GUEST COMMENTARY

More Lawfare by the Left Against the Executive Branch

More Lawfare by the Left Against the Executive Branch

by Bob Bennett •

“Lawfare” is the use of often-frivolous lawsuits to intimidate, silence and stymie opponents. The absurd suits of blue states against the president, in order to block his immigration orders are good examples.

Here’s yet another reason why Congress should strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration–a power Congress does possess:

Lawfare by blue states and DC, fighting to keep DACA. A CNN article on the story includes what may be the most idiotic statement of the year:

“I filed suit against President Trump and his administration to protect DACA because Dreamers are just as American as first lady Melania Trump,” New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement.

This guy is a lawyer? Melania Trump is a citizen, who entered the country legally; the DACA beneficiaries are here only by virtue of an unconstitutional memo from former (and present) community organizer, Barack Obama, who even admitted he lacked the authority to do that.

If we can believe CNN, the following states (and DC) are joining in this folly: New Mexico, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

Although the real strategy is the time-honored tool of the Left: “Let’s just do whatever we please,” supposedly, the grounds that may be used are that President Trump violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which lays out a lengthy process that requires ample notice and time for the public to comment on substantive federal rulemaking,” writes CNN.

You may remember that in Texas, et al. v United States, the district court under Judge Hanen held, in part that the Obama Administration had not followed the procedures dictated by the APA, as grounds for an injunction of DAPA, Obama’s other unconstitutional amnesty for parents of legal residents and citizens. I haven’t checked, but it’s likely that he violated the APA with DACA also. So this seems a pointless strategy.

The Obama Admin appealed the injunction to the Fifth Circuit, which held in part that:

“The [Immigration & Naturalization Act] prescribes how parents may derive an immigration classification on the basis of their child’s status and which classes of aliens can achieve deferred action and eligibility for work authorization. DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined [by the lower court].”

And:

“Even with special deference” to the Secretary [of DHS], the INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.”

The Fifth Circuit also quoted Obama, making this childlike assertion:

“As the district court recognized, the President explicitly stated that it was the failure of Congress to enact such a program that prompted him . . . to change the law.’”

When the case reached the Supreme Court, it was deadlocked 4–4, so the Fifth Circuit decision stands, and this is settled law.

DACA has the same defects as DAPA, so if these suits reach the Supreme Court, the same four justices will find in the same way, and Gorsuch will surely agree with them. So IMO, this action is either malicious prosecution, seditious conspiracy or both.

Bob Bennett is a New York-based writer who has written op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post, and has appeared on Fox and Friends and America’s Newsroom. He has traveled widely and written travel pieces for the NY Post, a cover article for the Jewish Press, and an op-ed for the medical journal Cancer Biotherapy & Radioimmunotherapy. Bob was also award-winning producer of a travel radio show heard on New York stations: WMCA, WNWK and 50,000 watt WOR and the national Sky Angel Network. He now blogs on Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Community and Red State Diaries.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
The Truth of White Privilege

The Truth of White Privilege

By David Risselada •

I remember being introduced to the concept of white privilege while attending Northeastern State University in Broken Arrow Oklahoma. I was in a social work program where the professors were all left wing zealots working feverishly to influence the political opinions of gullible students. One day during class, one of the professors made the subtle suggestion that people had racist family members if they didn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008. This was in 2010, during the Obamacare debates. From this point on the entire curriculum was dominated by the concept of a racist America whose white majority had special protections and privileges from institutions designed to benefit only them, while minorities were left to suffer. White men were referred to as oppressors, minorities were victims and every possible thing that could be wrong in their lives was attributed to white privilege. I understood at this point that this was part of a larger agenda to silence pro-American opinions and push forward a socialist agenda by dividing and conquering.

During the intro to social work semester students were required to write a position paper on white privilege. We were to read Peggy McIntosh’s’ White Male, White Privilege and offer our thoughts on the subject. My paper reflected my opposition to this nonsense by citing how programs like affirmative action can actually be harmful to minorities by selecting them purely on a required numbering system as opposed to a merit based system. This has led to highly qualified minority students being denied access to higher learning institutions simply because the school was in a hurry to meet the required quota. If this isn’t an institution based on racism I don’t know what is. As a result of my paper I was told I wasn’t fit to be in the social work profession because I didn’t believe in social justice and white privilege.

Today it is overwhelmingly obvious that there is an agenda to use race as a dividing tactic to bring America down and force a new system of government upon us. The left is determined to erase what they see as America’s racist history by tearing down monuments that they insist represent white supremacism. They won’t stop there, if they are successful in this endeavor they will keep pushing until our constitution is nothing but a burning heap of ashes.

The issue of race has long been used as a tool to divide nations and push unpopular agendas. The term racism itself was in fact, invented by Russian revolutionary Leon Trotskyto discredit all who stood in the way of the communist agenda. It is being used in much the same way now. Anyone who stands in opposition to the left’s attempts to discredit America and implement socialism is labeled as a racist who benefits from white privilege. The concept is so far out of hand that blond hair is now considered privileged.

