Greatest Hits: I am an American

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.

I am an AmericanDon expertly explained his view…

old glory 001

 

I am an American.

I do not believe God tells me to kill all who do not believe in him.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to take my property, the fruit of my labors in order that it might redistribute it to those too lazy to work.

I am an American.

I want the borders of my country secure, so that those who truly want to be here and truly have something to contribute to my country will be welcome.

I am an American.

I do not wish to meddle in the affairs of other countries, except where it directly threatens the safety and security of my country.

I am an American.

I do not want my government interjecting itself into the affairs of private enterprise.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me how to raise my children, or what to feed them.

I am an American.

I do not want my public schools to preach socialism, Communism, Marxism, totalitarianism or any other “ism” save for American-ism to my children. It is about time that we started recognizing our own culture for a change.

I am an American.

I want my children to be able to pray in school.

I am an American.

I do not want my children to have to pay for the excesses and out of control spending brought about by our current pack of politicians.

I am an American.

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 want my elected leaders to read, understand and follow the Constitution of the United States of America; to the letter.

I am an American.

I do not want to have to pay 4, 5 or more dollars a gallon for gasoline because some government bureaucrat thinks we need to save the planet.

I am an American.

I do not want my evening news program to give me its slant on the news, even if that slant is one I agree with or not. Just report what happens and let me decide what I think.

HT-Dont Tread on Me-2

I am an American.

I want my elected leaders to be held to a responsible, reasonable, efficient budget because in my everyday life, I can only spend what I bring in, so they should as well.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me that I no longer have the right to bear arms for the safety and security of my home and family.

I am an American.

I want to know that marriage is between one man and one woman. Everything else is a civil union, and those couples should receive the same rights and benefits afforded to married couples.

I am an American.

I believe that when it says our Creator granted us the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that it should extend to ALL Americans; even unborn babies.

I am an American.

I feel that decisions have consequences and that our country would be vastly improved and better off if everyone had to be responsible for their own decisions.

I am an American.

I believe that you have the right to stand up and say whatever you want. And I believe this because so many before us have sacrificed life and limb to give us all that right.

I am an American.

I also believe that if I think there is something wrong with my government, or elected leaders that I can change that at the ballot box, or through speaking out, or by any number of ways protected to me by the 1st Amendment. I do not wish to use violent means, but I will not surrender the safety and security of my family because a politician says I cannot own a firearm.

I am an American.

I believe that God put me in the greatest country on his green earth, and that I want my children to have better, more and bigger opportunities that I have had.

I am an American – and a damn proud one at that.

Share

Keeping Our Kids Poor And Stupid: Only 18% Of 8th-Graders Are Proficient In US History

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.

nations report card

 

Those who don’t know history are doomed to be brainwashed into believing in Obamaunism.

Results of the “Nation’s Report Card” released this week by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that only 18 percent of 8th-graders are “proficient” or above in U.S. history, and only 23 percent are proficient in civics.

Despite hundreds of billions of dollars poured into education programs in the United States via the U.S. Department of Education, the “Nation’s Report Card” states that 8th-graders’ average NAEP scores in U.S. History, Geography, and Civics demonstrated no significant change since 2010 when students were last assessed. In geography, just 27 percent of U.S. 8th-graders performed at or above the proficiency level on the NAEP assessments.

So the teachers unions, as wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Democrat Party, are doing their level best then. They’re ensuring we’re breeding a nation of ignoramuses, ripe for brainwashing into Progressive dogma. And the brainwashing is in full swing.

Without the context of our uniquely American experience, kids might get the idea that Rights are granted by Government. And that which government grants, government can take away. For our own good, of course.

Absent a solid basis in the principles of Federalism, kids might get the idea that everything ultimately belongs to the government, and it is government which benevolently deigns to let us use our property, so long as we use it in accordance with the diktats of government.

Unless they understand how America was founded, kids might get the idea that our nation is not unique, and not deserving of their efforts to sustain and improve it.

In short, historical illiteracy serves to impede critical thinking skills, and enables the presentation of ideals antithetical to those upon which this great nation was founded. Out with self-sufficiency, in with the welfare state. Discount the pursuit of happiness and equality of opportunity, instead ensure that everybody gets a trophy. Deprecate the contributions of Old White Guys while sensationalizing the marginal achievements of fringe minority groups, as if America would not exist without the latter, and manages to scrape on by despite the impediments created by the former.

Children who aren’t versed in how our nation was founded won’t grow up into adults willing to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution our Founding Fathers fought and died to establish. And that’s exactly what the Obamunists want. When you don’t believe in Something, you’ll fall for Anything.

.

.

Share

The Decline and Fall of Who-ville

Share

whoville 001

 

The once friendly and unassuming city of Who-ville lies in ruins, bankrupt. Businesses left, never to return. It has seen its population decrease by 40 percent over the past three decades.

whoville 004
Who-ville at its height.

How did this happen? It all starts with the Christmas Eve home invasion by the Grinch. Shocked that their town, technically at peace with the Grinch, was subject to such a devastating assault the political leaders of Who-ville enacted policies that would lead to their downfall.

The Department of Who-ville Security

Vowing never to be caught off guard again, the Department of Who-Ville Security was created by Who-ville’s mayor. Granted sweeping powers, Who-ville’s residents soon find their once care-free existed altered by the state.  Random bag checks became a way of life.

whoville 007
Safety checks on public transportation were downright ‘in-who-mane’

 

Who-ville’s residents meekly submit to having their belongings checked whenever they wanted to use public transportation. Though the checks were officially designated as “random” everyone knew that this was only so that they wouldn’t be accused of racism in targeting the Grinch.

Militarization

whoville 006
Who-ville Police on patrol

A rapid militarization of Who-ville society soon followed. The city’s defense budget increased three thousand percent over a decade. Soon it became common place to see Who-ville police sporting automatic weapons and driving tanks. The latest technology was used to implement drone strikes on Mt. Crumpit in an attempt to catch the Grinch. These drone strikes would prove controversial as many innocent civilians, including children, were killed in the strikes. The mayor of Who-ville is rumored to keep a pack of playing cards with the pictures of Mt. Crumpit militants on them.  As militants are killed, they are taken out of the deck.

Rising taxes

War is not cheap and to pay for it taxes are raised in Who-ville. Even cigarettes, heretofore a favorite of all those in Who-ville, are not exempt from the tax man. Seeking to avoid paying taxes, many residents resort to the black market to buy “loosies” or single cigarettes. Riots ensue as one resident of Who-ville is killed by police when resisting arrest for selling loosies.

With taxes rising ever higher, Who-ville loses its manufacturing sector, which leaves for towns with a more business friendly tax structure. High unemployment ensues.

With unemployment consistently in double digits, the city of Who-ville becomes the largest employer in town, promising generous pensions to employees. However upon retiring many employees find that the city is broke and will not be able to afford to pay them.

With no money to support its infrastructure, downtown deteriorates, leaving block after block of empty shells. Crime rises.

Who-ville’s city council passes a “stimulus package” that not only does not help the economy but further adds to its unsupportable debt.

Permanent socialism

whoville 003
Who-ville Tent Cities spring up everywhere

With most residents out of work, Who-ville’s city council promises “cradle to grave” socialism to help citizens rise out of poverty. With the middle class already moved out of town, Who-ville’s rich are taxed to pay for the social programs.

Who-ville’s rich soon leave town.

Bankruptcy

With no tax base left, and unable even to pay its water bills, Who-ville sinks into bankruptcy, its former glory a distant memory.

The Grinch and other residents of Mt. Crumpit move into Who-ville and promise to enact “Grinch law” on all citizens. Who-ville’s remaining few original residents submit out of fear of being labelled racist. Female Who-ville genital mutilation ensues. Women are forbidden from driving cars or appearing in public without a veil.

And that, my friends, is the true story of the sad decline and fall of Who-ville. Thank God this could never happen in America.

.

.

Share

Will The Last Person To Leave New Jersey Please Turn Off The Lights?

Share

 photo leavingjersey001_zps01af70fd.jpg
 

The exodus from New Jersey is becoming a stampede.

People are moving out of state at twice the rate they’re coming in.

Nearly two of every three families making an interstate move involving New Jersey last year were leaving the Garden State, the highest rate in the country.

New Jersey had the greatest percentage of outbound moves of any state nationally last year with almost 65 percent departing, according to a company which bills itself as the largest transporter of household goods in the country.

The Garden State has led the nation in outward migration for the fourth time in five years.

Where are they going? To states with lower taxes, lower cost of living, and more freedom. Texas. The Carolinas. Florida. Red states primarily, because socialism sucks.

And another 1,000 folks are headed to Atlanta, because the cost-savings for Mercedes-Benz are too good to turn down.

The lure of lower taxes, a cheaper cost of living, more access to critical transportation networks, key manufacturing plants and about $50 million in incentives has sealed it — German automaker Mercedes-Benz is departing Bergen County for Atlanta. And with it, potentially close to 1,000 jobs.

In an interview with NJ Advance Media following the announcement, Mercedes-Benz CEO Stephen Cannon, a Wyckoff native, said Atlanta won out because of the high quality of life, proximity to universities like the Georgia Institute of Technology and the business climate.

They’re voting with their feet. They’re voting against the two Steves (Fulop and Sweeney) who both covet the allure of Drumthwacket, and who both promise to enact a ruinous “millionaires’ tax” immediately after succeeding Chris Christie.

Because we don’t pay enough taxes already in this state.

Alas, the takers are never satiated. And we sure do have a lot of takers; consumers of government, who always vote for Democrats and their fatuous promises of more free stuff.

Things are only going to get worse. Which is why so many makers are fleeing from New Jersey.

.

.

Share

Conservatism: What It Is And Why Is It Needed So Badly In 2016?

Share

ice cold conservative

edmund-burke
Edmund Burke

Conservatism is by today’s standards closely associated with Edmund Burke’s philosophy. I think it goes beyond that, in that it is more than merely a political doctrine. It is, in my estimation, a way of life, a code of conduct that associates one’s property with one’s liberty. For how can one truly be a free man when his property is not his to do with as he wishes? Russell Kirk, a man who has had a big impact on 20th century conservatism and has helped to shape it going into the new millennia was quoted as saying that conservatism is “the negation of ideology.”

russell kirk
Russell Kirk

How is that ‘negation of ideology’ translated into today’s conservative movement? The word ‘conservative’ is derived from the Latin verb, conservare, meaning to preserve or to save. So by its very nature, it would seem that to be Conservative is to hold onto the past. Then how do we arrive at what seems to be an oxy-moron such as ‘modern conservatism?’ How does one combine 21st century thinking with a traditional approach to life and politics? It’s not that difficult, really. I think Kirk was onto something important when he called it ‘the negation of ideology.’ For if one is to examine the Statist’s modus operandi, it is clear that amassing power and expanding the role of government in the life of the “masses” is his number one priority. It has been said that the far left, which is the controlling faction of the Democratic Party at this time, is part and parcel with big government. In other words, the Democratic Party needs big government for power and big government needs the Democratic Party to exist. It is a symbiotic relationship that is troubling to say the least and dangerous in the extreme.

DA-SC-90-03096
Ronald Reagan

To be honest, some Republican Presidents have increased government spending as well. Let’s look at Ronald Reagan. He did increase government, but he did it in a slightly different way. Reagan dramatically cut the role of the Federal Government in domestic programs and shifted the focus to increasing the military. Of course, this is well known today to be one of the leading reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. So this begs the question, did Reagan increase or decrease the role of government in our lives? On the domestic front, he dramatically decreased it, so the argument can be made that he was a small-government conservative. If one takes into the account the expanded size of the Federal Government due to the military build-up during the Reagan years then the answer seems less clear unless you remember one key factor.

Our Constitution.

It specifically calls for the Federal Government to provide for the common defense; it does not call for entitlements, or other socialistic programs. So in retrospect, Reagan was definitely a true conservative.

It is very unfortunate that we do not have a true conservative in the White House at this time. Instead we have a man who was raised by Marxists, steeped in Communism and cut his political teeth in Chicago while studying the Alinsky method of community organizing.

budget-create-deficits-606Barack Obama is the most pure statist in American history to ever occupy the Oval Office. If you only look at the unprecedented spending undertaken by this administration, then you see that we are on a course of financial ruin.

  • $787 billion stimulus package which morphed into $1.6 trillion in spending
  • $400 billion “son of stimulus”
  • $700 billion Wall Street bailout package
  • $1.7 trillion Obamacare
  • trillion dollar deficits almost every year he has been in office
  • explosion in the National Debt, from $10 trillion to $18.7 trillion today, and looking to be north of $20 trillion by the time he leaves office

To assail his critics at the time, Obama promised to find $17 billion in cuts from his obscenely bloated budget. If it weren’t so scary, it would be laughable. As Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) said, “It’s as if you took a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub while you left the spigot on at full speed.”

So what we, the American public have been stuck with is the bill for a pure Statist’s Utopian DEBT HELD BY PUBLIC-OBAMA BUDGET-CHARTdream. Can we afford this? Can our children or our grand-children afford this? The answer is no and it is only one of the many reasons why we need conservatism so much right now. So let us choose carefully who we decide to put into the Oval Office in 2016. We can ill afford another term of statism on steroids; and that is exactly what has happened. President Obama has led our country down the winding road of socialism. He made a promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” and that is unfortunately the one campaign promise he has attempted to keep.
But it isn’t just his spending that makes Barack Obama the most dangerous President the United States has ever had.
As the list of his insane spending boggles the mind, so too will this list of his scandals and lawless actions.

  • Implemented portions of the Dream Act, (which had been rejected by Congress) by Executive Order
  • Refused to prosecute violation of drug laws with certain mandatory minimums
  • Illegally refused to act on Yucca Mountain’s application to become a nuclear waste repository
  • Refusal to act during Benghazi terror attacks, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans in our Consolute in Lybia, and the resulting Cover-Up
  • Gave billions in Foreign Aid to the Muslim Brotherhood after their coup gave them control of Egypt
  • IRS Scandal in which Conservative groups were targeted ahead of the 2012 Presidential Elections
  • Continually re-wrote the ACA or ObamaCare Law via Executive Fiat
  • Implemented moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico even after a Federal Judge ruled it invalid
  • Re-wrote Federal Bankruptcy Laws during GM’s and Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings, giving the UAW controlling interest in the auto companies
  • Government agencies are engaging in “Operation Choke Point,” where the government asks banks to “choke off” access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as “ammunition sales”
  • Declared the Senate in recess to illegally make appointments that required Senate approval
  • Targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen by falsely labeling him a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a new leak
    Fast & Furious and the resulting cover-up
  • Targeted former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson because of her thorough coverage of the IRS scandal and the Benghazi Cover-Up
  • Granted Amnesty to millions of illegal aliens via Executive Order, after saying publicly for 6 years that he didn’t have the authority to do so

So what is Conservatism and why is it so desperately needed at this time in United States history?

Because we need to nominate a candidate that articulate Ronald Reagan’s message of “Morning in America,” showing a positive outlook that our best days are STILL ahead of us.

If we nominate another mushmouth candidate from the bushy center, who espouses the “big tent” philosophy, it will relegate the GOP to become the permanent 2nd Party.

If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything and that is what is happening now. We need a platform of smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations, and more individual liberties, because a rising tide does in deed, lift all boats.

So, let’s remember as we approach the presidential primaries, we need a candidate that will unabashedly fly the flag of Conservatism. Choose carefully my friends, choose carefully.

.

.

.

Share

Two Americas

Share

 

 photo BobLonsberry_zps648566a4.jpg
Lonsberry hosts a radio talk show featuring a mix of news, political commentary, callers, and day-to-day anecdotes on WHAM (AM) in Rochester, New York from 9 AM to 12 PM ET.

Want to know why citizens who work for a living dislike those who vote for a living? This guy hits the nail on the head! In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk-radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama’s “income inequality speech”:

Two Americas

By Bob Lonsberry

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have-nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, and contribute to society, while others don’t. That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged to spend the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That’s the rationale of thievery! The other guy has it, you want it, and Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat! That’s the philosophy that produced Detroit. It’s the electoral philosophy that’s destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but betraying them. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Income variations in society are, for the most part, a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. If you choose to drop out of high school or skip college, you’re likely to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. Have children out of wedlock and your life is apt to take one course; have them within a stable marriage and life is apt to take another course.
Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take and the choices we make. My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives have also had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made one choice, I made another, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we’re both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It’s not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it’s freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.
There is no true option for success if there’s no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy…. even if the other guy sat on his ass and did nothing… even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest: “As ye sow, so shall ye reap” is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.” Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and the productive to foster equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of “two Americas” and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it’s divided by the differences in our efforts. It’s a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offers is not a solution, but a separatism. He has fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class-warfare wrapped up with a bow.

Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

.

.

Share

The Story of the First Thanksgiving 2014

Share

 

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

By Matt Ross

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Mises Institute

.

.

Share

Executing America

Share

amnesty

 

Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary

“The president has no authority to do this. It’s against the law.” — Senator Jeff Sessions

“The definition of a ‘sociopath’ is a person with an antisocial personality disorder. They are often well liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.” Wayne Root

The Obama “mandate,” if such a thing ever existed, is, to coin a phrase, gone with the wind. Or, more precisely, gone with the electoral tsunami that swept the socialistsDemocrats out to sea by the boatload. Catastrophe at the ballot box made little difference, of course, to the unrepentant dictator who remained on dry land.  His response was to load his executive pen with poison ink sufficient enough to order a metaphorical plague of locusts on the ingrates who voted.  From global warming (which doesn’t exist) to illegal immigration (which does), Barack Obama plans to break the laws of the land to a degree unprecedented in American history:

  • On the other side of the world, Obama determined as ever to bypass Congress (CNN)
  • Obama to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week (Fox News)
  • Obama is prepared to spend the remainder of his term unleashing sweeping executive actions to combat global warming. (Politico)
  • This week, Obama came out in support of net neutrality, as he believes Internet services should be reclassified as a utility and something Americans have a right to. (ZDNet)

All of Obama’s illegal actions have one thing in common:  the majority of Americans oppose them.

What Americans want, however, and what Barack Obama plans to give them have always been two different things.  Take his legacy law, for example, that infamous piece of legislative legerdemain known as Obamacare:

One of the architects of the health care law was caught on camera saying the bill was written specifically so as not to be viewed as a tax. He then goes on to call American voters stupid…

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass,”Jonathan Gruber said at the Annual Health Economics Conference.

Gruber was a key player in developing the law, and those remarks weren’t the only time an Obama adviser suggested the administration had pulled a fast one with the law.

“They proposed it and that passed because the American voters are too stupid to understand the difference,” he said.

Yes They Are

Folks who thought they’d be getting lower insurance premiums and better service ended up with neither:

As distasteful as they may find it, if Obama insists on continuing to violate the law by executive decree, come January, Washington’s new legislators must vote to impeach, convict, and remove him from office.  Anything less will render them and any future American Congress as vestigial an organ of governance as Caligula’s Senate.

.

.

.

Share

Three Examples of Why America is In A State of Irreversible Decline

Share

 photo america-in-decline-under-reign-of-king-obama_zps98bad7e5.jpg

Three Examples of Why America is In A State of Irreversible Decline

 

Being a self-appointed observer of the asylum we all have to live can be a daunting task. Although there are times when one can find humor in the observed insanity, more often than not the observations are unpleasant in the extreme. And, what could be more unpleasant than having to conclude from observing so much insanity that the irrefutable decline our once great nation is a permanent and irreversible. Think of the inertia in a spinning flywheel. For over a hundred years, the idealogues on the left have been gradually putting their flywheel in motion and building up its speed. Now, if by some miracle we could stop supplying energy to the progressive flywheel, it would continue to spin for a very long time due to the stored energy or inertia of the flywheel.

Today I came across three examples of why I believe America’s decline is irreversible.

Education in America

That America is being dumbed-down is not news. But, let me share something from an article I read this morning in The Spectator. The article, about a debate between two educators on whether all knowledge is equal isn’t what I found interesting. What caught my attention was a statistic attributed to two American psychologists:

… by the age of four, children of middle-class professionals will have heard, on average, 32 million more words than children of welfare recipients.

Considering that the middle class parents didn’t receive such a great education, that statistic is absolutely mind boggling. It also explains a lot about the problems in our inner-cites. It makes one wonder how many more words the children of elites have heard by age four. But, here’s the important point. Try to imagine the revolution it would need in our education system and the cultural revolution among the poor it would need to reverse this trend. It’s not going to happen, is it. Sociologist could spend their whole career writing about the meaning of that statistic. Then maybe not.

Sociologists Are Gender Confused

According to this article at The Daily Caller, the American Sociological Association (ASA), after a year of debate, have decided that ASA membership will allow for seven options for their gender choice:

  • Transgender Male
  • Transgender Man
  • Transgender Female
  • Transgender Woman
  • Genderqueer
  • Gender Non-Conforming
  • Prefered Identity of their choice not explicitly named

Genderqueer??? Seriously? That must have been some debate they had. Here is how they define “Genderqueer”:

“Genderqueer” is defined by the Gender Equity Resource Center at the University of California-Berkeley as “A person whose gender identity is neither man nor woman, is between or beyond genders, or is some combination of genders.”

Okay. At the risk of being labeled a Homophobe, I have to call this what it is; Nonsense. I care not one whit what the ASA believes about gender conflicts. But, what is alarming is what our children are being taught about gender conflict. Two words in the English language have clearly opposite meanings: Normal and Abnormal. Wherever one looks in nature, it is quite easy to see what is normal and what is abnormal. Teaching our children that abnormal is normal is wrong on so many levels. Abnormalities do occur in nature and abnormalities occur within the human specie.  Among humans midgets and drawfs are abnormal and albinos are abnormal and, yes, those born with gender conflicts are “abnormal”. Our children should be taught that abnormalities do occur in nature, including among humans. Our children should be taught that it is wrong to mistreat or discriminate against those born with abnormalities over which they had no control. But, we live in an Orwellian world where up is down and right is left and abnormal is normal. This trend is not likely tobe reversed.

Obama on Amnesty _  Channeling LBJ

Allen West writes today that our Department on (In)Justice has found a back door by which President Obama can have his amnesty wishes without even having to write an Executive Order.

As reported by The Daily Caller, “The Department of Justice’s board of immigration appeals has decided to let Guatemalan women win asylum in the United States if they claim to be victims of domestic violence. The decision was announced in an Aug. 26 decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals at President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice. It creates a huge new incentive for Guatemalan women to cross the U.S. border, because if their asylum claim is accepted, their children get U.S. citizenship, plus the use of federal health, education and retirement programs, regardless of their initial education and work skills. The new decision also means that many of the Guatemalan women who have already crossed the border this year have a new claim for asylum.”
_ (Emphasis added)

So, a bord of immigration appeals has decided that illegal immigrant women who claim to be victims of domestic violence is cause for the US to grant them asylum. What’s good for Guatemalan women will, of course, be good for women from whatever country, right? Clearly, Mr. Obama is going to get his way on amnesty no matter what the people or what the Congress feel about the issue. His unilateral actions on amnesty are not popular, but, as this excellent article at PJ Media points out, Obama doesn’t care:

Obama is already unpopular. It’s clear that he doesn’t care about his personal popularity anymore. He is playing a longer game to try to cement the majority of Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party. He considers that his legacy and will do just about anything to achieve it.

Yes indeed! LBJ was able to corral American blacks onto the government plantation as a permanent voting block for the Democratic Party and Barrack Obama plans to do the same thing with Hispanics, the fastest growing demographic in America. He does not care what long-term harm his actions will have on Hispanics and he cares even less what long-term harm his actions will have on America.

The flywheel set in motion to “transform” America is not going to slow down, much less stop. It’s too late for that now.

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

Share

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

Share

 photo governmentassitance_zps4c1340e2.jpeg

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama never intended to govern.

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

Hence he eschews policies which might jeopardize their hegemony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You gotta admit it’s a sweet deal.

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

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

Then what?

Share

I am an American

Share

old glory 001

 

I am an American.

I do not believe God tells me to kill all who do not believe in him.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to take my property, the fruit of my labors in order that it might redistribute it to those too lazy to work.

I am an American.

I want the borders of my country secure, so that those who truly want to be here and truly have something to contribute to my country will be welcome.

I am an American.

I do not wish to meddle in the affairs of other countries, except where it directly threatens the safety and security of my country.

I am an American.

I do not want my government interjecting itself into the affairs of private enterprise.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me how to raise my children, or what to feed them.

I am an American.

I do not want my public schools to preach socialism, Communism, Marxism, totalitarianism or any other “ism” save for American-ism to my children. It is about time that we started recognizing our own culture for a change.

I am an American.

I want my children to be able to pray in school.

I am an American.

I do not want my children to have to pay for the excesses and out of control spending brought about by our current pack of politicians.

I am an American.

I want my elected leaders to read, understand and follow the Constitution of the United States of America; to the letter.

I am an American.

I do not want to have to pay 4, 5 or more dollars a gallon for gasoline because some government bureaucrat thinks we need to save the planet.

I am an American.

I do not want my evening news program to give me its slant on the news, even if that slant is one I agree with or not. Just report what happens and let me decide what I think.

HT-Dont Tread on Me-2

I am an American.

I want my elected leaders to be held to a responsible, reasonable, efficient budget because in my everyday life, I can only spend what I bring in, so they should as well.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me that I no longer have the right to bear arms for the safety and security of my home and family.

I am an American.

I want to know that marriage is between one man and one woman. Everything else is a civil union, and those couples should receive the same rights and benefits afforded to married couples.

I am an American.

I believe that when it says our Creator granted us the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that it should extend to ALL Americans; even unborn babies.

I am an American.

I feel that decisions have consequences and that our country would be vastly improved and better off if everyone had to be responsible for their own decisions.

I am an American.

I believe that you have the right to stand up and say whatever you want. And I believe this because so many before us have sacrificed life and limb to give us all that right.

I am an American.

I also believe that if I think there is something wrong with my government, or elected leaders that I can change that at the ballot box, or through speaking out, or by any number of ways protected to me by the 1st Amendment. I do not wish to use violent means, but I will not surrender the safety and security of my family because a politician says I cannot own a firearm.

I am an American.

I believe that God put me in the greatest country on his green earth, and that I want my children to have better, more and bigger opportunities that I have had.

I am an American – and a damn proud one at that.

 

Share

France’s Economy Falters, so it adopts Reaganomics – Again!

Share
Francois-Hollande
François Hollande, President of France – (Socialist Party)

France’s President began his term saying, “We have chased away the clouds, the sky is all ‘rose,’ referring to that favorite color of Communists, red.

At an April 2012 campaign rally after a torrential rainstorm, Francois Hollande, on the eve of being the first Socialist Party member elected President of France in 24 years, boldly proclaimed: “We have chased away the clouds, the sky is all ‘rose.” The crowd roared their approval of Hollande’s imagery communism red triumphing in France.

But as with all socialist policies, when they are tried in the real world, instead of just on paper, the outcome is predictable – they always fail.

On January 14th, 2014 Hollande solemnly acknowledged the failure of his collectivist policies by announcing his administration would cut $40.8 billion of taxes on companies and the self-employed, plus reduce social security charge paid by employers by 5.4%. More shocking to the Left, Hollande said he would pay for his supply-side policies by cutting $86 billion in public spending. Two decades later and again facing a collapsing economy, the Socialist Party of France is being forced to adopt the supply-side economics of President Ronald Reagan.

He promised a lower retirement age, higher wages, and penalizing taxation on the evil rich folks, to the tune of a 75% tax.

Hollande campaigned on an economic manifesto of reducing the retirement age from 62 to 60, a 75% income tax for high earners, constructing 500,000 units of government housing per year and the creation of 60,000 new public teaching jobs.

It’s important to point out that France went down this road in the early ’80s with Mitterand, to terrible results.

His (Hollande’s) policies were a throwback to the 1981 election of the last French Socialist Party President Francois Mitterrand and his Communist Party allies who nationalized 38 banks and 7 key industries, raised minimum wage, cut work-week hours, increased public sector wages, created 250,000 government jobs, increased social welfare payments and radically expanded the nation’s money supply. But as public debt tripled by 1983, the French inflation rate jumped to 14.5% and unemployment rate rose to over 10%.

When it looked darkest for France amid Mitterand’s policies, Reagan’s plans saved the day.

With France about to be kicked out of the European monetary system, the Socialist Party was forced to adopt the supply-side economic policies of cutting taxes and dramatically slashing public spending that President Ronald Reagan was championing in the United States. Two years later, inflation had fallen to 4% and unemployment stopped rising. Although they kept the red rose as its symbol, the Party for twenty years abandoned socialist policies in all but name and adopted free-market liberalism.

So the socialists were beat back – for a while. After the near worldwide economic crises of 2008, the French Socialist Party got it’s sea legs again and started gaining support.

What’s that saying about the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results?

They claimed their manifesto of higher taxes and economic stimulus projects would lead to full employment and eliminate the budget deficit. But the Hollande administration’s deficit spending has driven France into the same crisis as Mitterrand’s government 30 years earlier. The French government now spends 56% of the nation’s GDP, making it one the highest-spending governments in the European Union. Hollande’s vast public sector and punitively high tax rates have driven the rich to take their wealth and leave and for businesses to relocate production off-shore. Franc’s annual deficit has doubled and the nation’s unemployment rate is now at a 15-year high of 11%. Chronic youth unemployment now tops 26% and still rising.

So Hollande did something in France that Obama will never do in America. When he saw his policies weren’t working, he decided to try something different.

??

Yes, really. Then chaos ensued.

Before his speech, Francois Hollande was already the most unpopular president in French history according to a poll showing that only 26% of the French people have a positive opinion of his leadership. But after his press conference, members of his cabinet had to perform rhetorical acrobatics to deny that the president was adopting conservative policies. Members of former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s conservative “Union for a Popular Movement” were baffled on how to respond after the Hollande essentially co-opted their center-right agenda. It is unclear how the speech will help the Socialist Party, but it did unify the far left, which denounced the president as selling out to pressure from corporations and financial markets. The French business lobby MEDEF praised the announcements, but asked for more details.

Now before we apply sainthood to Hollande for doing the right thing, keep one thing in mind. He evidently is a good student of history because he knows that when Mitterand reversed course, France’s economy made a rebound and Mitterand was re-elected in ’88.

Francois Hollande in his speech sought to show that the Socialist Party, like the party of Francois Mitterrand in the mid-1980s, understands France’s problems and is willing to reverse policies and adopt measures known in France as the “tournant de la rigueur” (austerity turn) to fight inflation and regain competitiveness. Hollande is keenly aware that after the Socialist Party adopted supply-side economics in 1983, the French economy did recover and Mitterrand was re-elected in 1988.

Let’s remember what Ronald Reagan said about how governments view the economy.

DA-SC-90-03096“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: ‘If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'”

Read the full article at The American Thinker.

Share

Using the Beer Summit to Explain Progressive Taxes

Share

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

bucket beersThe ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free, but what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same percent, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got TEN times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, men and women, liberals and Marxists and everyone else who keeps crying about “tax cuts for the rich,” is how the progressive income tax system in America works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is a lot friendlier.

Share

On The Way To Zimbabwe or Worse

Share

No, I am not talking about America. I’m referring to the once lovely country I adopted 21 years ago. Only socialism could destroy an oil exporting country. I can’t tell you much I would like to report to you directly about the events taking place year the last few weeks and the causes of the political and economic crisis in which we are living here. I can’t take that chance and I know you understand. But, the least I can do is to provide you with links to articles that explain much about what you should know.

Senator Marco Rubio speaks out. I hope Americans listened.

Jimmy Carter wants to come down and mediate. The last thing we need is for that Marxist to come down and cheerlead for the regime again.

Roger Noriega, formerly with the US State Department, has an excellent article explaining the dire situation of the country’s central bank reserves.

This article from Curacao Chronicle explains how countries in the region will be adversely affected by the economic collapse here. This is the direct result of the previous president using the country’s oil to buy influence in the region.

Two excellent local bloggers blog in English for the many citizens that have fled the country over the years. I’ve selected one article from each, but if you have the interest, do visit their “home” pages.  Please checkout this article and this one.

We are about one step away from total chaos here. Leaving is not an option for me so I hope you will understand if I don’t get back to my regular blog posting for a while. I’m spending my time glued to Twitter to keep up with events across the country and trying to judge how they might affect my family. In the mean time, you all keep up the pressure the socialists back there and we will do the same down here. The celebration of Carnaval (like Mardi Gras) starts this weekend. That may calm things down for a while; but the protestors are saying no way. We’ll see.

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

Original Post:  Asylum Watch

Share

Bad Ideas Die Hard

Share

It’s true, isn’t it? Take communism (advanced socialism) for example. How many times has it been tried and failed? Yet the idea of a communist workers  paradise won’t go away.

Mike Shedlock, better known as Mish of Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, is one of my favorite economic pundits. In his article, Mish postulates a new law, which he calls  : The Law of Bad Ideas. He writes:

A proposal by French president Francois Hollande got me thinking about “The Law of Bad Ideas“.

I did a search for the phrase and surprisingly, nothing came up. Thus, I get to define the phrase.

The bad idea that French President Hollande is promoting in the so-called Robin Hood Tax, otherwise known as the Financial Transaction Tax. But, rather than go into why the Financial Transaction Tax is and always has been a bad idea, let’s just stick to looking at and thinking about Mish’s new law. He not only defines The Law of Bad Ideas; he has come up with five corollaries to his law:

Law of Bad Ideas: Bad ideas don’t go away until they have been tried and failed multiple times, and generally not even then.

Corollary One: Left alone, bad ideas get worse over time.

Corollary Two: The overwhelming desire to implement bad ideas leads to compromises guaranteed to make things worse.

Corollary Three: Those in positions of political power not only have the worst ideas, they also have the means to see those ideas are implemented.

Corollary Four: The worse the idea, the more likely it is to be embraced by academia and political opportunists.

Corollary Five: No politically acceptable idea is so bad it cannot be made worse.

Is Mish brilliant or what? I wonder if Mish realizes how his simple Law of Bad Ideas explains so much about why the asylum we all have to live in has been and continues to be so screwed up? Please feel free to use the comment section to give examples that fit Mish’s law.

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

Original Post:  Asylum Watch

Share

Hillary, Your Radical Marxist Roots are Showing

Share

Hillary is more of an outright Marxist than Obama. Where his socialistic tendencies towards America stem from his hatred of this country’s supposed “colonialism.” We defeated Japan, but never occupied it. We defeated Germany, but never occupied it. The list goes on, but none-the-less America is a colonial power. But I digress, back to Hillary.

In 1971, twenty three Hillary Rodhamyear old Yale law student, Hillary Diane Rodham served a stint as a clerk for what was at the time, the nation’s most Communistic law firm, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. This law firm made no bones about it’s connection to the Communist Party. Partner Doris Walker was a CP member at the time and another partner, Robert Treuhaft had left the CP in 1958 after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee. They labeled him one of America’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers. His firm made their name defending clients too radical for other lawyers. They defended Communists, draft-dodgers and even members of the militant group, The Black Panthers.

Some of Hillary’s most ardent political supporters are dismayed about her time at the law firm. Of course those opposed to her White House ambitions state that it shows her radical Marxist ideology that she keeps hidden from the public.

I think the biggest item of interest from Clinton’s time at the Communist law firm is her work on a plea negotioan on behalf of armed Black Panthers who stormed into the California legislature in 1967.

In an interview for her book, “Hillary’s Choice,” biographer and author, Gail Sheehy asked Treuhaft about Hillary’s tenure there. He said, “She did want to work for a left-wing movement law firm. Anyone who went to college or law school would have known our law firm was a Communist law firm,” Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999.

In a 2007 policy speech on the subject of “Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity”, then Senator Hillary Clinton said, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an “on your own” society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a “we’re all in it together” society.

Now I ask you, is America ready for Hillary’s “Progressive Vision”?

And let’s not forget her radical Islamic-Jihadist ties.

Walid Shoebat is one of the founders of the Islamic Association of Palestine, which begat one of the worst terror organizations in our world today, Hamas. After coming to America, he converted to Christianity and now reports on Jihadi activities. He reported a list of 63 names in the US Government that have ties to radical Islam. He said that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin maintains close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Also on that list, was Najla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of ousted and disgraced Egyptian President Morsi, and his ties to the MB are not speculative. On the contrary, those ties are what prompted the Egyptian Military to take him out of office.

Hillary’s Wellesley College thesis was a 92 page dissertation on, and defense of the saul alinskyradical community organizer, Saul Alinsky. She idolized him, even bringing him to speak at her college in conjunction with interviewing him for her thesis.
She is in agreement with Alinsky on most things, save one.
“I agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” she explained in her 2003 biography, “particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t.”

In this, she is just like Obama in that she understands that much like the famous Cloward and Piven strategy, you cannot effect national change and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America from anywhere except inside the system.

So in summary, I actually fear a Hillary Clinton presidency much more than the Obama tenure. His incessant narcissism and refusal to work with leaders in EITHER party have rendered him much less effective and dangerous than he might otherwise have been. Hillary does not suffer from that problem. She will forge alliances, work with both sides and mow down political enemies to get what she wants, and what she wants is a Marxist America.

Share

Socialism And Communism Are Contrary To Christianity

Share

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Gramsci’s Tactic: Cultural Hegemony

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

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

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

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

 

The Errors of Communism 

  1. 1.   The Error Concerning the Nature of Man

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

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

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

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

Original Post: TeresAmerica

Share

This is What Socialism Does to a Country

Share

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

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

and a Zara store after,

Enter the black market, in force.

And here is video…

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

Have to admit that they’re predictable

Share