GUEST COMMENTARY

White Privilege, An Enormously Successful Communist Agenda

White Privilege, An Enormously Successful Communist Agenda

By David Risselada •

The white privilege narrative continues to advance in America. Increasingly, the idea that white people are responsible for the ills of minorities is being pushed in our society to the point that an all-out, genuine hatred for white people is taking hold. Students in our universities are being taught that America, and her system of government, was designed explicitly for white men and that it enables them to exploit minorities for their own benefit. White people, according to the radical left, are recipients of unearned privileges and enjoy the protections of institutions that were designed exclusively for their economic system of capitalism. Furthermore, students are taught that minorities cannot discriminate against white men because they have no institutional power. In other words, because of white privilege it is morally acceptable to discriminate against white men based purely on their race because they are privileged. The goal of the white privilege lie is to create the illusion that minorities are living in a system of oppression, held down by a nation rooted in white supremacy. Unfortunately, this may be true.
The latest example of this white privilege mania comes from a professor of math education at the University of Illinois, Rochelle Gutierrez. She claims that the teaching of algebra and geometry perpetuate white privilege. Her arguments posit the notion that white men are often credited with success in mathematics and demonstrate a greater capability in math than minorities. Furthermore, she claims that this advances racism in society, particularly if minority students are performing worse than whites. She is arguing that mathematics should now be taught from a political angle which would help make students aware of white privilege.
Wouldn’t the idea that mathematics pushes white privilege and racism stem form a supremacist attitude in the first place? Wouldn’t an individual that believes black people for example, are not as capable as members of another race of doing algebra really be saying they believe that race is superior to blacks? What happens in instances where a black student is performing better than a white student? Does that student now have privilege or are they still a victim of white supremacy?
The truth of white privilege is that it is a useful tool used to create hate and discontent in our society, and that blacks really may be victims of white supremacist agenda.  Just not from the United States.
The idea of using race as a weapon has its origins in the Communist Revolution in the early twentieth century. Leon Trotsky, leader of the revolutionary army, allegedly coined the term racism to discredit the eastern Europeans who stood in the way of communist objectives. In modern America the term white privilege is being used as a weapon to silence pro-American opinions which might threaten the left-wing agenda of wealth re-distribution. Creating the illusion that a certain segment of our society is the recipient of unearned privileges based purely on skin color is sure to cause the necessary angst needed to cause the cultural revolution the left has been desiring for years.
Furthermore, the race based agenda can be traced back further to Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci, author of the Prison Notebooks, which outlined a detailed plan which entailed a march through the institutions to bring about social change, understood that the traditional Marxist idea of dividing society into an oppressed and oppressor class had not worked. Therefore, he turned his gaze upon cultural norms and further divided society into numerous oppressed groups. The word “hegemony”  is used to describe the influence the dominant culture has over the rest of society. Gramsci coined the term “counter-hegemony” in order to destroy the influence of a dominant culture by turning every social group into an oppressed victim of that culture. White privilege, or white supremacy, is being used to define a dominant, oppressive culture in the United States in this manner. Every other social group whether they be blacks, Latinos, gays, transgenders, feminists and now even people who may not be good at math are victims of white privilege and white supremacy.
“It becomes clear that one cannot understand either the meteoric rise or apparent immunity of political correctness to attack without understanding Gramsci. Rarely would I recommend studying a Marxist social philosopher, but this guy merits our attention. Gramsci (1891-1937) agreed with Karl Marx that every society could be divided into “oppressor” and “oppressed” classes (e.g., Marx’s own “bourgeois” and “proletariat”), but for the first time, expanded the latter into an ensemble of subordinate, marginalized groups instead of a single, homogeneous group. Whereas Marx had spoken only of the proletariat, Gramsci spoke not just of property less workers but also of “woman, racial minorities and many ‘criminals.’” Fonte documents how Gramsci distinguished two ways the dominant group exercises control, whereas Marx had only written of one. First, there is direct domination through coercion or force – political might in service of the economic interests of the bourgeoisie. Second, there is what Gramsci calls hegemony, which means the pervasive and mostly tacit use of a system of values that supports and reinforces the interests of the dominant groups. The repressed groups may not even know they are repressed, in Gramsci’s view, because they have internalized the system of values that justifies their repression. They have internalized a “false consciousness” and become unwitting participants in their own domination.”
If that isn’t enough former Communist Party member Manning Johnson wrote a book in 1958 detailing his experience in the Communist Party USA, called Color, Communism and Common Sense. In this book he details his experience as a black man with the Communist Party and a plot to use black Americans to bring about communism in America. The communists exploited and created grievances which put the black man at odds with the American capitalist system.
Manning states that he was in a position of power within the ranks of the Communist Party and while in this position he began to see just how the American black man was being used to push a policy of division. He claims that white communists lorded over blacks within the party, and their activities were directed by those working at the Kremlin under the guise of white and black men uniting to bring capitalism to its knees. The communists claimed to be the champion of the black man and all his struggles despite the fact they never benefited from the millions raised by communist front groups posing as civil rights organizations. Today, the Democrat party claims to be the leader in defending civil rights of the American oppressed and down trodden even though they govern over the clear majority of inner city ghettos. Black Americans have been voting Democrat for decades and have not benefited from the millions of dollars raised by corrupt politicians to win elections. Through the white privilege narrative Democrats have convinced black Americans that they have a reason to be bitter towards whites. They have been taught they are oppressed victims unable to rise out of poverty because of white privilege.
In chapter 7 of Color, Communism, and Common Sense, Manning points to the specific plan to blame the white man for all the black man’s problems. This is essentially what the white privilege philosophy has done. The white privilege lie has destroyed the ability of many black men to take responsibility for themselves as they are now trapped in a generational welfare mentality, which is an essential ingredient to bringing about communism. According to Manning, the objectives of the communists were to make the black man feel sorry for himself, blame whites for their failures, ignore opportunities around him, make him jealous of the success of other races in America, and condition him to look for quick easy solutions as substitutes to honest effort in a competitive market.
The expected results were to be a population of underclass citizens who blamed the white man’s system of government as being everything that is wrong in their lives. Isn’t that what we are seeing today? An effort to indoctrinate black people into the idea that the society they live in is designed for privileged whites who exploit minorities? The entire agenda revolves around the idea of creating a communist revolutionary army by teaching the minorities they are victims of white supremacy. At the time being it seems to have been enormously successful as nearly every facet of our society from football to algebra now has the white privilege stigma attached to it.
Freedom relies upon a population exercising good judgment and personal responsibility. If a populations ability to take responsibility for their own actions is compromised, then freedom has little chance. If you can’t take responsibility for yourself, someone will have to take responsibility of you. This is something that the communists understood very well, and they have systematically destroyed America’s sense of personal responsibility by not only creating an atmosphere of mistrust and jealously among minority cultures but by demoralizing and demonizing the majority. Many people in America are now afraid to speak for their values because they are likely to be labeled racist for doing so. The true white supremacists are those seeking to use race as a means of obtaining power. Most Americans believe that people achieve things based on merit and the effort they put into something.
White privilege posits the idea that blacks and other minorities suffer because they are not capable, and they need the iron fist of government leveling the playing field to make things fair. This simply is not true. People of all nationalities come to this great country and make something of themselves, they may not be millionaires, but they don’t have to be. They achieved more than they would have in their home country. Black people in America continue to be taught the politics of resentment, making them prime recruits for the cultural revolution desired by the left. If the Democrats and the communists really cared about the black man, they would look at the predicament they are in and start teaching them that they have opportunity in America. After all, the left believes that whatever you are taught in your formative years tends to develop into unshakable convictions.
“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
If they really cared, wouldn’t they teach them they are just as capable as anyone else instead of setting in stone the convictions of envy?

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
Clarifying the Objectives of Gun Grabbers

Clarifying the Objectives of Gun Grabbers

By David Risselada •

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

For years the idea of an Article V convention of the states has been pushed by many conservatives as a way to reign in federal spending and an out of control federal government. An Article V convention is a way to propose new amendments to the constitution, a provision added by our founders as a way to ensure the people have the ability to take control of their governing process. Any new amendments, once proposed, must then be ratified by three fourths of the states legislatures in order to become the law of the land. Conservatives argue, that because Republicans control the majority of the state legislatures, precious liberties protected by the constitution, such as the right to keep and bear arms, would be in no danger. This has proven to be false as The New American Magazine is reporting that a “clarification” of the Second Amendments meaning is on the agenda should an Article V convention take place.

What does it mean to clarify the Second Amendments meaning? Well, many gun control proponents point out, as The New American highlights, that the Second Amendment was written at a time when only muskets and other arms of less lethal ability existed. Their arguments would of course suggest that the founders had no idea what direction technology would go and what type of arms would then be available to the public. On the other hand, if a pro-Second Amendment majority is present at the convention, clarifying the right to keep and bear arms could in deed do just that. They could re-affirm that an armed public is the best way to ensure the security of a free state. This however, in our politically charged climate of fear and hysteria against guns, is not likely.

Setting these idle arguments aside there are more serious threats that an Article V convention poses to the Second Amendment. One of these threats is the fact that gun control, and the disarming of America has been written into public law since 1961. Signed by President Kennedy, PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act sets in motion the process in which America’s military will be systematically reduced, disarmed and subverted to the authority of a world army headed by The United Nations. According to Bernadine Smith of libertygunrights.com, the final stages of this plan would be the elimination of national control of our armed services, which in turn would subvert our national sovereignty, and the total and complete disarming of the American people.

The American public seems blissfully unaware that the past several decades have brought us a massive, systematic reduction in the size of our military and the closure of many bases nationwide.

Also, the process for turning over command of the U.S. military to the United Nations started nearly two decades before with the passing of the United Nations Participation Act. This act put the power of committing U.S. forces to conflicts overseas in the hands of the U.N. Security Council as opposed to the U.S. congress, who incidentally constitutionally speaking, has the sole authority to declare war. Since the Korean war, all conflicts involving U.S. forces have been directed by the United Nations Security Council.

State Department Publication 7277  states as one of it’s goals the total and complete disarmament of military forces except for that which is necessary to maintain internal order and for contributions to a United Nations peace keeping force. This essentially means that only a small body of armed forces operating under the jurisdiction of the United Nations would exist for the purpose of enforcing principles set forth by a world governing body.

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 

What agreements are this publication referencing and what disarmament obligations is the United States expected to be held to? The United Nations Program of Action on Small Arms is one such agreement. Many may argue that as of now this agreement has no bearing on U.S. law. Considering the harsh political climate and the constant efforts to pass gun control laws it is important that the American public at least understand what this agreement entails. For example, section II explicitly states that where they do not yet exist, laws should be passed criminalizing the illicit manufacture, transfer and possession of small arms. What does illicit mean? Does that mean the three pound drop  trigger in your semi-automatic rifle? It can mean anything that gives them the necessary wording to criminalize gun ownership in America.

II.  Preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects

(Take note that the current gun control bill proposed by Republican Carlos Curbelo is so vaguely worded it could outlaw the manufacture of almost anything that enhances a semi-auto’s performance.)

Another agreement is the U.N Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed illegally by Former Secretary of State John Kerry. While this treaty has not been ratified it is hard to argue that our government is not working to accomplish the objectives set forth within its text.
One particular aspect of this treaty that readers should take note of is Article 16 titled simply, International Assistance. To put it bluntly, this section establishes a trust fund of sorts, and other means of assistance, which can be used to assist nations that have signed into forcing others into compliance. While this treaty begins with words that suggest the U.N. will respect the sovereignty of nation states, other material provided in this article shows that the ultimate objective is in fact completes disarmament of the public. Proof of this being the final objective is demonstrated every time the push for gun control returns in response to a national tragedy.
Bernadine Smith, at sweetliberty.org, claims that the government will use the Article V Convention process to introduce a new constitution which will be communistic in structure and more in line with the principles of the U.N. Charter than the U.S. Constitution. This constitution exists and it explicitly denies the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of any type except for those serving in the capacity of a U.N. peacekeeping force Clarifying the used for keeping internal order. This constitution can be read here.
 
With all of this being said it is imperative, should an Article V convention take place, that the people, along with pro-Second Amendment advocates pay close attention to its proceedings. There is a reason that America is constantly being discredited and referred to as a racist, oppressive nation. They want the general public confused and spiritually defeated to the point they will accept this new socialist constitution as an alternative to a system of governance they have been taught has failed. Be weary America. Allow me to leave with one more quote.

