Self Identified Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders Challenges Hillary For Democratic Nomination


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.

Bernie Sanders
American Socialist Bernie Sanders

Hat/Tip to Fox News.

Self described Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, Independent from Vermont, has announced he is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Thursday he is running for president, giving Hillary Clinton her first official Democratic primary challenger. 

At a press conference, the independent senator and self-described “democratic socialist” said he is “running to win,” though he faces long odds against Clinton’s juggernaut political operation — and several other potential Democratic candidates. 

Sanders, in throwing his hat into the ring, urged the media to discuss “serious issues” and not turn the race for the White House into a soap opera. The white-haired populist preacher said America should refocus on income inequality and jobs. He also took a jab at political activist billionaires Charles and David Koch.

Sanders plans to hold an official launch on May 26 in Burlington, Vt. In an interview earlier with The Associated Press, Sanders promised to fight what he deems “obscene levels” of income disparity and a campaign finance system that is a “real disgrace.”

“After a year of travel, discussion and dialogue, I have decided to be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president,” Sanders said in an email to his supporters. “But let’s be clear. This campaign is not about Bernie Sanders. It about a grassroots movement of Americans standing up and saying: ‘Enough is enough. This country and our government belong to all of us, not just a handful of billionaires

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.

In the email, he says billionaires are rigging the political system and that the U.S. is facing enormous challenges.

Read the full story here.








Karl Pierson, Liberal School Shooter, Once Wore USSR Shirt, Targeted Librarian?


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.

We have an update on the story of Karl Pierson, the socialist high school student who committed the school shooting last week, before taking his own life.apparently,Karl Pierson was upset with the librarian, who is also the debate coach, for kicking him off the the debate team. The Other McCain has more.

Because he got kicked off the debate team:

Tracy Murphy worked as the librarian at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado but it was his role as the adult adviser for the speech and debate team that led to him being the target of gunman Karl Pierson’s rage.
Mr Murphy allegedly demoted Pierson or kicked him off the team earlier this week.
Pierson’s friend and fellow debate team member has said that he was upset about being demoted and his anger resulted in an even more serious suspension from the team.

from the reports that real reading, the self-avowed socialist, Karl Pierson, had the sense of entitlement that is consistent with his liberalism. It is theorized that once he was removed from the debating, this sense of entitlement led to the rage because to shooting. The Other McCain has more.

What kind of miserable punk would commit such an atrocity?

 As students were returning to the school to retrieve their vehicles on Saturday, one described Mr. Pierson, a senior, as an outspoken proponent of political views that were unpopular with others at the school. Chris Davis, an 18-year-old senior, recalled Mr. Pierson once wore a shirt emblazoned with the letters U.S.S.R. and described himself as a communist. “People definitely disagreed with a lot of that and gave him a hard time,” said Mr. Davis, adding that he didn’t think the criticism amounted to bullying.

Commies: Randomly shooting girls in the head, for the proletariat.

how ironic is it, that a socialist, who typically are for gun control, engages in a school shooting? Then again, the same socialists only one you disarmed – only they, or their agents in government, get guidance. They are to be armed – you are to be helpless.

Get it?


Colorado School Shooter, Karl Pierson Taunted Republicans on Health Care and the Climate Hoax


Sadly, there was yet another school shooting. This time, the event occurred in the state of Colorado, and the perpetrators name was Karl Pierson. As usual, liberals attempt to politicize the event. And, as usual, reality proved them wrong yet again. Jammie Wearing Fools has more coverage.

Well this sure upsets the narrative.

In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith, who through his invisible-hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as “Keynesian.”

“I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn’t the market correcting itself?” he wrote. “If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn’t it be able to overpower regulations?”

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ‘em Die, Climate Change: Let ‘em Die, Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ‘em Die, More War: Let ‘em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?”

Carl Schmidt and Brendon Mendelson, both seniors at Arapahoe High, knew Pierson. They said he had political views that were “outside the mainstream,” but they did not elaborate.

Schmidt said the shooter “was an outspoken kid about what he believed and a good political thinker.”

And while this part of the quote is interesting, Ace has even more at his place.

Let’s read some more.


Thomas Conrad, who had an economics class with [the shooter] Pierson, described him as a very opinionated Socialist*.

“He was exuberant I guess,” Conrad said. “A lot of people picked on him, but it didn’t seem to bother him.”

In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith who through his invisible hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as “Keynesian.”

“…I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn’t the market correcting itself?” he wrote. “If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn’t it be able to overpower regulations?”