Racism in America used to be considered hatred for someone simply because they are a different color or nationality. Today, the concept has taken on new meanings as it is considered racist to believe that minorities can be successful on their own without government programs. Minorities are taught they are victims and encouraged to hang on to this victimhood status. Black people who step away from this enslaving mentality are discredited as “Uncle Toms.” In one of my social work classes we discussed a lesson involving a depressed black woman. She was financially successful yet, depressed nonetheless. The lesson ultimately suggested that she could alleviate her depression by casting aside her desires to adapt to the white man’s world and embrace her historical roots of oppression. I vehemently opposed this idea and was shocked when people in class took offense to my doing so. I was arguing that a black woman didn’t need to be a victim and people in class were offended by that. That is the result of decades of leftist indoctrination.

The left works incessantly to convince gullible Americans that right wing conservatives are racist and full of hate. Most of us know that the history of racism in America can be traced solely to the Democrat party. The KKK was founded by the Democratic party. Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the federal government. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, an organization that kills over three hundred black babies a day, was a Democrat who advocated for the elimination of so called weaker races, and finally, President Lyndon Johnson instituted the great society program which ultimately did nothing less than enslave blacks and their future generations to government welfare. In reference to this program Johnson said he would get those ni**ers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years. Over fifty years later we have generations of black people living in run down ghettos whose districts are controlled by Democrats. They are dependent on government welfare and taught that there is no way that they can over come their oppression because of white privilege. Was this part of a larger agenda to perpetuate a permanent underclass that could later be used as a revolutionary army?

To believe in white privilege is to believe that one race is ultimately superior to another.  In other words, you would have to be a white supremacist in the first place to believe in white privilege. Do you believe minorities need special government treatment to get a hand up or do you believe they are just as capable as you are? Through the pushing of white privilege the left is trying to convince society that minorities need special treatment, that more money needs to be spent on programs to help them succeed. If the Democrats believed in total equality why would these programs be needed? The left has systematically destroyed the free will of black people by constantly teaching them they are victims. That is the truth. Now, their victimhood status is being used to launch and justify revolutionary violence based on the false notions of oppression. This is the truth of white privilege.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” 

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Was Charlottesville a False Flag?

Was Charlottesville a False Flag?

by Bob Bennett •

Was the unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday, August 12th a riot by white supremacists, as the Media has labeled it, or something even more sinister? Was it a false-flag attack orchestrated by the Left and Democrats to permanently damage the president and compel Americans to view everything through the lens of racism?

How the Media purposefully misreported the incident

In the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, the ever-Trump-unfriendly media has focused on the president’s failure to immediately call out those protesting the Robert E. Lee statue’s removal, many—but not all—of whom were white nationalists and neo-Nazis. On the day of the incident, he said, “‘We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides,’ quoted the Los Angeles Times, “then, looking into the camera, he repeated, ‘On many sides.’”

After a storm of criticism for not calling out the Klan, et al., the next day the White House issued a statement saying “of course” the president had included in his condemnation “white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups,” and that he “called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.” But the press continued to rip him for, as the LA Times put it, “not denouncing the far-right groups that initiated the violence, and the man who drove into a crowd of counter-protesters that left Heather Heyer dead.”

After again blasting “the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups,” on Monday, and the Media’s continued harsh criticism, Trump told the press on Tuesday, that he didn’t initially attack those groups because “unlike you,” he waited for the facts to come out before making a more specific call-out, and the death hadn’t occurred yet.

On Wednesday, August 16th the leftist Media berated the president throughout the day for saying there was violence on both sides—an indisputable fact. That fact has consistently been ignored—no, concealed—by the press. The front page of the Wall Street Journal, for example, on Thursday reported on CEOs deciding to dissolve one of Trump’s business councils and his dissolution of the other council, using the boldest headline on the page, screaming, “CEOs Scrap Trump Panels.”

The story said the CEOs made the decision after Trump’s Tuesday press conference “during which he appeared to apportion blame equally between white supremacy groups and counterprotesters.” No mention that the “counterprotesters” were largely composed of the violent far-left group Antifa, a group that arose in Germany where they worked with the government to demonize critics of Muslim migration. The name of the group was also omitted in a second story on page A5, also with the largest headline on the page: “Trump Remarks Rattle His Staff, Threaten Agenda.”

Readers had to flip to page A13, to find the truth about Charlottesville, in an opinion piece by Daniel Henninger:

It was a pitched battle between two organized mobs—the white nationalist groups on the right and the badly underreported Antifa, or “antifascist,” groups on the hard-as-stone left. Stories about Antifa’s organized violence are trickling out now, but there is no conceivable journalistic defense for having waited so long to inform the public about this dangerous movement.

The misreporting of the Charlottesville riot, casting it as a riot of the alt-right and neo-Nazis, has been used to cast the president as a racist for blaming both sides for the violence—even after having previously calling out the white supremacists, etc. For example, CNN’s Jim Acosta said “We saw the president’s true colors today, and I’m not sure they were red, white and blue.” This miscasting has been used to demand that conservatives like Bannon, Miller and Gorka be expelled from the White House.

In truth, it’s not at all settled that the “far-right groups” initiated the violence, unless just being labeled “alt-right” and being there in Charlottesville constitutes initiating violence. Jason Kessler, the organizer of the rally, called Unite the Right, indicated that his group was attacked by the Left, composed largely of Antifa, the same group that led a violent protest in DC on Inauguration Day and another in Berkeley, protesting Milo Yanopoulos.

