would be no point in small states with low population to bother voting.  Candidates would focus on Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and other large, populated cities and would not be concerned with most other areas. An ultra-conservative candidate would not have much chance of winning the large American cities – thus diversity of voices in candidates would be reduced.

The Electoral College FORCES presidential candidates to form large coalitions that represent states and Americans across the nation – rather than just particular regions or urban areas.

Dec 252020
 

On Tuesday, January 5th, beginning at 9 am, citizens are called to stage ‘sit-ins’ at the offices of their governors, Attorneys General, and Secretary of State.

If you do not live in or near your state capitol, stage a ‘sit-in’ at the closest state office of your US senator or congressman – or at the election office of your local city hall or county courthouse.

If you are not allowed in the building, you should gather outside the main doors – peacefully ‘sitting-in’ for justice and liberty, demanding that

  • 1. A genuine investigation of voter fraud be conducted, and
  • 2. Safeguards be enacted to ensure honesty in future elections, and
  • 3. NO stimulus funds be spent on congressional pork or foreign quid-pro-quo. Instead, debt relief for struggling US citizens is needed.

…[There are several ideas about how debt relief could be handled, but all focus on saving the economy, saving homes, and saving small businesses in our communities – along with a refusal to allow Congress to spend our money on their irrelevant pet projects and pay-offs.]

During this Sit-in,

  • – Homemade signs and banners are encouraged
  • – Violence is forbidden
  • – Vandalism is forbidden
  • – Littering is forbidden

We are NOT Anarchists. We are better than that. We genuinely care about our communities.

Citizens are welcome to arrive and leave throughout the day as needed but ensure a steady presence of citizens remains throughout the day.

Dec 242020
 

President Trump,

Please VETO the stimulus bill, and instead – – use that money to forgive all – or most – federal loans to US CITIZENS – benefiting RURAL and MIDDLE CLASS rather than the swamp and their cronies.

While forgiving all federal loans is contrary to conservative and fiscal wisdom – Congress intends to spend that money anyway – and MORE within the first few weeks of a Biden presidency.

WE NEED to throw a wrench. Forgiving all federal loans will benefit ALL Americans in the long run by unburdening many in the middle class – THUS stimulating the economy. It will also take money out of Congress’s thieving hands and put Pelosi, Biden and the swamp back in their place. PLEASE DO THIS. Call it a time for Jubilee.

Fellow citizens,

Congress is going to spend that money whether we like it or not. We have tried for years to stop their corrupt spending. We haven’t even slowed them down. What we are talking about here is essentially taking the money AWAY from Congress. You can consider it robbing CONGRESS before they rob us – or consider it simply emptying their purse. Either way, taking money away from Congress benefits EVERYONE.

Further…forgiveness of federal loans benefits everyone because it involves small business loans, agriculture loans, and home mortgages. Even if a community member does not have a federal loan, money is being put back into the community rather than sent to Pakistan for gender studies. This is what stimulating our economy is all about. Small businesses are saved, farms are saved, and homes are saved. More money is available to spend and reinvest. More people can be hired. The economy gets a shot in the arm. An additional benefit is that those on the left who appear to want all that destroyed are set back.

Lastly, the current stimulus bill is NOT about helping people at all. It is just an excuse to fund pork and foreign quid-pro-quo. We can’t stop them from this criminal overspend because the GOP is going along with them – again.

The only thing we can hope for is a way to

  • 1. take away their excuse for pork bill – as well as
  • 2. take away part of their expected budget, and
  • 3. do it fast, before Congress overrides the veto.

If you have a different suggestion that could do all those things – say it.

Why did Public Policy become so quickly insane? Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory

 Comments Off on Why did Public Policy become so quickly insane? Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory
Nov 282020
 

While neither eighteenth century’s Adam Smith nor nineteenth century’s Karl Marx invented capitalism or socialism, neither capitalism nor socialism were clearly expressed prior to their attempts to express and build on these observed trends in varied societies. Feudalism had been the primary economic system for centuries, and  capitalism and socialism grew “only after feudalism’s demise”  (Blomberg 2012). 

Twentieth century Liberal Philosopher John Rawls now identifies five types of social order: “laissez‐faire capitalism [individual, natural liberty], welfare‐state capitalism, state socialism with a centrally controlled economy, property‐owning democracy, and liberal (or democratic) socialism” (Pogge & Kosch, 2007, p. 133).  We will discuss the relationship between Socialism, Marxism, and Critical Theory.

Key Ideas of Socialism

Socialists claim their key ideals include “principles of equality, democracy, individual freedom, self-realization, and community or solidarity” (Pablo Gilabert 2019).  Despite the necessity of individual determination for each these noble objectives, socialists call for strong government legislation to control and enforce the exercise of them.  According to Mises, “… a paternal authority, as a guardian for everybody,” is required by socialism (Mises, 2006).

Key Ideas of Marxism

Marxism originated in the mid-1800’s.  Introduced by German Philosopher Karl Marx, it is a political theory involving “dialectical materialism,” a resultant “labor theory of value,” and “transition from past to future” (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 803).  Marx viewed capitalism’s law and order as just a facade hiding a struggle between two main classes: “Capitalists, who own the productive resources, and the workers or proletariat, who must work in order to survive” (Olman 2004). Marx endeavored to analyze the relationship between them. His analysis involved three theories: “the theory of alienation, the labor theory of value, and the materialist conception of history” (2004).  According to Marxism, the ruling class can control the “ideological outlook” of the working classes through production of materials that the working-class desire. “As long as the workers agree with the ideology that they are subject to, they will acquiesce to their place in the structure of society” (Formby 2015).

The result, according to Marx, of a “natural progression” that societies undergo as they and their economic systems are born, progress and either die off or reach a new level, is Marxism. Socialism is the “unrealized potential inherent” within the wealth and organization of Capitalism itself, which allows for “a more just and democratic society in which everyone can develop his/her distinctively human qualities” (Olman 2004).  Capitalism matures to Socialism, which in turn progresses to Communism/Marxism, which Marx described as a utopia that will no longer need politics or religion. (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 826). 

Marx drew his ideas from “German philosophy, English political economy, and French utopian socialism” (Olman 2004).  One of those was Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and social reformer. He had taught in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s that there needed to be a separation of “law as it is from law as it ought to be” (Hart, 1958). Calling this “Legal Positivism,” he pushed the detachment of statements of fact from statements of value and therefore, a detachment of law from morality and God’s Word.  Instead of basing law on Scripture or a moral goal to be attained, he wanted law to be viewed only in terms of how it was written. The decision as to how it should be written should be based on his “fundamental axiom” that law should reflect whatever brings “the greatest happiness” to the greatest number of people (Daniels 2012). Popular opinion would be the definition of right and wrong. His ideas formed a basis for welfarism  (Hart, 1958).

While socialism and communism deny the reality of a morality defined by God, many adherents recognize the difficulty of selling these social theories to the general public.  Marxism comes out of naturalism and leads to an emphasis on “economic and political solutions,” including behavior modification of the population and redistribution of wealth (Fischer, 2013).  Knowing that behavior modification is not something most people would embrace, Utopian socialists advocated use of “universal ideas of truth and justice” to appeal to the “moral sensibilities” of men. They asserted this is the only way to bring about necessary change to society (Wolff 2017).  However, Marx disagreed and distanced himself from utopian thought. He asserted that the way to bring about his vision of “human emancipation” was to study and explain the “historical and social forces” that he believed had shaped the world to this point. Appeal to ‘morality’ was, in his mind, regressive (2017).

With morality unnecessary, justice, as Bentham suggested, was solely the decision of men.  Marx either considered communism to be justice, or that the entire concept of justice does not apply because “communism would transcend justice” (Wolff 2017).  He described communism as “a society in which each person should contribute according to their ability and receive according to their need” (2017). While some believe this is a theory of justice, it is also possible that Marx is explaining how and why communism transcends justice. If ‘justice’ is nothing more than a method of resolving disputes, then “a society without disputes would have no need or place for justice” (2017). Hume had argued that if society had complete acceptance of all human beings and enough abundance for everyone to have “whatever they wanted without invading another’s share,” then there would be no need for rules of justice. There would be no conflict.  Marx had claimed that communism would bring abundance to everyone.

Whether or not world-wide brotherly love and abundantly available material possessions is even possible, the concept put forward was that “communism transcends justice” (Wolff 2017).  The sin nature of men, including greed, lust, laziness and selfishness, is ignored because if there is no God, there is no sin-nature. Everything is controllable on a physical level (Fischer, 2013). And therein lies the reason for behavior modification and redistribution of wealth.

Key Ideas of Critical Theory

Originating in Germany in 1931, Critical Theory was a child of its time and birth. Like most other modernists, postmodernists and naturalists, Critical Theorists inherently believe evolution includes a hierarchy of humans. With that, they imagine that if allowed opportunity, society’s best and brightest intellectuals and progressives – by their standards – can “rationally solve all problems” and should govern everyone else (Fischer, 2013). 

According to these “German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition,” a ‘critical’ theory is set apart from ‘traditional’ theory to the extent it is a “liberating … influence,” pursuing human “emancipation from slavery,” and functions to “create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). There is a growing number of elite intellectuals who believe critical theory provides descriptive and “normative” grounds for “social inquiry” and is valid science for decreasing domination and increasing freedom” in any form they deem to deconstruct (Bohman, Flynn and Celikates 2019 [2005]). 

