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

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.

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

The Taking of America continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Newt Gingrich a Fan of Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson? UPDATED

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.

When we are looking for a Conservative to nominate in order to defeat Barak Obama in November.  I know that some of my fellow bloggers are leaning towards Newt Gingrich for that task.  However, I strongly disagree, and for additional evidence, offer the following video…

After that, can we doubt that Gingrich  is a progressive?  And, what might a Republican progressive President do with the power of the executive branch.  Being a regressive, that POTUS wouldn’t reduce the power of the government-they would increase it.  Regressivism requires power to meet it’s “lofty” goals, and with that power comes control.  Human nature, as well as history,  teaches us that such power is not relinquished easily.

UPDATE:  Our Contributor, Don, has some issues with the video that I posted, so here is the comment that he left…

I detest videos like this that are hit pieces, taking every quote out of context.

After doing pretty extensive searches online for Newt videos, I have found that there are a preponderance of them that, through quick editing like this one, take things he has said out of context.

If you disagree with his politics, fine. Take him to task. But this video has been edited to show only what the person who spliced it together wants to portray.

I found this video that states, via the title that Newt was mesmerized by Clinton.

However, when you watch it, his points that he has made are much different. I would say that getting 2 out of every 3 people off welfare and back to work, balancing the budget four years, creating millions of jobs and the contract with America are pretty conservative.

What is it about Newt that people on the right don’t like?

He has made mistakes, but he also has the integrity to own up to them. When he does, he isn’t given credit for changing his position. Are we really that rigid that we cannot accept the fact that someone can learn from their mistakes??

I am a Conservative and I think most everyone who knows me understands that. But guess what? I admire FDR. He handled WWII a hell of a lot better than LBJ handled Viet Nam. He got his agenda accomplished, and yes. It was a horrible one, and I disagree with it totally. Am I not allowed to admire his chutzpah? I am just glad that Obama is as ineffectual a leader as he is and doesn’t possess FDR’s leadership style. Then we would really be in trouble.

Now that I have stated I admire FDR, does that make me a RINO?

The odd thing about this hit piece video is that the person who edited it was evidently afraid to leave in the entire quotes by Newt.

If this were video or audio and you took one of my above sentences – “I admire FDR.” – would it not look like I was a progressive? A moderate? A RINO? A (insert slur here)?

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.

Okay, we on the right have to vet our candidates, but I think we can be better than what this piece of crap video offers.

At the end of the video, Glenn Beck says, “Damn you Tea Party!”

Taken out of context, that is a pretty bad statement for a conservative to make, right?

Go to this link, it is a pretty fair attempt to understand what Newt was saying and that Glenn Beck either didn’t understand or didn’t care to take the time to lean about.

http://www.therightscoop.com/c-span-classic-newt-edition-im-a-realpolitik-wilsonian/

The “realpolitik Wilsonian” comment WITH context:

“I’m frankly a realpolitik Wilsonian. I think that you can talk about realism, but to be an American, realism is idealistic. If you’re not idealistic, how do you explain America? Why did we conquer Japan and promptly liberate it? Why did we conquer Germany and promptly liberate it? Because we really do believe that everyone’s endowed by God. And to ask us to be realistic in a way which repudiates that belief, is to ask us not to be Americans.” – Newt Gingrich on CSPAN.

What in the blue hell is wrong with THAT statement? He stood up for American values and combined it with a Wilsonian desire to reach out to other nations.

Yeah, THAT is awful. /sarcasm off

Here is the video of the Newt “realpolitik Wilsonian” quote:

One last thing.

You know we get pissed off when the left does stuff like this. We scream for them to look at the context and be fair.

Exactly what part of the above video is fair? Accurate? Contextual?

I would be just as upset if this were a Ron Paul hit piece video, and I cannot stand what Ron Paul is doing. But that is for another post.

Suffice it to say that if it is unfair when the left does it, then it is unfair when the right does it.

I respect Don, and his opinion, so I think this warrants another look.  I did about an hours worth of searching for full versions of the clips found in the original video.  Unfortunately, I didn’t find anything more than Don had.  So, I do have to admit that at least some of the video is, as Don described, a hit piece.

If anyone can find additional footage that either proves or debunks the information in the first video, please share it.  No matter the opinion we have of any particular candidate, we must be slavishly obedient to the truth.  If we don’t at least attempt to do that, we’re no better than the leftists we castigate for doing the same thing as a standard practice.

Share