Jordan Schachtel, in Conservative Review, characterizes Antifa as “an extremist, left-wing group,” that “has viciously beaten supporters of the president and attacked police officers, and Antifa’s mob violence has resulted in the destruction of private property nationwide.”

He reports that “Much of the mainstream Left has chosen to link up with radical, fringe organizations that agree with much of Antifa’s communist/socialist/anarchist ideology.

Their mission is to undermine the Trump Administration, he says; but of course, all of these groups mean to undermine capitalism.

And it seems that the police are making a practice of standing back and allowing Antifa to do as it pleases. What’s that all about?

Did Virginia authorities deliberately allow Antifa to attack Unite the Right?

The Wall Street Journal wrote, “Mr. Kessler contended that the police intentionally held back Saturday as counter-protestors attacked people trying to attend a rally to protest the removal of a statue of confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.” (The police also stood by and watched as protestors pulled down a century-old Confederate statue in Durham, NC the next day.)

“‘They were using aerosol cans as flamethrowers, they were pointing rifles at us, they were throwing bricks at our vehicles,’ Mr. Kessler said. ‘And the Charlottesville police department stood down and allowed it all to happen.’” A police spokesperson denied there was an order to stand down.

Another reporter described it this way:

“Hundreds and hundreds of Antifa, weird BLM, idiots dressed like clowns,” said Goldy, a reporter for the Canadian news site The Rebel.media. She continued:

The police failed to uphold the law. They failed to keep the opposing groups separate even when tensions ran red hot, and they failed to be present in the moments before the scene became deadly.

You see, the car attack was not the only horrific scene that day. There were countless incidents of illegal deployment of mace, guns drawn, sticks and flag poles used–and from left-wing demonstrators more often than the right.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The NY Times tweeted:

https://twitter.com/SherylNYT/status/896575560650035200

Even the ACLU said the police stood back and watched. Here are portions of a statement from the Virginia ACLU’s executive director, Claire Gastanaga:

We are horrified by the violence that took place in Charlottesville on Saturday and the tragic loss of life that resulted from it. The ACLU of Virginia does not support violence. We do not support Nazis. We support the Constitution and laws of the United States….

We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest. It failed to do so.… Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone….

It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. The policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was there and brought concerns directly to the secretary of public safety and the head of the Virginia State Police about the way that the barricades in the park limiting access by the arriving demonstrators and the lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counter-protesters on the street were contributing to the potential of violence. They did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an ‘unlawful assembly’ and clear the area. [Emphasis in the original.]

She also said that “An affidavit from the police chief said that they expected twice as many counter-protesters (2,000) as protesters (1,000).”

The Virginia ACLU also tweeted this:

Since authorities expected Antifa to outnumber the statue protestors, questions arise about what the Virginia State Police reportedly did, after declaring an unlawful assembly, pursuant to a declared State of Emergency, presumably by the Democrat Virginia governor, Terry McAuliffe—a longtime Clinton ally. The Mayor of Charlottesville, Michael Signer, is also a Democrat.

Pax Dickinson, writing in a Daily Caller op-ed, lays out in detail the events leading up to the violence, including an easy-to-comprehend diagram overlaid on a Google Maps image. He was a speaker in Kessler’s group, which was confined by barriers into two pens, in the park. “The barricade layout was as police described to organizers it would be, and speakers received a briefing on this the day before.” Virginia State Police controlled the north, east and west sides of the park. “To the south was an uncontrolled chaos full of Antifa.”

He adds that “Contact between the two sides was isolated to those positions and relatively under control from my vantage point…Shortly after all rally attendees were present in the park, word began to spread that a State of Emergency had been declared, presumably by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. At my position in Pen 2, people were confused by this. It seemed unnecessary and preemptive since the rally seemed fairly well under control at this point.”

After a few minutes, Dickinson wrote, Virginia State Police announced over a loudspeaker that they had been declared an unlawful assembly, and were instructed to leave the park or be arrested.

“We’re pushed through the barricade at the south end of 1st St. and onto Market St., which was lined on both sides with mobs of screaming Antifa with no police presence whatsoever. We ran west on Market St, running a gauntlet of Antifa throwing bottles, sticks, and rocks.”

Hawk Newsome, president of Black Lives Matter of Greater NY, told CNN: “The police actually allowed us to square off against each other,” Newsome said. “There were fights and the police were standing a block away the entire time. It’s almost as if they wanted us to fight each other.”

The insanity of what the VSP did, obviously under orders, points to a false flag.

I see this episode as the denial of First Amendment rights by state authorities and using Antifa to punish the group they disagreed with.

The First Amendment trashed

What has been forgotten, in the media-driven furor in the wake of the Charlottesville, VA violence is the First Amendment. The Constitution protects speech, so long as it doesn’t incite “imminent lawless action.” [Brandenburg v Ohio].

That protection includes hate speech, pursuant to the SCOTUS ruling, R.A.V. v City of St. Paul.

In that case, teenagers who had burned a cross on the lawn of a black family were charged under a local ordinance “which prohibits the display of a symbol which ‘arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender,’ said oyez.org. In short, though it may be odious, speech cannot be barred solely because of its content.

In R.A.V., the High Court added that “Government has no authority ‘to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules.’”

But that’s the very thing the Virginia and the city of Charlottesville did, last weekend. Why didn’t I didn’t mention that Kessler is a white supremacist, as the MSM has labeled him? Because it makes no difference: under the Constitution: he had a right to speak.

If you think the loathsome views of white supremacists and Nazis should be an exception to the First Amendment, answer this: Who decides what’s loathsome—Antifa? CAIR?

Photo credit: By Cville dog – Own work, Public Domain

 

Bob Bennett is a New York-based writer who has written op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post, and has appeared on Fox and Friends and America’s Newsroom. He has traveled widely and written travel pieces for the NY Post, a cover article for the Jewish Press, and an op-ed for the medical journal Cancer Biotherapy & Radioimmunotherapy. Bob was also award-winning producer of a travel radio show heard on New York stations: WMCA, WNWK and 50,000 watt WOR and the national Sky Angel Network. He now blogs on Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Community and Red State Diaries.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Manufactured Discontent for the Illusion of Conflict

Manufactured Discontent for the Illusion of Conflict

By David Risselada •

America, despite the election of Donald Trump, is still in a lot of trouble. The average American believes that there exists an epic struggle between two ideologically opposed sides, battling it out for the heart and soul of the nation. A false paradigm of Republicans and Democrats applying the principles of manufactured chaos in order to force change in their favor. They fail to understand that they are thinking in a box that is very much controlled by this false paradigm and most of what they believe is a carefully contrived circus show designed to control their opinions.

Since the airing of H.G. Wells’ radio broadcast, The War of the Worlds, social scientists have been using the media as a psychopolitical weapon in order to influence public opinion. This is an art that has long been mastered and is being used effectively to not only control what people think, but to keep them solidly rooted in their ideological camp for the purpose of creating conflict. The inability to see the wrong doings of a persons chosen candidate is a good example.

If America is ever to return to the true principles of liberty and justice they must realize that their minds are being subverted and their choices are being guided by those skilled in behavioral manipulation techniques. The following is a quote highlighting the effectiveness of such manipulation-

“Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished … The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that influences of the home are ‘obstructive’ and verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective … It is for the future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810

Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB agent, once described a process the Communists used to undermine a nation that has been marked for ideological conquest. This process is known as ideological subversion and it is being applied here in the United States on a massive scale. The purpose of ideological subversion is to change everyone’s perception of reality by inundating a culture with disinformation. The end goal is to create a society that is unable to articulate its values, defend its principles and stand for truth.

In essence, this is the role of the mainstream media.

They are currently keeping everybody dumbed down and tuned in to the fake Russian collusion story in an effort to…..brace yourself now, keep everyone from realizing that the new boss is no different than the old boss. It is fake opposition designed to keep people diametrically opposed to one another because the system is designed to progress through chaos and conflict. At the very least it is the Democrat party and establishment Rinos attempting to give the impression they are working for their voters.

Consider the fact that just like Obama supporters, Trump supporters are blind to the fact that he is reversing on many campaign policies, many of which were key to his becoming president. For example, despite the promises Trump made to return jobs to American workers he actually just increased the number of H-2B visa workers to fill seasonal jobs. This brings the number up from 66, 000 to 81,000. That is 81,000 jobs going to foreign workers because they will work for less than an American worker will. President Trump is also signaling that he may reverse his position on the Paris Climate Accord as well. Furthermore, the travel ban that Trump has put into place is nothing more than a list of countries that the Obama administration had already listed as terrorist hotspots. The outrage that ensued was nothing more than manufactured discontent designed to give the illusion of conflict. This keeps the giant from truly awakening because they think Trump is working for them when in reality, its all a sideshow and nothing in the end will have changed.

Finally, just as the quote above suggests, you could throw the evidence in the people’s faces over and over again but because they have been so thoroughly conditioned to believe this ideological divide exists between Trump and the establishment they won’t believe it, even when it’s too late. Donald Trump is and always has been a Democrat who advocates for single payer health care.

Many readers will scoff at this article and call me a liberal. That’s fine, the evidence speaks for itself. In truth I am neither for or against Donald Trump, I just refuse to believe that every election cycle I have to put all of my faith in one man and support him blindly despite the fact he fails to deliver on his promises. We as Americans have a responsibility to question our elected officials, not believe everything they tell us. It is up to us to research the truth and demand that the people we put in office live up to the values we put them there to uphold. Instead, too many of us get wrapped up in this political psychodrama attempting to control our thoughts and actions so we ultimately don’t know what to think and what values to defend. American values have been so thoroughly discredited and demonized that many people are afraid to express them, let alone attempt to defend them.

Time is short America, please read the links provided as well as the links within the links. There is enough evidence to suggest that what I am saying here is the truth.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” 

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Chugging Along to Single Payer

Chugging Along to Single Payer

By David Risselada •

Democrats sure have a big lesson in humility coming to them. Don’t they understand that the more they lie and discredit our country the more likely they are to lose everything in 2018? That’s fine incidentally, I hope they lose every remaining seat they have. The only problem is Republicans are becoming more like Democrats everyday, especially in their efforts to pass a universal health care bill. Unless we learn how to control the narrative and articulate our principles, this selling out of our rights will continue to chug along on the fundamental transformation choo-choo train. Which incidentally, Trump was supposed to stop.