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ’em Die, Climate Change: Let ’em Die, Gun Violence: Let ’em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ’em Die, More War: Let ’em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?” (emphasis added)

So, to put it bluntly, the shooter was a liberal. And in all of these shooting attacks, they have yet to find a conservative, the Libertarian, or Tea Party activist it is not a single one of them. However, that does not stop liberals from making the suggestion, as soon as such an event occurs, that it’s someone who actually believes in freedom. With history being the greatest teacher, we see that leftist regimes whether under the banner of fascism or communism, have committed the greatest acts of violence the world has ever seen.

It is also worth mentioning that the original dinosaur media story was edited to eliminate the word, “socialist.”

I think Stacy McCain, over at The Other McCain, sums it up rather well…

If teenage terrorist Karl Pierson had been a Fox News-watching Rush Limbaugh fan, you can bet the media would be very specific about his influences, but because his “outside the mainstream” views were to the left, it’s all very vague, isn’t it?

I guess we have to add Karl Pierson to the list of liberal killers (or attempted) that, once cleared of Right Wing associations, are edited of their political affiliations.


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


How Stupid Is The American Electorate?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire


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


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


The Story of the First Thanksgiving 2012


This is the annual CH 2.0 re-telling of the true story of the first Thanksgiving.  Given the re-election of Barak Obama, this story is more relevant today than ever.  

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.



Klingon Socialist Wages Lonely Battle for Respect


Sure I can fight.  But I’d much rather redistribute the respectTog Tre’Gok of the house of Tor has a unique position on the Klingon homeworld:  He is the leader of the Klingon Socialist Party.

Our full name is the “Socialist, Redistributionist and Social Justice Party of the Klingon Homeworld”.  Right now we’re a small party.  Very small.  It’s just me and my mother.  We haven’t won any seats yet in the Klingon Parliament but I’m confident that once I get my message out other Klingons will see the merits of our positions.

Despite his confidence other Klingons are dismissive.  Said Antaan Angghal of the house of Y’hporp:

“Tog is not a warrior!  The house of Tor has been shamed.”  

And therein lies the uphill battle that Tog wages to make the Klingon Socialist Party a serious player in Klingon elections.  To achieve success Tog must convince Klingons to change their very culture.

Klingons have always been self-sufficient.  They don’t really like to have other people do things for them.  It’s all based on one’s individual honor.  An outmoded concept if I may say so myself.  It’s time the Klingon Homeworld entered the 23rd century.  Why even the Vulcans have adopted socialism.  They say it’s logical.

Though the rest of the galaxy may find socialism logical Tog admits he has a long road ahead of him.

At my first debate I mentioned that it wasn’t fair that one house had more respect than others and that all houses should be equal.  I asked the audience if maybe it was time to redistribute the honor equally between all the clans.  Well, that didn’t go over to well.  They hurled insults at me.  And they threatened to cut me in half with a bat’leth.  But I guess I should have expected it.  These are simple Klingons.  They cling to bat’leths and their myths.  It’ll take some time for them to adapt to progressive ideas.

Despite the odds he remains optimistic.

I’m homeless now.  They burned down my house after the debate.  But socialism is inevitable.  It’s compassionate.  The rest of the galaxy knows this.  That’s why they adopted the system.  So I just have to be patient.  And watch out for bat’leths.

Anyone wishing to register with the Klingon Socialist Party in time for the next election should contact Tog.

“Anyone over 18 can sign up.  So drop by.  I have free donuts for those who register with us.”

Original Post: Manhattan Infidel


Um, Help me With the Math: How Can Sandra Fluke Afford to Travel About Europe, but Can’t Manage $9 Birth Control?


I must humbly ask my readers for help, as I am in quandary of sorts.  If you recall, concerned 23 year-old Law Student 30 year-old feminazi activist Sandra Fluke was struggling, along with her fellow students, to pay for $9 a month birth control pills.  It was a terrible thing, you know,  having to pay for one’s own birth control pills.  It was in that great moment that we learned Catholic institutions had to pay for her sex life.

But, here’s my confusion; while I know that $9 a month might be really hard for a struggling feminazi to manage, is traveling Europe cheaper?  

Just when you thought you’d seen everything.
Poor Sandra Fluke, the 30 year-old far left activist who wants you to pay for her $9 a month birth control, is dating a rich socialist.

They recently traveled to Spain and Italy together.
It was a lovely getaway for the women’s rights activist and her rich socialist boyfriend.

Here the two lovebirds are roughing it late at night in Barcelona – drunk.

And, here the poor little darling tries to make ends meet in Pompeii.

I just solved the puzzle! She was traveling Europe to find birth control that costs LESS than $9 dollars a month!  That has to be it, right?

Oh, and by the way, Georgetown’s policy covers birth control prescribed f0r a medical condition.  So, in other words, it’s all about sex, and being paid to have it.

H/T:  Lonely Conservative


Why America Should Not Support Moderate or Centrist Republicans in 2012


Among we conservative bloggers, there are many erudite intellectuals.  Some of these very bright people are capable of making very compelling arguments for positions  that are contrary to positions of most conservatives. Let me describe a recent case in point.

Recently a blogger, for whom I have the utmost respect and who definitely is one of the intellectuals among us, made a very compelling case for Mitt Romney  being the best bet to beat Obama in 2012. Although he admitted that his personal preference was for a candidate much more radically to the right of Mitt Romney, he said he was also a pragmatist. As a pragmatic he had to recognize that our constitution provides for a democratic republic and, therefore he and we should accept that the American electorate elected those Democrats to Congress and the next President was going to have compromise with them whether liked it or not. Now, I have intentionally over simplified his case and I ask you to trust me that he did indeed make a compelling case that Romney would be the best choice for the Republicans.

Although I do not pretend to be an intellectual, I too am pragmatic. It is my hope with this post that I can make an even more compelling case for conservatives and Americans in general not to support the candidacy of Mitt Romney. I do not identify the blogger in question because I do not have an argument with the gentleman himself but only with the premise of his case.

Let me start with this. If, and that is a very big IF, the two parties that make up our government had, over the last many decades, their centers of gravity very close to the center of the political spectrum. 1.) we wouldn’t have the government that we have today and, 2.) I would agree with the principle that in politics one must compromise.

I want to make a few of points at this time:

  1. All governments tend towards tyranny. Governments like to govern and the nature of the beast is to want always want to govern more. They, therefore, write more and more laws and regulations that put more power in the hands of the government and less and less in the hands of governed.
  2. Our Founders understood very well the nature of government. This is why the constitution they produced for this new experiment called The United States of America,  had very specific enumerated powers for the Federal Government and all powers not enumerated were left to the states and the people. We would do well at this point to recall the famous quote of Benjamin Franklin when asked by a woman what they had done for the people, and I paraphrase here, “We have given you, madam, a republic, if you can keep it.”
  3. Over the last many decades, our two-party government has consisted of  a Republican Party dominated consistently by centrist statist and a Democrat Party that for much of the time has been dominated by statist considerably  to the left of center. As a result of the inevitable compromising process,  the structure of our government has shifted more and more to the left or toward bigger more powerful central government; a more socialist government if you will.
  4. The structural changes to the left outlined in point three, has had some spurts but it has mostly been slow and methodical.  Since Barack Obama and the Democrats took control of the government in 2008, slow and methodical approach to change was abandoned in favor of full speed ahead to the left, to a new socialist American government.
  5. We all must understand one thing about all socialist states. They all depend on the wealth generated by capitalism. It makes no difference if it is private capitalism or state capitalism. And, no form of capitalism can long support an ever growing socialist state.

Keeping these points in mind, let’s asses where we are today. The structural changes described above have our ship of state listing dangerously to the port side; to the left. But unlike a ship, where one could theoretically build structure on the starboard side; the right,  to counterbalance the structure on the port side and allow the ship to right itself, government doesn’t work that way. To right our ship of state, we must dismantle the structural changes that the Democrat and Republican statists have constructed over the years. It is the only way.

America, like much of Europe, is in a very perilous state. We are buried in debt and we continue to take on more debt. Growth in GDP is all but non-existent. True unemployment and true inflation have much of population against the ropes and world markets are saying they have had enough. The regulatory policies of this administration are making a bad situation worse.

In my opinion, if business as usual in our government is allowed to continue with the Republicans making compromises with the Democrats, our ship of state  will surely capsize. It is debatable whether we have already passed the point of no return. At the very least, we are at the tipping point.The elections of 2012 are not just another election cycle. The elections of 2012 will decide the fate of America.

The conservative base of the Republican Party does not yet have control of the Party. We must take control in 2012 and we must put a conservative in the White House and elect as many more conservative Representatives and Senators as we possibly can. We must continue that process in 2014 and 2016.

We can do it! Obama and company won a landslide victory in 2008 by a margin of a little more than 5%. The “swing voters” went with the Democrats because of the economy, in my opinion. The economy is now much worse. We can capture the “swing voters”.  Only by winning the Presidency and control of the Senate can we hope to begin the slow and dangerous process of dismantling the socialist structure of our government and pull our nation back from the precipice.

If we fail or if we win with the likes of Mitt Romney or if we continue to compromise with those bent on a more socialist state, America will never be the same again or at least not for several generations.

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

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire


Tolerating Socialists if There Were Any For Real?


In my class, I tolerate almost every sort of student- conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, and even moderates. In our discussions, debates, and in simulations, it doesn’t matter to me how a student thinks the best way to improve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- it isn’t my place to make them conform with my views or my ideology. But even though I’m tolerate of those groups, I do not tolerate fascists, hypocrites, or those students who openly promote tyranny and seek power over others.

Public education receives a lot of money from the state, and that money comes with a responsibility and obligation that I make sure that there are not students in my classroom who think that it okay to openly support fascism, that it is not okay to serially lie about their beliefs and views on issues, or that it is not okay to promote control over other people and tyranny and oppression. I crack down on those beliefs and try to teach students that those are not acceptable in our free and open society- they can think and believe whatever they want, but as long as I’m getting money from a free state of laws and liberty and freedom, I’m not going to let students openly and with my support think or say anything that advocates its violent overthrow or a take over by any hateful groups out there.

That being said, I am plenty accepting of liberals and socialists- as long as that is what they really are. The problem is that there really are not that many true socialists that come through my classroom, because there honestly are not a lot of real socialists in general. Oh, there are plenty of people in society that pretend they are socialist- they preach equality, redistribution of wealth, no ownership of property, fairness, and a society of rainbows and puppy dog tails- but when it really comes down to it and I make them make decisions about their own lives, their own property, their own liberty, it turns out they believe something else entirely.

Many people in society claim to be socialist, but in reality they are just thugs- they want others who they don’t like to redistribute their property, by force if necessary. They want other people, not them or their friends, to lose their liberties and freedoms- but not them. They want equality, as long as that equality drags others down to their levels- but once they have more than others and are more fortunate, they no longer believe in equality. They talk about the joys of a society that they can build, ignoring the horrors of it in reality.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote about this in a recent article called There Are No Socialists. Here are some of the key parts:

…The strangest things about the global statist crack-up are socialists’ unhappiness with their socialist utopia, and their subsequent efforts to avoid the consequences of the very redistributive state that they themselves once so gladly crafted…

…Here at home, Obama got his ObamaCare. Why, then, did he grant hundreds of exemptions — many to northern California liberals? Should they instead not have lined up to volunteer to implement such a wonderful, long-needed entitlement?

He said energy would rightly sky-rocket, given his determination to curb fossil fuel production (cf. “bankrupt” coal companies). Why then is Obama concerned that gas hit $4; is not such a high price a welcomed retardant to burning hot fuels? The higher the gas prices, the more that subsidized wind and solar power, and electric cars are attractive, and thus the more we enjoy “sustainable” power. Right? Am I missing something about this desire within our grasp of “living within our means”?

Obama enjoyed big majorities in both houses of Congress; and on the campaign trail he had promised a de facto amnesty under the euphemism of “comprehensive immigration reform.” So why did he not grant such exemptions, and absorb 11, 15, or 20 million new “citizens” from Oaxaca? Is not that the point of amnesty, to welcome in new constituencies who will remember a benefactor at the polls?…

….This discussion is, of course, a belabored example of why and how socialists do not like socialism. Indeed, statism is not a desired outcome, but rather more a strategy for obtaining power or winning acclaim as one of the caring, by offering the narcotic of promising millions something free at the expense of others who must be seen as culpable and obligated to fund it — entitlements fueled by someone else’s money that enfeebled the state, but in the process extended power, influence, and money to a technocratic class of overseers who are exempt from the very system that they have advocated.

So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves….

…History is not kind to such collective states of mind. Pay an Athenian in the fifth century BC a subsidy to go to the theater; and in the fourth century BC he is demanding such pay to vote in the assembly as well — and there is not to be a third century free democratic polis. Extend to a Roman in the first century BC a small grain dole, and by the late first century AD he cannot live without a big dole, free entertainment in a huge new Coliseum, and disbursements of free coined money. Let the emperor Justinian try cutting back the bloated bureaucracy in sixth century AD Constantinople and he wins the Nika riots that almost destroy a civilization from within even as it is beset by hosts of foreign enemies….

Victor Davis Hanson is the author of books such as The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern and How The Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security (Encounter Broadsides).

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher


Secession or Expatriation?


With all the differences that have appeared in our society it is likely that some of them or in fact irreconcilable. I will never be in favor of redistribution of the wealth and I suspect my liberal counterpart cannot bear ceasing to try and control me. On these things I think that we will never come to a meeting of the minds. To that I say so be it. You go your way and I will go mine. As it is there are more conservatives in America than there are liberals. If you looked at the most liberal states you would essential have the northeast, Chicago (not all of Illinois is communist), Wisconsin, and California. These total a dozen far left leaning states including the District of Columbia.

To these I say bye bye as you are herewith removed from the United States of America and are now free to go about whatever agenda you wish. We conservatives and moderates will maintain the Government of the United States of America only with fewer states; and of course and new capitol (oh I love this part), a brand new congress, and a shiny new president. These people must all be vetted and back-door appointment not allowed. As America we hold title to the dollar, George Washington, the Constitution, and the US Military. We will however allow any leftist in any state or job to leave before we expatriate these states.

We have the majority. We have the desire. We have the motivation and the right. The only thing lacking is the doing. This is a very non-violent thing and we wish our liberal brethren ever success with their skewed philosophies. Perhaps in the cleansing of America of what ails her we can bring about another 200+ years of prosperity and leadership to the world.

The doing of this idea I think is very realistic. We don’t need walls or to change our IDs but the new United Socialist States may need or desire those things. May I suggest tattoos on their forehead or hands. As they tell it now we are to be feared more than anything. In their minds nothing is more dangerous than a “Conservative”. Of course there would be some changes for those folk. Without our money Nancy would have to give up her plane and, and… Come to think of it they won’t need Nancy anymore, or Harry, or Barry O. Oh well. You have to break eggs to make an omelet.

Back here in the Great US of A we could start up our self-sufficiency again. We could fire up our steel mills and start paying farmers to grow crops again. It would be so great to see America back doing what she does best, leading the way. Sure we could trade with other countries, just not at the expense of American jobs and we could put strict limits on the numbers of lead painted toys we import. We could even end entitlements due to the number of new jobs available in manufacturing and farming. Surely we have some folks who would take those jobs now. Then again, they may have all moved to the United Socialist States. You can’t win them all.

Original Post: One Conservative Estimate


Head of State, or Head of Snake?


Today they say will be one of the most historic days in America. I suppose that is true. There have been many historic days, most of which went unnoticed. Most of us mark historic days by points in time that others see as historic as well: Pearl Harbor, JFK’s assassination, Obama’s election, etc. Today is an historic day not so much for the vote that will take place this afternoon but for the “Fundamental Change” that Americans NOW see in their country. Whether Obama Care passes or fails we still have the same issues in place after the vote as before it.

Let me share this line of thought with you. Is it Obama that matters so much or is it his huge power brokers that funded the most expensive election in history. Is he the problem or is it the way the rats in congress follow this “pied piper” to their apparent demise. Did Obama cause the media to ignore the truth in favor of a lie or did he merely exploit it. Did his associations with Communists, Anarchists, Race and hate mongers, anti-Semitics, and all sorts of evil doers go unannounced or did the American people choose to ignore them.

You have to ask yourself why America trusted in a candidate with “NO” experience and this seedy, sketchy past. Surely there are many factors and most of them historic yet passing unannounced. Even now government is planning to pass a bill that everyone knows is not “the bill” but is the one America “can” swallow for now. In time they will pass whatever they wish. In truth they are doing that now. Has any nation ever fallen without events leading up to its fall? Surely not. Moreover, I suspect that there were many who cried out of the dangers. I also know that many would prefer to believe a lie rather that to hear the truth.

For months now thousands and thousands have been crying out that it is time to save our Republic. I have been in that number and I now recognize that today’s corruption is the result of years of apathy and indifference. I myself am guilty of too much tolerance and ignorance. Today I see what my inaction is costing me and I fear the price will be paid by my children and grandchildren. They have always looked to their dad and grandpa to have the answers and to do the right thing.

Surely we are all culpable; those who deceived us and those now feeling betrayed. So the question becomes what are we now prepared to do? We must make every legal effort at our disposal to remove Congress, Obama, and those in high office who do not love this Republic. If you want a communist utopia, find one and move there. If you want a hand out, put a shovel in it and do something. If you see your neighbor in need, help them up. If you see your government in corruption, help them “OUT”. Accept nothing as the truth that you do not know to be the truth; not my words or anyone else’s. Take personal responsibility for yourself. Be faithful to yourself, your family, and your community. Lastly remember that small things grow into great things whether desirable or abhorred.

This has been an announcement from the Emergency Blog Alert System. If you do not know that there is an emergency, you are part of the problem.

NOTE: I published today’s blog because before this vote because I believe after the vote their will be elation or sadness. This vote is not the problem. The problem is systemic. A huge dose of moral and ethical penicillin from the people can end this Washington infection. Nothing less will do.