Conservatives – DNC-Consulting

Contentious Voices – Exerting Control

A colleague of mine mentioned something in passing that has me thinking about the contentious voices surrounding our lives. Consider with me for a moment; when the last time you heard just the news was? No commentary, no hidden bias, no reporting for emotional reaction, simply a description of the events of the day, news? I cannot remember when I last heard a news report. It seems that to get the local news, I have to question the motives on the stories, compare news broadcasts for opinions and biases, tune into three or four different radio stations and compare them to the TV, and those to the newspapers, and even then, 90% of what is reported still has to be discounted.

My colleague mentioned that the efforts of contentious voices are to exert emotional control over the audience, for if the audience is emotionally controlled, they are physically controlled. If they are physically controlled, they can be bent, shaped, and molded into weapons of self-destruction for the entertainment of those controlling the contentious voices. This insight has me thinking—self-destruction through contentious voices exerting control, all through unbridled emotional understanding.

When emotional intelligence was first coming out, feel free to read the early papers and books on this topic if you doubt what I am reporting. Emotional intelligence was declared as the ability to read the emotions in a room and then control the people through their emotions. For which I have adamantly opposed emotional intelligence as a concept since inception. I have always felt that trying to control others through their emotions is wrong, in poor taste, and can easily backfire when those being controlled wake up and realize what has been happening to them. Yet, emotional intelligence has grown as a concept, has broadened in scope, and no one is asking why anymore. Well, I am, and so are a few others, but the media is working hard to keep us silenced and sidelined as “aluminum hat-wearing non-conformists.”

Yet, contentious voices continue to prey upon people’s emotions nightly and call this “learned commentary,” “democracy dying in darkness,” “in-depth reporting,” and “fair and balanced news,” among many other things. Republicans against Democrats, Liberals against conservatives, eco-Nazis from both extremes of the planet is going to hell debate, and the list of contentious voices is long and formidable. Yet, they all have the same playbook, use emotional hooks, sink the emotional hook deeply, and keep pulling that emotional hook every time a person tries to think for themselves.

Well, I would see you escape the hook, wake up mentally, and arise as a powerful individual. Capable of independent thought and able to reason and think using your own instinct, talents, skills, and innate reasoning. I am not making a plea to your emotions, and if you ever think I am playing to your emotions, feel free to call me out! I am not here to enslave your mind, but to free your soul and empower your spirit, to support your goodness, and justify you being the free-thinking person you already are!

Thus, the following reminders regarding emotions. These are not my thoughts; they originate from Robert Solomon’s incredible book “Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice,” which you can purchase from any reputable bookseller for a minimal fee or find in a local library. If you are close to New Mexico, send me an email to lend you my copy.

Solomon begins his book with a quote from Jean-Paul Sartre:
- “For the idea which I have never ceased to develop is that in the end, one is always responsible for what is made of one. Even if one can do nothing else besides assume this responsibility. For I believe that a man can always make something out of what is made of him. This is the limit I would today accord to freedom: the small movement which makes of a totally conditioned social being someone who does not render back completely what his conditions has given him.”
“Emotions involve social narratives as well as physical responses, and an analysis of emotions is an account of our way of being-in-the-world.”
- Emotions are not occurrences and do not happen to us.
  - “Emotions are rational and purposive rather than irrational and disruptive, are very much like actions, and that we choose an emotion much as we choose a course of action.”
- Emotions are intentional: that is, emotions are “about” something.
  - All emotions are ultimately “about” the world and never simply “about” something particular.
  - Feelings do not have “directions.” The relationship between my being angry and what I am angry about is not contingent between a feeling and an object.
- Emotions change with our opinions, and so are “rational” in a very important sense.
  - But the rationality of the emotion is time-sensitive, socially sensitive, and environmentally contingent. Unless our societal makeup allows this emotional crossover, emotions cannot often cross between social situations, peer groups, and environments.
  - The cause of an emotion is a function in a certain kind of explanation.
    - Contentious voices know this as a truth and use their contention to drive the emotional functionality of the arguments to spur emotional growth to your detriment!
  - The line between emotions and beliefs is often negligible and non-existent.
    - Another truth contentious voices use to spur emotional hooking in the audience to the audience’s detriment and destruction.
  - Emotions are a normative judgment.
    - We decide the correctness of emoting, based upon the social, environmental, and peer aspects at the time the information is provided.
    - Emotions are cognitive judgments of socially wired animals (humans) who use the lightning reflexes of the brain to make these judgments for personal benefits in a social situation, advancing peer associations, or to survive in a specific environment.
    - Emotions change with our knowledge of the causes of those emotions.

On this last point, consider Joe Biden and his words to different audiences on the campaign trail. To one audience, he pledged to put oil company officers in jail for unspecified environmental crimes. To another audience, he promised not to kill coal. Both declarations were later denounced as verbal gaffes, miss spoken words taken out of a larger context, and phrases that did not mean anything on the campaign trail. Yet, the words fit the emotion being witnessed, and the crowd forming the environment and peer group being addressed. All politicians do this, and it is referred to as “politicking” or “playing to the audience’s emotions.”

Finally, consider something with me, a thought, those controlling the contentious voices believe you, the audience, their slaves, for they can control your emotions, like 2-year-olds control play-dough. Are you a slave? Will you master your emotional judgments to protect yourself and your family? The choice is yours, and yours alone to make. All I can do is offer information and ask for your consideration. But I will make a promise; if you refuse to master your emotions, you will be destroyed by the contentious voices clamoring for your attention. These breeders of contention will pull you apart emotionally, creating depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and other self-destruction options.

Those terrorists rioting over the spring and summer of 2020 were pawns and self-destructive actors to the contentious voices. We are all living in a time where social influencers play the most extensive role in the lives of people than ever before, and they can play this role because we have unbridled our emotions and refuse to believe that emotions are a choice, a judgment, and a tool for social integration. While the masses are not taught these things, those controlling the contentious voices know these truths, but they also practice hiding this information to destroy the groups they enslave. Please, free yourself from bondage, take control of your emotions, and never allow anyone to control them ever again!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: It’s not Just Cloward and Piven – The Liberal Leftist Strategy

Remember Conservatives in America far outnumber the leftists; why do the leftists keep winning elections? Strategy and organization. The entire leftist agenda is found in books with crazy titles, off colors, and devious tactics that you will easily miss unless you are explicitly looking. Some of you might still be wondering about polemics, but your liberal friends are not only well versed in them but actively practicing. A polemic is contentious rhetoric intended to support a specific position by forthright claims and undermining the opposing position. Polemics arise in arguments about controversial topics, and generally, the person screaming at you is trying to employ emotion to overcome your logic.

Now, I could care less than spit on a hot iron pan about Cloward and Piven. I know many people have become rabid about these two and Alinsky. However, if conservatives are to awake and arise, we have to stop seeing people as enemies like the liberals act. We need information, we need organization, and we need to understand what is coming at us from those who choose to see conservativism as dangerous, flawed, antique, or plain stupid. All of which conservatism is not!

The first leftist strategy, used every time a liberal opens their mouth, is emotion. The liberals have chosen to be emotionally supercharged because there is no substance to liberalism. The liberal leftists are jealous that their political model does not have sufficient substance to support logic. What do you do; first know you choose your emotions. Please do not give the liberal the power over your emotions; this is precisely what they want. When you lose emotional control, you lose the moral high ground, and you lost.

Emotional Outburst In the thick of being screamed at, attacked, and harassed, controlling your emotions is difficult. However, controlling your emotions is the only way to fight and win. Practice controlling your emotional choices. Not that you have to win every battle, but the more controlled you are, the faster you win when facing leftist shenanigans!

