The Story of the First Thanksgiving 2014

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 

This is the annual CH 2.0 re-telling of the true story of the first Thanksgiving.

By Matt Ross

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I heard  this story years ago, so I thought I’d post it.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”

Happy Thanksgiving all.  Thanks for all of your comments and encouragement.

Source: Mises Institute

.

.

Share

Dependency Nation: More Than One Third of Americans On Government Assistance

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 photo governmentassitance_zps4c1340e2.jpeg

.

Let’s say Obama has a plan to build a permanent Democrat majority. A plan that will guarantee Hillary Clinton wins the White House in 2016. A plan which takes precedence over all other concerns, no matter what the cost to America’s short-term well-being or long-term prospects for security and prosperity.

I suspect he (well, actually, Valerie Jarrett) does, and I’d say it looks something like this.

Newly released Census data reveals nearly 110 million Americans — more than one-third of the country — are receiving government assistance of some kind.

The number counts people receiving what are known as “means-tested” federal benefits, or subsidies based on income. This includes welfare programs ranging from food stamps to subsidized housing to the program most commonly referred to as “welfare,” Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

At the end of 2012, according to the stats, 51.5 million were on food stamps, while 83 million were collecting Medicaid — with some benefitting from multiple programs.

Though the programs were created to help those in need, some analysts worry that the way they’re designed is, increasingly, incentivizing people not to work. They note that when recipients combine several government assistance programs, in many cases they pay better than going to work.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner said that in the eight most generous states, the benefits can be tantamount to a $20 minimum wage — which would exceed the $7.25 minimum wage in most states.

“So in many cases people could actually do better on welfare than they could in an entry level job,” Tanner said.

When people are beholden to the government for sustenance, they tend to vote for the politicians who promise them more of that sustenance.

And nobody is better at promising unlimited Free Stuff than today’s Democratic Party. Remember the woman who said Obama was going to pay her mortgage? The entitlement mentality is seductive, and contagious.

It’s also ridiculously easy to make promises, and then blame “evil Republicans” when you don’t deliver. The goal isn’t to help people; the goal is to keep people dependent, and voting your way.

In other words, the goal is Power. Power at any cost.

Barack Obama never intended to govern.

Barack Obama is a permanent campaigner, skilled at drumming up primal emotions, and then focusing them for the benefit of his Party. The incongruity of his Class Warfare rhetoric is lost on the guilty white liberal donors who pour millions of dollars into his coffers at every opportunity. And all that matters to Obama is that the money flows into electing, and re-electing Democrats.

Hence he eschews policies which might jeopardize their hegemony.

Building the Keystone Pipeline might piss off the econuts, and he needs their cash.

Fighting Islamic terrorists might piss off the kumbaya crowd, and he needs their cash too.

Promoting private sector job growth might dilute the culture of dependency, and he needs every vote he can get.

Helping businesses succeed might make the unions wonder why he isn’t raising taxes instead, and he needs their votes too.

Stopping the invasion on our southern border might upset La Raza, and he needs their anger and envy to keep them from wanting to embrace what we used to call The American Dream.

You know, there’s the really sad legacy of Obama and the Democrats.

Once upon a time it was said that the business of America is Business.

They’ve turned that old saw on its head. The business of America is dependency. Wealth transfer. Class envy. Business is a dirty word.

Why work? Vote Democrat and somebody else will do that. Then, as your reward, the government will mail you checks.

You gotta admit it’s a sweet deal.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. — Alexander Tyler

Or, as Lady Thatcher put it, sooner or later they’ll run out of other people’s money.

Then what?

Share

Socialism And Communism Are Contrary To Christianity

Share

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo is a friend of Ed Morrissey who gives a response refuting the popular myth that the Church’s “social justice” mission is compatible with Socialism and Communism. Rev. Marcel Guarnizo counters the belief that the ideas of socialist revolution and Communism have a place at the table with Christianity.  Many, even in the Catholic Church, believe that Christianity shares some ideals with the socialist revolution.  It seems to them that Socialism, Communism, and Christianity all help the poor. Father Guarnizo outlines and exposes the errors of Communism. 

Father Marcel Guarnizo writes: “The difference between the two was captured well by a joke I once read.  Communists will simply shoot you in the head, but the socialists will make you suffer for a lifetime.”


Drawing from sound Christian teachings on economics and liberty Father Marcel Guarnizo explains his position in great detail and length. 


There has been much discussion in recent weeks over the debt of Christianity to—and its compatibility with —the ideas and praxis of the socialist revolution, and even of communism. Many, even in the Catholic Church, believe that we share some of the ideals of the socialist revolution because it seems to them that communism, socialism and Christianity are for the poor. In addition to this most unfortunate error, the opposite fallacy has also been made popular in the minds of many, namely that capitalists and advocates of a free market economy, hate the poor. 

But the historical record of communism tells an entirely different story.  I have worked with the countries of the former Soviet Union for over 20 years, and I have seen what communism does to populations and nations. The scourge of the socialist revolution around the world gave us 6 million people killed by artificial famines in Ukraine and, as documented by The Black Book of Communism, 20 million victims in the U.S.S.R., 65 million in China, a million in Vietnam, 2 million in North Korea, another 2 million in Cambodia, a million more in the rest of Eastern Europe, 150,000 in Latin America, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan and through the international Communist movement and related parties about 100,000 more victims in various nations.  This is a body count that reaches to 100 million victims worldwide. Communism completely destroyed the economy, social fabric, and political culture of dozens of nations. It hollowed out the intelligentsia, ruined every economy where the seed of socialism fully “bloomed,” and abrogated fundamental rights and individual freedoms of the nations it subjugated.  Clearly the Judeo-Christian commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is not among the doctrinal teachings of communism and the socialist revolution. It is hard to believe that the socialist revolution—unlike Nazism—still finds promoters and defenders in the West. 

The compatibility of Christianity and its legitimate concern for the poor owes nothing to the violent and inhuman regimes created by the socialist revolution. No system in human history has produced more poverty and misery than communism.
No greater foe has the Church ever encountered, than the communist revolution. During the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of religious and priests were sent to forced labor camps or simply executed. Five year plans to abolish religion were implemented and no true believer was ever safe in such nations. What social doctrine of the Church was ever derived from such madness? Communism and the socialist revolution are not only the antithesis of Christianity. They are also incompatible with free, just, and democratic societies.
 

The case against the “wonders” of the socialist revolution can be put to rest by simply reminding people that brick and mortar walls, guarded by armed soldiers, were necessary to keep people from fleeing the manmade paradise of “social equality” created by communists. As Milton Friedman pointed out, the “…strongest proof of the failure of socialism is the fall of the Berlin Wall.” 

Neither is a complex apologia required to explain why there is no substantial difference between socialism and communism. Communism, as American writer Whittaker Chambers documented, is nothing more than socialism with claws. Theoretically the two systems share the same ideals and philosophical framework. Communism simply takes socialism to its logical, final consequences.
The difference between the two was captured well by a joke I once read.  Communists will simply shoot you in the head, but the socialists will make you suffer for a lifetime.
 

To mount a case against the socialist and the communist would seem completely unnecessary given the historical record. But it is necessary, because, as we see, communism’s ideology continues to ensnare the minds of the West and many of its leaders. Perhaps the statement of Whittaker Chambers, when he decided to defect from his service to the Soviet Union, that he had chosen to join, “… the losing side” is not altogether settled. Many think the fall of the Soviet Union proved Chambers wrong, but I submit that Chambers understood, perhaps more clearly than most, the lasting and insidious nature of the socialist revolution in the West. It seems to me, that the West’s great partial victory against the Soviet Union is far from being final. Though the Soviet Empire has fallen, the West remains in an equally powerful cultural battle, which the architects of the socialist revolution themselves anticipated.

 

Gramsci’s Tactic: Cultural Hegemony

The socialist revolution in the West has been greatly influenced by the tactics of the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci. Writing in the 1930s, Gramsci recognized that the culture of the West, and in particular, the Catholic Church, stood as robust obstacles to a communist economic and political takeover in Europe. Gramsci proposed that a takeover of the cultural institutions—the achievement of cultural hegemony—was the necessary first step to the eventual takeover of the political and economic structures of a free society. 

This strategy meant that socialists should tirelessly work on the takeover over of universities and education, media, churches, and other cultural intermediary structures of the free world. He thought that the eroding of the cultural foundations would weaken a free society’s natural defenses and this would open the path for the economic and political aims of the socialist revolution. 

I would submit that the “cultural hegemony” of the socialist revolution is increasing in the West and at an alarming pace. The increasing loss of ground in our culture to socialism and its allies is creating a growing threat to the political and economic freedoms of America and Western democracies. 

Therefore, it seems to me, the battle between the free world and the socialist revolution is far from settled.  The errors of communism are legion, and the West should not slumber, as the battle is far from over.

 

The Errors of Communism 

  1. 1.   The Error Concerning the Nature of Man

Communism starts not with an economic error but an anthropological one. The economic and political effects of the communist system are but a symptom of a previous error, an error about the nature of man. 

The French 19th century political economist and writer Frédéric Bastiat clearly makes the point. Socialism, Bastiat argued, sees man as mere raw material, to be disposed of, to be molded by the “all knowing,” state. In his book, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, economist Friedrich von Hayek launches a similar attack on the socialists and their “omniscient state.”  Hayek demonstrated the impotence of the socialist to run an economy 

Man is just matter: This materialist vision of man is the first and most profound error of the socialist revolution. The materialist vision of man is what justifies the communists’ insistence that they may legitimately do whatever it takes to achieve their utopia. We must be transformed by the state, into its image and likeness. 

This materialist view disregards therefore the true dignity of man and the true nature of the human person—his rationality and free will. The artificial social orders engineered by socialists are completely devoid of a proper understanding of man and the kind of being that he is. CONTINUED

Original Post: TeresAmerica

Share

Common Core: Right Wing Groups to be Described as ‘Fascist’

Share

school_crossing_sign

I haven’t covered it as much as I should, but Common Core is the latest indoctrination program for use in the public schools.  And, since it’s a leftist creation, it’s full of lies, indoctrination, and blind obedience.  And, since the socialist state can tolerate no dissent, all opposition has to be smeared and discredited.   In that vein, it appears that Common Core dictates that all “right wing group” be portrayed as fascists, even though fascism and Conservatism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.  The Federalist Papers has more…

Via The Daily Caller:

Hillsdale professor Terrence Moore, author of  “Story Killers: A Common Sense Case Against Common Core,”  exposed some of the more distressing aspects of the controversial Common Core education standards program, saying that all teachers must tell young students that all right-wing groups are fascist.

Moore highlights how it is not just the reading lists and course materials — which have already attracted a large amount of criticism — that need to be examined by parents. It’s also the teaching notes and standard curriculum; the notes and standards come as part of a comprehensive package. Moore noted through his research that a distinctly political slant is introduced, one which dictates not only what children are taught, but also how they should be taught.

Next thing you know, they’ll be encouraging kids to turn their parents in for being “fascists.”    In the end, it is clear that Common Core is far more like fascism than any freedom loving American.

Share

Venezuela: Communist Dictator Blames Others for Failure of Communism

Share

As I have noted many time, leftists, whether they  call themselves communists or not, share the blame game with their fellow travelers.  When the Soviet Union’s beautiful collective farms failed to produce; causing the Soviet Union to go from being a food exporter to starving millions, someone had to be blamed.  Rather than admit that their bastions of equality and social justice were a steaming pile of rancid failure, they created scapegoats.  “Conspirators” with the “imperialist capitalists,” usually some poor slobs that the political commissars didn’t like, were rounded up, or “disappeared.”  It didn’t really solve the problem, but at least the people’s misery was redirected onto an imaginary “enemy.”  Yuri Bezmenov commented on this in his early 80’s interview…

Fast-forward to the present, and think about how long did the Administration and MSM blame President Obama’s failures of President Bush.  When the insurance companies followed the law, and cancelled plans that were illegal under ObamaCare, they blamed the insurance companies.  When the government ordered the banks to make bad loans, and the housing bubble burst, the banks were blamed for doing what the government told them to do!

When the plans of statists fail, it is NEVER because the plans are flawed, horrible, or ill-advised, it’s ALWAYS the fault of the statist’s political foes.  For the latest example of this, here is some news from Venezuela…

Heads are rolling and ministers are being shuffled as Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro takes on the dangerous saboteurs that comrade Stalin warned us about. The country with the world’s biggest oil reserves can’t seem to keep baby formula in its stores, as sinister right-wing “mafias” have speculated Venezuela’s way into chronic sugar and milk shortages. Maduro identified the culprits in his first state of the union address as President, reports the BBC:

Speaking at the National Assembly in Caracas, Mr Maduro vowed to introducer [sic] tougher penalties against “sabotage and speculation”.