After realizing their attempts to convince the public of a mythical Trump/Russia collusion have failed the Democrats are now focusing their efforts on the GOP health care bill in an effort to destroy the opposition. It is a real spectacle to watch too. Democrats are claiming that the bill will leave millions dead and millions more without care while conservatives are upset because it is nothing more than Obamacare lite.

This is the perfect example of our false right/left paradigm that controls our dialogue. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is reportedly looking for a way to put penalties for being uninsured back into the bill which is one of the biggest reasons Americans demanded an end to Obamacare in the first place. No,there is nothing different about this bill and Mark Levin is correct in his assessment that it will lead us yet one more inch closer to single payer health care. Sadly, many Americans refuse to acknowledge the truth that President Trump wrote a book where he said America must have single payer care. In fact, he specifically stated that he is conservative on most issues but liberal when it comes to health care. He has fallen for the lie that socialized medicine is a better solution than the free market system.

“We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.” (Donald Trump, The America We Deserve)

Sadly, after years of indoctrination in our public schools young Americans know very little about the free market. Instead they have been brought up in a world where they are “oppressed” by the U.S. capitalist system. They have been trained to be liberal activists fighting for socialist issues like universal health care. According to the left, health care is a human right. Health care can not legitimately be a human right because it requires someone else give up their labor to provide a service. In fact, when government controls health care that service is seldom reimbursed at the rate it is really worth because government can’t afford to pay it.

In all cases where universal health care plans are instituted the quality of care goes down while the cost goes up. The main reason for this is money. Liberals fail to understand that government’s are not in the business of creating wealth, only redistributing what the private sector creates. As the old saying goes, socialism works great until you run out of other people’s money. Eventually that is exactly what happens.

Many Americans look at Europe’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, also known as NICE, as a model for how they think socialized medicine would work. What they have heard their whole lives is that everybody in Europe has free health care. To some extent that is true; however, what they are lacking is actual access to life saving treatments and the ability to choose it on their own. The government bureaucrats control everything from what types of drugs NICE will prescribe to which type of treatments will be offered. If it is something they do not consider to be cost effective it simply is not an option unless one can afford it themselves. In fact, when governments run health care they have the power, because they control the money, to choose what the value of human life is. In Europe they have a formula called the Quality-Adjusted Life Care. This is the formula used to determine how much it will cost per year, to keep a patient alive and whether it is worth the cost.

According to pri.org the maximum the European health care system will pay out is 47,000 per quality adjusted year gained. This is because health care in Europe, like in other socialist countries, is rationed. It has to be rationed for one simple reason, it is being paid for by money being taken from the public in the form of taxes and redistributed throughout the health system. In a socialized health care system there is no wealth being created; therefore, money is tight.

“We have a limited budget for health care, voted by Parliament every year, and we have to live within our means,” said Michael Rawlins, chairman of a government agency called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

This is basically what the whole idea of “death panels” was all about when Obamacare was originally being passed. Bureaucrats controlling your health decisions and having the power to decide what your life is worth. What conservatives are arguing for is a system where the patients not only control these decisions but can afford on their own to determine what their lives are worth and pay the bill without the burdening hand of government. Until government gets out of the way this will never be the case.

We gave the Republicans everything they said they needed to repeal Obamacare yet they are poised to continue this push towards single payer. At this point it is likely that this trend is irreversible.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” David currently writes for Western Free Press.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Corrupted Means Always Corrupt the Ends

Corrupted Means Always Corrupt the Ends

By David Risselada

Democrats have really trapped themselves in a corner, haven’t they? It was all too obvious that the constant anti-American rhetoric they have been pushing would result in the kind of political violence we witnessed today. For years, ever since being a student in a radical left wing social work program, this author has been warning anyone who would listen that this was the direction we were going. The only problem is that no one was listening.

Think about it a moment; for decades now the radical left has controlled our institutions of lower learning while teaching students that they were oppressed victims of an evil, selfish, racist, sexist, homophobic capitalistic society. One that no less, caters to the privileged white man more than any other. They have ridiculed Christianity while removing it altogether from the public school system. They have replaced a traditional understanding of what is right and wrong with moral relativism which allows them to justify any action based on the view points of particular cultures or worldviews.

Isn’t it ironic? A political party who all but removed God from their political platform while pushing hateful lies to destroy their opposition wants us to believe they prayed for the Republicans? It seems that the idea of ends justifying the means is coming back to bite them right in the square of their proverbial donkey.

Alinsky always taught that believing corrupted means would corrupt the ends was a misguided principle, and that corrupting one’s self was the greatest act of morality if one was truly interested in pursuing the greater good. Well here we are, the Democrats have certainly corrupted themselves to levels unseen before and all we have to show for it are disgruntled Americans who believe Republicans want everyone to die because we are all selfish, racist, women hating Islamophobes who don’t want anyone having health care. The sad thing is liberals really believed they would have the opportunity to create a perfect world as a result of these hateful lies. Such is the way I suppose.

As usual, Democrats have come out with cries for gun control. What they fail to understand is that it was their constant politicization of tragedies such as this that cost them the election in the first place. Please, by all means keep calling for gun control and we will see whatever remaining Democrat seats there are left lost to pro-gun Republicans in 2018.

The issue of gun control, in this humble authors opinion, shows the true nature of the Democrat party. They claim to be for human rights and dignity but fail to understand that a human being has nothing if not the absolute right to self preservation in the face of danger. How can an individual maintain dignity when forced into a helpless situation where the right to defend his or her own life has been taken away by others seeking political gain? Call your congressman and senators and ask them this question. Furthermore, to suffer helplessly at the hands of criminals who never have any intention of complying with society’s laws is just a slap in the face by those who look down on us from their positions of power. Positions of power which were created to preserve the people’s liberty.

The truth is that Democrats don’t care about individual liberty or human dignity. They are collectivists and as such they see us as nothing but useful tools that can be played at will to accomplish a political objective. Sadly, their political objectives would see the masses psychologically subdued and chained to an ideology that has done nothing but wreak havoc and human misery since its inception. The fact that younger Americans are viewing socialism/communism as legitimate alternatives to our capitalist society is indicative of the fact that we are on the verge of witnessing more political violence. Blacks on college campuses are demanding segregation, college professors are calling for Republicans to be lined up and shot and there is even one student group who demanded Republicans be beheaded because they believe we want to take everyone’s health care.

Things will likely get far worse before they get any better. Democrats will continue to blame Republican gun ownership for violence committed by Democrats while still pursuing an agenda we all know is based on lies. They will continue to tell their followers that they are oppressed victims while encouraging them to revolt in the name of pursuing a better world. The question remains however, whether or not an agenda based on lies can lead to a better world at all. So far the evidence says otherwise.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” David currently writes for Western Free Press.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Conservatives Aid in the Left’s Agenda by Reacting To It

Conservatives Aid in the Left’s Agenda by Reacting To It

By David Risselada

Kathy Griffin is now blaming Donald Trump and his family for the potential loss of her career. Like a typical liberal she is taking no responsibility for her actions and redirecting the consequences of her rude and crude behavior onto others. She is doing what the left does best, playing the victim of an oppressive intolerant society who doesn’t allow for dissenting view points. Of course, we all know this is a bunch of baloney; however, by reacting to it at all we are allowing the left to win the battle in the ever going war against free speech and in some ways, we are accelerating their victory.

We are not dealing with rational people here. The left does not share the same moral base as those on the right. To them there simply is no right or wrong and because of this, there is no shame in anything they do. If you remember, Saul Alinsky taught his followers that believing in principles was for the weak hearted and an unwillingness to corrupt themselves for the greater good meant they didn’t care about their cause. To be specific he said the following-

“In action one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent with both one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of personal salvation; he doesn’t care enough for the people to be corrupted for them.” (Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals.)

 
In other words, Kathy Griffin and others on the left do not care that they are hypocrites. They have a specific goal in mind that furthers their agenda and that goal is the destruction of free speech and in general, conservatism. Of course, people will be asking how Griffin’s photo of Trump’s decapitated head would aid in the destruction of free speech. After all, her ability to pose with such a photo is the epitome of what the First Amendment stands for. The protection of speech that others find offensive. Isn’t it? While the left is on a rampage across the nation against speech they find offensive, our rallying call has been defending the First Amendment because it protects speech others find offensive. The First Amendment was meant to protect free, political speech that could be used to hold government accountable in order to preserve the people’s liberty. Conservatives typically defend free speech fervently, even when they know the speech is being used to discredit America. In this case however, they have conservatives demanding that Griffin be boycotted, arrested, and fired because her photo was so offensive. In other words, they have turned many on the right into complete hypocrites who can’t live up to the values they allegedly espouse to. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect speech that liberals find offensive, it protects everyone’s speech.
This is a deliberate tactic of the Alinsky left and it kills us every time. The following is the fourth rule of tactics in Rules For Radicals.
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” (Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals.)
 
Many people fail to realize that the left gets away with what they do because many of their actions are designed to do exactly this, use our values and rules against us. It is very easy to label the right as hypocrites and extremists when we are always crying for free speech then demand the boycotting of someone because they do something we find offensive. All that does is aid the left’s agenda of proving a concept like free speech isn’t constructive. You can’t label the left as hypocrites because they have no shame in what they do and they don’t claim to have values in the same manner that those on the right do. As suggested in the first quote in this article, they are willing to fall to any level if they believe their actions will advance the agenda of destroying conservatism.
Many people probably believe what Kathy Griffin did was so over the top and offensive that it should be viewed as a threat to the president. While it was vile and telling of her character she didn’t do anything illegal. All throughout the previous administration pictures of Obama hanging for treason were regularly shared by conservative groups on Facebook pages. How is this any different? Like so many other instances our reaction tells people that this isn’t ok because it is being done to our guy this time, allowing the left to not only label us as hypocrites but play the phony victim game as well.
The worst thing we as conservatives can do is give this any credibility by reacting to it. Let them show their vile disgusting selves and the self evident truth of who they are and what their agenda is will be revealed. These people can take any reaction and use it to their advantage. By reacting to their antics we are giving them the opportunity to keep the pressure on and force us in a reactionary mode when what we should be doing is letting them show us who they really are.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” David currently writes for Western Free Press.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Police Shootings, White Privilege and the Intentional Destruction of the Black Community

Police Shootings, White Privilege and the Intentional Destruction of the Black Community

By David Risselada

Tulsa police officer Betty Shelby was recently found not guilty in the shooting death of Terrence Crutcher. The shooting represented another in a long line of national incidents where an unarmed black man was shot and killed by a white police officer. In many instances these shootings lead to cries of racism and wide spread violence by protest groups like Black Lives Matter. Luckily for the residents of Tulsa these type of protests never gain any real momentum. It seems that the shooting of Crutcher was justified in the sense that he was acting in an erratic and non-compliant manner. He had a known history of drug abuse as well as a criminal record. While this does not justify the immediate shooting of the man there are some hard questions that are not being asked and in order to ever find true justice they must be explored. One of these questions is of course, who is to blame for his death? The left will continue to blame the so called institutional racism of the United States and it’s institutions as the cause of all these unfortunate events. Sadly, the truth is far different and the blood of Terrence Crutcher as well as other innocent people actually falls on the hands of the liberal left.

For decades now the left has pushed the destructive narrative that blacks in America are oppressed and white people live privileged lives. Academic theories such as Black Liberation Theology, Critical Race Theory and White Privilege education have diluted the minds of American students by teaching them that the system they live in is inherently racist and designed only to benefit the selfish, greedy interests of white men. Blacks are taught that they are incapable of racism because they have no institutional power. In other words, because the institutions of power are allegedly controlled by whites, blacks have no power to discriminate against others. The purpose of these educational theories is to create a counter-hegemony against the dominant social group and it is communist in origin. Italian communist Antonio Gramsci devised the theory of counter-hegemony because he realized that Marx’s idea of an armed struggle between the economic classes didn’t materialize. Gramsci instead posited the idea that different groups of oppressed people could be created on the basis of gender, criminal status and race. These groups could then be used and pitted against the dominant culture to create a revolutionary mind set.

It has worked perfectly, our nation is now divided with so many different social groups claiming to be oppressed by “white privilege.” In truth however, these people are only being used and it is leading to their own destruction. The idea that blacks are oppressed and the teaching of such nonsense like white privilege has led to a movement based purely on hatred and resentment. The constant rhetoric and demonization of police by former President Barack Hussein Obama led to an all out war on cops where blacks were ambushing and killing police officers for no reason other than being told they are oppressed victims. This war on cops surely contributed to the fear and knee jerk reactions of officer Betty Shelby when she was facing down a non-compliant man who was in fact, acting in an erratic manner and reaching back into his car.

Ever since the creation of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs black people in America have been oppressed. They have been tricked into believing that the government will provide for them through welfare. The results were the destruction of the black family, generational poverty and government dependence. This was done on purpose in order to be able to carry out Gramsci’s plan of counter-hegemony. Anyone who truly understands history knows that Republicans have traditionally voted for civil rights for blacks and Democrats have opposed them. The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democrat party and it was Democrats who opposed the eradication of slavery. Blacks in America were at one time just as successful and integrated into American society as whites and in many cases had stronger, more successful family lives. This all changed with Johnson’s Great Society welfare programs. This was the creation of the perfect revolutionary army to bring about socialism in America.

Manning R. Johnson, author of the book Color, Communism and Common Sense was a black member of the Communist Party USA. He was highly trained in subversive techniques and worked his way as high as being a member of the Politburo. He defected from the Communist Party when realizing the black community in America was being used to carry out a communist agenda. He writes in the book that the grievances of the black community such as slavery and discrimination, were to be exploited and used as a weapon against the capitalist system to bring about socialism.

“Little did I realize until I was deeply enmeshed in the Red Conspiracy, that just and seeming grievances are exploited to transform idealism into a cold and ruthless weapon against the capitalist system — that this is the end toward which all the communist
efforts among Negroes are directed.”

 
In short, the impoverished state of many black Americans can be traced back to early roots of America’s communist movement. They have been exploited and used by those who have taught them they are systematically oppressed by the white man, namely the Democratic party. They have been organized into an effective voting machine where they continually vote the same racist party into power on the promise of welfare and other benefits. The conditions of their communities never change; in fact they worsen, this is then used to further the argument for socialist solutions. Black youths are being indoctrinated into an ideology of hatred and society destroys their futures by justifying acts of violence based on the false precepts of White Privilege and Black Liberation Theology.
The shooting of Terrence Crutcher was surely a tragedy, one that happens all too often in this country. Again, the question arises. Who’s really to blame? Surely police have a responsibility to their communities to exercise their training in a responsible manner and in some cases, they should show a little more restraint in the name of preserving life. On the other hand, the evidence strongly suggests that the black community has been used to create a revolutionary fervor which has done nothing but create mistrust and fear among police. With all of the attacks against police perpetrated by groups like Black Lives Matter what do you think was going through Betty Shelby’s head? Police nor citizens should be fearful of each other; however, because of the efforts of the liberal left our nation is now made up of groups who are motivated by a burning hatred based on lies told intended to create chaos.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” David currently writes for Western Free Press.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
The FBI’s Darkest Days Were During Mueller’s Term

The FBI’s Darkest Days Were During Mueller’s Term

by Bob Bennett

The ecstatic reaction to Deputy AG Rosenstein’s choice of former FBI director Robert Mueller to be the special counsel in the Russia investigation may be justified, to the extent of Mueller’s bipartisan credibility. Many have gushed that he presided over the FBI’s development into an agency of counterterrorism after 9/11. But, these statements omit the fact that he also presided over the subsequent hobbling of the FBI in carrying out that mission.

