Liberals offer something “New.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr challenged institutional racism in the Jim Crow era by holding America accountable to the U.S. Constitution, a promissory note legally binding into law the 1964 Civil Rights Act signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Civil Rights movement demonstrated the most transformative life changing progressive movements for African Americans in the twenty-century in the United States of America.

Despite historic trails of successes and tributes paid to Blacks accomplishments, the triumphant social progress among prominent Black leadership coupled with the promising Civil Rights Act had nontheless; proved powerless to eradicate systemic fixtures of racial oppression cemented in America political social order. At the onslaught of federal subsidies for Black people, poverty remained. A cursed trend of generational poverty among Black families rapidly spiraled downwardly into a despondency culture of Black people living a lifestyle all nested together in government projects funded by government subsidies. Symbolically, ghosts of Jim Crow past had presently embedded psychologically lynchings roped into disadvantaged impoverished conditions that stifled opportunities for Blacks to integrate into free capitalist economies of wealth. To overcome impoverished conditions to achieve the American dream nearly impossible. Black people who’d crossed the threshold into the wealthy middle class of Blacks were looked upon as a better breed, a worthy class of Black people who were different from the rest. Classism isolated from building and reshaping a better future for those left behind in poverty.

Left behind in the projects who were treated like the government foster children whom without love and care forced to provide a minimum degree of support. Two evils reigned, government dependency and an erosion of positive mentorship.

Subsequently, without a vision to achieve dreams of hope, prosperity and self dignity how does these negative influences foster a healthy sense of content of character? When the American dream has perished in the breeding grounds of government dependency on federal handouts, and monthly subsidies which are barely enough and just enough to perpetuate a frustrated culture of people who produces a multi-generational cycle who are equally groomed into a dependency on an ill-fated system to provide nourishment and shelter from nature harshness. When healthy human beings are disenfranchised because they are systematically robbed of self reliance to obtain basic necessities that’s the worst thing that can happen to any human being designed to meet the greatness of self sufficiency sustainability.

Since 2018 when Democrats majority took over the House a self-proclaimed group of Socialialist Democrats began to progressively promote ideals towards a future of fundamental change from a making of self determination rewarded in a free market economy into a personal reliance on federalism as a fundamental means for human dignity deserving of all basic necessities funded and paid for by working taxpayers

American Socialist advocates whose fortunate to not have experience being a recipient of sustainable federal provisions has the tendency to uphold unrealistic idealistic views of federal funding assistance relations. Their understanding is limited to the degradation stemmed in longevity relations relative to client reliance and federal provisions.

In respect to a history pseudo socialism of the poor, underprivileged populations whom has several generational

tal system of policies of accountability for all economic conditions that leverage the lower class on equal footing to achieve the rewards of capitalist opportunities.

Basic necessities guaranteed for the underprivileged will fulfill human dignity deserving the rights for Humanity accountable placed upon the government shoulders.

the Left wing of the Democrat Party is geared to revisit the Constitution and Beto Rourke boldly said he would consider abolishing the Constitution, this very important document that guarantees Americans freedom rights.

Whereas African Americans vote for Biden is a vote against racism. Liberal Democrats are globalist activists, globalization advocates are to decentralize a sovereign nation into the United Nations 21st century order of one government. The plan is to over throw capitalism through Socialism, lay in ruins America economy to model Venezuela, Cuba socialist nations. The mission of Green New Deal is to overhaul a capitalist economy and restructure a socialist model. Legalize open borders migration by getting rid of ICE and Customs border patrol officers who protect U.S. borders. Appfederal mandates are systematically itinerary, for instance wear face mask; trace track and test. In the words of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, “A leap into the future” reference to the future of socialism. A forced slavery traumatize victimize because socialism is the Book of Revelation economy “Fallen Babylon.”

MediaNews GlobalVoices Dinahcreates

2020 Sanders 2.0

Michael Moore surrogate for Democrat-Socialist,Senator Bernie Sanders.

Chicago Tears

News Alert! Chicago

“Does anybody really know what time it is
  Does anybody really care
  If so I can’t imagine why
  We’ve all got time enough to cry.”

According to USA TODAY: “At least 72 people were shot, including 12 fatally, over the weekend in Chicago, another eruption of violence in a city that has struggled with murders and shootings in recent years even as the national homicide rate hovers near historic lows.  Police investigated a 13th murder – the slaying of a 32-year-old woman who was found dead around 9 p.m. Sunday in a bathtub with her hands and feet bound. The Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office was scheduled to conduct an autopsy Monday to determine how the woman, Shantel Boler, was slain. No arrests have been made in any of the incidents, but police said investigators have strong leads for some of the shootings. At least 72 people were shot, including 12 fatally, over the weekend in Chicago, another eruption of violence in a city that has struggled with murders and shootings in recent years even as the national homicide rate hovers near historic lows. Police investigated a 13th murder – the slaying of a 32-year-old woman who was found dead around 9 p.m. Sunday in a bathtub with her hands and feet bound. The Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office was scheduled to conduct an autopsy Monday to determine how the woman, Shantel Boler, was slain. No arrests have been made in any of the incidents, but police said investigators have strong leads for some of the shootings.”  USA TODAY

“Does anybody really know what time it is
  Does anybody really care
  If so I can’t imagine why
  We’ve all got time enough to cry.”

When murderers run rampant throughout your streets and weekend drive-by shootings become the norm, do you really care what political party will solve the problem? Blue or Red wave, Democrats; Republicans. It doesn’t matter, friend or foe, help is your passionate request. Globalization is not your reality when local wannabe terrorists trap your community into an infested war zone, this is the politics of Chicago who seeks change in their city; swayed by the circumstance of the now Chicago residents make demands that Mayor Rahm Emanuel turn in his resignation;  a few community leaders say, ‘President Trump do you really want to come to fix inner city crime bring to pass a Trump campaign promise to make America safe again?’  In Chicago, a wall of safe protection is broken down. Unify Democrats and Republicans to collaborate border security of peaceful calmness that’s given way to fear and loss.

 The political debate is who’s to blame for the crime wave in Chicago communities? Mayor Emanuel blames a lack of value of what’s right and what’s wrong. Some residents protest that Mayor Emanuel is more focus on a globalist agenda and less passionate of his local district.

“Does anybody really know what time it is” sang Chicago. Time to eradicate the killing spree in the streets of Chicago. If you agree, protest with me to stop the killing in the streets of  Chicago. We invite you too Kenye West, children are dying on the south side

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/07/15/chicago-shooting-protests-journalist-phone-vpx.cnn

and the west. This is what time it is; ‘time for change protestors rang.’

 

 

 

Close Analytics: SpyGate

OBT International Spy Story:  Chapter May 23, 2018

 

‘Close Analytics, Throw Away the Key. No! Give it to Stormy’

It was getting harder each day to conceal the panic; tensed emotions to keep Analytics conceal was the principal focus. The secret was out. The gate was wide open and finding a way to put the genie back in the bottle was less likely to happen. The polls conveyed that the leaks, the narratives fed by the media to spin were having little effect on the masses to rely on. It was time to restore trust in key agencies, but with Sharon Mc’Daniel new post as Head of the CIA, and extremely appreciative that President Baxter had nominated her for the position; her record proved she was most likely to be an asset to the findings. Rank and File members who were key players to protect the OBT campaign agitation was expressed throughout the Halls of Congress. Many legislators felt the only way out was to escalate Baxter impeachment. Congress Mike Wilson had eyes and ears over data washing at Analytics. Wilson had proposed to his handler to abolish all files, contacts, and every associate and affiliate all the way down to janitors and cooks. Surveillance was destroyed before anyone considered highly classified data was stored offsite and tucked away in the vaults of Analytics whom recently filed bankruptcy and closed it’s doors back in January. #FACEBOOK #HoustonChronicle#WashingtonPost #CNNI #FareedZakaria #NewYorkTimes #ForeignAffairs#MiddleEast

Democracy or Republican?

Author: Walter Williams, has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics since 1980. He is the author of more than 150 publications that have appeared in scholarly journals.

Walter Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University.

How often do we hear the claim that our nation is a democracy? Was a democratic form of government the vision of the Founders? As it turns out, the word democracy appears nowhere in the two most fundamental founding documents of our nation—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, declares “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Our pledge of allegiance to the flag says not to “the democracy for which it stands,” but to “the republic for which it stands.” Is the song that emerged during the War of 1861 “The Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”?

So what is the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is envisioned as a protector of rights.

In recognition that it is government that poses the gravest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases in reference to Congress throughout the first ten amendments to the Constitution, such as shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. According to Webster’s dictionary, a democracy is defined as “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.” In a democracy the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike the rights envisioned under a republican form of government, rights in a democracy are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

There is considerable evidence that demonstrates the disdain held by our founders for a democracy. James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, “that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Later on, Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” In a word or two, the Founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with anti-majority-rule, undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for frequent criticism and calls for elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states could not use their majority to run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, or two-thirds of state legislatures, to propose an amendment and three-fourths of state legislatures to ratify it. Part of the reason for having a bicameral Congress is that it places another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of all 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president’s veto.

There is even a simpler way to expose the tyranny of majority rule. Ask yourself how many of your day-to-day choices would you like to have settled through the democratic process of majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Would like your choice of where to live, what clothes to purchase, what foods you eat, or what entertainment you enjoy to be decided through a democratic process? I am sure that at the mere suggestion that these choices should be subject to a democratic vote, most of us would deem it a tyrannical attack on our liberties.

Most Americans see our liberties as protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, but that vision was not fully shared by its framers. In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton argued, “[B]ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?” James Madison agreed: “This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system . . . [because] by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure.”

Madison thought this danger could be guarded against by the Ninth Amendment, which declares “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Of course, the Ninth Amendment has little or no meaning in today’s courts.

Transformed into a Democracy

Do today’s Americans have contempt for the republican values laid out by our Founders, or is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? It appears that most Americans, as well as their political leaders, believe that Congress should do anything it can muster a majority vote to do. Thus we have been transformed into a democracy. The most dangerous and insidious effect of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy, decency, and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and could actually be opposites.

If we have become a democracy, I guarantee you that the Founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. They intended, and laid out the ground rules for, a limited republican form of government that saw the protections of personal liberties as its primary function.

 

Walter E. Williams

Walter Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics since 1980. He is the author of more than 150 publications that have appeared in scholarly journals. Learn more about him here.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Wayne Lapierre, NRA Chief: “Right to Bear Arms. A Right to Live.”

 

The general rule is that whenever a mass shooting occurs Republican officials are at fault because of their rightful claim to the Second Amendment. Nevertheless; we all can agree on an extensive background check to legally keep guns out of those who deem to be a threat to society. A logic that proves to be the case following the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL.  The shooting at Stoneman Douglas triggered another round of debates on the “Right to bear Arms ”  and “Stiffer Gun Control Laws” which became the main focus. Media information-warfare accelerates.   It’s 2018 midterm election; Parkland tragedy became the perfect storm to subliminally cast an impression, carve a mindset, it’s the Republicans fault. Vote for Democrats we advocate to keep you safe. Don’t vote Republicans they want to arm criminals with guns.’ Sadly, grief is manipulated into a political brawl.

The mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas on February 14th; debates on gun control has flared with more blame, cynicism, and a stroke of liability satire.  The mass killings in Parkland, FL is not a partisan issue, The tragic is social, sinful, and downright evil; but to place blame on a particular party is politics. Democrats own guns too. And, It’s time to address safety gun control.  It’s time to draft legislation that will balance The Second Amendment, and establish extensive gun control regulations.  Going forward taking safety steps to enforce protection. People are grieving. Lives are destroyed. Mothers’ and fathers’ have lost sons and daughters.  Students are psychologically distraught.  It’s a time of uneasiness for everybody, especially parents who have children that they send to school on a daily basis.

Local institutions are first responders to provide a safely secured atmosphere. The failure to Stoneman Douglas  was a Deputy on school ground who failed to protect.  Constructive non-partisan gun controlled solutions are counteractive to making one party the bad guy.   Heartless remarks made by Conservative Dinesh D’Souza mocks Parkland school survivors. Daily Show Host Trevor Noah on the subject of guns, jokes for amusement.  It’s a solemn time for the mourners in Florida.

Wayne Lapierre, NRA Chief, addresses Conservative Political Action Conference(CPAC) held in Maryland.  LaPierre passionately addresses social issues in the times we live in. A message worth listening to.

 

Free Press Dossier on the Fourth Amendment

With the recent front and center attention on House Republicans FISA Memo that centers around an apparatus of certain individuals engaged in spy activities on United States citizens. The Free Press is also engaged in a war of its own that features political pundits, and the industry of Hollywood collusion in sync with media elites. The persuasive target is on the United States Commander in Chief President Trump. In the dire effort to achieve partisan political objectives, the media war of perception displays an unceasing abhorrence on the freedom of thought.  To influence public opinion, daily; 24/7 news outlets communicate a pattern of echo-chamber messages used as war tactics against individual intellect and reasoning.

Constantly, the public is bombarded with conservative voices versus liberal voices in the game of throngs in American politics.  Seemingly, Journalists are not shy to show personal gamesmanship in the art of winning the hearts and minds of the masses like sports eager to “cherry-pick” one side over the other. The messaging garbed in bias viewpoints is the jersey they sport. The problem is that this warfare of messaging is divisive and accelerates public tension. Thusly, creating a sinister environment while spinning the story for the team. In an era of the social media revolution, the Media overbearing propaganda has spun into a disservice to the public. In regards to news reporting the banner of the Free Press is accountability of objectivity; to maintain the trust of the public to uphold journalism ethics to render Journalism 101, fair and balanced, professionally, unwavering reporting effective news material.

In this bitter conflict of messaging American civil liberties fourth amendment right to privacy is the subject lost in the short web of FISA news coverage. Since Republicans released a FISA memo, Democrats are vying to share the Democratic version of a FISA Memo, the obvious targeting message is that President Trump Republican machinery is eluding Mueller’s investigation on Russia meddling in 2016 Presidential Election. Liberal media speculates Trump as the combatant of Mueller’s investigation. Popular news personalities defensively-offensively spin the FISA story shortsighted that American Bill of Rights Fourth Amendment should not be jeopardized. If there’s no watchdog to safeguard “The right to privacy alluded to in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath. When the profession of journalism has become lukewarm to its own code of ethics; and acts of a shield to conceal and reveal is gaged upon subjectivity, a disservice to the public they serve is cheated of receiving viable information from newsmakers they trust. Every four years’ voters return to the voting polls to elect a United States President. Therefore, fair and balanced reporting on the FISA Memo is farsighted beyond the sitting president.

FISA is a shadowy entity comprised of individuals who work within the scope of autonomy secrecy. People are flawed and when hidden inside a deep state of judicial secrecy, the intent of anonymous rogue behavior is not farfetched. History has revealed rank and file officers spying on governments, bad actors and peaceful individuals’ labeled as troublemakers, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whom were spied on and lived under the radar of FBI agents in the J. Edgar Hoover administration. Without a doubt it’s easy to presume the Civil Rights icon, Congressman John Lewis possesses knowledge of surveillance wiretapping imposed on key leaders’ demonstration of voting rights for African-Americans in the Civil Rights Movement. When the media draw the line in the sand to win the messaging war by any means necessary, their profession echo as agents of the status quo political aligning with political parties. FISA International Dominance supersedes domestic Civil Liberties. They report to a foreign court outside of United States jurisdiction that protects Americans certain rights of privacy invasion from the government, law enforcement and corporate entities.

The Fourth Amendment Bill of Rights clause to the U.S Constitution guarantees that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, ‘spy, utilize methods of surveillance wiretapping without attaining a court warrant showing probable reasons for illegal, terrorist activities