Bernie Sanders is probably the only Democrat who has been honest enough to admit that the Democratic Party has been a complete failure. It’s focus on Marxism and creating class warfare has been a serious issue that will fuel civil unrest as the Socialist agenda continues to implode. Sanders recently said: “The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure. People sometimes don’t see that because there was a charismatic individual named Barack Obama.” When we look at the total seats held in both the Senate and House by each party, the bear market in the Democrats becomes obvious. The Democrats actually peaked with the first election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. They have been gradually declining ever since.

Bernie pointed also to the Democratic Party’s many state legislative losses to Republicans. He has pointed out that the Republicans control most of the state legislatures throughout the country. What Bernie fails to grasp is that government is far too corrupt to actually govern and provide any true improvement in the lifestyle of the average person. The entire Socialist agenda has been devastating on absolutely every front. The introduction of Social Security shifted the focus away from inter-family security being replaced by the state. Kids no longer save to take care of their parents for that is the government’s job. Eastern Europeans still rely upon the family as you also see in China. In the USA, an amazing amount of children are still living with their parents into the 30s all because of taxes.

On top of that, the tax burden upon people has steadily risen. During the 1930s, it took just one person to earn a salary to support a family. It was the Democrats who imposed the income tax all the way down creating the Payroll Tax. They changed the definition of the rich from $5 million to $250,000 just to collect more taxes. What they have done is not just caused more children to be living with their parents into their thirties, but young families cannot survive unless the wife also works. That may be great for the Women’s Liberation Movement, but it has also robbed women of even the luxury to stay home and raise their children during the formative years. It now takes two incomes to sustain what one used to do before the income tax.

The Democrats also seriously altered the black family, which was once stronger than even the white community because they needed each other. With the introduction of welfare, they began to pay girls for the number of children they had and created an incentive not to get married. Similar programs in New Zealand provided total care for a girl if she had no idea who the father of the child was. Even the white community found the number of women who had no idea who the father was rose dramatically because they received free housing. The guy just ran out the back door when the social worker arrived. The ethnic background or race does not matter – it is economic incentives to undermine the family structure. Today, the black family has fallen to the bottom compared to whites and Hispanics all because of decades of economic incentives not to have a family structure. Studies now show the net effect of such social policies. “The United States shows striking racial and ethnic differences in marriage patterns. Compared to both white and Hispanic women, black women marry later in life, are less likely to marry at all, and have higher rates of marital instability.” Instead of blaming race, we need to look closer at the failure of Socialism.

The only message of the Democrats is also the same – vote for them because you are the victim of the rich. Instead of being like King Midas where everything he touched turned to gold, everything they have touched has crumbled to dust. Have Democratic policies ever worked? Communism failed. Behind the old Iron Curtain, the people as a whole learned the hard way that government is not something you can trust. Unfortunately, Europe and North America must learn the same lesson. The first major reform is not to simply lower taxes, but to prohibit direct taxation as was originally set forth by the Founding Fathers until the Marxists amended the Constitution and have ever since been destroy our culture. One of the primary reasons corporation have moved offshore is not because they will pay wages that are cheaper. The number one reason is for consistency. It is always a battle over taxes. How can you invest in a plant and assume your profit margin will be XYZ, and then the Democrats raise the taxes when they get back in. Other countries office 25-year tax guarantees NOT to raise their tax rate. Would you sign a lease for an apartment that said if the landlord needs money, he can raise your rate any time he desires and if you refuse to pay he can throw you in prison? Welcome to the American tax system.

QUESTION: Has the world lost sight of what is a Protection Priority??
Equifax CEO Richard Smith Resigns after Backlash Over Massive Data Breach Equifax that compromised the PERMANENT data (SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS ) of 143 million Americans. AND IS REWARDED $18.4 million. (including a $7.6 million bonus.)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has to testify next week on Capitol Hill regarding recent revelations about uses of people’s data (where they shop, eat, play) that they made public in the first place.
What are our security priorities??

MG

ANSWER: Our entire loss of privacy rights should be a major class action lawsuit. To sign up for anything, they have tremendous detailed legal agreements where effectively you waive all your rights to privacy. It is a situation where UNLESS you waive your rights, you cannot participate in the digital world. My personal legal theory is straightforward. I will be glad to help any law firm that wishes to bring such an action. You CANNOT possibly waive any Constitutional right whatsoever BECAUSE such an act of waiver means that every person in this country, even if not a citizen, can constructively amend the Constitution. That means the Constitution is a scrap of paper with no substance. The only authority to amend anything in the Constitution remains Article Five and that requires two-thirds of Congress to vote for such a change.

Constitution Article Five

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.

The Constitution is NEGATIVE meaning it is a restraint upon government. Any waiver means you are amending the Constitution to give them more power than the Founders granted. That is an un-Democratic result. Justice Jackson explained that these constitutional principles in the Bill of Rights “grew in soil which also produced a philosophy that the individual[‘s] . . . liberty was attainable through mere absence of governmental restraints.” West Virginia State Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943).

One of the greatest legal minds of today is Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit. In November 1980, in Joliet, Illinois, a car turned over and caught fire. A policeman arrived and began directing traffic away from the scene. He made no effort to determine whether or not there were people in the car. There were, and they burned to death. The city was sued for damages on the ground that, by failing to save the occupants, the policeman and therefore the city had deprived them of life or liberty without due process of law. Relief was denied.

Judge Richard Posner wrote that the Constitution “is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties. . . . The men who wrote the Bill of Rights were not concerned that Government might do too little for the people but that it might do too much to them. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868 at the height of laissez-faire thinking, sought to protect Americans from oppression by state government, not to secure them basic governmental services.” Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1049 (1983). Thus the city had no constitutional duty to help the accident victims, and thus its failure to act deprived them of neither liberty nor life /Id. at 1206.

Therefore, the Constitution is unquestionably NEGATIVE and it imposes no duty upon the government to create any program even under the Socialist philosophies. Instead, it was always a restraint upon the government to ensure our liberty. Hence, you CANNOT waive any Constitutional right for that would be constructively amending the Constitution and therefore you are granting power to the government to act unconstitutio9nally which would then also violate Equal Protection of the laws for they can coerce everyone to surrender a right and that means people are not treated the same.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), is a landmark case in the United States that established the Right to Privacy which Facebook and just about everyone else is coercing people to surrender. The case involved a Connecticut “Comstock law” that prohibited any person from using “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” They prosecuted and convicted a doctor as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife’s use. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that “the clear effect of [the Connecticut law…] is to deny disadvantaged citizens […] access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control.” By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy”, establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to “protect[ion] from governmental intrusion.”

Can you imagine that the government passed a law which decreed you could not have sex in some particular position? The question that immediately jumps out at you is HOW can they enforce such a law? Would government then have the right to witness a private sexual act in your home to grant approval or not? You can easily see that is the problem. Yet in Switzerland, they have some strange laws. A man cannot urinate standing up after 10 PM because he might make noise that disturbs a neighbor. This is an example of intrusive government.

The Right to Privacy is critical. The government violates that law every single day. Congress can enact any law it desires even one that said every person must kill their first born male son. The burden then falls to the citizen to argue in court that the law is unconstitutional. The French system requires the court to rule BEFORE the enforcement of any act. The American system is tyranny for only if a person has enough money to defend themselves can they uphold the Constitution. This is a terrible legal system that denies Equal Protection of the Law for it obviously discriminates according to class.

Facebook and others can take all your private data and sell it for a profit. They will also turn it over the government. Therein is a serious conflict of interest. The Right to Privacy should be restored and forcing people to surrender that right to be part of the digital era is outrageous coercion. It is long beyond the time that we actually apply the Constitution as a NEGATIVE restraint upon government as it was intended. We have no LIBERTY until that is restored.