Though it would not bear upon his acting as special counsel, before we beatify him altogether, we should recall that during his time as FBI director, Mr. Mueller permitted an appalling partnership between the FBI and the enemy itself, in the form of Islamist advocacy groups the DOJ had identified as fronts for Hamas during the Holy Land trial, in 2007-8. The federal judge in the case “stated in one ruling that ‘the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations with CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with … HAMAS.’” (p. 14-15)

The Global Jihad Movement scored its greatest win against the U.S. in 2011 when, as Patrick Poole wrote in TheBlaze, then–FBI director Mueller’s work with these groups had the result of hindering the agency’s fight against radical Islam.

Following a series of articles in September 2011 by “far-left blogger Spencer Ackerman at WIRED Magazine that claimed counter-terrorism trainers and materials used by the FBI were promoting ‘Islamophobia,’ a letter signed by fifty-seven U.S. Islamic groups, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), was sent to Obama’s then–counterterrorism czar, John Brennan.” He’s the man who once referred to Jerusalem as “al Quds.”

The almost immediate result was the Obama White House’s compelling the FBI and other agencies to purge all federal government training materials of “biased” materials—content linking Islam with terror.

On February 8, 2012, FBI Director Mueller met with representatives of some of the Islamic groups that had signed the demand letter, “including representatives from ISNA and MPAC.” Their intent was to check the progress of their demands for a ‘purge’ (the term they used) of the bureau’s counter-terrorism training materials…. They were told that more than 700 documents and 300 presentations had been purged from the FBI’s training.”—TheBlaze

Poole also noted that “In one Justice Department filing, prosecutors noted that ‘numerous exhibits were entered into evidence establishing … ISNA’s … intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood,’” and “MPAC as an organization has been criticized for publications defending terrorist organizations and equating Islamic suicide attacks with Patrick Henry and ‘American freedom fighters.’”

A report on ISNA’s website reflected that “more than 160,000 pages of documents were reviewed by subject matter experts multiple times. Consequently, more than 700 documents and 300 presentations of material have been deemed unusable by the Bureau and pulled from the training curriculum.” [Emphasis added.]

Just who were these experts? When members of Congress asked for the names of the “subject matter experts” who had reviewed the training materials, the FBI actually classified their names, said Patrick Poole.

TheBlaze reported that on March 23, 2012, a meeting took place “between a representative from the FBI responsible for purging the counter-terrorism training materials, and attorneys and staffers with the House Judiciary Committee.”

“A document the FBI presented to the congressional staffers … was represented as the ‘guiding principles’ by which [training] materials were reviewed. But a review of the … document show[ed] a … shocking shift in U.S. government policies:

Training must clearly distinguish between constitutionally protected statements and activities designed to achieve political, social, or other objectives, and violent extremism….

This distinction includes recognition of the corresponding principle that mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).

Patrick Poole writes that “a congressional staff attorney” explained to him that:

The FBI is clearly saying here that if you support a designated terrorist organization or group that engages in violence, but that same organization engages in some kind of non-violent activity, like religious or ideological instruction, your support for that terrorist organization is deemed by this administration as constitutionally protected.

As for exactly what was purged, a study done by terrorism expert Stephen Coughlin for Rep. Louis Gohmert revealed that certain words—some of which were used hundreds of times in the 9/11 Commission Report—had vanished from the FBI’s Counter-Terrorism Analytical Lexicon.”

For example, according to Gohmert, the 9/11 report mentioned the word “Islam” 322 times. However, Gohmert declares that the FBI training manual no longer contains the terms: “Islam,” “Muslim,” “jihad,” “Muslim Brotherhood,” “Hamas,” “Hezbollah,” “al-Qa’eda,” “caliphate,” “Sharia law,” even “enemy.” [See video at 22:40.]

Yet, then–FBI director Mueller told members of the House Judiciary Committee in 2012 that “I can say absolutely and with certainty that political correctness played no role in the efforts I undertook to make certain that we will give the best training to our personnel.”

Some might think that Mueller should have resigned before allowing this travesty.

Bob Bennett is a New York-based writer who has written op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post, and has appeared on Fox and Friends and America’s Newsroom. He has traveled widely and written travel pieces for the NY Post, a cover article for the Jewish Press, and an op-ed for the medical journal Cancer Biotherapy & Radioimmunotherapy. Bob was also award-winning producer of a travel radio show heard on New York stations: WMCA, WNWK and 50,000 watt WOR and the national Sky Angel Network. He now blogs on Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Community and Red State Diaries.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY