Greatest Hits: Some Thoughts on Human History, and Progressives

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.

Some Thoughts on Human History, and Progressives

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.

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.

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?”

Share

Greatest Hits: Obama Arbitrarily Bans Veterans From Owning Guns

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.

Obama Arbitrarily Bans Veterans From Owning Guns: Constitution, we don’t need no stinking Constitution” – Barak Obama’s magic pen.

gun control camp

Apparently, “due process” in the US has been replaced by the pen of Barak Hussein Obama.  Ordinarily “due process” is required to deprive someone of their rights.  The idea is that government is not the granter of human rights, but the protector of rights endowed by our creator.  So, there has to be a legal process and a sound rationale for restricting the rights of an American citizen.  Unless, that is, you are a veteran in Barak Hussein Obama’s  Amerika, and you own guns. Fire Andrea Mitchell has more…

Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly writes for Red Flag News:

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Once again, it is apparent that due process of law now resides in the pen of Barak Hussein Obama.  In the most basic sense, this administration is saying to our returning service people…

Thanks for your service, and F**K YOU!

Linked by IOwnTheWorld, thanks!

Share

Will Fox Again be Targeted by the Obama Administration?

Share

govt-censorshipIf you recall, right after Obama was elected, the new administration declared the Fox News was not a news network, and sought to exclude them from anything in the new administration.  Of course, Fox covers stories that the rest of the networks refuse to cover.   That, and they refuse to lie for team Obama.  Given that history, and other, more recent events, and you’ll agree with Wyblog’s assessment of the situation…

Will the FCC shut down Fox News now that Obama has blamed them for all his problems?

It’s not without precedent.

Obama has gone out of his way to make sure that journalists keep their mouths shut about the shady actions and scandals that his administration has been involved in.

He threatened to destroy the career of a Fox News reporter exposing the truth about Benghazi. He’s using Soviet tactics to prosecute a filmmaker who made a movie exposing Obama’s radical background. He’s also been the most aggressive president since Nixon in keeping a tight grip on information. One former NSA official even came out and said that Obama’s tactics have made the US a police state.

And let’s not forget how he used the IRS to harass Conservatives.

Oh, wait, he told Bill O’Reilly he really didn’t do that. Honest.

And besides, all his problems are caused by Fox News. They’re spreading lies!. Lies and more lies! It’s all lies!

While speaking about Benghazi, Obama laughed at one point when O’Reilly asked about Susan Rice’s contention that the attack was a spontaneous action.

About two minutes later, Obama blamed Fox News for people believing Obama did not call the Benghazi attack terrorism.

“Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out,” O’Reilly said.

“And they believe it because folks like you are telling them that,” Obama said.

“No, I’m not telling them that,” O’Reilly responded to laughter.

You know what I find most disconcerting? How he laughed at O’Reilly’s questions. Classy, that, isn’t it? Real Presidential.

When you look at any action of this administration, you have to keep in mind that controlling information is step one in any totalitarian state.  Eliminating Fox is a goal, especially when they outdraw both MSNBC and CNN combined.  And, what of all the Tea Party groups that have turned up over the last few years…

So I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that new IRS regulations will effectively put most conservative groups out of business, right before the 2014 midterm elections.

IRS Reg-134417-13 will forbid conservative groups from holding voter registration drives, advertising, promoting, and prohibits any kind of political activity including rallies, mailings, teas, and forums.

Meanwhile unions, a heavy Democrat-friendly constituency, are exempt from these new rules. I’m sure that’s just an oversight…

See, they completely make the charge of illegally targeting Conservatives go away by making it legal.

In a regressive world, run by regressives, only regressive ideas are to be discussed.  Any other ideas are to be banned, and the proponents of those ideas punished!

Share

Why True Hope Can Kill The Progressive Agenda

Share

President Obama used “Hope” as a slogan during his 2008 election campaign.  While we would argue that hope has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yes!
  • Environmental regululation saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program, with equally massive CONTROL?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made matters worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up. Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals can only succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual are controlled.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation, and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  On the contrary, I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

I would submit that this is the general intent.  If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The protests were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative. The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives-and no hope.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The “god” of the state will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  Alternatively, many of them never believed their government’s propaganda, but Reagan’s stand against the Soviets gave them the hope, and the boldness that comes with it, to face death in order to achieve freedom.     Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom, a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

And real hope; the ability to chart one’s own destiny, and care for oneself, will kill it.

Share

Democrat Party Created Shutdown Mashup: Illegals can Gather-Veterans Cannot, Death Benefits Denied, Losing Control of Narrative? Updated with Water Fountain Handles

Share

In our latest shutdown update, we have to look at what our Democratic Senators have created by refusing to vote on any House-passed Continuing Resolutions.

Veterans cannot visit open air memorials, but Illegal Aliens can have a rally on the Mall?

I guess when it comes to the Democrat Party Generated Government Shutdown, the pain is applied to WW II and Vietnam Veteran, but illegal aliens are A-OK! 

Nothing could be more emblematic of the Obama Regime than this. Even as it attempts to block off the open air World War II memorial to vets who traveled across the country to honor their fallen brothers, and other vets are chased away from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall, illegal aliens are allowed to use the National Mall to protest the withering concept of American sovereignty:

A planned immigration reform rally will take place on the National Mall on Tuesday even though the site is closed due to the government shutdown.

Organizers for the “Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform” were spotted Monday setting up a stage and equipment on the National Mall for the rally which will take place on Tuesday.

Dozens of leftist congresscritters are expected to attend, including Rep. Nasty Pelosi and the corrupt, child-molesting Senator Robert Menendez. The event is sponsored in part by the ACORN-affiliated SEIU, which spent $27 million helping Obama to power.

And, that event went on as scheduled, and some congresscritters even got arrested. 

Eight members of Congress were arrested during a Tuesday immigration rally on Washington, D.C.’s National Mall.

Several House Democrats sat in the middle of Independence Avenue and blocked rush hour traffic, according to the Star Tribune.

The representatives, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rep. Al Green (D-TX), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Rep. Jan Schawkowsky (D-IL) and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), were then arrested by U.S. Capitol Police, spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider confirmed to TheBlaze.

The congressmen were charged with “crowding, obstructing, and incommoding” under D.C. Code 22-1307 and will be processed by the U.S. Capitol Police at 67 K Street, SW.

But, it’s OK to allow illegal immigrants and the SEIU (campaign contributors) to have a rally and visit.  But, not only do they discriminate against veterans, they disrespect the fallen dead as well. 

Last weekend, four members of the United States Army gave their all for our nation. As the families began to grieve for their loved ones, the Obama administration made their loss even worse by insultingly refusing to pay death benefits due to the government shutdown.

Fallen SoldiersNormally, $100,000 is wired to the surviving kin within 36 hours of losing a loved one to cover funeral expenses and the loss of the service members paycheck. It also assists family members with travel costs to Delaware in order to meet the plane carrying the body of their fallen soldier. Shannon Collins, who lost her son, said

“The government is hurting the wrong people…Families shouldn’t have to worry about how they’re going to bury their child.”

This behavior from our goverment is unacceptable.

Ashley Peters lost her husband last weekend, and said

 “It is upsetting because my husband died for his country, and now his family is left to worry.”

It would appear that the powers that be on the left are feeling some heat on this “disgrace.” Some of them, like Rep. Braley seem oblivious (he’s just mad his gym no longer has towel service), but some are taking it a little more seriously. Harry Reid said that this gratuity would “be restored, without any question.” We’re waiting. 

This really shows the length to which the Obama Administration and the Senate Democrats will go to punish patriotic Americans, all while honoring those that break our laws, and blaming the GOP.

However, there is some evidence that they may be losing control of the narrative here.  Take a look at this video, taken on the University of Colorado campus. 

If they are getting trashed on a University Campus, then they are losing it big time.  Can’t say anything else about it other than that.

People are realizing what we knew all along-that this POTUS is a petulant child-king.

Update (Language Alert): Wyblog gives his input on where all the water fountain handles went…

How petty is Obama? He’s removing the handles from water fountains in parks

America, your president is an asshole. A petulant, childish, spiteful asshole.

And he’s got the water fountain handles to prove it.

In what looks like a spiteful move, the NPS even removed handles from water spigots along the Chesapeake and Ohio canal where bikers and joggers exercise as well as along the Great Allegheny Passage, just to ensure people don’t get any water from them.

But did he turn off the water fountains he set up for illegal aliens trespassing in Arizona? Hell no!

He’s also put Barrycades on national monuments. And locked them. Except when illegal aliens come knocking.

He threatened Senior Citizens with arrest for photographing Mount Rushmore and Old Faithful.

He actually arrested Vietnam veterans for honoring their fallen comrades.

Get over to his place for more.

Share

Government Now Decides Who Lives and Who Dies

Share

We’ve been warning people that allowing the government to control the health care of all Americans will lead to unelected bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies.  Here is a great example…

For those who may not yet know, Sarah Murnaghan is a 10-year-old girl from Pennsylvania, who suffers from end-stage Cystic Fibrosis. She needs a lung transplant, and is on the UNOS waiting list. Unfortunately, child donor lungs are extremely rare, and the cut-off age for adult lungs is 12. Sarah is medically eligible to receive adult donor lungs, but can not be placed on that list due to current UNOS/HHS policy.

In response to U.S. Representative Lou Barletta’s (R-PA11) impassioned plea to make the policy change that could save young Sarah’s life, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius indicated that she is unable to unilaterally change policy to save a child’s life. Appalingly, she did so while making the cavalier assertion that “someone lives, someone dies“. By not taking any action, the Secretary has, in fact, determined that someone dies.

Now, we also have insights, after the IRS scandals, that people are singled out due to their political affiliations for “punishment,” how long is it until the “opposition” starts getting denied life saving care?

Share

Manhattan Infidel: I’m Back! (The Gallbladder of Peace Edition)

Share
An artist's representation of Manhattan Infidel's gallbladder in it's natural peace-loving state

An artist’s representation of Manhattan Infidel’s gallbladder in it’s natural peace-loving state

For the past few days many people have been wondering about my whereabouts.  And not just the usual suspects (parole officers, ex-wives, pimps I owe money to, trannies I haven’t paid).

No, the respectable, internet-dwelling readers of this blog have wondered where I have been.

Last Friday after spending some time watching the news (apparently there was a teenager on the loose with a gun that made the entire city of Boston cower in fear) I went off to work.

Twelve hours later I was in the ER preparing to have my gallbladder removed during emergency surgery.

But I am now out of the hospital and recovering at home.

I know what you are saying.  “Manhattan Infidel, the gallbladder is an internal organ of peace.  Why would it act like this?”

I don’t know.  But after researching the gallbladder on Wikipedia and looking at images of it, including this image of a bad gallbladder,

This is what a bad gallbladder looks like

This is what a bad gallbladder looks like

I have reached the following conclusions:

  • Society is to blame

Society, and by that I mean racist American society at large as exemplified by Red State culture, is evil, racist and filled with hatred for peoples of color.  I as a member of the blogging elite, am above this culture but have often witnessed American racism in action when my black housekeeper (good help is so hard to find nowadays) is denied entrance to the humidor on the upper west side where my Cuban cigars are stored simply on account of her race.  Because of this I had to send my Mexican gardener instead.

My gallbladder, filled with shame over institutional American racism and its treatment of peoples of color, rebelled.

  • The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are to blame

My gallbladder, being an internal organ of peace, was quite rightly filled with anger over our wars of conquest in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Filled with such anger, it became radicalized and sought to hurt me by planting bombs.  Fortunately for me, my gallbladder’s bombs did not go off in time, giving the ER doctors time to diffuse them and remove the radicalized gallbladder.

  • Teabaggers (Isn’t that always the case!)

I have always been amazed by the ability of teabaggers to spread fear and violence over the land because of their love of racist liberty.  As I was watching the Boston Police Department take down the teabagger who bombed the marathon I again was amazed at their duplicity.  Isn’t that just like a teabagger to disguise himself as a Chechen Muslim of color so as to cast aspersions on that peace-loving race?  I believe there are many similarities between my gallbladder and Chechens.  Both are instruments of peace in this world.  Both are misunderstood.  Both have been appropriated by teabaggers for their violent, racist ends.  Both like chocolate donuts and Perry Como.

  • The Appendix

Unlike the gallbladder of peace, no one has ever confused the appendix with an internal organ of peace.  Much like Christianity itself it is a force of evil.  Just like Christians have killed hundreds of thousands over the course of the past couple of decades and then blamed it on Muslims, so the appendix causes pain in the body and then blames the gallbladder.  I hate the appendix!  Much like CNN and the hair club for men, it serves no useful purpose.  A pox on the appendix.

  • The lack of gallbladder control laws in the United States

Finally we must come to perhaps the real reason for my gallbladder to go bad:  America’s wild west gun culture.  Since it has been been proven that strict gun laws prevent gun violence (as in Barack Obama’s home town of Chicago) the lack of any gall bladder control laws in America gave my gallbladder encouragement to go rogue.  We need tough gallbladder laws in the United States!

Ban assault gallbladders!

I call upon all our elected congressmen and senators to stop the scourge of gallbladder violence!

It’s for the children!

And there you have it.  Possible reasons my gallbladder went bad.

So I am at home now, resting up.  I hope to be back in action full time on my blog by the beginning of next week.

And remember, if you see a gallbladder, say something.  Don’t assume it was left behind by accident.

Original Post:  Manhattan Infidel

Share

Sweden Declares War…on Playtime

Share

Did the Burgermeister Meisterburger, seen here in this undated file photo,take over Sweden?  It would appear so, considering the whacky Cultural Marxism taking place there.  For a bit more, take a look at this from the American Enterprise Institute…

But subterfuge and propaganda appear to be the order of the day in Sweden. In their efforts to free children from the constraints of gender, the Swedish reformers are imposing their own set of inviolate rules, standards, and taboos. Here is how Slate author Nathalie Rothchild describes a gender-neutral classroom:

One Swedish school got rid of its toy cars because boys “gender-coded” them and ascribed the cars higher status than other toys. Another preschool removed “free playtime” from its schedule because, as a pedagogue at the school put it, when children play freely ‘stereotypical gender patterns are born and cemented. In free play there is hierarchy, exclusion, and the seed to bullying.’ And so every detail of children’s interactions gets micromanaged by concerned adults, who end up problematizing minute aspects of children’s lives, from how they form friendships to what games they play and what songs they sing.

The Swedes are treating gender-conforming children the way we once treated gender-variant children. Formerly called “tomboy girls” and “sissy boys” in the medical literature, these kids are persistently attracted to the toys of the opposite sex. They will often remain fixated on the “wrong” toys despite relentless, often cruel pressure from parents, doctors, and peers. Their total immersion in sex-stereotyped culture—a non-stop Toys”R”Us indoctrination—seems to have little effect on their passion for the toys of the opposite sex. There was a time when a boy who displayed a persistent aversion to trucks and rough play and a fixation on frilly dolls or princess paraphernalia would have been considered a candidate for behavior modification therapy. Today, most experts encourage tolerance, understanding, and acceptance: just leave him alone and let him play as he wants. The Swedes should extend the same tolerant understanding to the gender identity and preferences of the vast majority of children.

The linked article has a wealth of information on the gender politics of the left, and how they seek to severely mess up children.  Rather than simply allow kids to play, the liberals there want to monitor and manage it.  In fact, they want to control it completely.  Combine that with the fact that the liberals want to separate children from parents at the earliest possible age, the over all pattern of control takes on a new and more sinister meaning.

When we say that the liberals want to control all aspects of human life, we aren’t kidding.

Share

Government to Regulate Junk Food?

Share

If you let the government control your health care, they can start making and justifying all sorts of demands.  Like, for example, maybe they can regulate what you ear-even the junk food!  Gateway Pundit has more…

The Washington Examiner reported:

Larry Summers, chair of the White House National Economic Council when the 2009 stimulus was developed, suggested that President Obama will eventually tax and regulate junk food to drive people to eat more healthily — although he dinged First Lady Michelle Obama’s healthy foods initiative.

“I think there is no question that the way Americans eat and what Americans weigh is a big contributor to health problems and it’s a big contributor to health costs,” Summers said on Morning Joe today.It’s not the agenda now, but I think at some point you’re going to see tax measures and regulatory measures that are going to be directed at helping people be healthier. That’s just going to happen and I think it’s probably a good thing when it does.”

Summers this agenda to anti-cigarette policies. “[J]ust as we have over time done things with respect to tobacco that are very constructive and that are saving hundreds of thousands of people’s lives, that kind of agenda is going to come to other aspects of public health, including the way people eat,” he said.

Curiously, though, Summers took an oblique shot at the results of Mrs. Obama’s overhaul of the school lunch menu as part of her effort to fight child obesity.

“Should kids be going hungry at lunch because they can’t have any good food — any food they like in the schools?” he asked rhetorically. “You can obviously take it too far and you have to be careful.”

Again, just to be clear, no legislation has been proposed for this.  However, the idea is clear.  When the government provides something to you, they are them justified in addressing anything that potentially impacts what they are funding.  If they pay for health care, and you are fat, they will tell you what to eat.   Got it?

Share

Massive Projection on Display: Democrat Hank Johnson Wants to Limit Free Speech

Share

We like to say that you always know what the Democrats are up to based on what they accuse everyone else of doing.  Here’s Hank Johnson, a Democratic Congress critter, on why he thinks free speech is a terrible thing…

OK, let’s look at some points here…

“They control the patterns of thinking,” said Johnson. “They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government – don’t want government, but keep your hands off of my Medicare by the way. I mean, we are all confused people and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.

Is this guy serious?  If this is so, why has every single Obama-related scandal been played down by the MSM?  If the corporations are in control, why haven’t the people heard of what really happened at Benghazi?  Why didn’t they know that ObamaCare would cause job losses and people’s hours to be cut?  Why don’t they know about “fast and the furious?”  Why did they lie about Sandra Fluke and $9 birth control at Target?  Why did they invent a war on women that didn’t exist?  Why didn’t they cover the voter fraud that occurred during the election?

I could go on for hours, but it does show how close to completely demented that they are.  They are essentially saying that the corporations are doing all of the things that the MSM is doing on behalf of Obama and the Democrats.

And let me guess, Corporations, whose workers voluntarily work, and whose customers voluntarily buy, are not people.  But, Unions, whose members are forced to join, are, right?

Projection is quite revealing, as it shows us what the other side is thinking and doing.

 

Share

British Report Indicates That Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago

Share

What if the Brits released a report indicating that Global Warming stopped cold 16 years ago, and the media just didn’t bother to report it?  Well, exactly that appears to have happened, and The Daily Mail has the story…

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

So, in other words, governments, the media, and especially the Goracle, have been lying for all of these years?  Of course, the answer is yes.  And, it goes back to the fact that environmentalism really has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with control?

I think the answer to that is obvious.

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 Consitution 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?”

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

May Day 2012: The Beginning

Share

If you have been a regular reader here, you know that we have been covering leftist violence for several years, and May Day has always been a lowlight.  A communist celebration of intimidation, thuggery, and vandalism.  Here are some examples from 2010…

And, just like OWS, there is vandalism and destruction at most every protest, but it is always someone else’s fault.

The Blaze also has some more current examples…

We’ve all seen violence behavior from the left wing.  That is nothing new, and we’ll continue to see it.  What we have to understand is the why of it.  They know that the vast majority of Americans will not accept a Communist state.   They know that as long as millions of people can take care of themselves, they will not gain control of the nation.  They also know that they cannot win a rational debate.  So, they resort to violence and destruction to force their views on others.  Like an older version of a temper tantrum, they will escalate their efforts until the larger society is worn down to the point of surrender.  They are not about freedom, democracy, or justice.  They are about hate, control, domination, and death.  History teaches us this-with numerous examples.

So, we know that there is violence planned for tomorrow.  It has been openly discussed.  The only difference between this year and prior ones is that there is more focus, and more useful idiots to engage in the efforts.  Consequently, I will be monitoring my usual sources over the next two days to see what violence did come off.  Of course, it will be someone else’s fault.

Share

Decoding the Leftist Narrative: We’re not Successful Just by Ourselves

Share

As we go into the election year, we’re going to see some familiar themes.   As usual, the statists will couch their ideas in kind sounding terms in an attempt to sugar coat their desire for power and control.  Since these little platitudes are going to be coming in torrents over the next few months, I thought it might be a good idea to parse them.  First up, the latest meme from the Democrats…

We’re not successful just by ourselves.

This one is designed to appeal to our more egalitarian nature.  After all, how do products get made without workers?  How do they get to the local store without truck drivers, and warehouse workers?  What about the It does seem to fit, but they leave out one important thing…there has to be someone who has a vision, and is willing to work tirelessly to make that vision a reality.  For example, without Steve Jobs, the truck drivers and warehouse workers that transport, handle, and sell I-pods, I-pads, and I-phones would be idle.  This thinking applies to the local pizza shop as well.  Can the person make the pizza without their workers?  Probably not.  But, without the person with the vision and drive to start the pizza shop, there would be no workers.

This thinking also display a disdain for freedom.  Yes, we all rely on each other to get things done.  But, in the private sector, this reliance are based on voluntary contracts.  If you are working for the local pizza shop, you can choose to work for another, go work in another area entirely, or even go off and start your own shop.  We choose to engage on mutually beneficial relationships with employers, and the employers do the same, both ends are based on choice.  Also, businesses, both large and small, try to keep costs low, and services high, in order to gain these voluntary contracts.  But again, these are voluntary systems, and in a real free market, “free” is the operative term.

The problem with the government’s intervention  in these areas is the denial of that choice.  Government dictates-it is force.  In a condition in which force is applied, there are no choices.  They intend on forcing the pizza shop owner, or the CEO of a large company, to part with more and more wealth to make things “fair.”  Then, to make up the losses, the business has a choice, which might include…

Raise prices

Lay off workers

Eliminate positions by attrition

Do not expand and avoid hiring more workers

Of course, in a high tax, high regulatory environment, others may be discouraged from even starting businesses, which, again, eliminates choices for consumers, employees, and employers. And, by reducing employment opportunities, it creates more dependency on the government, and therefore, more Democratic voters.  In the end, it does grant the government more power, and therefore, control.

And that, my friends, is the real objective.

Share

Paging Comrade Stalin: Democrats Propose “Windfall Profits Board”

Share

When we discuss the left as Marxists, critics go into a spasm of Alinsky, and attempt to ridicule any accusers.  Then, however, Democrats, or their allies, say and do some rather Marxist things.  For the latest, we go to The Hill, and see about the newly proposed Windfall Profit Board…

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit. 

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

Er, what is exactly a “reasonable profit,” and where in the Constitution does it say that the government get’s to arbitrarily confiscate someone else’s property?  Yeah, I know, they aren’t going to let something as simple as the Constitution to stand in their way.

Moonbattery also has some analysis...

Meanwhile, Obama just killed the Keystone XL pipeline, sending Canadian oil to our communist Chinese adversaries. As a result of his policies, gas already coststwice as much as when he took office; it would cost still more if not for the sluggish economy.

Consequently, shrill lies regarding oil company profits will keep getting louder — as will calls by Democrats for straightforward nationalization of the oil industry. By controlling gasoline, they will be able to control our mobility — which is also the point of “alternative transportation” programs. (emphasis added)

I have mentioned that it would seem that, when taken in it’s totality, that Democratic energy and transportation policy has the intent of restricting human movement.  We have to remember that Ray LaHood, the Sec of Transportation, and what he had said…

They have dropped some of the pretenses and have started “sharing” more and more of their true intentions.  Let’s take a look at what the current Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, has been up to, as reported by CNS News.

In Newsweek magazine last week, nationally syndicated columnist George Will published a piece critical of Lahood, entitled, “Ray LaHood, Transformed–Secretary of Behavior Modification.”

“He says he has joined a ‘transformational’ administration: ‘I think we can change people’s behavior,’” Will reports that LaHood said over lunch.

The moderator of the press club event asked LaHood: “Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative. Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

LaHood answered: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars.”

Lahood then made a joke about the fact that some conservatives believe that the way he wants to use the Department of Transportation represents an increased government intrusion in people’s lives.

“Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into people’s lives,” said the moderator. “How do you respond?”

“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.” (emphasis added)

Well, that’s one piece of the puzzle.  Our “friends” in government have the stated intent of getting us out of cars.  But that’s not all.  Remember Cash for Clunkers?  I wrote this when that program started…

In the “Cash for Clunkers” plan, how many cars will be taken out of the market?  How many fewer Americans will be able to own a used car due to this?  New cars that are to be made to the messiah’s specifications will be more and more expensive.  To reach the mileage and emissions goals, more, newer technology will have to go in, increasing the cost.  With so many used cars sent to the crusher, where will people go for a car when they cannot afford the newer ones?  Funded with $1,000,000,000, the initial plan was to scrap 250,000 cars.  The congress wants to add another $2,000,000,000 to the plan, does that mean a total of 750,000 cars?   How many people will that “coerce” onto public transportation?

Then, we got the answer about a year later…

I think we have the answer to my last question, courtesy of Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

In other words, there was real and rational demand for the cars that the Obama administration sent to the grinders.  That demand hasn’t stopped, even if tainted with political incorrectness.  The top four vehicles for price increases in Edmunds’ used-car tracking are all high-end, larger cars or SUV:

Cadillac Escalade – 35.6% increase
Chevy Suburban – +34.2%
Dodge Grand Caravan – +34%
BMW X5 – +33%

As predicted last year, the people most hurt by the price increases are those who can least afford them.  The used-car market usually attracts people who need transportation on a budget, who cannot afford to buy new.   By destroying a quarter’s worth of trade-ins in three weeks and permanently taking them off the market, the Obama administration has forced an artificial inflation by supply restriction.  Moreover, they did so by subsidizing new-car sales that would have occurred anyway, eating up three billion dollars in taxpayer money.

In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families.  Nice work.

So, we have the fact that the Cash for Clunkers program increased the cost of used cars, as they took at least 250,000 used cars off the market.  But, there is still more, as that shiny car on the dealer’s lot will be more and more expensive to take home…

I’ve often said that the “progressives” won’t directly ban or outlaw most things.  You’ll still be technically able to own a car, but your actual ability to do so will be increasingly limited.  Here’s the latest from Detroit News.

The new regulations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and theEnvironmental Protection Agency establish emissions and fuel standards for model years 2012-16. The changes will boost overall fleet fuel efficiency to 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016, and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. But it will also cost automakers about $60 billion and add an average $1,300 to the purchase price of a new vehicle.

Now, if this is like most other government estimations of costs, it will be much higher.  But how many people will not be able to afford cars if the cost keeps increasing?  Also, it is being said that people will save money with more efficient cars- more than the increased initial cost of the car.  However, do those alleged savings account for the increase cost of fuel over the life of the car?  How many people will, as a result,  have to depend on some government entity to get to work or to shop?

So, when you take a number of factors into consideration, a pattern emerges.  Government simultaneously wants to “coerce” people out of  their cars.  Then, they seek to make that car more and more expensive to own and operate.  Of course, one can say that this is coincidental, or just yet another example of government triggering the law of unintended consequences, but since they are talking openly about it, we might as well connect the dots.

I remember reading about, and seeing documentaries on the automobile.  Many of them have suggested that the invention of the automobile was the most freedom-enhancing development of the 20th century.  Their reasoning was that cars gave people mobility in a way that the trains did not.  They could choose where to go.  Farmers could leave the farm for town easily.  City residents could get out to the “country.”  People could get out of the cities and live away from the messes that liberal politicians made in urban centers.  The car made it far easier to communicate, socialize, exchange ideas, and generally get around.  Basically, it is hard to control people, where they live, where they go, and where they work, when they can move about freely.  It’s far too much disorder and chaos for our would-be regressive masters.  So, by working at the fuel supply, increasing prices, and otherwise making it increasingly impossible to own a car, the government can gain more control over us. And that seems to be exactly what they are doing.

But none of that is the slightest bit tinged with Marxism, is it?

 

Share

Occupy Wall Street: Are the Occupiers Learning that the "Collective" is Oppressive?

Share

It seems that the Occupy Wall Street effort has a money problem-they are sitting on about $500,000!  Also, this surplus is being controlled by a few, and the rest are not all that happy with what the few are doing with it…

According to the New York Post, OWS has deposited five hundred thousand dollars into an account and is using the money to fund the daily operations in Lower Manhattan. They also have physical assets substantial enough to require significant storage space. CBS News reports that the protesters are filling a large storage space around the corner from the park they occupy.

“They’ve amassed mounds of blankets, pillows, sleeping bags, cans of food, medical and hygienic supplies — even oddities like a box of knitting wool and 20 pairs of swimming goggles (to shield protesters from pepper-spray attacks). Supporters are shipping about 300 boxes a day.”

But wait, it get’s even more hilarious…

Less than a week after that news broke, the total amount in the OWS bank account has reportedly swollen to $500,000 and according to the New York Post, the money, and how it is or isn’t being spent has started causing problems inside Zuccotti Park.

For example- the Comfort Working Group (one of several small sub groups that have sprouted up inside OWS) thinks its daily $150 allocation to purchase shoes, socks and cold weather gear is too little, especially compared to the $2000 a day afforded the Kitchen Group.

A drummer representing the “Pulse Working Group” (they support the seemingly non-stop Drum Circles)  is not happy after his request for $8000 to cover drums damaged by vandals and weather,  was rejected by the General Assembly.

Alrighty then, the alleged 99% is protesting the fact that the 1% controls all the money.  Then, in their very own movement, there is a small faction that…controls the money?  Does that mean that 1% of the 99% percent controls all of Occupy Wall Street’s money?

These useful idiots are already getting a taste of their Communist Paradise, and they are still clueless.  They criticize Capitalism because they say that all the money is concentrated at the top.  They, of course, fail to recognize that any of a number of people may, through work, and imagination, move into the 1% percent, or, if the government would quit killing initiative and growth, the 1% might become a 2, 3, 4, or 5%, or even higher.  Instead, they embrace what they are getting now- a small minority that controls all aspects of everything, and they have no options.

Of course, they’ll never connect the dots, but it is fun to watch.

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

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 Consitution 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?”

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