The second leftist strategy, the leftist, will assume the intellectual upper ground, make them pay for their assumptions. The leftist have learned their Marx, they know their Cloward and Piven, they have received schooling in Alinsky, and they are prepared to blast you with these talking points and more. These articles keep bringing up a common theme, learning, and being prepared to use what you know to discuss openly the topics the leftists raise. Countering this information requires personal knowledge, experience in teaching, and a tangible sense of humor to laugh at the diatribes of the rubes!

The following are questions you should be able to answer logically, succinctly, and persuasively:

What is the First Amendment, and why is the First Amendment critical to modern times?
1. I cannot stress this enough, the First Amendment is under attack, generally by those exercising the First Amendment to abuse and abase others.
2. Before you make your answer personal, make your answer practical and well-sourced.
3. Practice answering this question as often as possible, so your brain is ready to respond. Your brain is a muscle; exercise that muscle.
What use is the Second Amendment in a society with police? I am not in the militia; what purpose is the Second Amendment to me?
1. When emotion and politics cross, this issue always arises.
2. Understanding begets action, but understanding requires learning, and learning is a choice. When asked these questions, the speaker is not looking to learn, but refute!
3. Clarity and factual references are clear indicators you are prepared, and these quickly diffuse situations.
What role does religion play in modern society? Your religion in public is infringing upon my freedom not to be exposed to religion.
1. Blow an atheist’s mind, remind them that atheism is a religion solely based upon the definitions found in the dictionary.
2. Why is America stronger based upon Judeo-Christian beliefs and legal structures?
3. Get the leftist to give specific details about how religious symbols in public harm them. Address each answer with logic; the majority of what you will hear is simple hyperbole and bloviated buffoonery!

These are only three questions. I encourage you to ask others, answer them, and share the questions and answers as preparation for the time when you will be called upon to answer for the hope that is in you! As a personal question, no response is needed, “Does supporting the U.S. Constitution, liberty, freedom, and the Republic of these the United States of America fill you with hope?”

September 2011, New Political Science released the Cloward and Piven article about poverty, originally published in May 1966. The new release of “A Strategy to End Poverty” comes with a sob story introduction from Piven. I do not care about her and Glen Beck’s disagreements, and frankly, dear reader, neither should you. NO MORE BS is all about forward-looking and action. I mention all this to help you understand the exaggeration and amplification that Cloward and Piven have received by paying them a modicum of attention.

Some history, in May 1966, Democrats held the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. President Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying:

“The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next.”

Leadership Cartoon Pres. Lincoln’s quote is prophetic, as Cloward and Piven proved. These authors wrote the “poverty” paper aimed explicitly at shaking up the Democratic Party and helping the poor through the larger government. The first paragraph asks two questions: organizing the poor to press the government for relief and reorganizing and developing an array of activist forces. Cloward and Piven intend to remove States from Welfare and make the Federal Government pay for poverty relief leading to a guaranteed income. Remember, the history; the Democratic Party needed more voters, more activists, and better organization to mobilize the activists. That there was a ready-made population needing representation in the impoverished was a bonus.

Never forget what President Jefferson said about government, for this is another instance of prophecy from a founding father and previous U.S. President!

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Up to May 1966, the impoverished were encouraged to work, and different states approached the impoverished in their own methods and manners, as an extension of U.S. Constitutional States’ Rights. Some states had a government solution; other states relied upon religions and civic-minded people, other states left the impoverished alone and did nothing for them. 50-different states approaching a problem in 50-different ways was unacceptable to Cloward and Piven. Thus, the teachers in one generation began instructing so that the next generation became activist government workers who established the Welfare Policy as an unconstitutional extension of the Federal Government. Is the pattern of injury clear?

Government Largess 4 Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for needy children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history. Cloward and Piven are proposing to use activists to raise the plight of the poor to produce a massive expansion of the Welfare State, remove the remaining vestiges of individual state involvement, and force an enormous increase in Federal Government size and interventions. Until 1966, the Welfare programs intended to get people off the dole; Cloward and Piven wanted to reverse this course so there would always be an actively aggrieved and impoverished population in America. Is the injury to America clear? Is the path used now obvious?

Welfare State Begins Remember, most of the adherents who learned their Cloward and Piven at the knees of these two radicals are currently running the U.S. House of Representatives, government bureaus, and other Executive Branch positions of the U.S. Government. Now, several leftists have decried my claiming that Speaker Pelosi was ever in a college class with Cloward and Piven; frankly, that does not matter. Speaker Pelosi’s action remarkably follows the patterns discussed by Cloward and Piven. President Biden supports the same positions as Speaker Pelosi. Too many of the Sixties’ children are now in charge, and they all think and act similarly. Hence, it is correct to declare these people learned their Cloward and Piven at these two radical professors’ knees.

The third paragraph of the “poverty paper” talks about fomenting a social crisis. “Precipitating a profound financial and political crisis.” Where “The force for that challenge, [will be] … a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” Using emotional drivel, quasi-facts, and half-truths as weapons to drive an emotional reaction, Cloward and Piven construct the argument to sunder America from self-reliance to government reliance for a majority of the American Population. The expanded welfare program’s end desire is “… to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income.”

Government Largess 2 As concluding remarks, we return to history for a footnote on welfare. In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton, a Democrat, ran for president, promising to “end welfare as we know it.” In 1996, a Republican Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, a reform law that returned most control of welfare to the states, supposedly ending 61 years of federal responsibility. The “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA)” became law on 22 August 1996. PRWORA granted states greater latitude in administering social welfare programs and implemented new welfare recipients’ requirements, including a five-year lifetime limit on benefits. After the passage of the law, the number of individuals receiving federal welfare dramatically declined. Except, PRWORA has been blamed for what has amounted to bureaucratic inertia, dedicated poor classes of people being intransigent. With these failures, the cry is being supported for reversing PRWORA and implementing a guaranteed income.

Welfare State Ends While PRWORA was hailed initially, PRWORA should have been a stepping stone to other changes to ease generations of families on government assistance off the government dole. By treating all the impoverished in America the same, people are not helped into self-reliance. Worse, life happens, and setbacks occur, neither of which can be settled by a bureaucrat picking winners and losers of welfare assistance. Education is not a “golden ticket” to success. Education is a gamble, and when you gamble, sometimes use lose, and even if you win, the gambling house always wins

As conservatives, we desperately need to understand the strategy of the left and organize. We have to realize what Cloward and Piven have launched, a population of Americans deemed “forever poor” by the government and require coddling. That this population of the poor is considered the activist army ready, at a moment’s notice, to be led into mischief, riots, and other social crimes as weapons to subvert conservatism, all led by the newest generation of government wannabes and intellectually superior people.

I am not here judging any person, family, or situation. I am here to help; I respect those who struggle and win and those who struggle and fail. I would see all of you succeed, not through government handouts, but an individual plan where you can achieve, gaining self-respect and dignity. The current Federal and State Government Welfare Programs are designed to keep people forever poor so that a bureaucrat can remain employed. That is NOT the America I believe in and support!

References

Noble, C. (2004). The collapse of liberalism: Why America needs a new left. Rowman & Littlefield.
Piven, F. F. (2008). Challenging authority: How ordinary people change America. Rowman & Littlefield.
Piven, F., & Cloward, R. (2011). The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty (reprinted with a new introduction by Frances Fox Piven) New Introduction. New Political Science, 33(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2011.591906

© Copyright 2021 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images.
All rights reserved. For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/

In Defense of the Rule of Law – Restoring “… Liberty and Justice for All”

This letter is pertinent to every American citizen as well as those currently holding public office and those seeking to become politicians. Politics has always been an American passion; we talk politics at work with co-workers, across the fence with neighbors, around the kitchen table with family and trusted friends, and almost everywhere else without exception…including public restrooms. Yes, Americans even discuss politics in public restrooms. Conversations overheard and notes written on walls provide plenty of evidence. This is apt; much of the political theater currently thrust into America’s attention is fit only for flushing.

President Lincoln is quoted thus: “Let every American, every lover of Liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their abuse by others. As the Patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear [down] the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the [Constitutional] laws [of America]… become the political religion of the nation.”

President Lincoln continued on to proclaim, “When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made, I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, “Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois” (January 27, 1838), p. 112.

Americans inherently seem to know right from wrong. Living in a Republic is messy and loud. Yet, from the clamoring on two extreme points, fairness, justice, and mercy continue to stand in the common argument for the regulation of society to ultimately benefit all. Since Americans inherently know right from wrong and are generally just and merciful, the most contemptible actions a politician can make is to forget, upon election, he/she must serve all his/her constituents, not only the political party he/she personally adheres to and represents. This contemptible action, witnessed in many past and current political scandals, simultaneously displayed the actions taken at every level of government from the dogcatcher and school board locally to the president’s office federally. For example, President Obama’s decision to hire Arne Duncan as United States Secretary of Education, the multiplicity of “Czar” appointments, the VA scandal across America, the IRS debacle and the continuing saga this represents, and much more, on both sides of the political aisle, all find their roots in the failure to adhere to the rule of law. Supporting a personal political party’s leanings over the rule of law causes all of America to suffer grievously.

Districts elect their politicians, and an elected politician has only one job, which is to represent the citizens, all citizens of this great Republic, at the level of office elected. This means that the higher in political office, the broader the constituent base, and the higher the public’s trust, and hence the more closely the politician must walk in honoring, obeying, and upholding the laws of the land. If the politician’s first waking breath is not commitment to equality under the law and obedience to America’s Constitutional Law, as described by President Lincoln above, he/she is a charlatan, a hoax, a fraudster, and needs removal from holding a position of public trust. More to the point, failure to honor the elected responsibility to constituents is, by law, criminal negligence and warrants a court of action convened in the form of a public hearing held forthwith to determine status of guilt and accountability under the law for failure to uphold the public trust.

Rugged individuals founded America for people who love Liberty. To love Liberty means fair play and equality under the law as the basic and fundamental building block of society. If an individual personally is unable to tolerate individual liberty, that individual remains free to leave America’s shores and find a more suitable place to live among the other nations on Earth.

Too many people in America have failed to embrace personal liberty for their neighbors; thus, compromising personal liberty for themselves and fundamentally jeopardizing liberty for every American. President Lincoln could not have been plainer on this point, and the extreme examples of the last 20+ years on the Federal, State, and Local government levels are obvious. America is in danger not from without, e.g. terrorism, war, etc., but from within, e.g. politicians, who fail to uphold equality under American Constitutional Law and honor the rule of America’s law. The axiom continues to verify itself, “The wise man in the storm does not pray for deliverance from the storms without, but the storms within.” Direct application of hope, faith, and trust dispels fear as a storm within. If a politician holds a position of public trust, people have placed upon him/her their hope and faith that he/she will honor the rule of law for the benefit of all peoples, not simply those who helped him/her become elected.

A particular point of contention generates with “Special Interest Groups.” Special interest groups do not the full population represent; hence, the reason and label of “Special Interests.” Special interest groups are not capable of representing all the population or they would be called “General Interest Groups,” and not every person in America can be represented by such narrow thinking on any issue, let alone the big issues, e.g. abortion rights, religion, immigration, education, etc. Because “Special Interest Groups” do not represent the full population, limiting special interests, disclosing fully special interest funding sources, and issuing complete disclosure of the reason that particular special interest is pushing a specific legislative agenda are key factors. During the Obamacare debates, in full spectacle of the world, America learned a valuable lesson on the need for full disclosure on special interests. Special interest groups intensely supported, as political favors for the benefit of one political group over all others, software that never lived up to the hype and wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. This decision represented a deleterious action full of contempt for the rule of law rather than equal opportunity under the law for all persons. Anytime public money is used to issue a political favor, public trust is breached, the rule of law flouted, and the need for removal from office necessitated; then such persons are held accountable, along with those politically rewarded, in a court of law, and the public’s money is recovered.

The use of public funds in issuing political favors includes employment. Since public employees necessarily receive their wages from public money, politicians breach the public trust should they hire, as a reward for political favors and the public deserves their money back. Kevin Jennings is a specific example; President Obama, through Arne Duncan while in the office of Secretary of Education, hired Jennings as a “Safe Schools Czar.” Duncan knew Jennings would remain a prominent and outspoken member of the LGBTQ agenda through Jennings’ history with GLSEN, as well as a previous executive director for the group and an admirer of Harry Hays of NAMBLA. It seems particularly ironic that to achieve greater public support, under the leadership of Jennings the group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) changed its name (1997) from the Gay & Lesbian Independent School Teacher Network (GLISTN). His hire represents a significant breach of public trust as a pusher of the LGBTQ agenda. His role in government put him squarely into a position to coerce America’s Public Schools into becoming breeding grounds for the homosexual agenda instead of bastions for learning. Americans felt abhorred that someone who peddles in pedophilia was now in charge of making schools safer. For the record, anytime a legally recognized adult promotes sex with children under the age of legal majority is committing, or aiding in, the crime of pedophilia. By promoting books on adult/children sex, creating book lists and learning platforms promoting this deviant behavior, Jennings has aided and abetted, at the very least, pedophilia in America’s schools. While claiming success due to President Obama’s assistance, the LGBTQ Agenda became “anti-bullying” at a conference hosted by the White House with President Obama being the keynote speaker.

An investment of public money through employment for the political reward of a constituent is what landed Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in prison. What put him in prison is and continues to be called, “Pay-to-Play.” Investing in a politician that leads to a reward, e.g. employment, with the ability to “play” with the laws of the land remains despicable and worthy of criminal charges with a public trial for all persons in the chain of decision-making; yes, this includes President Obama.

Rest assured politicians can hire whom they choose, but they must do so ever cognizant of the moral fiber and ethical standards of those hired, and the public trust invested through both the voting booth and tax dollars. Kevin Jennings never showed the slightest inclination to support the rule of law or equality under the law for all people. In fact, many of his friends and associates continue to believe that if a person does not think in a similar manner to themselves, that person needs to be destroyed politically, personally, and professionally, this is also referred to as being “Bork[ed].” Represented and exemplified through the actions of such supporters in the removal of Inspector Generals in the Federal Government at large, the changes specifically within the Department of Education, and the cover-ups in the IRS and VA scandals were all designed to hide truth from the American public. This is dangerous ground for America and represents terrorism at the most fundamental level, the terrorism of thought leading to action while holding a position of public trust paid for by public funds. By using the threat of government action to intimidate, coerce, and force societal change, many in government, like Jennings, are committing terrorist acts.

As the elections of 2016 draw near, this missive belongs to the politicians currently holding office as well as those hoping to hold public office: please uphold the rule of law. Please come out in full and unequivocal support of the rule of law and the liberty of all as the only hope for saving America, even if this means people suffer from the consequences of their poor individual decisions. Embrace the rule of America’s Constitutional law. Taxpayers, as represented by their collective elected officials colloquially known as government, cannot and should never be forced to pay for bad personal decisions with public money. Government is not a charitable organization. Hence, government cannot and should not be investing public money in abortion clinics, drug rehab clinics, and other consequences for poor personal decisions. Charitable and religious organizations are sufficient to this task and public money needs investing elsewhere, e.g. providing for the common defense, ensuring free trade among the states, reducing the debt, or lowering taxes, etc.

Stand for the absolute rule of law and America wins. Failure to stand for the rule of law and America loses, utterly and completely. With the failure to stand for the rule of law, politicians elected and trusted by their constituents, who transform themselves into being inadequate to the task to perform according to law. Their names are thence cast upon the dung heaps of history as charlatans and unpitied betrayers of the struggle to keep America the “…shining city on a hill,” full of “…liberty and justice for all.”

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this: