Greatest Hits: How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

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.

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda:  My thoughts from 2010 on how regressives have to kill hope in order to subjugate the masses. 

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his 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?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  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 things 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 cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  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.  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?

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.

I would submit that this is the general intent of the totalitarian system.   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 anti-war protests in the west 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.

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 nanny god 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.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  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.

Share

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

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.

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his 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?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  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 things 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 cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  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.  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 of the totalitarian system.   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 anti-war protests in the west 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.

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 nanny god 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.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  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.

Share

One of those words…

Share

john wayne as davy crockett

“Republic, I like the sound of the word. Means people can live free, talk free, go or come by ourselves, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat, the same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step, or his first baby shaves and makes his first sound like a man. Some words can give you a feeling that’ll make your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.” John Wayne as Colonel Davy Crockett to Laurence Harvey as Colonel William Travis, Commander of the Alamo

This is from the movie, The Alamo directed by John Wayne. He also starred in the movie with Richard Boone, Richard Widmark, Chill Wills, Patrick Wayne, Frankie Avalon and Ken Curtis (best known as Festus on Gunsmoke).

Now this was just a short speech by an actor in a movie, but it wasn’t just any actor, it was The Duke. It wasn’t just any movie, it was about The Battle of the Alamo. It seems to me that we need more leaders today that feel this way about our republic.

Linked by the Dead Citizen’s Rights Society, thanks Dead Dick!

Share

Our Republic Has Become A Corrupt Democracy. Can It Be Saved?

Share

Charles Hugh Smith is the author of several books as well as the Of Two Minds blog. If you are not familiar with his writings, I highly recommend that you make “Of  Two Minds” one of your regular pit stops. In his latest post, he talks about America being three-and-a half society made up as follows:

  • The entrenched financial elites at the top the “half class”)
  • The highly paid who pay most of the taxes (the “First Class”)
  •  The working poor who pay Social Security payroll taxes and sales taxes (the “second class”)
  • Those dependent on the State who pay no taxes (the “Third Class”)

Smith has the following to say about the ramifications of this three-and-a half class society:

This class structure has political ramifications. In effect, those paying most of the tax are in a pressure cooker: the lid is sealed by the entrenched incumbents on top, and the fire beneath is the Central State’s insatiable need for more tax revenues to support its entrenched incumbents and growing army of dependents.

{…}

These classes are coalescing into a Tyranny of the Majority, where the entrenched incumbents in State fiefdoms and state-funded cartels are joined by state dependents in demanding higher taxes on the 25% who pay 90% of the Federal income taxes.

{…}

In other words, the overworked are powerless to change the system they serve. The overworked often have big mortgages to pay, kids in college, huge medical bills and a high-cost lifestyle that is a legacy of better times, a lifestyle they try to maintain even as their net income after taxes and healthcare insurance declines year after year.

The involuntarily idle are equally powerless, of course, but they tend to think the status quo is rewarding the overworked. The overworked, meanwhile, look with envy on the involuntarily idle who manage to live pretty well on government programs and transfers.

There is much more worth your time to read in this article and there are links to other informative posts by Smith that are equally worth your time. The bottom line is that our “democratic republic” is so thoroughly corrupted by the  financial and political elites that I don’t believe it can ever be set right through the election process.  Just think of the thousands and thousands  of laws and regulations that would have to be undone. And yet, the Status Quo is not sustainable. The twenty percent that carry the largest share of the cost burden of our over sized government will some day reach the point when they can no longer carry the load. In a post last November, Smith wrote about our corrupt society:

If the citizenry cannot replace a dysfunctional government and/or limit the power of the financial Aristocracy at the ballot box, the nation is a democracy in name only.

In other words, if the citizenry cannot dislodge a parasitic, predatory financial Aristocracy via elections, then “democracy” is merely a public-relations facade, a simulacra designed to create the illusion that the citizenry “have a voice” when in fact they are debt-serfs in a neofeudal State.

{…}

In other words, the Financial Aristocracy asserts its interests over the 99% and then buys the complicity of the bottom 60% with largesse paid for by the top 19% of earners.

{…}

In this facsimile democracy, citizenship has devolved to advocacy for a larger share of Federal government swag. The U.S. Status Quo rules via the second-order corruption of financial Aristocracy and Tyranny of the Majority

This morning I received an email from a good friend who alerted me to the fact that Mark Levin, who apparently agrees that America will not be saved at the ballot box, is coming out with a new book in August titled The liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic. You can read an introduction to the book here. Levin, relying on Article 5 of the Constitution is calling for a convention of conservative states (Not a Constitutional Convention) but to amend the constitution. Article 5 includes language that says if 2/3 of the states (34) agree on amending the constitution, Congress must send the proposed amendments to all state for ratification. It requires 3/4 of the states (38) to ratify the amendments before they become part of the law of the land.

obviously, Mr. Levin wants to sell books so he does not tell us what his “Liberty Amendments” are.  But, whatever they are, getting 34 states to agree on what they should be and 38 states to ratify them is going to be a herculean task. I wish him well!

I think the Titanic has to be sinking before people will begin to think about saving themselves.

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

Original Post: Asylum Watch

Share

Taking America Back One Bit At A Time – Part 3: The Taking Of America

Share

P art 1 of this series on Taking America Back One Bit At A Time can be found here and Part 2 can be found here.

The Taking of America

In Part 2, The Making of America, we left off with the delegates to the Convention producing their constitution for America and the warning from Ben Franklin that we were given a republic, if we could keep it. But, the job of constituting this new nation, The Republic of the United States of America, was not yet done.  It was now necessary to get the states to ratify the new constitution. This effort would produce the now historically important Federalist Papers as well as the lesser know Anti-Federalist Papers. In the end it became clear that the only way to get the ratification was to promise that the first action of the new congress would be to pass a Bill of Rights of ten amendments to the new constitution that would make perfectly clear the rights of the citizens that the central government could never infringe upon. Support for this Bill of Rights was not universal.Aamong the arguments against the Bill of Rights that sticks in my mind was this: if there is a Bill of Rights, might not the courts, when adjudicating the constitutionality of a law passed by congress, pay more attention to whether or not the law violated the Bill of Rights and less attention as to whether or not the law violated the enumerated powers clause.  At any rate, the constitution was ratified and the first act of the new congress was to approve the Bill of Rights containing ten amendments and America was officially a new nation.

From the very beginning, if not before, there were powerful interest at work to influence or manipulate this new federal government in ways that would benefit them financially. For example, cronyism was a well established practice long before America was born. Men of great wealth would look to use their influence to get government contracts without competetive bidding or to influence laws that would give them an edge over their competition.

There was another group of very rich and powerful men who took a keen interest in the revolution going on in  America and the debates between the Federalist and the Anti-federalist over this new constitution. These were the heads of the biggest banks in Europe, most importantly, the Rothschild’s banking interest. They undoubtedly saw the same great potential that Alexander Hamilton and others saw. They could see the potential for investing in this new nation to make lots of money for them selves and I do not doubt that they did exactly that. On the other hand, they must have been alarmed at some of the news that was reaching them. This new ideas about the liberty of tthe citizenry and limited powers of the central government could not have set well with them. They prefered large bureaucratic governments which control over their citizenry because they were easier to manipulate in ways that would benefit them. Above all else, the thing they found most disturbing, was that the constitution being debated for ratification had no mention of a national bank.

Many years prior to America’s founding the story goes, there was a dispute over the rightful heir to the throne of England. The head of the Rothschild Bank is reported to have said something to the effect of: “I care not a whit who controls the government as long as I control the money.” For centuries, the most powerful banks in the world have owned and operated the most important central banks. They do not provide the management of the monetary systems at cost because they are a bunch of nice caring men. They manage the monetary systems for their own benefit.

So, from the very beginning days of Americas’s existence, Rothschild and other major banking interests in Europe, along with some of the richest new Americans, began trying to influence this new government to establish a national or central bank, which they could control. This turned out to be a much more difficult task than they probably imagined. Our early Americans, even illiterate farmers, were very suspect of the federal government being able to control the money supply. Over about the first 120 years of America’s existence, many attempts would be made to establish a national bank. In 1912, the representatives of the world’s largest banks would meet secretly on a private island by the name of Jekyll Island,  where they would conceive what is now the Federal Reserve System of the United States. That was accomplished in 1913 by the Woodrow Wilson administration.

If you are interested in learning more about the secret meeting on Jekyll Island and how the Federal Reserve benefits its owner, please read this post by Bob Mack and watch the video (a bit long but very good) by the author of the book, Creature From Jekyll Island.

Shortly after the establishment of the Federal Reserve, these same powerful people thought they saw another golden opportunity for making money in the pending revolution in Russia. The Bolsheviks of Russia were planning to overthrow the Czar and to put in place the theory of Karl Marx and create a workers paradise. These bankers would help finance the Bolshevik revolution and the would invest heavily in the new Russia. Although things didn’t workout for them as well as they hoped, their activities in communist Russia will end up being important to the story of the Taking of America.

So, we will continue the story of the Taking of America in Part 4.  We will discuss the role of some groups of true believers in the vision of Karl Marx and their plans to defeat capitalism in America and gradually change America into a socialist state. And, we will discuss how these powerful bankers and friends made use of these groups of true socialist and their plans for America. If all goes well, Part 4 will bring us to the current point in time of America’s decline.

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

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Three Possible Futures for America

Share

Conservatives, tea-partiers, libertarians, patriots, and those who still follow traditional American social or political values are currently facing three different possible scenario’s:

  1. America is still on the way up and the damage that President Obama and his Democratic allies (and some Republicans too) have done to the nation are the kind of blows that America has routinely suffered through and emerged from stronger. President Obama may be Buchanan or Hoover, but America was eventually able to (after horrible times) follow those years with some good times. If Obama wins again in 2012, this will be bad, but a future Republican Presidency will re-correct the temporary pause in our continued growth and our children and our children’s children will live in health, happiness, prosperity, and military strength.
  2. America is at a crossroads and that it if President Obama and his Democratic allies (also including any Republican that supports government attack on life, liberty, and protection of property) remain in power it is likely that the damage that they will do- together with the damage they have already done- will be too great to recover from and never again will children live the same prosperous, happy, and secure lives that their parents did before them. An Obama win here will be the end of America- another four years of him remaining in power will solidify the damage already done and he will do further damage- he will ignore Congress and implement his policies of steering wealth and power to his friends, regardless of the wishes of the American people. President Obama in this case is Carter, and thankfully Carter only had one term, and Carter was followed by Reagan and a good several decades. Romney isn’t Reagan, but maybe a Reagan-like person will follow him and that those two Presidencies will be enough to jump-start our nation and revive its progress forward towards more secure lives, more liberty and freedom, and growing property.
  3. America is on the way down and that the damage to the Republic that President Obama and his Democratic allies (and the Supreme Court, moderate Republicans, third-party voters) did to our nation is too great for us to recover from. The massive amounts of debt, the lost years of production by great numbers of citizens, the impossible to redeem promises made, the rendering of the fabric of society, the stunning partisanship and divides that have been ripped open, the precedents for increased elite control over your lives, etc- these are all too great to be overcome. America is on the decline, and now it is simply a matter of how fast and how hard we fall. Of course your children will never receive Social Security and Medicare, but in this case they also have no military to protect them when they go overseas and will they have to travel on crumbling infrastructure here at home. They will be like the Romans were, looking around and wondering at future generations. In this case, Obama is not comparable to anyone in our history, since he is the end of America’s fortune, and whether Obama wins or loses in 2012, the damage he has done has already been too great for our nation to really recover from. At no point in the future, no matter if there is a two-term Romney Presidency followed by two terms of Jindal and two terms of Rubio, will our posterity enjoy the same protections to life, liberty, and property that they do today. The debt that we owe other nations is too great, our currency is too weak, our industrial base too compromised, social institutions too shattered, obligations to others too unable to be met, world events slipped too far towards tyranny and injustice, and our military too weakened- any conservative Republicans (or even conservative Democrats) would only delay the inevitable. But even a delay is better than the fall- watching the crumbling ruins of Rome and telling stories about being free men in the Republican was still better than being a slave to the whims of Caesars and being killed when Rome was sacked.

Three possible directions for the future of America, two possible choices on the ballot in 2012, and one true path to follow.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher
Share

Arab Spring Update: Female Genital Mutilation and Necrophilia Edition

Share

Remember the Arab Spring, that great populist uprising that would bring peace and social justice to the middle east?  And, let’s also keep in mind that radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood were absolutely positively never going to take over, right?  Well, here are two stories that exemplify the “justice” and “freedom” that the Arab Spring is bringing to the newly liberated lands…

Females to Lose Rights and Gain Genital Mutilation?

It seems that some of the new MP’s in Egypt want to “advance” their culture…

According to the Egyptian website Youm 7, Azza al-Jarf, a female Member of Parliament representing the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Freedom and Justice Party,” is trying to abolish several laws currently enjoyed by Egyptian women—including preventing them from divorcing or even separating from their husbands, because “the man has the authority and stewardship” (see Koran 4:34); mandating that fathers must circumcise their daughters; and trying to get the Egyptian educational system to ban the teaching of the English language—on the grounds that it is an “infidel” tongue—while separating boys and girls in classrooms and forcing girls to wear the hijab.

And the feminazis say?

(Crickets)

And, in the sad event that an Egyptian man’s wife dies, he might have at least six hours to say goodbye in grand fashion…

Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives – for up to six hours after their death.

The controversial new law is part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.

It will also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to 14 and the ridding of women’s rights of getting education and employment.

Um, I think no further commentary is necessary.

OK, some people are going to say, “totally gross, but why discuss it?”   For me, the answer is simple.  These laws are being proposed in a democratic manner, by democratically elected politicians.  In a state where democracy rules, the majority can do whatever they want to the minority.  Democracy is, but it’s very nature, the 51% raping the other 49%.

On the contrary, we live in a Republic, where our Constitution is designed to protect the right of the individual against the majority.  In protecting the individual FROM government, our Constitution  shields us from the tyranny of the majority.  While we are (supposedly) protected by our Constitution, the Egyptian people have no such protections, so they are subject to the whims of the ballot box.

I also think it’s instructive to look at what our own President has to say on this topic.  First, let’s hear about what he thinks of our Constitution…

Then, lets hear what he has to say about democracy…

So, should we fear “democracy?”  I believe we should.

Share

How Will History Judge This Generation if we let our Republic Slip Away?

Share

In 1787 citizens gathered outside of Independence Hall as delegates emerged after the Philadelphia convention closed. As Benjamin Franklin made his way through the crowd a Philadelphia native Mrs. Powel asked Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The other night when I was watching President Obama give his State of the Union address, he opened his speech talking about his grandparents and their contributions during World War II. This generation is often referred to as the “greatest generation.”  This was the generation that held the country together during the great depression.  This was the generation that stepped up and saved the world from the forces of evil.  This was the generation that came home from the war and helped transform America into an economic powerhouse. They were a generation with innovative ideas and a free market economy to grow them.  They were shining examples of rugged individualism who believed in free market principles and limited government intervention.  Contrary to popular belief, they were not fans of Social Security or Medicare.  Most viewed any kind of government program claiming to offer security in exchange for liberty with suspicion.  They believed that more government meant less freedom.  I know this because my grandparents were a part of this generation and they loved liberty.

Today we live in unprecedented times.  America’s debt has spiraled out of control.  The dollar is no longer the preferred currency of the world. Our credit rating has been downgraded. Our economic indicators show a weak economy growing at a snail’s pace with an unemployment rate of 8+ percent.  Our education system is a complete failure.  Our elected officials have doubled down on stupid by implementing terrible policies that have hampered economic growth and shackled individual liberty.  They pass unconstitutional legislation and spending bills that create new and prop up old unsustainable government entitlement programs with borrowed money from China. Our growing national debt is over $15 trillion and is now 100+ percent of our GDP.  Backroom deals and dirty politics have become the norm in D.C. as our elected officials raid the treasury to enrich themselves and fund pet projects.  People are clamoring that the system is broken. There’s talk of reform and fundamental transformation.  Folks we’re losing our republic and no one in Washington D.C. has the integrity or courage to save it.

This is not the first time in history that a great republic has fallen. We have the fall of the Roman Republic as a blueprint to examine. Rome like us was saddled with a massive amount debt due to continuous wars and corrupt politicians.  Men of ambition rose to power through their military conquest and political maneuvering.  The institutions and traditions that made the Roman Republic great were poisoned from within and fear grew within its citizenry as these same men of ambition promised reform to fix the system.  Unemployment was high and a large portion of the population was much more interested in the games than reestablishing their constitution.  A few champions of the republic stepped forward with cries to restore it and warnings that the end was near, but for the most part these pleas fell on deaf ears.  Most Roman citizens were looking for the least painful solutions to solve their problems. They were looking for a leader to save them instead of looking to themselves for the answers.  Rome turned into a mob and surrendered their liberties to an empire because it was the least painful solution.  2,000 years after the fall of the Roman Republic we find ourselves at the same crossroads and we’re making the same mistakes.

There is talk of a system in dire need of reform.  I agree.  We need to reform the system in a manner that limits the ability of ambitious politicians from obtaining more power to infringe on our rights.  We do this by reestablishing the constitution as the law of the land.  One candidate will not save the republic.  It will take the effort of all liberty loving people to do the things required of them to hold our elected officials feet to the fire.  As we look at the crop of candidates the process has selected for us to choose from, I must say I’m extremely disappointed.  We need a liberty loving mindset in D.C. and this means we need a candidate who is willing to reestablish the constitution as the law of the land and deconstruct the unconstitutional agencies that are regulating our lives.  We need a candidate who has the courage to repeal unconstitutional laws and deregulate so that our market can be a free market once again.  We need a candidate who will decentralize control and give the power back to the states and people.  We need a candidate who is willing to make themselves and government an irrelevant factor in our lives.

Do we have a candidate who is willing to do these things?  The answer is yes.  Is he leading the field?  The answer is no.  Why is he not leading the field?  Because people are comfortable with big government in their lives and like the Roman citizens of old, they’re choosing the path that is least painful.  And this is why we’re going to lose the republic folks.  This is why America will lose its exceptionalism and we will be no different than any other nation in the world.  We will go down as the generation who allowed the republic to slip away.  I wonder how history will judge us.

Will history be kind to this generation or judge us harshly?  Will history view us as weak or strong?  2,000 years from now will students be examining and discussing the glaring mistakes we’re making today?  Will they wonder how we could be so stupid and let a good thing slip away?  My guess is yes.  If we fail now I believe history will be unkind to this generation and we’ll deserve it.  You see we have very little time to reverse course and save the republic. If we don’t change our ways and change them within the next couple of years there will be an economic reckoning unlike we have ever seen before band we will wonder what happened.  Many people will be blindsided by these economic events and will look to a leader or the government for more flawed solutions and trust me the government will be more than happy to offer them up.  This equates to less liberty and more central planning by an imperfect government and that’s the kind of environment that will eventually lead to tyranny.

So this is where we are.  How do we act?  Do we take the painful and necessary steps needed to save the republic or do we take the path of least resistance?  By the looks of who is leading in the polls we already decided.  So much for keeping the republic our founders gave us.

Ben Franklin would be so proud of this generation…

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post: The Sentry Journal

Share

Judge Napolitano: Do we have a constitution?

Share

Do we have a constitution anymore? Can the republic be restored? Judge Andrew Napolitano and Utah Senator Mike Lee examine this topic in the below video. Please take a few minutes and watch it.

Mark Levin says we are living in a “post constitution” period in America. Conservative talk show host Mike Church believes our constitution is dead and that we need to get over it.  The other day I was listening toAndrew Wilkow and he made the case that DUI checkpoints which is now commonplace in America are 100 percent unconstitutional.  Think about it, every time law enforcement set these checkpoints up to randomly pull over cars and subject the individual to a sobriety tests or breath alcohol test without any probable cause they are violating the 4th amendment which was crafted to guard against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause.  I never really thought about until Mr. Wilkow talked about it his show.  This is another example where our society has traded off their personal liberties for what they view as a safer driving environment.  Constitutional violations occur everyday in America and no one is willing to stand up and challenge these violators.  This brings me to a conversation I had with Right Hand Man yesterday.

We both believe that the solutions to our problems resides within each of us.  It will not be found in a politician with a silver tongue or a governmental body. The solution will be found in us.  The first step is taking off the political party goggles and examine ourselves as individuals with a critical eye.  Until we find the Cicero in each of us to stand up and defend the republic I’m afraid we will watch our once great republic slip away.  You see the problem isn’t just with the politician; it with us.  After all we are the ones who elected these individuals and at the end of the day they are a reflection of who we have become.  The constitution is violated each day because we have not stood up as a whole and defended it.  We must hold these violators of the constitution accountable for their acts and this is done by replacing them with an individuals who is constitutionally grounded.

Looking at our candidates I only see two who are constitutionally grounded and they are in the back of the pack.  What does that say about us?  What does that say about the future of individual liberty in America?  Our government is growing and our nation is drowning in debt.  We’re on the verge of financial collapse and two big government candidates are leading our field.  All I will say is we get the government we deserve.  If I sound frustrated it’s because I am.  I don’t want to live in a post constitution America.  I want to live in an America where the constitution is reestablished as a wall between the government and the people.  I know I’m partly to blame for the mess we’re in because I blindly voted for the “R” and not for the conservative in the past.  No more.  Big government Republicans are not going to restore the republic or reestablish our constitution.  Only we the people will restore the republic and reestablish our constitution.  And we will do this by replacing those who are ignoring the constitution with those who have a strong desire to reestablish it; but it all starts with us.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Share

America Was Never Intended To Be A Democracy

Share

Few things will cause my blood to boil more than hearing somebody touting the virtues of democracy. I am especially infuriated when I hear one of our political leaders talk such nonsense. Yet we do hear “the blessings” of democracy being preached by those in government, often by our own State Department.

Our Founders did everything possible to avoid democracy in the new nation they were creating. You will not find the word democracy in the declaration of Independence or in the Constitution of the United States of America or in the constitutions of any of the  fifty states. Our Founders new very well the dangers of democracy’s tyranny of the majority over the minority. They deliberately established a republic to constrain the excesses of democracy.

Democracy inevitably leads to bigger and bigger central governments. Big central governments inevitably leads to less and less freedom. Less freedom inevitably leads to tyrannical dictatorships.

Why then has our government, over the last century or more, promoted democracy to undeveloped countries around the world; Central and South America,  Africa, Asia and, most recently in the Middle East? Have they learned nothing from the historical results of their efforts? Surely it can not be due to ignorance, can it?

As a result of our education system being taken over by the so-called progressives since the sixties,  I think we would be stunned by how so few Americans today understand that America is a republic and not a democracy. I fear that most Americans today do not even know what the difference is between a democracy and a republic.

Below you will find a marvelous ten minute video that explains the differences in the various forms of government devised by man. Please take time to watch it. Pay special attention to the last two minutes where the description of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire is chillingly similar to what is happening in America today. If you have teenagers in your family, you may want to consider having them watch this video. If you know any teachers personally, maybe you could suggest that they use this video in their classrooms. I really think the video is that good.

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

H/T to Questioning With Boldness for the video.

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Image H/T: Liberty Stickers

Share

Ignorance is Strength for the Left

Share

My family taught me to never be afraid of asking the tough questions.  My Father would always say, that if it sounds too good to be true, well it probably is.  This taught me that there is no free ride and if someone tells you there is, then grab on to your wallet and hold tight.  It also made it much more difficult to sway my opinion using emotional tactics and promises of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  I became a realist.  My Mother believed that an education combined with observation and experience, would provide me the tools needed in life to make sound decisions.  This drove me to examine life with a critical eye and obtain a deeper understanding of events.

I was sixteen when I started working for my grandpa on the township roads.  He was 73 years young and still plugging away in the workforce.  He worked at that age not because he had to work; but because he was driven by a work ethic and purpose that few understand today.  With the exception of working on my uncle’s farm this was my first real job.  You know a job where you actually had taxes taken out of your check.  I made $3.35 an hour and trust me I earned every penny of it.  We worked at times in some of the most unbearable conditions.  Even before all this global warming nonsense , Pennsylvania summers in the 1980s were usually hot and muggy with stagnate air.  I busted my butt for very little pay, but the true reward for my efforts did not come through a paycheck, it came by working for a man that was a vault of knowledge and experience.  Just being around my grandpa in a work environment taught me so much about life and the challenges we face each day.  His wise influence still clings to me this day.  One of the things I learned from him was how to approach and deal with challenges in life.  I mean we all deal with challenges on a daily basis.  For instance there is never just one way to approach a challenge in life, but there is always the best way.  And the best way is different for each of us.

The challenge I face today is probably the same challenge that many of you face.  That challenge is trying to inform the ignorant of what is actually going on with our Republic.  Now please don’t view the term ignorant as a negative thing; it simply means uninformed.  Life is filled with many distractions, from getting the kids the soccer practice on time to watching our favorite TV shows.  We get caught up in all the little moments in the day and sometimes lose our bearing on the things that should truly matter.  We end up choosing a kind of self-imposed ignorance because there just simply isn’t enough time in the day to add one more worry.  Well I’m here to tell you that you had better make time.

You see I believe that most of the people are starting to wake up and see this administration for its actions and not so much for their words.  The people are starting to take the time and observe the events happening around them with a critical eye, because deep in our gut we know something is not right.  A larger number of folks are starting to rediscover the documents that our Founders crafted to protect our individual liberties from tyranny.  Many of us know someone whether it be a family member, friend, or even spouse that has decided to remain ignorant to the facts of what is going on in this country.  For the most part they are good people with good hearts; they just have made a choice to live blissfully in ignorance.  When I approach them with questions on this issue, I hear a broad range of excuses from I’ll cross that bridge when we get there to it’s just two confusing to deal with. I usually respond by saying, well we’re at the bridge now or there’s nothing that’s confusing about liberty and freedom.

So why is this topic so important?  It’s it important because America is changing before our very eyes and we need to reach these people so that the progressives/liberals don’t use them.  What I mean by this is that the left will use the ignorance of these good folks against them in times of crisis.  If the ignorant feel blindsided by events they will look to blame the system, capitalism, the Republic, the Founders and so on.  There will be an opportunity for the left to use the crisis to manipulate the ignorant and justify the usurpation of more individual rights; ignorance will become strength for the left.

This is a challenge that we must face and address. We must diminish this strength for the left by informing the uninformed about liberty, freedom, property rights, limited government, the free market, and how the American spirit can still carry us out of this mess.  How we do this will be different for each of us.  Remember there are many ways to approach a challenge, but only one best way.  Each of you know the best way, you just have to find it within.  Our Republic’s survival just might depend on it.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!
Original Post:  The Current

Share

We Are NOT a Democracy

Share

On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to seek a Declaration of War against Germany in order that the world “be made safe for democracy.”  Since that time, people both here and abroad have been calling the United States type of government a democracy.  It is even printed in our textbooks.  It is a NOT a democracy, it is a Republic, hence the Pledge of Allegiance says:

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

So what is the difference between a Republican versus a Democratic form of government?

Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:

Democracy:
a:
government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.  Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. 

A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: “A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government.  It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury.  From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.”

A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

Republic
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president: a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.

“A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

**taken from http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm

So how is it that the United States began to be called a democracy?  In 1905 a group of people organized and called themselves the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS).  They were found on over 60 college and university campuses across the United States.

Their goal was to bring socialism to the United States.  They adopted a slogan, “Production for use, not for profit” and hundreds of big name individuals were recruited from government, press, radio, television and motion pictures.  But then with all the violence of the USSR, socialism became a bad word in the U.S. and this group of people changed their name to “The League for Industrial Democracy.

With the word Democracy, they want to convey the message that through government ownership or control of all means of production and all means of distribution, the nation’s resources would become the property of “all the people” – therefore a democracy.  Democracy is widely associated with socialism.

By the time of Woodrow Wilson’s comment before Congress, the word democracy began to be used more and more even though numerous attempts would be made to distinguish the difference.  An example is the U.S. Army’s Training Manual No. 2000-25, published in 1928 which contained a whole section explaining the difference.

From the 5000 Year Leap:

“People continued referring to the United States as a ‘democracy’, but mentally they had begun to equate ‘democracy’ with the traditional Constitutional republic.  It became popular to American democracy as though it were quite different from everybody else’s kind of democracy.  That is the status of the word ‘democracy’ in the United States today.  The majority of the people are instinctively learning more and more toward the fundamental thinking of the Founders.  They will probably end up calling the United States a ‘democratic republic’, which is the term used by the followers of Thomas Jefferson!”

From Federalist Papers, No 10, p 81:

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

So next time you hear someone call the United States a democracy, let them know that we are a Republic.

Pray daily for our country
FaithfulinPrayer

www.FaithfulinPrayer.wordpress.com
www.FaithfulThoughtSpot.wordpress.com

Share