“How can you describe someone who hides [from the shelves] formula milk for babies? We cannot create a new euphemism for that. That person must be described as a criminal,” said President Maduro.

But Mr Maduro says his government is under attack from powerful right-wing sectors in the country.

“While the government makes a big effort to guarantee the quality of some services and the availability of products, the mafias speculate with other products and even medicines,” said Mr Maduro.

In the years prior to Hugo Chavez assuming room temperature, he nationalized many parts of the economy, and most have turned into fail.  They sell oil by the tanker, but have power problems.  They earn billions, but cannot get baby formula on the shelves.  The wealthy job creators are leaving, or going Galt, and Venezuela is suffering what all leftist states eventually suffer:  the entire place is turning into Detroit.

But don’t worry.  It’ll always be someone else’s fault.  They might fire some people, or maybe even jail some political opponents.  Life won’t get any better, but at least some otherwise innocent people will be blamed, right?

 

Share

This is What Socialism Does to a Country

Share

For those of you with half a brain, or any knowledge of history, or simply a grasp of the obvious would know, socialism takes anything, and turns it into a steaming pile of failure.  For this example, we excerpt Fausta, and see what socialism has done to Venezuela. 

Venezuelan blogger Miguel Octavio sees A Confusing Future Ahead For Maduro And Venezuela. Let’s look at a Zara store in Venezuela, before price controls,

and a Zara store after,

Enter the black market, in force.

And here is video…

Note the video reports that their new dictator claims that TV’s cost so much because the US is trying to ruin their economy?  Notice the “It’s someone else’s fault” rule kicking in?   See, Obama get’s it honest.  Socialism fails, so scapegoats must be made, and more socialism is always the solution.

Have to admit that they’re predictable

Share

Socialism Depends On Sheeple

Share

I was reminded recently by a troll who got lost and stumbled across this humble blog the we conservative/libertarians are careless in the way we throw around the terms “socialism” or “socialist”. The troll reminded me that “socialism” means state ownership of the means of production and in America the State does not own the means of production. Technically the troll is right. We on the Right tend to use the labels “liberal’ or “progressive” or “socialist” interchangeably. But, we do it with good reason. Whatever label the Left prefers doesn’t matter much to us because we know that the policies they promote all eventually lead to socialism. And, in this day and age, it isn’t necessary for the State (the collective people) to actually own the means of production, in the Soviet sense, to have effective control of the means of production. ObamaCare is a perfect example.

So, to my way of thinking, it doesn’t mater label the Left prefers, they are socialist whether the like it or not. Socialism is alive and well in America as we conservative/libertarians know all too well. And, as I said in today’s title, socialism depends on there being plenty of sheeple. Sheeple, unfortunately, make up the majority of mankind. It is easier to conform to the collective and let the collective tell you what to think, what to believe, and how to behave than it is to be self-reliant individual. This morning I came across the best analysis of sheeple I’ve ever read at Zero Hedge. Please do check it out. Here is a small sample of what the author, Brandon Smith, had to say about sheeple:

A sheeple gathers his entire identity from the group. He acts the way he believes the group wants him to act. He thinks the way he believes the group wants him to think. All of his “ideas” are notions pre-approved by the mainstream. All of his arguments and talking points are positions he heard from the media, or academia, and he has never formed an original opinion in his life. Without the group telling him what to do, the average sheeple is lost and disoriented. When cast into a crisis situation requiring individual initiative, he panics or becomes apathetic, waiting for the system to come and save him rather than taking care of himself. Sheeple are so dependent on others for every aspect of their personality and their survival that when faced with disaster, they are the most likely people to curl up and die.

Sheeple are not only reliant on the collective for their identity and their survival; they also need a steady supplement of approval from others in order to function day to day. When a sheeple leaves his home, he is worried about how his appearance is perceived, how his attitude is perceived, how his lifestyle is perceived and how his opinions are perceived. Everything he does from the moment his day begins revolves around ensuring that the collective approves of him. Even his acts of “rebellion” are often merely approved forms of superficial “individualism” reliant on style rather than substance. This approval becomes a kind of emotional drug to which the sheeple is addicted. He will never make waves among the herd or stand out against any aspect of the herd worldview, because their approval sustains and cements his very existence. To take collective approval away from him would be like cutting off a heroin junky’s supplier. To be shunned by the group would destroy him psychologically.

My troll should be pleased that today I am going to report on the activities of a true “socialist” in America today; more specifically in that bastion of “liberalism”, Seattle,, Washington. Jazz Shaw, at Hot Air, tells us about a young woman in Seattle by the name of Kshama Sawant who does not hide behind labels. She is a socialist and she is proud of it.

Seattle voters have elected a socialist to city council for the first time in modern history.

Kshama Sawant’s lead continued to grow on Friday, prompting 16-year incumbent Richard Conlin to concede.

Even in this liberal city, Sawant’s win has surprised many here. Conlin was backed by the city’s political establishment. On election night, she trailed by four percentage points. She wasn’t a veteran politician, having only run in one previous campaign.

But in the days following election night, Sawant’s share of the votes outgrew Conlin’s.

“I don’t think socialism makes most people in Seattle afraid,” Conlin said Friday.

I went to Wikipedia to find out the background of Kshama Sawant.

Sawant was born to Vasundhara and H. T. Ramanujam in Pune, India in a middle class family of the Brahmin caste.[5][7][8] Sawant’s mother is a retired principal and her father, a civil engineer, was killed by a drunk driver when she was 13.[9] Sawant’s observations of poverty in her native country and her unhappiness with the Indian caste system helped shape her political views before her adoption of socialism.[8][10] Sawant grew up in Mumbai where she later studied computer science and graduated with a B.Sc from the University of Mumbai in 1994. Sawant married her husband Vivek, an engineer at Microsoft, and moved to the United States.[11] After moving to the United States Sawant decided to abandon the computer engineering field. She began to pursue study in economics due to what she described as her own “questions of economic inequality.”[12] She entered the economics program atNorth Carolina State University where she earned a PhD. Her dissertation was titled Elderly Labor Supply in a Rural, Less Developed Economy.[5][13] Sawant moved to Seattle in 2006 and, after hearing a speech by a Socialist Alternative organizer, became a socialist. She became a United States citizen in 2010.[14] Sawant and her husband Vivek are separated.[7]

Shaw’s linked source says that her Socialist Alternative platform resonated with the sheeple people of Seattle.

… she pushed a platform that resonated with the city. She backed efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15; called for rent control in the city where rental prices keep climbing; and supports a tax on millionaires to help fund a public transit system and other services.

Seattle, as you are probably aware is the home of Boeing and Ed Morrissey of Flopping Aces tells us that althugh Seattle young socialist has yet to take her seat on the City Council, she has wasted no time in trying to stir up trouble with Boeing’s Machinist Sheeple Union.

On Monday night, she spoke to supporters of Boeing Machinists, six days after they rejected a contract guaranteeing jobs in Everett building the new 777X airliner for eight years, in exchange for new workers giving up their guaranteed company pensions.

If Boeing and the union can not come to terms, Boeing has warned that those Seattle jobs could go somewhere else. Ms. Sawant says:

That will be nothing short of economic terrorism because it’s going to devastate the state’s economy.

So, she has a suggestion for the Machinist Union folks:

The workers should take over the factories, and shut down Boeing’s profit-making machine.

She calls that “democratic ownership”. According to her reasoning:

The only response we can have if Boeing executives do not agree to keep the plant here is for the machinists to say the machines are here, the workers are here, we will do the job, we don’t need the executives. The executives don’t do the work, the machinists do,” she said.

And, according to this article, the sheeple union members were cheering her on. Of course it didn’t occur to this “socialist” that there are laws against stealing private property. But, even if Boeing would give the plant to the sheeple Machinist Union, where does she think they would get the huge amounts of capital to buy the raw materials needed to build those planes, who is going to negotiate the financing and loans that would be needed, who is going to go around the world to sell their produce and write the contracts, and who is going to organize all those efforts? In short, it doesn’t occur to this socialist that the sheeple would need a management structure, who do indeed work. Maybe she thinks the sheeple union members can do everything. More likely, she, like the sheeple she wants to lead, do not think at all.

The sheeple good folks of Seattle elected this “socialist”. I hope they will be happy. One thing is for sure. If Boeing does decide to move their plant to another state, the sheeple good folks of Seattle will not blame the socialist. They will blame those savage capitalist at Boeing.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Asylum Watch

Linked by Dead Citizen’s Rights Society, thanks!

Share

Persecution Against in Christians in Military Increases Exponentially

Share

You should be afraid, very afraid, of what is happening to our military under Obama.  The persecution of Christians is almost reaching fever pitch.  Take a look at this video.

The last serviceman was absolutely correct, the persecution will not stop at the military.  And it isn’t.  But, it is important to think of why it is important to start with the military.  When your remove morality from something, what happens?  You have immorality! Yes, it’s a simple idea, so simple that our would -be regressive overlords fail to get it.  Or do they?

Just as a brief history lesson, the Soviet soldier of WW II was likely born into communism, educated in communist schools, and subjected to a steady stream of communist propaganda disguised as news.  If they heard of God before, it was only in the context that it was a fable used to “enslave stupid and weak people.” The Soviet soldier was the “new man” of socialism.  Raised in a society of “glorious equality, social justice, and democracy,” he was the shining example of the future of humanity.  However, without a moral compass, that “new man” was an evil monster.  As the Soviets entered, conquered, and occupied what later became East Germany, it is said that it would be easier to count the East German women who were NOT raped.  That’s right, torture, murder, and especially rape was not only common, but almost universal in the conquest and aftermath of the German defeat.  Why?  the Soviets mostly eliminated any sense of morality from their children, when those children grew up to be soldiers, they acted as immoral people-because they had no morals.

It’s those same morals that the Obama administration wants to eliminate from our military. And our schools, and our colleges, and our streets, and eventually, even from our churches.

I think I scared myself writing this. What’s your reaction?

Share

How Stupid Is The American Electorate? Would Americans Vote For A Socialist State If Given The Chance?

Share

How Stupid Is The American Electorate?

Let’s start with this Dictionary.Com definition of intelligence:

in·tel·li·gence

noun

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

Now I want you to rate the intelligence of the American electorate on a scale of 1 to 10. But, before you do that please consider this opinion poll I found at Hot Air  on what Americans think of Congress compared to other things.

When asked if they have a higher opinion of either Congress or a series of unpleasant or disliked things, voters said they had a higher opinion of root canals (32 for Congress and 56 for the dental procedure), NFL replacement refs (29-56), head lice (19-67), the rock band Nickelback (32-39), colonoscopies (31-58), Washington DC political pundits (34- 37), carnies (31-39), traffic jams (34-56), cockroaches (43-45), Donald Trump (42-44), France (37-46), Genghis Khan (37-41), used-car salesmen (32-57), and Brussels sprouts (23-69) than Congress.

Congress did manage to beat out telemarketers (45-35), John Edwards (45-29), the Kardashians (49-36), lobbyists (48-30), North Korea (61-26), the ebola virus (53-25), Lindsay Lohan (45-41), Fidel Castro (54-32), playground bullies (43-38), meth labs (60- 21), communism (57-23), and gonorrhea (53-28).

So, Americans like Congress better than Brussels sprouts but less than gonorrhea. Then, WHY IN THE HELL DO WE KEEP RE-ELECTING PEOPLE WE DON’T LIKE??? The American electorate has to be pretty stupid to do that, right? I’m feeling generous today so I am going to score them a 2.

Please keep your intelligence score for the American electorate in mind as we consider the second question in today’s title.

Would  Americans Vote For A Socialist State If Given The Chance?

Because America is a republic and not a democracy, our constitution does not allow for referendums at the federal level. But, what if it did? What if Americans were given the chance to decide once and for all the we do or do not want to be a socialist state? We have effectively been voting to become a socialist state in bits and pieces for decades, haven’t we? But, the problem is we never vote to pay for all the socialist programs and, as a result, America is over $16 trillion in debt. So, let’s imagine that today’s Americans were given a chance to vote on two questions in a national referendum to answer whether we want to be socialist and do we want to pay for socialism. Here are the two questions your humble observer has the American voters:

  1. America should have all the social programs that Sweden has.  (Everything under the sun)      Yes or No
  2. Americans should pay taxes like the Swedes do. ( 70%)        Yes or No.

Consider the intelligence score you gave the American voters, how do you think they would vote on the two referendum questions? My opinion is they would vote overwhelming YES on Question 1 and overwhelmingly NO on Question 2.
More debt anyone?

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Taking America Back One Bit At A Time – Part 4: The Taking of America Continued

Share

Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this series Taking America Back One Bit  At A Time can be found herehere, andhere.

The Taking of America continued

In Part 3, The Taking of America, we talked about how from day one there were those who wanted to manipulate our new government in wats that would benefit them financially; the practice of  cronyism began in earnest and powerful bankers also took advantage of the potential of America through their investments and very importantly they applied their influence to get our government to establish a national bank that they could control. We talked about how it took the bankers many years to finally get America to establish a central bank in 1913; the Federal Reserve. While these banking interest were reaping the rewards of their investments in America, they became very interested in what was going on in Russia with the Bolsheviks. They thought they saw a similar potential in this communist experiment in Russia as they did in the American experiment. They would help finance the Bolshevik revolution and they would invest in the new Russia.

To this humble observer, it appears that although the powerful banking interests made a lot of money from their investments in communist Russia, it did not turn out like they had hoped. They would not see the same benefits from state ownerdhip of the means of production that they did from America’s free market approach. However, they did see Marxism or, at least, socialism as a very useful tool for advancing their lust for wealth and power.

By coincidence or not, in the early 1900?s groups of true believers in the Marxist worker’s paradise looked upon the United States of America, the bastion of free market capitalism, and came to what would be very important conclusions that would be very important in the eventual demise of America. Groups like the Fabian Society and later the Frankfurt Schoolers and others would conclude two things. One, they would not defeat capitalism in America by force and two, they would not convince the American working class that they were being exploited by rich capitalists. The reason for the latter was that in spite of sweat shops, child labor, and women and blacks being treated like second and third class citizens the working class in American was seeing their standard of living improve rapidly due to the economic miracle that free market capitalism was enjoying in America. Therefore, they concluded that they would have to take the long view and take gown America bit by bit from within. To achieve their goals, they knew they would have to change the way Americans think and that meant they would have to dismantle the American culture. They set four principal goals for changing America’s culture: they would need to control the education of Americans, they would need to control the information that Americans received via media, they would need to control the culture through the entertainment industry, and they would need to break the influence of Christianity on America’s culture.  Parallel to all of this, they would need influence in the political arena. The message of compassion for the working class and the poor that they were selling would find eager buyers among America’s elite political class. They would have some very successes on the political front. Woodrow Wilson would be our first left leaning elitist president. Under the Wilson administration, the founding principles of America would be dramatically altered. Not only did the banking interest get their central bank, but the principle of state’s right took a nearly fatal blow when enough states ratify the 17th Amendment to electect Senators by popular vote instead of the states having the right to appoint their Senators. Also, under Wilson the federal government got the right to tax our income. The stage was set for our central government to grow in size and power. Our second left leaning elitest president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was the first to adopt the principle of never letting a crisis go to waste; Social Security was born out of the Great Depression. Eventually the socialist ideologues would take control of the Democratic Party. It may have been when Jimmy Carter was elected; a very ineffective president or certainly by the time Bill Clinton was elected who was very effective for them. Now we have the very left leaning Barack Obama who was just elected to a second term and we can’t deny how effective he has been to advancing the socialist agenda.

So, the question that is begging to be asked is how did some small groups of academic socialist thinkers have so much success? Was it because they were so dedicated to their near religious belief in their mission? Or, did they have a lot of financial help along the way? I certainly think they did. Have you ever asked yourself why huge foundations created from wealth amassed from the free market capitalist system; like the Rockerfeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and others support policies that are contrary to the way their founders amassed their fortunes? Why do  mega-rich people like David Rockerfeller, Maurice Strong, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Bill Gates promote policies that would seem to be against everything their lives have been about? I think the answer is simple. These mega-rich and powerful people believe they became super rich and powerful because they are smarter and wiser than the rest of us lesser souls who inhabit this planet. And, because they believe they are smarter and wiser than everyone else, it is they who should decide how the world should work and what our minimal roles will be. This is where talk about one world order, one world government, and one world currency comes from.

So, here we are in December 2012. Barack Obama has just won a second term. We conservatives look forward with dread about what is to become of this country we love in the next few years and beyond. We believe that this last election was a fundamental game changer. We believe America has passed a tipping point and no matter what happens in the next few election cycles, America will continue to decline both economically and in its influence in the world (militarily) until the monetary house of cards that supports it collapses and leave us and most of the world in chaos. So, I regret to inform you, dear readers, that before we can get to the point of this frustrating;ly long around about way of the title of this seris of posts, we need to do one more thing. In Part 5, we will need to speculate about what we think is going to happen in the next four or five years and what we think mught happen in the next ten, fifteen, or twenty years. Then I promise you we will get into what we can be doing to help pave the way for an American Renaissance two or more generations down the road.

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Some Thoughts on Human History, and Progressives

Share

Many of you might have noticed that I often put quotations around the word, “progressive.”  Over the last couple of years, I’ve probably wasted a thousand keystrokes doing that, so I might as well explain why.

For the vast majority of human history, mankind has lived in a state of tyranny.  This probably started not long after cave man Ugh realized that his neighbor, Argh was weaker than him, and carried a smaller club.  After Argh’s untimely demise (with the exception of some tribal societies), the course of mankind was set.

As mankind developed from hunter gatherers to simple agrarian societies, to city states, and then empires, a variety of chieftains, kings, dictators, warlords, priests, priestesses, and self declared “gods,” have ruled mankind.  During those  countless ages, the average person lived, or died, at the whim of his or her self-appointed leader.  Economies were controlled, taxes were high, incomes were close to nil, and the average person often died as penniless as they were at birth.  Economies centered on the wealth of the leaders, not on the people, so  pestilence and starvation killed many when it did not need to happen.  There was little to no income distribution.  There was the top class; the leaders and their enforcers, and there were the peasants.  There was not even a hint of equality or justice, just oppressive rule.  (I know that Rome was, for a time, a republic, and some Greeks practiced democracy, but even then, they were a drop in the bucket when compared to the total history of man)

These tyrannical leaders did not tolerate dissent, or even the chance of dissent.  people were tortured, maimed, and executed to insure the power of the ruler(s).  People were killed for treason, heresy, or for simply knowing someone who might have done something.  There was no, “taking to the streets.”  Such events would have been met with lethal force.  Not only that, the entire town in which such a thing occurred might be razed in retaliation.

The leaders during those dark times were said to be wiser, stronger, more suited to rule, and it had been ordained by God that they should have power.  And all the while, excesses and corruption were the order of the day.

However, as the centuries passed, progress-REAL progress, was made.  The Magna Carta established that people have some rights, though it is not as codified as are the rights in our Constitution.   Also, John Locke, among others, formulated the ideas of natural rights and the social contract.

Our Founding Fathers were the next in line for real progress.  They created, in the Unites States Constitution, the greatest charter for human freedom ever devised. They embraced the idea of Natural Rights, in the human freedoms are from God, and that government exists to protect those rights-and cannot take them away.  Humans were protected in their right to free speech, their freedom of religion, their right to defend themselves, their right to property and all the others that we tend to take for granted today.  In our Republic, man rules himself, and government exists only to do those functions that man cannot do for himself, such as national defense, enforcing contracts, establishing courts, coining money, and so forth.  Or at least, that’s is how it’s supposed to be.

However, the forces of tyranny did not rest or concede when true human freedom started to emerge.  The next stages of tyranny were  Communism, followed by the original “progressive movement,” and then Fascism.  All of these are related in terms of the fact that they center power in an elite, that then control all aspects of human behavior.  Their only differences are in process and scope.

The results were horrific.  Over a hundred million people were killed in the name of Communism.  Fascism might have  equaled  that, had they not been stopped by WW II.  The “progressives,” operating in Western Democracies, had to move slowly.  Incrementalism has been their primary operating procedure.  However, they inspired the Nazi’s with their love for eugenics, and were “fellow travelers” with the other two movements.

Over the decades, “progressives,” operating under a variety of labels , have moved through our institutions.  They have used a variety of justifications to give the Federal government more power.  They have taken control of education.  They are in control of the MSM.  They have crafted  regulations  that destroy business and industry.  They created social programs that have encouraged dependency, and then have created economic crisis to fill those programs to unprecedented levels.  They have legalized sexual assault in the name of “security.”  They have also used the created and false crisis of global cooling, global warming, climate change in order to justify the reduction of our lifestyles.  All of this, of course, will be monitored and controlled by the authorities.

Their desire for control extends to all aspects of human life.  Government wants to tell us what kind of food can we eat- even if we can grow our own.  We are told how much water our toilets can use.  The kinds of car we can own-and eventually, even if we can own one is to be determined by unelected  bureaucrats.    What kind of house we can build, the healthcare we can recieve, and a host of others, are all in the crosshairs of the “progressives.”  They even seek to control mass media and the internet to control the free flow of information.  In the end, are we free if the government dictates so many of our basic human functions?

We also see how the “progressives” treat those that disagree with them. Conservative and Libertarian students are threatened and punished on   campuses, where free speech is curtailed, and labeled as “hate.”  Union members and other “progressives” engage in violence and intimidation to silence those that dissent.  The Constitution itself has been declared “outdated,” or “irrelevant.”  The Founders themselves are attacked and discounted.  After all, if we are to be controlled by an all powerful government, the very ideas of freedom have to be attacked, silenced and discredited.

As you can see, “progressives” are not progressive. They are REgressive.  They seek to return us to a state in which we are controlled and dominated by a small elite.  And just as the monarchs of old, they seek the “divine right of kings,” in order to gain and maintain control over us.  Of course, they tell us that it’s for our own good, but they proceed from the faulty premise that they know better than us, and that we cannot self govern.

We were born into a state of freedom.  In terms of human history, this is a rare and precious gift.  Only the tiniest fraction of all humans that have ever lived have enjoyed these freedoms.  If we allow the Regressives to take them away, it might be centuries before they re-emerge, and hundreds of millions will die in the process.

Are we going those freedoms, and the future of mankind, over to a small elite that “knows what’s best?”

UPDATE:  American apparently took a sharp left turn towards regression last night.  Many may be deceived  but they will find out soon enough.

NOTE: This is yet another post that could be turned into a small book.  Obviously there are things I could not touch on without making it my first book. Feel free to let me know what I missed in the comment section.

Share

You Didn’t Build That: Debunking the Leftist Narrative

Share

If we listen to the leftists, we hear two repeated messages…

Corporations are not people

No one get’s rich on their own, or, you didn’t build that.

Of course, these are parts of the class warfare lexicon.   For example, corporations are not people because their campaign donations help balance the torrent of big labor money to the democratic coffers.  So, it necessary to redefine them as “not people.”   Oh, and by the way, labor unions ARE people.  Don’t ask how- it cannot be explained.  Perhaps some strange metaphysical process is involved, or it is simply an asinine narrative?  You can be the judge on that.

Then, we have the whole concept that no one get’s rich on their own.  The idea here is that along the line, some teacher might have inspired, or someone gave support at a critical time, all going towards the person in question becoming rich.  Frankly, that might be true, but that is where the leftist narrative leaves the rails.  You see, that same inspirational teacher may have taught thousands of students at one time or another.  However, none of the other students became rich.  Perhaps it was the ideas, talents, or the drive of the rich person that made the difference?  Not so! According to the POTUS.

Also, it is said that if it weren’t for roads and other government sponsored infrastructure, businesses could not succeed.  To this is I must respond, who pays for the roads and bridges?  And, in fact, who pays for the teacher’s salary?  Is it the producers, those that work, create, and build businesses?  How would these projects and careers be funded without people doing something productive, and therefore paying taxes?

There are some breakdowns of who pays taxes.  The first is from US News and World Report (Hardly a Conservative organization).

In politics, perception often counts more than reality. First, for argument sake, let’s classify “the rich” as those in the top 1 percent of income earners. For 2009, the most recent data available, to be included in the top 1 percent you had to report Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of just under $344,000.

That same year, the top 1 percent paid 37 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent (this would include a public school teacher and a police officer each making $56,000 a year who are married and filing a joint tax return) paid 70 percent, and those in the top half paid almost 98 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the bottom half paid about 2 percent. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 47 percent of households pay no federal income taxes. Does it seem fair that the top 1 percent pays only 37 percent? Or does the fact that the top 1 percent pays over one third of all federal income taxes seem unfair to the rich?

The second take on the same data comes from the Heritage Foundation…

Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.

Well, why are they are paying a higher tax rate than their percentage of income?  That is fair?  No, it’s not, because according to our leftist friends, they should be paying even more of their income, no matter that the scales are already stacked against them.

Let’s take a bit to examine this further.  If these rich people work for corporations (that clearly are non-human), they do need each other to make the system go.  Business owners, or CEO’s need everyone, from the warehouses, janitorial staff, and the mid level administrators doing their jobs to make the company work.  Once again, we have to recognize that without the ideas, drive, and talents of the creators of the business (those inhuman rich people), the janitors, warehouse staff, and mid level administrators wouldn’t have jobs.  You can replace a janitor, or a staffer, and most people wouldn’t even notice. But without a person at the top with the drive, ideas, and work ethic to do what it takes to make the business go, the whole operation can, and often does, fall apart.

Additionally, the drive and ideas of the evil and inhuman rich creates products and services that the rest of us want.  There are stockholders, retailers, salespeople, and scores of others that benefit from the distribution of those goods and services.  That drive and initiative to build a better mousetrap ripples through the economy, and the more ripples, the better it is for more and more people.   If the “builder” were not there, would the goods and services “poof” themselves into existence?  I think not.  However, if you listen to the POTUS, he seems to suggest that he can do that by decree.

And what of businesses and corporations not being “people?”

In a free state, people are able to freely make mutually beneficial associations.  Even if you want to call them “collectives,” you can. People join these “collectives” voluntarily, and break the relationship when one party no longer needs or wants the association with the other.  It’s freedom!  People take and quit jobs as they please.  Businesses, large and small, want to keep people that work well for them, and to replace those that don’t.  Consumers pick the products and services that they want.  Investors invest in the entities that they think will give them a good return.  It’s all volutary.  And, as evidenced by history, it works!

Until, that is, government get’s involved.

Now, let’s the two comments and tie them together.  From one side of the leftist mouth, we are told that people can’t get rich on their own, and that they need other people to make that happen.  However, the other side of that same leftist maw tells us that these people involved in a voluntary arrangement are NOT people.

Let’s briefly contrast the union arrangement; in a private company, you get to chose to stay or go, you get to make the choices, and if you do well, you might find yourself moving up, either at that company, or at your own.  The company has the same choices.  They can associate with you, advance you if they see potential, or terminate you if they don’t.  But, with the union, you are forced to join-there is NO choice.  And, if you do well, the work rules often won’t let the company pay you more.  Your drive, talent, and ideas have no bearing on your outcome, as the union won’t allow that.  You won’t get paid more than the drunk guy at the next work station.  In fact, if the drunk guy has more time in than you, you will be terminated first if there are layoffs.  In the leftist/union/government world, this is called “fairness.”  Of course, since your personal talents and abilities are meaningless, it’s the opposite of fair, but as usual, up is down, and right is wrong in liberal land.

But, even though corporations and small businesses are make up of people-voluntarily engaging in mutually beneficial relationships, they are not people, they are inhuman, and therefore can be deprived of their rights.  And, even though the productive owners, and even the workers of those companies pay far more than their “fair share” of the taxes, they should be taxed more.  Then, they are told that their efforts at building their businesses are irrelevant, and that government made it all happen anyway-even though the taxes paid by business owners funded the very government projects that the government touts as the reason for success in the first place!

Leftist “logic,” and explaining how completely bass ackwards it is, gives me a headache.  But, it has to be done.

Share

Sweating Your Fair Share

Share

The guilt-tripping airheads who write for the New York Times ask:

Is it a good goal for everyone in the world to have access to air-conditioning — like clean water or the Internet? Or is it an unsustainable luxury, which air-conditioned societies should be giving up or rationing?

 The only thing unsustainable in modern times is the insufferable arrogance of the Left, whose card-carrying members actually believe they should set ‘goals’ for everyone on the planet.  Internet access for humankind?  Universal air-conditioning?  This is the kind of ‘chicken-in-every-pot’ blather which bombastic stump speakers employed to try and bamboozle back-country rubes a hundred years ago. But it’s the progressive way — invent an injustice, then offer a solution which only government can implement.  It’s also a non-refundable ticket to totalitarianism, but that’s never bothered any Leftist worth his fair-minded salt.

Altruism did not invent the  air conditioner — nor the automobile, airplane, personal computer, or any of our other modern conveniences. These things were invented by free men, manufactured for profit by businessmen and their investors, and offered finally for sale in the marketplace where they were obtained by others using the income they’d earned from the sale of their labor or the return on their own investments. That’s the system under which we Americans live and under which most of us thrive, at least we did up until the advent of Obama. The system is called capitalism, and not a one of the world’s sweltering poor is entitled to its bounty merely because they happen to inhabit the same planet as its practitioners. But the socialist would always have you believe that one plus one equals three. Access to clean water is morally equivalent to surfing the Web or air-conditioning a Third World hovel. The socialist insists that wealth be redistributed and everyone receive his share, earned or not, until all humans are equally happy, or, as the case may be, equally miserable. All right then. The sweaty souls of the world are waiting. I suggest that the good people at the Times begin by giving away their own air conditioners this July.  After all, it’s only fair.

Share

Former East German Citizen Warns of Communism

Share

We all know that OWS, and many union bosses are advocates of a Communist revolution here in the US.  We also know history, and where that leads.  Additionally, we also know, from footage, that Marxists in OWS deny history.  However, will another witness help them see the truth?  The Blaze recently posted a video, featuring a woman who escaped East Germany in the 80’s. 

Of course, the truth will not matter to the useful idiots.  As our late friend Bezmenov points out, they are programmed to deny reality, and I would argue that they are also programmed to attack anyone who does state it.  Remember this?

It didn’t matter that the man had actually LIVED IN the Soviet Union, he was dismissed.  Again, useful idiots cannot and will not grasp reality, until the new order decides that it’s their time to go.  By then, it will be too late.

Share

They’ve Won

Share

The other day I was listening to Mike Church on my way to work and and he was reading through the platform ticket of the 1928 socialist party.  The more I listened the more disturbed I became by what I was hearing.  One after another Mr. Church worked his way down the list and I realized that we had unknowingly became what many in America claim to abhor…socialists.  If you think I’m stretching the truth or off the mark take a look at their list for yourself.

  1. “Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly at Boulder Dam an Muscle Shoals.” (Boulder Dam, renamed Hoover Damn, and Muscle Shoals are now both federal government projects.)
  2. “A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost.” (This is a generally accepted process across the country.)
  3. “National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication.” (Railroad passenger service is completely nationalized through Amtrak. Some freight service is nationalized through Conrail. Private railroads are strictly regulated by the Federal Government. The FCC controls communications by telephone, telegraph, radio, and television.)
  4. “An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation.”(Government expenditures for these purposes are currently in the many billions of dollars.)
  5. “Immediate governmental relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works . . .” (In the 1930s, WPA and PWA were a direct counterpart; now, a wide variety of other programs are.) “All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions.” (The Davis-Bacon and Walsh-Healey Acts require contractors with government contracts to pay “prevailing wages,” generally interpreted as highest union wages – also the national minimum wage.)
  6. “Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery.” (Federal grants in aid to states and local municipalities currently total tens of billions of dollars a year.)
  7. “A system of unemployment insurance.” (Part of Social Security system.)
  8. “The nation-wide extension of public employment agencies in cooperation with city federations of labor.”(U.S. Employment Service and affiliated state employment services administer a network of about 2,500 local employment offices.)
  9. “A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance.” (Part of Social Security. Full global health insurance proposed widely.)
  10. “Shortening the workday” and “Securing every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week.” (Legislated by wages and hours laws that require overtime for more than forty hours of work per week.)
  11. “Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment.” (Not achieved as amendment, but essence incorporated into various legislative acts.)
  12. “Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents.” (Partly achieved, partly not.)
  13. “Increase taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance.” (In 1928, highest personal income tax rate, 25 percent; in 2008, 35 percent, above 40 percent proposed by Obama; in 1928, corporate tax rate, 12 percent; in 2008, 35-39% percent with proposed increases by Obama; in 1928, top federal estate tax rate, 20 percent; in 2008, 48% with proposed increases by Obama.)
  14. “Appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation.” (Not achieved in this form, but property taxes have risen drastically.)

H/T Rise of Reason

It took only 83 years to accomplish this checklist and now we have another progressive President in office who wants to finish the job.  They’ve won.  The proof is in the list.  But the real victory didn’t come by them accomplishing their socialistic goals; the real victory was them being able to accomplish these goals under our very noses without us even realizing it.  And this is truly the saddest thing of all.  For awhile now Mr. Church has been saying we’re all good little socialists…I now understand why.  Liberty lost is a tough thing to reclaim.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  Sentry Journal

Share

Obama Thinks "Unneeded" Income Belongs to Government?

Share

Commentary Magazine has a great article by John Steele Gordon.  I think it is quite revealing.

President Obama’s press conference yesterday—in which he only took questions from left-leaning reporters apparently–contained an amazing statement. It should be noted the first two instances of the first person singular pronoun in the sentence refer to Barack Obama, President of the United States. The second two refer to Barack Obama, taxpaying citizen:

And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans. (emphasis mine)

But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy? It’s nothing more than the excess of income over outgo. Take away the income the rich “don’t need” and spend it on social programs, and capital formation in this country drops to zero.

Gordon nails it completely.  In the absence of experience, or for that matter, reality, Obama takes to the leftist mantra that wealth is unfair, and that government is the arbiter of who gets what, or who keeps what.

Government, under the liberal vision, confiscates wealth, and spends it as they see fit.  And, we see the results every day; an expanding dependent class,  increased poverty, and decreased economic activity.  The economic pump is not “primed,” as FDR put it, it is instead buried, and sealed in concrete.   The left fails to realize that without the enticement of profit, businesses do not spend.  If businesses do not spend, they cannot be taxed.  When they cannot be taxed, government revenues goes down.  And then, the left’s precious social programs, which exacerbate the very problems that they are meant to ameliorate, are underfunded.

The fact that history teaches this again and again, without exception, is  irrelevant to the left.  Steele goes back in time to show that reality bounces right off of Obama…

So determined is Obama to deprive “the rich” of excess income–as defined by him, of course–he is even willing to adversely impact government income in order to do so. Read this colloquy between Obama and ABC’s Charlie Gibson in a 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the [capital gains tax] rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA:  Well, Charlie, what I’?ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

MR. GIBSON:  But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’?s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Actually, it doesn’t. Every time capital gains tax rates have gone up, revenues have gone down and vice versa. High capital gains tax rates, because the tax liability is only incurred when an asset is sold, have the effect of locking in capital, which is economically pernicious, preventing capital from flowing to its most productive, i.e wealth creating, use.

Again, he knocks it right out of the park.  The ignorance of economic reality, and the effort to destroy the rich, no matter the fact that they will destroy the economy in the process, means nothing to Obama and his ilk.  His statement about “fairness” is frankly asinine, as it not only unfair to steal what others have legally earned, it will eventually hurt everyone.  The government will be underfunded, jobs will be lost, and everyone will be poorer.  But then again, socialism doesn’t build people up equally, it screws everyone down equally.

We call socialism “trickle up poverty” for a reason.  Because it is.

Share

Screwing Everyone Equally: Socialism Explained

Share

Hey kids, here’s Matt with another example of how learning can be fun…

And how is this in action right now?

Businesses know that Obama has more taxes in mind, so they aren’t sure exactly how much they will be penalized for being successful, or even trying, so they aren’t hiring or expanding.  When you get zapped for trying, why try?  Aren’t we seeing that now?  Businesses aren’t willing to take the risk when there is less chance of reward.  It’s happening right now, and will only get worse.

History also teaches us that this happens.  For a homegrown example, here is an excerpt from my yearly Thanksgiving post…

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Redistribution is  really going to make the economy “recover,” right?  It didn’t work in the 17th century.  It didn’t work in the Soviet Union, or for the NORKS, but it will work here.  At least, that’s what our leftists are telling us.

H/T:  Be Sure You’re RIGHT, Then Go Ahead

Linked at the Daley Gator, and Bitter Americans. Thanks to both!

Share