By their definition, Critical Theory considers “social facts as problematic situations from the point of view of variously situated agents” (Bohman, Flynn and Celikates 2019 [2005]).  The philosophical approach of Critical Theory “extends to ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of history.”  Because they view this as a “normative task,” they believe it “cannot be accomplished apart from the interplay between philosophy and social science through interdisciplinary empirical social research” (2019 [2005]).  Because Critical Theory should bring “explanation and revolution” to all “dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies” and “circumstances that enslave human beings,” social inquiry should combine philosophy and the social sciences. Intellectual feel to the sciences needs to be suppressed (2019 [2005]). 

So, whereas traditional theory would verify empirically whether a stated fact has occurred or not, Critical Theory considers knowledge to be a fetish that infers “truth and falsehood presupposes an objective structure of the world” (Corradetti 2020)and is “rather functional to ideology critique and social emancipation”  (2020). Social criticism, therefore, is true knowledge and the vehicle for social action that transforms reality  (2020). In other words, by irrefutable judgement of these scattered theorists, any social standard considered normal and beyond question for the entirety of human history is now a “problematic situation” if any one person views it as such.

Critical Theory addresses all methods in which power is used through words or customs (Fischer, 2013).  Using “Bounded and Satisficing Rationality,” a person can reach a “satisfactory solution rather than an optimal one” (English 2016), and “design strategic tools” for making decisions, setting standards and creating environments in which the tools become “ecologically rational” (Gigerenzer 2011).

With this in mind, “…any philosophical approach with similar practical aims could be called a ‘critical theory,’ including feminism, critical race theory, and some forms of post-colonial criticism” (Bohman, Flynn and Celikates 2019 [2005]).  Fischer notes Queer Theory and criticism of current prison systems are also included  (Fischer, 2013). 

Opening the door to allow for every type of human complaint enlarges the size and power of the political movement.  However, the more voices in the tent, the more disagreement over policy and criticism of fellow “Critical Theorists.” Dr. William Scheuerman notes some concern that “contemporary critical theory is succumbing to legalist or juridical preoccupations that distort the nature of social reality” (Scheuerman 2016), and Dr. Amy Allen’s primary concern is the Frankfurt School’s critical theory “remains wedded to problematically Eurocentric and/or foundationalist strategies for grounding normativity” (Allen 2015, xii).  She wants to “decolonize Frankfurt School critical theory” and open it up “to the aims and concerns of post- and decolonial thought” (2015, xii).

            Antonio Vazquez-Arroyo, reviewing Dr. Allen’s work, notes her distaste for “robust claims to progress as ahistorical fact,” made by projects that claim to be critical, and “backward-looking conceptions of progress that understand history as a learning process that has led up to ‘us’ (p. 98)”  (Vazquez-Arroyo 2018, S227). He comments, “…a different warning goes unheeded. Paraphrasing her formulation, any theory that purports to be critical should be extremely wary of thought forms whose sediments and de-differentiations, along with neo-nativist gestures and inane ideas of decolonization, undermine genuine critique” (2018, S227).

According to Dr. Rasmussen, “the great challenge to critical theory that has to deal with the rise of religion, on the one hand, and globalization, on the other, will be whether or not it can keep a critical perspective alive or whether in the future we will look back at critical theory as just another theory of modernity” (2012).

Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory

All three, Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory, profess to be a pathway to Utopia – a society where all laws, government, and social conditions are ideal.  Fischer explains that Marxism and socialism are both a derivative of a naturalistic worldview and assume there is only a physical universe, not a spiritual one, and at the same time, free will is an illusion.  They believe that our choices are constrained by and are a product of our physical environment.  Therefore, social and economic justice are entirely achievable, as they are entirely physical constructs and “can and should be manipulated” (2018).

            Critical theory views the universe the same way, as noted by Gigerenzer, who said that ‘unbounded rationality’ is the illusion there is “an ‘omniscient being,’ omnipotent – knows everything – can compute all the consequences…a Laplacian demon, or maybe – God” (Gigerenzer 2011).

All three disciplines view people groups as monolithic.  They expect individuals of similar backgrounds to maintain the same views – ignoring individual thought and experience because such things make calculation and projections much more difficult.  Anyone who had not reached the same conclusions they had were either lying or deluded.   

Dr. Satnam Virdee recalled how in the early twentieth century, England’s Marxist Social Democratic Federation (SDF) “repeatedly emphasized how working-class racism was ‘part of the imperialist rationale to stress the inherent backwardness of African peoples.” and  (Virdee 2017).  Socialists denied that classism, rather than racism, could be the real problem because they had already decided that racism was the issue.  At the same time, in Germany, socialists stressed class was the issue, while the Nazi’s stressed race.  German socialists touted that “abolition of class exploitation” would liberate everyone, “including the racially oppressed” (2017). Virdee surmised that “socialist political practice” will have to become more ‘intersectional’ if solidarity between the “ethnically diverse proletariat in the imperialist core” is to be achieved (2017).  Further, economic tenets would need to change, as attempts to practice Marxist socialism have “had to reintroduce elements of private ownership in the means of production in order to overcome or prevent manifest bankruptcy” (Hoppe 1988 [2010]).

Impact of Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory

The reason the United States has been “by and large, richer than Western Europe, and West Germany much richer than East Germany” is a direct result of less socialism”  (Hoppe 1988 [2010], 11).  The difference between Switzerland and Austria, as well as England in the nineteenth century and England today, is also a reflection of socialism (1988 [2010], 11). It appears socialism has had little success in anything other than stirring up rage within propaganda instilled college students.

In late fifties, many in the United States began to see the separation of law and morals as intellectually misleading and superficial, blinding men “to the true nature of law and its roots in social life.” Others asserted that the separation was corrupting society, bringing disrespect to the law, and giving way to “state tyranny or absolutism” (Hart, 1958). The term “Legal Positivism,” took on a negative context. One of them “was the sin” of Bentham insistence on the separation of “law as it is and law as it ought to be” (1958).

In the sixties, the New Left, a political movement that consisted of anti-war groups, libertarians, democrats, and Marxists, picked up the utopian idea of camouflaging socialism and Marxism in “morality-speak” and campaigned together on issues involving class, race, gender, ideology and culture.  In doing this, they brought “revision and diversification” to Marxism (Alexander 2018). In the 21st century, ‘Prefigurative politics’ is a new buzz word purported to represent “ethos of unity between means and ends,” as the New Left draws from its ‘60’s’ past with anarchist rioting as a means to bring about “revolutionary social transformation” (Gordon 2018). That is an aspect that has had a large impact on American politicians, if not necessarily the general public. In fact, Alexander reports that his Marxist passion waned after realizing the people he was attempting to liberate had no desire to be liberated.  Alexander related:

We formed a sociology collective and did our part during street demonstrations, the rousing performances that unfolded inside tear gas clouds. But holding back from the window breaking and systematic “trashing,” we felt increasingly alienated from the hardened members of the revolutionary vanguard. Ground down by its own internal dynamics and hounded by the triumph of backlash politics and Richard Nixon, the new left had come to resemble the old. It became increasingly polluted by Stalinism and sectarianism, by desperate militancy and acts of revolutionary terrorism. Watching this transformation with horror and fear, I looked for a different way to do radical politics, helping to lead more traditional organizing projects. Our sociology collective traveled to Los Angeles to stand beside workers striking the Goodyear Tire plant. We confronted their conservative trade union leadership and produced a wall poster that provided an alternative intellectual framework for their struggle.

We did not find any converts, and the first doubts about the appropriateness of radical criticism began to form in my mind. …For three months we canvassed this working-class community of General Motors employees, seeking to organize them against the Vietnam war, demonstrating the connection between such imperialist violence and capitalism, whose exploitation we believed such workers would be naturally against. But, if only an hour’s drive from Berkeley, Fremont was actually a universe away. The manifest satisfaction of Freemont residents with the American way of life mystified but also deeply impressed me. Was commodification as alienating as the good books had said? Had capitalist culture really brainwashed these workers in a hegemonic way? (Alexander 2018)

The Progressivism in America today is a post-modern version of Marxism.  Marxism pitted the rich against the poor. Progressivism pits white males – ostensibly rich white males – against everyone else (Fischer, 2013). In a debate between Trotsky and U.S. socialist C.L.R. James, James recognized the “revolutionary potential of African Americans.”  He believed that because of the history of slavery and then Jim Crow, “African Americans were not ‘deceived by democracy,’” and would never support capitalism (Virdee 2017).  He was correct concerning some who have black heritage, but not all. In fact, the Marxist socialists are not united in every aspect of their projects.  New communists often push the left to pay “increasing attention to feminism, anti-racism and sexual politics” and believe failure to do so nullifies their radicalism and effectiveness. To others, engaging with “non-class forms of politics” is what causes loss to their “radicalism and efficacy” (Dean 2015).  Neither camp has yet to come to terms with the possibility that free peoples, when given a choice, reject socialism, let alone communism.

Biblical principles of statesmanship and government

Neither pure capitalism nor socialism were economic systems at the time of Jesus Christ  (Blomberg 2012).  Nevertheless, historians who study the Biblical economy and patterns of social interaction generally agree that Biblical communities, which measured wealth by the amount of land and number of animals a man owned, operated within the theory of “limited good.” Most people believed wealth was measured and finite, and only a small portion was accessible to persons such as themselves (2012).

While persons of whom the Bible was written may have had some belief similar to that of Marx, Karl Marx and others of his circle had no belief in them. Nineteenth century philosopher Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach claimed that human beings had invented God in their own image and argued that worshipping God “diverted human beings from enjoying their own human powers.”  Feuerbach believed this happened to men by innocent “intellectual error.” They merely needed to have truth explained to them for them to pull out of it. Marx appreciated the book but criticized Feuerbach for failing to understand the reason so many fall prey to religion. If one doesn’t understand the genesis of it, one can’t understand the solution. Marx’s view was that “religion is a response to alienation in material life,” and therefore, “cannot be removed” until the person is set financially and materially free.  Once that happens, “religion will wither away” (Wolff 2017). In the introduction of his work, ‘Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx remarked that religion is the ‘opiate of the people.’ It is in this section that he also discusses the question of “how revolution might be achieved in Germany,” and describes the “role of the proletariat” in making that happen (2017).

Naturalists, socialists, and Marxists do not believe a metaphysical component exists in the world. God and any form of spirituality are myths created to comfort distressed and oppressed “masses” of people. Therefore, they believe all change must come through the physical tools and institutions available to men.  It is up to government to guide, teach, sustain and protect people (Fisher 2018).

However, it was witnessed and documented that Jesus rose from the dead. Unexplainable miracles have occurred throughout history and continue to this day, giving direct evidence of a spiritual component to the world. God is personal, intelligent, and the timeless creator. While it is true that injustice exists in the world, Jesus urged his followers to give to the poor, but did not demand government take money from citizens to give to the poor.  Helping one’s neighbor is an individual responsibility. “Each of you should give whatever you have decided. You shouldn’t be sorry you gave or feel forced to give, since God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

America’s founding fathers did not want federal government to have the power to demand more money from the public than necessary because they had been abused in that way by the British government (Vaughan 1997).  Governments are constituted of men, and men are inherently sinful and selfish. Many seek pleasure and power at the expense of others and even at times take perverse pleasure in it. Tyrants and despots exist.

This is also why justice cannot be arbitrary.  There needs to be uncompromising, enduring justice. Bentham assumed people would naturally seek ‘good’ and pleasure over pain, but neither Marx nor Bentham appeared to accept the genuine nature of man and man’s need for intervention from the Holy Spirit (Daniels 2012).  Men cannot depend on a government structure. Men can only depend on God.  Without Jesus, society devolves. “The social ethic of the secular is so narrow…they give up on trying to defend principal”…“But Christians can’t give up” (2012).

References

Alexander, Jeffrey C. “The Sixties and Me: From Cultural Revolution to Cultural Theory.” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 63, no. 234 (Sep-Dec 2018): 99-110. D.

Allen, Amy. The end of progress: Decolonizingthe normative foundations of critical theory. New York: Columbia Uniiversity, 2015.

Blomberg, Craig L. “Neither Capitalism nor Socialism: A Biblical Theology of Economics.” Journal of Markets and Morality 15, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 207-225.

Bohman, James, Jeffrey Flynn, and Robin Celikates. Critical Theory. Winter 2019. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019 [2005].

Corradetti, Claudio. “The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource. 2020. https://iep.utm.edu/frankfur/ (accessed 11 23, 2020).

Daniels, Scott. Presentation: Modern Secular Political Philosophy. Online Presentation, Helms School of Government, Lynchburg: Liberty University, 2012.

Dean, Jonathan. “Radicalism restored? Communism and the end of left melancholia.” Contemporary Political Theory, Aug 2015: 234-255.

English, Angi. “Understanding Bounded Rationality and Satisficing.” Bounded Rationality. Platform by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security . June 3, 2016. https://medium.com/homeland-security/understanding-bounded-rationality-and-satisficing-175e787955d6 (accessed 11 26, 2020).

Fisher, Kahlib. Presentation: Socialism, Marxism, and Critical Theory . Lynchburg: Liberty University, 2018.

Formby, Dan. “[Essay] Why Marxism and Critical Theory Still Matter.” Journal of Critical and Creative Writing, 2015.

Gigerenzer, Gerd. Bounded Rationality. Online presentation, Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin: National Science Foundation, 2011.

Gordon, Uri. “Prefigurative Politics between Ethical Practice and Absent Promise.” Political Studies 66, no. 2 (2018): 521-537.

Hart, H.L.A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review (The Harvard Law Review Association) 71, no. 4 (1958): 593-629.

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988 [2010].

Mises, Ludwig von. Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow. 3rd. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.

Olman, Bertell. “What is Marxism? A Bird’s-Eye View.” Dialectical Marxism. 2004. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/what_is_marxism.php.

Pablo Gilabert, Martin O’Neill. “Socialism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019, Fall, 2019 ed.

Pogge, Thomas, and Michelle Kosch. John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Rasmussen, David M. “Critical Theory.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy (Penn State University Press) 26, no. 2 (2012): 291-298.

Scheuerman, William E. “Recent Frankfurt Critical Theory: Down on Law?” Constellations 24, no. 1 (2016): 113-125.

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987.

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. Edited by George Grant. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing Inc., 1997.

Vazquez-Arroyo, Antonio Y. “Review: The end of progress: Decolonizingthe normative foundations of critical theory.” Contemporary Political Theory (Rutgers University), 2018: S224–S227.

Virdee, Satnam. “The second sight of racialised outsiders in the imperialist core.” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 11 (2017): 2396-2410.

Wolff, Jonathan. “Karl Marx.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017, Winter 2017 ed.

Ratcliffe’s Letter to Graham re: Clinton ordered, Obama allowed False Russia Accusation against Trump (PDF)

 Comments Off on Ratcliffe’s Letter to Graham re: Clinton ordered, Obama allowed False Russia Accusation against Trump (PDF)
Sep 292020
 

Chairman Graham Releases Information from DNI Ratcliffe on FBI’s Handling of Crossfire Hurricane

September 29, 2020

READ PDF: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-29-20_Letter to Sen. Graham_Declassification of FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigations_20-00912_U_SIGNED-FINAL.pdf

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today released a letter from Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe. DNI Ratcliffe responded to Graham’s request for intelligence community information regarding the FBI’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane.

 DNI Ratcliffe provided the following declassified information to the committee:

  • “In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”
  • “According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’”
  • “On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.’”

“I appreciate DNI Ratcliffe responding to my request for any information concerning all things Russia in the 2016 campaign, not just alleged Trump-Russia involvement.

“Director Ratcliffe will make this information available in a classified setting. I will try to review the material as early as today.

“This latest information provided by DNI Ratcliffe shows there may have been a double standard by the FBI regarding allegations against the Clinton campaign and Russia. Whether these allegations are accurate is not the question. The question is did the FBI investigate the allegations against Clinton like they did Trump?  If not, why not?  If so, what was the scope of the investigation?  If none, why was that?

“I look forward to speaking with Director Comey about this latest information, and many other topics, at tomorrow’s hearing.”

READ –

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/chairman-graham-releases-information-from-dni-ratcliffe-on-fbis-handling-of-crossfire-hurricane

List Of U.S. Organizations Funded By George Soros

 Comments Off on List Of U.S. Organizations Funded By George Soros
Sep 282020
 

September 18, 2020

Organizations directly funded by Soros and his Open Society Foundations (OSF):

Source: DiscoverTheNetworks.org via Dr. Eowyn

  1. Advancement Project: This organization works to organize “communities of color” into politically cohesive units while disseminating its leftist worldviews and values as broadly as possible by way of a sophisticated communications department.
  2. Air America Radio: Now defunct, this was a self-identified “liberal” radio network.
  3. Al-Haq: This NGO produces highly politicized reports, papers, books, and legal analyses regarding alleged Israeli human-rights abuses committed against Palestinians.
  4. All of Us or None: This organization seeks to change voting laws — which vary from state to state — so as to allow ex-inmates, parolees, and even current inmates to cast their ballots in political elections.
  5. Alliance for Justice: Best known for its activism vis a vis the appointment of federal judges, this group consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as “extremists.”
  6. America Coming Together: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to coordinate and organize pro-Democrat voter-mobilization programs.
  7. America Votes: Soros also played a major role in creating this group, whose get-out-the-vote campaigns targeted likely Democratic voters.
  8. America’s Voice: This open-borders group seeks to promote “comprehensive” immigration reform that includes a robust agenda in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.
  9. American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy: This organization “opposes laws that require employers and persons providing education, health care, or other social services to verify citizenship or immigration status.”
  10. American Bridge 21st Century: This Super PAC conducts opposition research designed to help Democratic political candidates defeat their Republican foes.
  11. American Civil Liberties Union: This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board.
  12. American Constitution Society for Law and Policy: This Washington, DC-based think tank seeks to move American jurisprudence to the left by recruiting, indoctrinating, and mobilizing young law students, helping them acquire positions of power. It also provides leftist Democrats with a bully pulpit from which to denounce their political adversaries.
  13. American Family Voices: This group creates and coordinates media campaigns charging Republicans with wrongdoing.
  14. American Federation of Teachers: After longtime AFT President Albert Shanker died in in 1997, he was succeeded by Sandra Feldman, who slowly “re-branded” the union, allying it with some of the most powerful left-wing elements of the New Labor Movement. When Feldman died in 2004, Edward McElroy took her place, followed by Randi Weingarten in 2008. All of them kept the union on the leftward course it had adopted in its post-Shanker period.
  15. American Friends Service Committee: This group views the United States as the principal cause of human suffering around the world. As such, it favors America’s unilateral disarmament, the dissolution of American borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, the abolition of the death penalty, and the repeal of the Patriot Act.
  16. American Immigration Council: This non-profit organization is a prominent member of the open-borders lobby. It advocates expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the U.S.
  17. American Immigration Law Foundation: This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose behalf it litigates against the U.S. government.
  18. American Independent News Network: This organization promotes “impact journalism” that advocates progressive change.
  19. American Institute for Social Justice: AISJ’s goal is to produce skilled community organizers who can “transform poor communities” by agitating for increased government spending on city services, drug interdiction, crime prevention, housing, public-sector jobs, access to healthcare, and public schools.
  20. American Library Association: This group has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s War on Terror — most particularly, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which it calls “a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.”
  21. The American Prospect, Inc.: This corporation trains and mentors young leftwing journalists, and organizes strategy meetings for leftist leaders.
  22. Amnesty International: This organization directs a grossly disproportionate share of its criticism for human rights violations at the United States and Israel.
  23. Applied Research Center: Viewing the United States as a nation where “structural racism” is deeply “embedded in the fabric of society,” ARC seeks to “build a fair and equal society” by demanding “concrete change from our most powerful institutions.”
  24. Arab American Institute Foundation: The Arab American Institute denounces the purportedly widespread civil liberties violations directed against Arab Americans in the post-9/11 period, and characterizes Israel as a brutal oppressor of the Palestinian people.
  25. Aspen Institute: This organization promotes radical environmentalism and views America as a nation plagued by deep-seated “structural racism.”
  26. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now: This group conducts voter mobilization drives on behalf of leftist Democrats. These initiatives have been notoriously marred by fraud and corruption.
  27. Ballot Initiative Strategy Center: This organization seeks to advance “a national progressive strategy” by means of ballot measures—state-level legislative proposals that pass successfully through a petition (“initiative”) process and are then voted upon by the public.
  28. Bend The Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice: This organization condemns Voter ID laws as barriers that “make it harder for communities of color, women, first-time voters, the elderly, and the poor to cast their vote.”
  29. Bill of Rights Defense Committee: This group provides a detailed blueprint for activists interested in getting their local towns, cities, and even college campuses to publicly declare their opposition to the Patriot Act, and to designate themselves “Civil Liberties Safe Zones.” The organization also came to the defense of self-described radical attorney Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in 2005 of providing material support for terrorism.
  30. Black Alliance for Just Immigration: This organization seeks to create a unified movement for “social and economic justice” centered on black racial identity.
  31. Blueprint North Carolina: This group seeks to “influence state policy in North Carolina so that residents of the state benefit from more progressive policies such as better access to health care, higher wages, more affordable housing, a safer, cleaner environment, and access to reproductive health services.”
  32. Brennan Center for Justice: This think tank/legal activist group generates scholarly studies, mounts media campaigns, files amicus briefs, gives pro bono support to activists, and litigates test cases in pursuit of radical “change.”
  33. Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petitionopposing President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003.
  34. Campaign for America’s Future: This group supports tax hikes, socialized medicine, and a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs.
  35. Campaign for Better Health Care: This organization favors a single-payer, government-run, universal health care system.
  36. Campaign for Youth Justice: This organization contends that “transferring juveniles to the adult criminal-justice system leads to higher rates of recidivism, puts incarcerated and detained youth at unnecessary risk, has little deterrence value, and does not increase public safety.”
  37. Campus Progress: A project of the Soros-bankrolled Center for American Progress, this group seeks to “strengthen progressive voices on college and university campuses, counter the growing influence of right-wing groups on campus, and empower new generations of progressive leaders.”
  38. Casa de Maryland: This organization aggressively lobbies legislators to vote in favor of policies that promote expanded rights, including amnesty, for illegal aliens currently residing in the United States.
  39. Catalist: This is a for-profit political consultancy that seeks “to help progressive organizations realize measurable increases in civic participation and electoral success by building and operating a robust national voter database of every voting-age American.”
  40. Catholics for Choice: This nominally Catholic organization supports women’s right to abortion-on-demand.
  41. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good: This political nonprofit group is dedicated to generating support from the Catholic community for leftwing candidates, causes, and legislation.
  42. Center for American Progress: This leftist think tank is headed by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, works closely with Hillary Clinton, and employs numerous former Clinton administration staffers. It is committed to “developing a long-term vision of a progressive America” and “providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals.”
  43. Center for Community Change: This group recruits and trains activists to spearhead leftist “political issue campaigns.” Promoting increased funding for social welfare programs by bringing “attention to major national issues related to poverty,” the Center bases its training programs on the techniques taught by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky.
  44. Center for Constitutional Rights: This pro-Castro organization is a core member of the open borders lobby, has opposed virtually all post-9/11 anti-terrorism measures by the U.S. government, and alleges that American injustice provokes acts of international terrorism.
  45. Center for Economic and Policy Research: This group opposed welfare reform, supports “living wage” laws, rejects tax cuts, and consistently lauds the professed achievements of socialist regimes, most notably Venezuela.
  46. Center for International Policy: This organization uses advocacy, policy research, media outreach, and educational initiatives to promote “transparency and accountability” in U.S. foreign policy and global relations. It generally views America as a disruptive, negative force in the world.
  47. Center for Reproductive Rights: CRR’s mission is to guarantee safe, affordable contraception and abortion-on-demand for all women, including adolescents. The organization has filed state and federal lawsuits demanding access to taxpayer-funded abortions (through Medicaid) for low-income women.
  48. Center for Responsible Lending: This organization was a major player in the subprime mortgage crisis. According to Phil Kerpen (vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity), CRL “sh[ook] down and harass[ed] banks into making bad loans to unqualified borrowers.” Moreover, CRL negotiated a contract enabling it to operate as a conduit of high-risk loans to Fannie Mae.
  49. Center for Social Inclusion: This organization seeks to counteract America’s “structural racism” by means of taxpayer-funded policy initiatives.
  50. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Reasoning from the premise that tax cuts generally help only the wealthy, this organization advocates greater tax expenditures on social welfare programs for low earners.
  51. Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS): Aiming to redistribute wealth by way of higher taxes imposed on those whose incomes are above average, COWS contends that “it is important that state government be able to harness fair contribution from all parts of society – including corporations and the wealthy.”
  52. Change America Now: Formed in December 2006, Change America Now describes itself as “an independent political organization created to educate citizens on the failed policies of the Republican Congress and to contrast that record of failure with the promise offered by a Democratic agenda.”
  53. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: This group litigates and brings ethics charges against “government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests” and “betray the public trust.” Almost all of its targets are Republicans.
  54. Coalition for an International Criminal Court: This group seeks to subordinate American criminal-justice procedures to those of an international court.
  55. Color Of Change: This organization was founded to combat what it viewed as the systemic racism pervading America generally and conservatism in particular.
  56. Common Cause: This organization aims to bring about campaign-finance reform, pursue media reform resembling the Fairness Doctrine, and cut military budgets in favor of increased social-welfare and environmental spending.
  57. Constitution Project: This organization seeks to challenge the legality of military commissions; end the detainment of “enemy combatants”; condemn government surveillance of terrorists; and limit the President’s executive privileges.
  58. Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund: Defenders of Wildlife opposes oil exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It condemns logging, ranching, mining, and even the use of recreational motorized vehicles as activities that are destructive to the environment.
  59. Democracy Alliance: This self-described “liberal organization” aims to raise $200 million to develop a funding clearinghouse for leftist groups. Soros is a major donor to this group.
  60. Democracy 21: This group is a staunch supporter of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act.
  61. Democracy Now!: Democracy Now! was created in 1996 by WBAI radio news director Amy Goodman and four partners to provide “perspectives rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media,” i.e., the views of radical and foreign journalists, left and labor activists, and ideological foes of capitalism.
  62. Democratic Justice Fund: DJF opposes the Patriot Act and most efforts to restrict or regulate immigration into the United States — particularly from countries designated by the State Department as “terrorist nations.”
  63. Democratic Party: Soros’ funding activities are devoted largely to helping the Democratic Party solidify its power base. In a November 2003 interview, Soros stated that defeating President Bush in 2004 “is the central focus of my life” … “a matter of life and death.” He pledged to raise $75 million to defeat Bush, and personally donated nearly a third of that amount to anti-Bush organizations. “America under Bush,” he said, “is a danger to the world, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.”
  64. Demos: This organization lobbies federal and state policymakers to “addres[s] the economic insecurity and inequality that characterize American society today”; promotes “ideas for reducing gaps in wealth, income and political influence”; and favors tax hikes for the wealthy.
  65. Drum Major Institute: This group describes itself as “a non-partisan, non-profit think tank generating the ideas that fuel the progressive movement,” with the ultimate aim of persuading “policymakers and opinion-leaders” to take steps that advance its vision of “social and economic justice.”
  66. Earthjustice: This group seeks to place severe restrictions on how U.S. land and waterways may be used. It opposes most mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing businesses, and the use of motorized vehicles in undeveloped areas.
  67. Economic Policy Institute: This organization believes that “government must play an active role in protecting the economically vulnerable, ensuring equal opportunity, and improving the well-being of all Americans.”
  68. Electronic Privacy Information Center: This organization has been a harsh critic of the USA PATRIOT Act and has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in litigating two cases calling for the FBI “to publicly release or account for thousands of pages of information about the government’s use of PATRIOT Act powers.”
  69. Ella Baker Center for Human Rights: Co-founded by the revolutionary communist Van Jones, this anti-poverty organization claims that “decades of disinvestment in our cities” — compounded by “excessive, racist policing and over-incarceration” — have “led to despair and homelessness.”
  70. EMILY’s List: This political network raises money for Democratic female political candidates who support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
  71. Energy Action Coalition: Founded in 2004, this group describes itself as “a coalition of 50 youth-led environmental and social justice groups working together to build the youth clean energy and climate movement.” For EAC, this means “dismantling oppression” according to its principles of environmental justice.
  72. Equal Justice USA: This group claims that America’s criminal-justice system is plagued by “significant race and class biases,” and thus seeks to promote major reforms.
  73. Fair Immigration Reform Movement: This is the open-borders arm of the Center for Community Change.
  74. Faithful America: This organization promotes the redistribution of wealth, an end to enhanced interrogation procedures vis a vis prisoners-of-war, the enactment of policies to combat global warming, and the creation of a government-run heath care system.
  75. Families USA: This Washington-based health-care advocacy group favors ever-increasing government control of the American healthcare system.
  76. Feminist Majority: Characterizing the United States as an inherently sexist nation, this group focuses on “advancing the legal, social and political equality of women with men, countering the backlash to women’s advancement, and recruiting and training young feminists to encourage future leadership for the feminist movement in the United States.”
  77. Four Freedoms Fund: This organization was designed to serve as a conduit through which large foundations could fund state-based open-borders organizations more flexibly and quickly.
  78. Free Exchange on Campus: This organization was created solely to oppose the efforts of one individual, David Horowitz, and his campaign to have universities adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights,” as well as todenounce Horowitz’s 2006 book The Professors. Member organizations of FEC include Campus Progress (a project of the Center for American Progress); the American Association of University Professors; theAmerican Civil Liberties UnionPeople For the American Way; the United States Student Association; theCenter for Campus Free Speech; the American Library AssociationFree Press; and the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups.
  79. Free Press: This “media reform” organization has worked closely with many notable leftists and such organizations as Media Matters for AmericaAir America RadioGlobal ExchangeCode PinkFairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the Revolutionary Communist PartyMother Jones magazine, and Pacifica Radio.
  80. Funding Exchange: Dedicated to the concept of philanthropy as a vehicle for social change, this organization pairs leftist donors and foundations with likeminded groups and activists who are dedicated to bringing about their own version of “progressive” change and social justice. Many of these grantees assume that American society is rife with racism, discrimination, exploitation, and inequity and needs to be overhauled via sustained education, activism, and social agitation.
  81. Gamaliel Foundation: Modeling its tactics on those of the radical Sixties activist Saul Alinsky, this group takes a strong stand against current homeland security measures and immigration restrictions.
  82. Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement: This anti-Israel organization seeks to help Palestinians “exercise their right to freedom of movement.”
  83. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: This group contends that when a state proves either unable or unwilling to protect civilians from mass atrocities occurring within its borders, it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene — peacefully if possible, but with military force if necessary.
  84. Global Exchange: Established in 1988 by pro-Castro radical Medea Benjamin, this group consistently condemns America’s foreign policy, business practices, and domestic life. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Global Exchange advised Americans to examine “the root causes of resentment against the United States in the Arab world — from our dependence on Middle Eastern oil to our biased policy towards Israel.”
  85. Grantmakers Without Borders: GWB tends to be very supportive of leftist environmental, anti-war, and civil rights groups. It is also generally hostile to capitalism, which it deems one of the chief “political, economic, and social systems” that give rise to a host of “social ills.”
  86. Green For All: This group was created by Van Jones to lobby for federal climate, energy, and economic policy initiatives.
  87. Health Care for America Now: This group supports a “single payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system.
  88. Human Rights Campaign: The largest “lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender” lobbying group in the United States, HRC supports political candidates and legislation that will advance the LGBT agenda. Historically, HRC has most vigorously championed HIV/AIDS-related legislation, “hate crime” laws, the abrogation of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and the legalization of gay marriage.
  89. Human Rights First: This group supports open borders and the rights of illegal aliens; charges that the Patriot Act severely erodes Americans’ civil liberties; has filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of terror suspect Jose Padilla; and deplores the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities.
  90. Human Rights Watch: This group directs a disproportionate share of its criticism at the United States and Israel. It opposes the death penalty in all cases, and supports open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.
  91. I’lam: This anti-Israel NGO seeks “to develop and empower the Arab media and to give voice to Palestinian issues.”
  92. Immigrant Defense Project: To advance the cause of illegal immigrants, the IDP provides immigration law backup support and counseling to New York defense attorneys and others who represent or assist immigrants in criminal justice and immigration systems, as well as to immigrants themselves.
  93. Immigrant Legal Resource Center: This group claims to have helped gain amnesty for some three million illegal aliens in the U.S., and in the 1980s was part of the sanctuary movement which sought to grant asylum to refugees from the failed Communist states of Central America.
  94. Immigrant Workers Citizenship Project: This open-borders organization advocates mass immigration to the U.S.
  95. Immigration Advocates Network: This alliance of immigrant-rights groups seeks to “increase access to justice for low-income immigrants and strengthen the capacity of organizations serving them.”
  96. Immigration Policy Center: IPC is an advocate of open borders and contends that the massive influx of illegal immigrants into America is due to U.S. government policy, since “the broken immigration system […] spurs unauthorized immigration in the first place.”
  97. Independent Media Center: This Internet-based, news and events bulletin board represents an invariably leftist, anti-capitalist perspective and serves as a mouthpiece for anti-globalization/anti-America themes.
  98. Independent Media Institute: IMI administers the SPIN Project (Strategic Press Information Network), which provides leftist organizations with “accessible and affordable strategic communications consulting, training, coaching, networking opportunities and concrete tools” to help them “achieve their social justice goals.”
  99. Institute for America’s Future: IAF supports socialized medicine, increased government funding for education, and the creation of an infrastructure “to ensure that the voice of the progressive majority is heard.”
  100. Institute for New Economic Thinking: Seeking to create a new worldwide “economic paradigm,” this organization is staffed by numerous individuals who favor government intervention in national economies, and who view capitalism as a flawed system.
  101. Institute for Policy Studies: This think tank has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world. Viewing capitalism as a breeding ground for “unrestrained greed,” IPS seeks to provide a corrective to “unrestrained markets and individualism.” Professing an unquestioning faith in the righteousness of the United Nations, it aims to bring American foreign policy under UN control.
  102. Institute for Public Accuracy: This anti-American, anti-capitalist organization sponsored actor Sean Penn’s celebrated visit to Baghdad in 2002. It also sponsored visits to Iraq by Democratic Congressmen Nick Rahall and former Democrat Senator James Abourezk
  103. Institute for Women’s Policy Research: This group views the U.S. as a nation rife with discrimination against women, and publishes research to draw attention to this alleged state of affairs. It also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, stating that “access to abortion is essential to the economic well-being of women and girls.”
  104. International Crisis Group: One of this organization’s leading figures is its Mideast Director, Robert Malley, who was President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs. His analysis of the Mideast conflict is markedly pro-Palestinian.
  105. J Street: This anti-Israel group warns that Israel’s choice to take military action to stop Hamas’ terrorist attacks “will prove counter-productive and only deepen the cycle of violence in the region”
  106. Jewish Funds for Justice: This organization views government intervention and taxpayer funding as crucial components of enlightened social policy. It seeks to redistribute wealth from Jewish donors to low-income communities “to combat the root causes of domestic economic and social injustice.” By JFJ’s reckoning, chief among those root causes are the inherently negative by-products of capitalism – most notably racism and “gross economic inequality.”
  107. Joint Victory Campaign 2004: Founded by George Soros and Harold Ickes, this group was a major fundraising entity for Democrats during the 2004 election cycle. It collected contributions (including large amounts from Soros personally) and disbursed them to two other groups, America Coming Together and the Media Fund, which also worked on behalf of Democrats.
  108. Justice at Stake: This coalition calls for judges to be appointed by nonpartisan, independent commissions in a process known as “merit selection,” rather than elected by the voting public.
  109. LatinoJustice PRLDF: This organization supports bilingual education, the racial gerrymandering of voting districts, and expanded rights for illegal aliens.
  110. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: This group views America as an unremittingly racist nation; uses the courts to mandate race-based affirmative action preferences in business and academia; has filed briefs against the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to limit the wholesale granting of green cards and to identify potential terrorists; condemns the Patriot Act; and calls on Americans to “recognize the contribution” of illegal aliens.
  111. Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: This organization views the United States as a nation rife with racism, sexism, and all manner of social injustice; and it uses legislative advocacy to push for “progressive change” that will create “a more open and just society.”
  112. League of United Latin American Citizens: This group views America as a nation plagued by “an alarming increase in xenophobia and anti-Hispanic sentiment”; favors racial preferences; supports the legalization of illegal Hispanic aliens; opposes military surveillance of U.S. borders; opposes making English America’s official language; favors open borders; and rejects anti-terrorism legislation like the Patriot Act.
  113. League of Women Voters Education Fund: The League supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; supports “motor-voter” registration, which allows anyone with a driver’s license to become a voter, regardless of citizenship status; and supports tax hikes and socialized medicine.
  114. League of Young Voters: This organization seeks to “empowe[r] young people nationwide” to “participate in the democratic process and create progressive political change on the local, state and national level[s].”
  115. Lynne Stewart Defense Committee: IRS records indicate that Soros’s Open Society Institute made a September 2002 grant of $20,000 to this organization. Stewart was the criminal-defense attorney who was later convicted for abetting her client, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, in terrorist activities connected with his Islamic Group.
  116. Machsom Watch: This organization describes itself as “a movement of Israeli women, peace activists from all sectors of Israeli society, who oppose the Israeli occupation and the denial of Palestinians’ rights to move freely in their land.”
  117. MADRE: This international women’s organization deems America the world’s foremost violator of human rights. As such, it seeks to “communicat[e] the real-life impact of U.S. policies on women and families confronting violence, poverty and repression around the world,” and to “demand alternatives to destructive U.S. policies.” It also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
  118. Malcolm X Grassroots Movement: This group views the U.S. as a nation replete with racism and discrimination against blacks; seeks to establish an independent black nation in the southeastern United States; and demands reparations for slavery.
  119. Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition: This group calls for the expansion of civil rights and liberties for illegal aliens; laments that illegal aliens in America are commonly subjected to “worker exploitation”; supports tuition-assistance programs for illegal aliens attending college; and characterizes the Patriot Act as a “very troubling” assault on civil liberties.
  120. Media Fund: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to conceptualize, produce, and place political ads on television, radio, print, and the Internet.
  121. Media Matters for America: This organization is a “web-based, not-for-profit … progressive research and information center” seeking to “systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation.” The group works closely with the Soros-backed Center for American Progress, and is heavily funded by Democracy Alliance, of which Soros is a major financier.
  122. Mercy Corps: Vis a vis the Arab-Israeli conflict, Mercy Corps places all blame for Palestinian poverty and suffering directly on Israel.
  123. Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund: This group advocates open borders, free college tuition for illegal aliens, lowered educational standards to accommodate Hispanics, and voting rights for criminals. In MALDEF’s view, supporters of making English the official language of the United States are “motivated by racism and anti-immigrant sentiments,” while advocates of sanctions against employers reliant on illegal labor seek to discriminate against “brown-skinned people.”
  124. Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein, PC: This influential defender of Big Labor is headed by Democrat operativeHarold Ickes.
  125. Midwest Academy: This entity trains radical activists in the tactics of direct action, targeting, confrontation, and intimidation.
  126. Migration Policy Institute: This group seeks to create “a North America with gradually disappearing border controls … with permanent migration remaining at moderate levels.”
  127. Military Families Speak Out: This group ascribes the U.S. invasion of Iraq to American imperialism and lust for oil.
  128. Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment: This group is the rebranded Missouri branch of the now-defunct, pro-socialist, community organization ACORN.
  129. MoveOn.org: This Web-based organization supports Democratic political candidates through fundraising, advertising, and get-out-the-vote drives.
  130. Ms. Foundation for Women: This group laments what it views as the widespread and enduring flaws of American society: racism, sexism, homophobia, and the violation of civil rights and liberties. It focuses its philanthropy on groups that promote affirmative action for women, unfettered access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, amnesty for illegal aliens, and big government generally.
  131. Muslim AdvocatesOpposed to U.S. counter-terrorism strategies that make use of sting operations and informants, MA characterizes such tactics as forms of “entrapment” that are inherently discriminatory against Muslims.
  132. NARAL Pro-Choice America: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, and works to elect pro-abortion Democrats.
  133. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund: The NAACP supports racial preferences in employment and education, as well as the racial gerrymandering of voting districts. Underpinning its support for race preferences is the fervent belief that white racism in the United States remains an intractable, largely undiminished, phenomenon.
  134. The Nation Institute: This nonprofit entity sponsors leftist conferences, fellowships, awards for radical activists, and journalism internships.
  135. National Abortion Federation: This group opposes any restrictions on abortion at either the state or federal levels, and champions the introduction of unrestricted abortion into developing regions of the world.
  136. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty: This group was established in 1976 as the first “fully staffed national organization exclusively devoted to abolishing capital punishment.”
  137. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy: This group depicts the United States as a nation in need of dramatic structural change financed by philanthropic organizations. It overwhelmingly promotes grant-makers and grantees with leftist agendas, while criticizing their conservative counterparts.
  138. National Committee for Voting Integrity: This group opposes “the implementation of proof of citizenship and photo identification requirements for eligible electors in American elections as the means of assuring election integrity.”
  139. National Council for Research on Women: This group supports big government, high taxes, military spending cuts, increased social welfare spending, and the unrestricted right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
  140. National Council of La Raza: This group lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, stricter hate-crime laws, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens.
  141. National Council of Women’s Organizations: This group views the United States as a nation rife with injustice against girls and women. It advocates high levels of spending for social welfare programs, and supports race and gender preferences for minorities and women in business and academia.
  142. National Immigration Forum: Opposing the enforcement of present immigration laws, this organization urges the American government to “legalize” en masse all illegal aliens currently in the United States who have no criminal records, and to dramatically increase the number of visas available for those wishing to migrate to the U.S. The Forum is particularly committed to opening the borders to unskilled, low-income workers, and immediately making them eligible for welfare and social service programs.
  143. National Immigration Law Center: This group seeks to win unrestricted access to government-funded social welfare programs for illegal aliens.
  144. National Lawyers Guild: This group promotes open borders; seeks to weaken America’s intelligence-gathering agencies; condemns the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties; rejects capitalism as an unviable economic system; has rushed to the defense of convicted terrorists and their abettors; and generally opposes all U.S. foreign policy positions, just as it did during the Cold War when it sided with the Soviets.
  145. National Organization for Women: This group advocates the unfettered right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; seeks to “eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia” from American society; attacks Christianity and traditional religious values; and supports gender-based preferences for women.
  146. National Partnership for Women and Families: This organization supports race- and sex-based preferences in employment and education. It also advocates for the universal “right” of women to undergo taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason.
  147. National Priorities Project: This group supports government-mandated redistribution of wealth — through higher taxes and greater expenditures on social welfare programs. NPP exhorts the government to redirect a significant portion of its military funding toward public education, universal health insurance, environmentalist projects, and welfare programs.
  148. National Public Radio: Founded in 1970 with 90 public radio stations as charter members, NPR is today a loose network of more than 750 U.S. radio stations across the country, many of which are based on college and university campuses. (source)
  149. National Security Archive Fund: This group collects and publishes declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act to a degree that compromises American national security and the safety of intelligence agents.
  150. National Women’s Law Center: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; lobbies against conservative judicial appointees; advocates increased welfare spending to help low-income mothers; and favors higher taxes for the purpose of generating more funds for such government programs as Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, foster care, health care, child-support enforcement, and student loans.
  151. Natural Resources Defense Council: One of the most influential environmentalist lobbying groups in the United States, the Council claims a membership of one million people.
  152. New America Foundation: This organization uses policy papers, media articles, books, and educational events to influence public opinion on such topics as healthcare, environmentalism, energy policy, the Mideast conflict, global governance, and much more.
  153. New Israel Fund: This organization gives support to NGOs that regularly produce reports accusing Israel of human-rights violations and religious persecution.
  154. NewsCorpWatch: A project of Media Matters For America, NewsCorpWatch was established with the help of a $1 million George Soros grant to Media Matters.
  155. Pacifica Foundation: This entity owns and operates Pacifica Radio, awash from its birth with the socialist-Marxist rhetoric of class warfare and hatred for capitalism.
  156. Palestinian Center for Human Rights: This NGO investigates and documents what it views as Israeli human-rights violations against Palestinians.
  157. Peace and Security Funders Group: This is an association of more than 60 foundations that give money to leftist anti-war and environmentalist causes. Its members tend to depict America as the world’s chief source of international conflict, environmental destruction, and economic inequalities.
  158. Peace Development Fund: In PDF’s calculus, the United States needs a massive overhaul of its social and economic institutions. “Recently,” explains PDF, “we have witnessed the negative effects of neo-liberalism and the globalization of capitalism, the de-industrialization of the U.S. and the growing gap between the rich and poor …”
  159. People for the American Way: This group opposes the Patriot Act, anti-terrorism measures generally, and the allegedly growing influence of the “religious right.”
  160. People Improving Communities Through Organizing: This group uses Alinsky-style organizing tactics to advance the doctrines of the religious left.
  161. Physicians for Human Rights: This group is selectively and disproportionately critical of the United States and Israel in its condemnations of human rights violations.
  162. Physicians for Social Responsibility: This is an anti-U.S.-military organization that also embraces the tenets of radical environmentalism.
  163. Planned Parenthood: This group is the largest abortion provider in the United States and advocates taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
  164. Ploughshares Fund: This public grantmaking foundation opposes America’s development of a missile defense system, and contributes to many organizations that are highly critical of U.S. foreign policies and military ventures.
  165. Prepare New York: This group supported the proposed construction of a Muslim Community Center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan – a project known as the Cordoba Initiative, headed by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
  166. Presidential Climate Action Project: PCAP’s mission is to create a new 21st-century economy, completely carbon-free and based largely on renewable energy. A key advisor to the organization is the revolutionary communist Van Jones.
  167. Prison Moratorium Project: This initiative was created in 1995 for the express purpose of working for the elimination of all prisons in the United States and the release of all inmates. Reasoning from the premise that incarceration is never an appropriate means of dealing with crime, it deems American society’s inherent inequities the root of all criminal behavior.
  168. Progressive Change Campaign Committee: This organization works “to elect bold progressive candidates to federal office and to help [them] and their campaigns save money, work smarter, and win more often.”
  169. Progressive States Network: PSN’s mission is to “pass progressive legislation in all fifty states by providing coordinated research and strategic advocacy tools to forward-thinking state legislators.”
  170. Project Vote: This is the voter-mobilization arm of the Soros-funded ACORN. A persistent pattern of lawlessness and corruption has followed ACORN/Project Vote activities over the years.
  171. Pro Publica: Claiming that “investigative journalism is at risk,” this group aims to remedy this lacuna in news publishing by “expos[ing] abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.”
  172. Proteus Fund: This foundation directs its philanthropy toward a number of radical leftwing organizations.
  173. Psychologists for Social Responsibility: This anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-military, anti-American organization “uses psychological knowledge and skills to promote peace with social justice at the community, national and international levels.”
  174. Public Citizen Foundation: Public Citizen seeks increased government intervention and litigation against corporations — a practice founded on the notion that American corporations, like the capitalist system of which they are a part, are inherently inclined toward corruption.
  175. Public Justice Center: Viewing America as a nation rife with injustice and discrimination, this organization engages in legislative and policy advocacy to promote “systemic change for the disenfranchised.”
  176. Rebuild and Renew America Now (a.k.a. Unity ’09): Spearheaded by MoveOn.org and overseen by longtime activist Heather Booth, this coalition was formed to facilitate the passage of President Obama’s “historic” $3.5 trillion budget for fiscal year 2010.
  177. Res Publica: Seeking to advance far-left agendas in places all around the world, RP specializes in “E-advocacy,” or web-based movement-building.
  178. Roosevelt Institute: Proceeding from the premise that free-market capitalism is inherently unjust and prone to periodic collapses caused by its own structural flaws, RI currently administers several major projects aimed at reshaping the American economy to more closely resemble a socialist system.
  179. Secretary of State Project: This project was launched in July 2006 as an independent “527” organization devoted to helping Democrats get elected to the office of Secretary of State in selected swing, or battleground, states.
  180. Sentencing Project: Asserting that prison-sentencing patterns are racially discriminatory, this initiative advocates voting rights for felons.
  181. Social Justice Leadership: This organization seeks to transform an allegedly inequitable America into a “just society” by means of “a renewed social-justice movement.”
  182. Shadow Democratic Party: This is an elaborate network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources — money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy iniatives — to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party towards the left.
  183. Sojourners: This evangelical Christian ministry preaches radical leftwing politics. During the 1980s it championed Communist revolution in Central America and chastised U.S. policy-makers for their tendency “to assume the very worst about their Soviet counterparts.” More recently, Sojourners has taken up the cause of environmental activism, opposed welfare reform as a “mean-spirited Republican agenda,” and mounted a defense of affirmative action.
  184. Southern Poverty Law Center: This organization monitors the activities of what it calls “hate groups” in the United States. It exaggerates the prevalence of white racism directed against American minorities.
  185. State Voices: This coalition helps independent local activist groups in 22 states work collaboratively on a year-round basis, so as to maximize the impact of their efforts.
  186. Talking Transition: This was a two-week project launched in early November 2013 to “help shape the transition” to City Hall for the newly elected Democratic mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio.
  187. Think Progress: This Internet blog “pushes back, daily,” by its own account, against its conservative targets, and seeks to transform “progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.”
  188. Thunder Road Group: This political consultancy, in whose creation Soros had a hand, coordinates strategy for the Media FundAmerica Coming Together, and America Votes.
  189. Tides Foundation and Tides Center: Tides is a major funder of the radical Left.
  190. U.S. Public Interest Research Group: This is an umbrella organization of student groups that support leftist agendas.
  191. Universal Healthcare Action Network: This organization supports a single-payer health care system controlled by the federal government.
  192. Urban Institute: This research organization favors socialized medicine, expansion of the federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners.
  193. USAction Education Fund: USAction lists its priorities as: “fighting the right wing agenda”; “building grassroots political power”; winning “social, racial and economic justice for all”; supporting a system of taxpayer-funded socialized medicine; reversing “reckless tax cuts for millionaires and corporations” which shield the “wealthy” from paying their “fair share”; advocating for “pro-consumer and environmental regulation of corporate abuse”; “strengthening progressive voices on local, state and national issues”; and working to “register, educate and get out the vote … [to] help progressives get elected at all levels of government.”
  194. Voter Participation Center: This organization seeks to increase voter turnout among unmarried women, “people of color,” and 18-to-29-year-olds — demographics that are heavily pro-Democrat.
  195. Voto Latino: This group seeks to mobilize Latin-Americans to become registered voters and political activists.
  196. We Are America Alliance: This coalition promotes “increased civic participation by immigrants” in the American political process.
  197. Working Families Party: An outgrowth of the socialist New Party, WFP seeks to help push the Democratic Party toward the left.
  198. World Organization Against Torture: This coalition works closely with groups that condemn Israeli security measures against Palestinian terrorism.
  199. YWCA World Office, Switzerland: The YWCA opposes abstinence education; supports universal access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; and opposes school vouchers.

B. Organizations that do not receive direct funding from Soros and OSF, but are funded by one or more organizations that do:

  1. Center for Progressive Leadership: Funded by the Soros-bankrolled Democracy Alliance, this anti-capitalist organization is dedicated to training future leftist political leaders.
  2. John Adams Project:This project of the American Civil Liberties Union was accused of: (a) having hired investigators to photograph CIA officers thought to have been involved in enhanced interrogations of terror suspects detained in Guantanamo, and then (b) showing the photos to the attorneys of those suspects, some of whom were senior al-Qaeda operatives.
  3. Moving Ideas Network (MIN): This coalition of more than 250 leftwing activist groups is a partner organization of the Soros-backed Center for American Progress. MIN was originally a project of the Soros-backed American Prospect and, as such, received indirect funding from the Open Society Institute. In early 2006, The American Prospect relinquished control of the Moving Ideas Network.
  4. New Organizing Institute: Created by the Soros-funded MoveOn.org, this group “trains young, technology-enabled political organizers to work for progressive campaigns and organizations.”
  5. Think Progress: This “project” of the American Progress Action Fund, which is a “sister advocacy organization”of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress and Campus Progress, seeks to transform “progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.”
  6. Vote for Change: Coordinated by the political action committee of the Soros-funded MoveOn.org, Vote for Change was a group of 41 musicians and bands that performed concerts in several key election “battleground”states during October 2004, to raise money in support of Democrat John Kerry‘s presidential bid.
  7. Working Families Party: Created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left, this front group for the Soros-funded ACORN functions as a political party that promotes ACORN-friendly candidates.

May I Speak Freely? The Progressives are Playing us.

 Comments Off on May I Speak Freely? The Progressives are Playing us.
Jun 082020
 
ALL Lives Matter

For the past week – I haven’t known what to say. My mind has felt blank.

I grew up in the Twin Cities.  As a young adult, I lived in the neighborhoods where all this is happening.  I shopped at the first Target that burned. 

Most of my family is still in the Twin Cities. Extended family of four different heritages and array of skin tones.

But it isn’t just that.  It’s the insanity of everything that is happening – and there is so much to say that I don’t even know where to begin. 

There is so much to say – that I am at a loss for what to say, if that makes any sense. 

The huge number of lies – the huge number of people believing them.  The disregard for genuine truth, rule of law…

Honest debate – genuine arguments – don’t matter in the midst of this. Truth is irrelevant, because too many people no longer care about documented history, the Constitution, let alone God.  They want what they want – and they won’t let anyone or anything stand in the way. Rage and hate is the rule right now.

– they won’t even agree on the truth of two distinct genders, for heaven sake… 

It isn’t just one single group this is coming from. It is several factions of diverse background working together – all under the umbrella of ‘progressive.” In some cases, the only thing they have in common is a disdain for Jesus Christ, Capitalism, and/or historical America. After the Progressives attain the power they seek, they will get busy destroying each other, much like Hitler destroyed those that had helped him early on.

There is a claim that some right-wing group that no one has ever heard of was instigating some of the riots. I don’t believe it. People who honestly believe in God and rule of law DON’T do that, plain and simple. But I also don’t believe it because no one had ever heard of the blamed group before. I believe it was made up – much like the many other things the extreme left has made up over the last eight years or so.

The demand coming from the Minneapolis city council that they dismantle the police force and replace it with… ?  They won’t say what they are replacing it with – but don’t doubt they have already decided. Look at the instigator – former Congressman, now state Attorney General Ellison’s son – who is on the Minneapolis City Council. Look at the number of Muslims now in upper seats of leadership in the Twin Cities. This is now the power voting block in Minnesota.

Of course they have thought deeply about what to replace the police force with. They intend to implement a form of sharia law – only they will start out with just calling it some type of Community ‘something’.  They won’t use the word sharia – at least not right away. 

But even if it is a peaceful ‘force’ to start with – do not be naive enough to believe any ‘force’ can or will remain perfectly objective and fair for any extended period of time. And if the new ‘force’ isn’t operating 100% within Constitutional Rule of Law, what then? Many of those currently demanding the dismantling of the Minneapolis police force have already made it clear their dislike of ‘white’ Americans.

They’ve played the more foolish Americans so well, the Progressives have even succeeded at getting ‘white’ Americans to profess their disdain for white Americans, and major corporations to grovel at their feet.

This truly is a terrifying, terrible time for America.  We are truly on the edge.

If the Progressives can’t win the November election by legal means – they will attempt to do it illegally – and if that doesn’t work, the true fascists that they are, they intend to do it through violence.  That much is clear.

This makes it no different than when Hitler’s brown-shirts were intimidating the opposition in the early 1930’s.    

The Progressives are evil incarnate – it is everything we have always been warned about.  

I am glad my father, who was born in Breslau in 1929, passed away four years ago – so he didn’t have to live through it twice. 

God be with us all.

Dear Lord God – please intervene and save us and our nation. We ask this in the Holy Name of Jesus Christ.

Antonin Scalia – On American Exceptionalism

 Comments Off on Antonin Scalia – On American Exceptionalism
Mar 072020
 

October 5, 2011

Paragraph Outline:

Antonin Scalia – On American Exceptionalism

  1. I speak to law students, college students and even high school students about the Constitution because I feel we aren’t teaching it very well. I speak to students from the best law schools – people presumably especially interested in the law and I ask how many of you have read the Federalist Papers.  Hands will go up – and I say, no, not just number 48 or the big ones, but cover to cover.  Never more than about 5%. 
    • That is very sad.  Especially if you are interested in the Constitution. Here is a document that says what the Framers of it thought they were doing.  It is such a profound exposition of political science that it is studied in political science courses in Europe.   Yet we have raised a generation of Americans that are not familiar with it..  [Just one generation?  It is more than that. Even less so the anti-federalist papers, which were responses published at the same time, but even fewer people have heard of those.]
  2. What do you think is the reason America is such a free country? What is it in our Constitution that makes us what we are?
    • The answer most would say is Freedom of Speech, Freedom of press, etc from the Bill of Rights.
    • But every Banana Republic has a bill of rights.  Every “president for life” has a bill of rights. The USSR had a bill of rights that was [written] much better than ours.
    • But these are just words on paper… what our Framers would call a “parchment guarantee. Our own Bill of Rights was a type of “after-thought.”
    • The point is – that the Soviet’s real constitution – the structure of the entity – did not prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. When that happens – the game is over.
  3. The real key to the distinctiveness of America is the Structure of our government
    • One part of it is the independence of our judiciary.
    • Very few countries in the world that have a bicameral legislature. England has a house of Lords, but the House of Lords has very little power.  They can make the House of Commons pass a bill a second time.  France has a senate: it is honorific.  Italy has a senate: it is honorific. Very few countries have two bodies in the legislature that are equally powerful. That is a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know – to get the same language through two different bodies elected in a different fashion.
    • Very few countries in the world have a separately elected Chief Executive. Sometimes I go to Europe and talk about separation of powers – and I find that all I am really talking about is independence of the judiciary because the Europeans don’t even try to divide the two political powers – the legislature and the Chief Executive. In all the parliamentary countries – the Chief Executive is a creature of the legislature – the ‘Prime’ minister of all the ministers. There is never any disagreement between them (the majority party) and the Prime Minister. When there is a disagreement – the parliament just kicks the Prime Minister out. They have a ‘no confidence vote,’ a new election, and they get a Prime Minister who agrees with the legislature.
  4. The Europeans look at our system and think – “Well – sometimes it passes one house but not the other house, sometimes the other house is in the control of another party, or it passes both and then there is this president who has veto power… and they look at this and say “it is gridlock.” 
    • And I hear Americans saying this now-a-days – and there is a lot of it going around. They talk about a ‘dysfunctional” government because there is disagreement – and the Framers would have said, “YES!  That’s exactly the way we set it up.  We WANTED this to be contradicting power.” because the main ill that beset us – as Hamilton said in the federalist, when he talked about a separate senate, he said, “Yes, it seems inconvenient, but in as much as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won’t be so bad.”  This was 1787 – he didn’t KNOW what an excess of legislation was.
    • So unless Americans can appreciate that – and learn to love the separation of powers – which means learning to love the gridlock – which the Framers believed would be the main protection of minorities – the MAIN protection. If a bill is about to be passed that really comes down hard on some minority, they think it is terribly unfair, it doesn’t take much to throw a monkey wrench into this complex system.
  5. So Americans should learn to appreciate that – and they should learn to love the gridlock. It is there for a reason – so that the legislation that gets out will be good legislation. [hopefully. It was the hoped purpose, anyway].

Scalia, Antonin. “On American Exceptionalism.” Presentation to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington DC, 2011.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia delivers a statement concerning ‘American Exceptionalism’ before a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing. Remarks delivered 5 October 2011.

Watch – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd–UO0

American constitutional government will die unless great spiritual awakening occurs, scholar says

 Comments Off on American constitutional government will die unless great spiritual awakening occurs, scholar says
Feb 262020
 
American constitutional government will die unless great spiritual awakening occurs, scholar says

Murray went to on to say that it would be great if what used to be called a “religious great awakening” would happen again and inspire substantial changes in behavior in the population,…. Yet the scholar is not holding out hope that such a thing will happen in the U.S. or in Europe, which is on course to die out culturally. However, he said, neither can ongoing secularization endure.

How Founding Fathers Who Loved the God of Liberty & Their Freedom Built the Freest of Free Nations

 Comments Off on How Founding Fathers Who Loved the God of Liberty & Their Freedom Built the Freest of Free Nations
Feb 202020
 
How Founding Fathers Who Loved the God of Liberty & Their Freedom Built the Freest of Free Nations

“They’re all gathered together. They’ve never been in the same room, they’re meeting each other for the first time. John Adams meets this big tall Virginian, George Washington. And they don’t even know how to shake hands. John Adams comes up to shake his hand and George Washington steps back. Because Virginians don’t shake hands. They give a bow,” Lillback explained.

To Save America

 Comments Off on To Save America
Jan 242020
 
To Save America

Democrats seem to underestimate how strongly conservatives feel about this – as well as underestimate how strongly conservatives felt about many of President Obama’s policies. As long as the Obama administration was enacting policies that liberal America embraced – they closed their eyes and pretended the rest of America didn’t matter. President Trump, on the other hand, said they do matter.

Headlines MSM didn’t show you over the last year…

 Comments Off on Headlines MSM didn’t show you over the last year…
Nov 062018
 
Headlines MSM didn't show you over the last year...

‘In case you missed it’ – Just some of the many headlines that that you might have missed if you were watching only CNN, NBC, or ABC… [If we haven’t added the link yet – just copy and paste the headline in your browser to search for it.] Massive Crowd Spontaneously Sings “Amazing Grace” after […]

Sick, liberal policies were being pushed down our throats. That’s why we voted for Trump. It’s as simple as that.

 Comments Off on Sick, liberal policies were being pushed down our throats. That’s why we voted for Trump. It’s as simple as that.
Nov 102016
 
Sick, liberal policies were being pushed down our throats.  That's why we voted for Trump. It’s as simple as that.

Many women do NOT feel safe with a man in the room – yet their feelings do not matter. Talk about misogyny – it is Obama, Clinton and their supporters who discount the feelings of women as being “overly dramatic” and “homophobic

George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796

 Comments Off on George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796
Jul 072020
 
George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796

Regarding principles of Good Character, he said: “How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.”

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON NATIVE CHILDREN HOLDS FIRST OFFICIAL MEETING

 Comments Off on NATIONAL COMMISSION ON NATIVE CHILDREN HOLDS FIRST OFFICIAL MEETING
Dec 292019
 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON NATIVE CHILDREN HOLDS FIRST OFFICIAL MEETING

Over the next couple of years, the Commission will be holding hearings in and reviewing documentation from tribal communities throughout the country to hear from Native children, their families, tribal leaders, and community members.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

 Comments Off on AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP
Oct 142019
 
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

I appeal to you as one sinner to another, because I, too, have spoken in ways not compatible with the purity of Christ. Confession and repentance will bring an uplifting and renewing grace, and personal revival.
Again, thank you for your courageous defense of liberty and the right to life, among your other actions that will bless the nation. Respectfully, Wallace Henley

Udall Bill is a Fraudulent Voting Booth ‘Fix’

 Comments Off on Udall Bill is a Fraudulent Voting Booth ‘Fix’
May 282019
 
Udall Bill is a Fraudulent Voting Booth 'Fix'

S. 739 and H.R. 1694 – – ‘’Native American Voting Rights Act of 2019’’ – appears in reality to be a ”Tribal Gov’t Right to Steal Votes of Tribal Members Act.”

Open Letter to Senator Heidi Heitkamp

 Comments Off on Open Letter to Senator Heidi Heitkamp
Sep 282018
 
Open Letter to Senator Heidi Heitkamp

I am wondering why you haven’t made a statement calling for civility and respect.  Do Democrats want the developing chasm between Americans to continue to widen? Or do you, Senator Heitkamp, value unity and respectful dialogue?

Hillary: Just the Face of the Deep DNC Corruption

 Comments Off on Hillary: Just the Face of the Deep DNC Corruption
Mar 172018
 
Hillary: Just the Face of the Deep DNC Corruption

America is fed up with Hillary’s political manipulation and demeaning comments Support for President Trump is growing now that people see his policies are working. He meant what he said on the campaign trail; it wasn’t just the usual rhetoric we had become used to. But Hillary, apparently feeling angry and entitled, still doesn’t get it. […]