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
Women and Guns: How The Left Gets It Wrong

Women and Guns: How The Left Gets It Wrong

by Sam Bocetta •

The left are jubilant this week, after a report by the Violence Policy Center claimed that women were a hundred times more likely to be killed by someone with a gun than to use one in self-defense. This skewed statistic has been reported in many “mainstream” media outlets over the past few weeks, and taken out of context it is very misleading.

First, people are more likely to be killed by guns than to use one in self-defense, for the simple reason that the number of people who regularly carry weapons is still quite small. Leaving that aside, though, even The Nation admits that the study did not count women who did not die because they defended themselves with a firearm.

Perhaps most damning, though, is the hypocrisy shown by the left when it comes to the safety of women. Even in an age when self-defense classes for women are regarded as both necessary and empowering, the left’s squeamishness about guns means they are not able to take the next step, and sensibly recommend that women carry a self-defense weapon.

The Changing Demographics Of Gun Ownership

It seems that many women have realized this for themselves, though, and many more women are now choosing to carry a firearm.  There are now many groups that aim to give women a safe space to train with guns, and the huge expansion of sites like The Well Armed Woman over the last two years is a sign of a strong community.

Perhaps the only unfortunate outcome of gun activists’ defense of our Second Amendment rights is that it actually makes it pretty hard to get reliable numbers on the number of people who own weapons. For this, we have to rely on the Pew Research Center’s annual survey.

This shows that there is still a large disparity between the number of men and women who own guns. 37% of men say that they personally own a gun, in comparison to just 12% of women. That said, if we look a little closer at the numbers, a different picture emerges. Almost a third of women report that they live in a household with a gun, even if they do not personally own one. Much circumstantial evidence points to the fact that these women actually use guns a lot.

Another interesting facet of female gun ownership is that women tend to own guns for different reasons than men. In particular, research suggests that 27% of women own a gun only for self-defense, as opposed to just 8% of men who state that this is the only reason they have a weapon.

Guns For Girls

Two groups stand to benefit from this shift – gun manufacturers, and activist organizations like the NRA. The latter have recently expanded their “NRA Women” program, and they’ve hired a female spokesperson, Dana Loesch. The group have long stressed the need for women to protect themselves, both with firearms and other means, through their Women’s Leadership Forum.

For gun manufacturers, the increase in female attention could be an opportunity to offset some of the effects of the Trump Slump – a general downturn in guns sales since the last election.  Southwick associates, a market research firm who specialize in the hunting industry, have told adage that women account for 46.8% of the 24 million Americans who do not currently own a gun, but are interested in doing so. In order to tempt these new gun owners, several manufacturers are producing handguns specifically aimed at women.

The Hypocrisy Of The Left

Like I said above, the news that hundreds of women are killed each year was widely celebrated on the left, because they think it proves their point – that guns kills people. What they seemingly fail to realize is that for many women, owning a gun is a necessary part of self-defense, and that it is likely that more women would die if they were not armed.

These facts are conveniently left out of the statistics published this week. Of course, this fits into a much wider pattern, in which the left continually warps the numbers in order to justify increasing gun restriction. Half the time, those arguing for tighter gun laws claim to have naively overlooked the larger, more complex picture, but I don’t for a second believe that they are that stupid: rather, this ongoing misrepresentation of the truth about guns is a willing blindness on the part of those who wish to ban guns outright.

Sam Bocetta is a retired contractor who worked for over 35 years as an engineer specializing in cyber warfare and Navy computer systems. Past projects include the development of EWTR systems, Antifragile EW project, and development of Chaff countermeasures. Sam now teaches at Algonquin Community College in Ottawa, Canada as a part time engineering professor.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
The 45 Communist Goals Part 1-The Discrediting of Americanism

The 45 Communist Goals Part 1-The Discrediting of Americanism

By David Risselada •

America is upside down. Her values and traditions have been completely destroyed and re-defined to the point that much of the population couldn’t define them. The stigmatism of racism and bigotry have so successfully been attached to patriotism that many fear standing up for what they believe.
People know there is something wrong and attribute this non-sense to political correctness or a bunch of sissified liberals who demand that they live their lives without the discomfort of opinions they don’t like. Many Americans fail to face the fact that this is a deliberate attack upon the psyche of our nation. An attack designed to demoralize our people and change the very nature of human being. It is in fact, a full blown Psychopolitical assault and the end goal is the complete subversion of our culture and an American population that is so thoroughly weakened psychologically, that they willingly seek further government control of their lives. In other words, a Communist takeover of the country is near completion without a shot being fired and the application of the Soviet Manual on Psychopolics was how it was accomplished.
What is Psychopolitics? It is an application of psychological warfare designed to breakdown the will of the people in a nation marked for conquest. Global Communism has been the goal of the Communist movement since it’s inception and America is the one nation where the people have a governing structure that empowers them to resist. We have the right to politically oppose our elected officials policies, the right to assemble, the right to bear arms. In other words our constitution was designed to protect and empower the dignity and freewill of the individual human being. To conquer America an enemy would have to defeat us militarily, which no country can do, or convince us to willingly accept Communism. By working incessantly to create the impression that America is the problem in the world, they can then offer Communism as a solution. The following are goals of the Communist party which were originally published in a book called the Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

The main theme of these three goals is the discrediting of the United States, its founding and its culture. Today, students in American universities are taught that America is a nation founded on unfairness, selfishness and bigotry. Issues like wealth inequality are used to turn the idea of “all men being created equal” on its head. The idea that the American founding revolved around the owning of slaves and the exploitation of another’s labor is used to present the founding as illegitimate while Communism, or Communitarianism, is offered up as a solution that will make everyone equal. This is part of the demoralization process and it is designed to make people confused about the values they once believed in or at the very least, afraid to stand and defend them. Consider the following quote from the Manual on Psychopolitics, page 41.

Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics on the broad field.  Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices, and national heroes must be systematically carried out, but this is the chief function of Communist Party Members, in general,* not the Psychopolitician. The realm of defamation and degradation, of the psychopolitician, is Man himself. By attacking the character and morals of Man himself, and by bringing about, through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree. 

This explains the constant attacks on the character of our nation by the media, academic institutions and certain government officials. In an effort to make people hate the constitution and display a desire for change they have deliberately turned America into a nation that oppresses instead of liberates, that discriminates instead of empowers and imprisons instead of enlightens.

Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsciaided in this effort through his understanding of Psychopolitics and Marxist principles. The Communists, being frustrated that they couldn’t pit the so called proletariat against those that employed them needed a new way to bring about Communism. Gramsci developed the theory of Counter Hegemony. What this entailed was the creating of social groups that stood opposed to the influence exerted by the dominant social group. To put it more simply, the dividing of Americans into different social classes was a deliberate act to cause conflict. We are no longer an America united on the principles of liberty and justice but an America divided into groups where everyone thinks they are entitled to their own brand of social justice. The one thing that these groups all have in common is that they are oppressed victims of America’s unfair economic system and blatant bigotry.

Examine the very first paragraph of this article again. Understanding what is said here is imperative if you are to understand the real agenda. In America today we have scientific turmoil with lies of climate change and little boys using the girls bathroom in school. We have economic depression looming over us with a national debt in the tens of trillions and trillions more in unfunded liabilities. We have a welfare system that cannot support the needs of those dependent on it without taking more from the producing class. Groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, paid protestors hired to wreak havoc on our streets are intent on doing so in an effort to stir up conflict. Finally, the redefining of our values and the labeling of anyone opposed to political correctness has created a mistrust for our neighbors. All of this is done on purpose to bring this country to its knees and subdue the population into accepting its own demise.

The Communists believe in Darwinian evolution. It is their belief that man is an animal who needs to be programmed how to behave. The idea that man has a will of his own is scoffed at and ridiculed. Much of the Communist mindset has been developed through the mental science discovered by Russians like Pavlov. They believe we are nothing more than an organism which operates on the principles of stimulus/response programming. There is some truth to this assertion; however, man is more than that, much more. The vast majority of Americans, despite this constant psychopolitical assault on our character, are still Christians. We believe in the morals and values this country was founded on and when necessary, we will bind together to prove the lies wrong. The media is in literal shock at the response of the average American to Hurricane Harvey. If one were to believe the media’s depiction of America then they would assume that all minorities are being left behind and that LGBT Americans are being forced to drown in flood waters. The truth is that the vast majority of us simply don’t care what social group the Communists and Psychopoliticians have assigned to you. You’re an American and a human being and because of that you won’t be left behind. This is why we are still a country and the Communists haven’t won yet. This is why in the end, they won’t win.

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
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