🧵 1/ Marxism inspires people to wield government’s coercive power against their fellow citizens—inevitably causing immense harm—all while insisting that the harm is justified because “it’s for their own good”
2/ Once embraced, the “it’s for their own good” mantra can be misused to justify cruelty in almost any setting in which there is a pronounced power differential—including at work (mean boss), home (abusive spouse or parent), or school (tyrannical teacher)
3/ While potentially harmful in countless other settings, the “it’s for their own good” mindset can become nothing short of *deadly* when it takes hold in government
4/ There’s a simple explanation for that: there’s a particularly pronounced power imbalance between the government and the governed, and that makes it really hard to stop unchecked, violent abuse
You normally can’t just leave your government like you would an abusive employer!
5/ Think of Stalin’s famines, and Mao’s purges—all “for the good of the people”
6/ As C.S. Lewis insightfully observed in *The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment*:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive … those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”
7/ Marxism, to whatever degree it sinks in, tends to do precisely that, leaving a trail of blood and human suffering
8/ Marxism must therefore be rejected—emphatically and without qualification or hesitation—by anyone who loves freedom and hates oppression
9/ Fortunately for all Americans, the Constitution—while written long before Karl Marx was even born—is incompatible with Marxism inasmuch as it strictly limits both the power of government prohibits the and the concentration of power within it
To the Marxist, that’s kryptonite!
10/ The Constitution is only as effective at forestalling Marxism’s inevitable tyranny as Americans—and those they elect—are committed to understanding, defending, and adhering to the Constitution’s limitations on the authority and concentration of power within government
11/ It’s my sincere hope and prayer that God will continue to bless America—protecting us from the predation of would-be tyrants as we honor the Constitution throughout the ages
Please follow if you’d like to see more posts like this one
… “strictly limits both the power of government and the concentration of power within it”
Sorry for the typo
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2. It’s unwise and even reckless to run all spending bills through a single committee for at least three independent reasons
First, it makes no sense from a workload-distribution standpoint
3. The staggering size, cost, and complexity of the federal government are such that no sane person would assign all of the workload associated with all spending bills to one committee
Responsibility for spending bills should be distributed broadly among all who have been elected to either chamber of Congress—not just to a select few who happen to serve on one committee
🧵1. Congress should be *passing* the SAVE Act to stop noncitizens from voting—not paying leftists to lobby against it
The Labor/HHS spending bill advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee contains an earmark giving $500,000 to leftists falsely claiming the SAVE Act would “disenfranchise millions of Americans”
🧵 1. The massive fraud schemes in Minnesota—billions in stolen federal funds from child nutrition, autism services, housing stabilization & childcare programs—aren’t just a failure of oversight
These areas (welfare, education aid, health services) lie far outside Congress’s enumerated powers under the Constitution
And they likely represent just the tip of a much larger iceberg—with other schemes going on in many other states
2. Strictly speaking, the federal government has no sound constitutional authority—rooted in the plain text and original understanding of that document—to run or fund state-level social welfare programs like these
3. When Congress acts where it’s not authorized, that’s an overreach
As the Tenth Amendment makes clear, functions not deemed federal by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to fund Somali daycare centers
đź§µReturn of the Walking Earmarks: A Deadly Epidemicđź§µ
1/ After a decade-long moratorium, Congress has reverted to “congressionally directed spending”—the polite, new name for pork-barrel projects subtly slipped into must-pass bills with almost no review or opportunity for debate
2/ Earmarks are sold as “only 1% of spending,” but that 1% creates a corrupting process that helps perpetuate $2 trillion annual deficits
Let’s talk about why they’re so toxic ok
3/ Legalized Vote “Purchasing”
Members trade votes on massive spending bills for pet projects back home
“You vote for my bridge to nowhere, I’ll vote for your turtle tunnel”
It’s not about good policy
It’s about buying votes with taxpayer money—all to make politicians look good
🚨🧵🚨 1/10 Government shutdowns aren’t a bug—they’re a feature of a system that’s grown too big and too expensive
They illustrate why James Madison insisted the federal government’s powers must be “few and defined”
Let’s break it down
2/10 In Federalist 45, Madison wrote:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
He wasn’t being poetic
He was drawing a line in the sand
3/10 “Few and defined” includes:
• National defense
• Foreign affairs
• Interstate & foreign commerce
• Coining money
• Post offices & roads
There are a few others, but that’s most of it
Everything else?
Left to the states—“or to the people”
But today?
The feds touch everything—including education, healthcare, light bulbs, toilets, and your kids’ lunch at school
At the “No Kings” rallies, we saw countless, open calls for violence against President Trump and other Republicans
When pressed, some Democrats will shrug and insist that “both sides have bad apples who sometimes say bad things, but that doesn’t mean they reflect the views of their party as a whole”
That sounds like a good argument—and in the past it might have been
But open calls for violence among Democrats have recently become so common, widely accepted, and even celebrated—as they certainly were at the “No Kings” rallies—that this argument rings hollow
Those engaging in such behavior over the weekend appear to have done so with full, unbridled approval of their fellow protesters
And this happened in so many times—and in so many different locations—that it’s impossible to dismiss them as one-off exceptions
Please share this post if you agree, commenting on any examples you found especially troubling
This guy’s promoting the killing of federal law enforcement personnel—with the apparent approval of the crowd
Dick proudly announces that he wants to “kill the president”