America’s Road to Serfdom:
A Journey from Self Reliance to Socialism
To the Community Organizers of all parties
Preface: The Coming Revolution – The American Middle Class
Versus Saul Alinsky‘s Radical Disciples
Ch 1 – The Paradox of Politics and Religion
Ch 2 – Radicals versus the American Middle Class Ch 3 – The Declaration of Independents
Ch 4 – The Rise of Middle Class Revolutionaries
Ch 5 – Understanding the Philosophical Roots of the United States of America Ch 6 – Protecting and Preserving the 1st Amendment
Ch 7 – Securing America‘s Borders and Cultural Identity Ch 8 – Abolishing the IRS and revising the Tax code
Ch 9 – The Supremacy of Federalism and States Rights
Ch 10 – The XXVIII Amendment: Federal Congressional Term Limits
Ch 11- Eco-―Extortionism
Ch 12 – Secular Religions: Reclaiming True Separation of Church and State Ch 13 – The Government-Education-Media Complex
Ch 14 – Separating the Judiciary from the Legislative Process Ch 15 – Stemming the Tsunami of Socialism in America Notes
Historical Tree of Western Political Philosophy
Secular Religious Dictionary
―Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.
– Edmund Burke
―Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice – Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue
– Barry Goldwater
“…Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
– Ronald Reagan
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left and a right. Well I‘d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down.
– Ronald Reagan
―The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it‘s just they know so much that isn‘t so.
– Ronald Reagan
Like the great F.A. Hayek, I have dedicated this book to the forces that are leading us on the road to serfdom with a slight twist for the reality of America in the early 21st
Century: To the community organizers of all parties. Hayek‘s socialists (who he dedicated his classic work to in Road to Serfdom) of the mid 20th century have morphed into benign sounding names such as community organizers, but ultimately their goal for a collectivist utopia is essentially the same as their Marxist, Fascist friends hiding behind a religion, and socialist brothers. For these elitists and Philosopher Kings, individuals are not smart enough to run their own government, so it is up to the wise community organizing leaders and a big centralized government to plan and ―to organize for the helpless ignorant masses, to guide them, and as one well known successful politician put it, help direct the poor misguided fools who sadly still manage to ―cling to their guns and religion . Ultimately, I am optimistic that America will survive this onslaught of Statism and Collectivism and will once again become a beacon of freedom for a world where too many individuals are in chains, to give them real hope that they too might one day live where individual freedom and opportunity are available to all, where laws and moral order are derived from God and not man or any group of men.
The Coming Revolution: The American Middle Class
Versus Saul Alinsky‘s Radical Disciples
There has been only one true American Revolution. But there are strong political forces that consider the principles of America‘s founding old and out dated. They consider themselves modern American Revolutionaries. They look at America and the middle class as war mongering, racist, and in need of a radical transformation by an all powerful Big Government of wise philosopher kings and the minions of supporters and foot soldiers from community organizations. They are in an undeclared war against the status quo and the American middle class.
America has become a stable civil society over the last two hundred years, but that does not mean that America‘s fundamental individual rights and freedoms are secure. They are not. With the election of Barak Obama it is fair to say that these radical forces are winning the battle of ideas. This ideological war has been going on for over a century, perhaps since the mid 19th Century with the ideas of Karl Marx, but we can mark America‘s present battle beginning in earnest with the 1972 publication of a small book by Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) Rules for Radical. Alinksy is also known as the father of community organizers. His influence on the new president is well documented.
Although Barak Obama and the other community organizers may not openly admit it for political reasons, they consider themselves not only Radicals but also societal revolutionaries. Alinksy and his Radical followers, however, are better described as counter revolutionaries fighting against the status quo and the resultant society created by the original American Revolution. They are at war with America‘s founding principles and it is time that Americans wake up to this fact.
It is also fair to say that with the ascent of Barak Obama to the Presidency, Saul Alinsky and his radical counter revolutionary movement has won a significant battle for the soul of America. Not to be alarmist, but America is in jeopardy of becoming a footnote in history if she does not win this war. If America loses this war she will invariably become another failed experiment in implementing a free and open democratic republic in a world of tyrannical regimes and oppressive governments. And it is shocking that this all happened in less than two decades since the fall of the Communist Soviet Union.
Alinsky was a brilliant tactician and the power of his ideas has been proven by the election of his greatest disciple Barak Obama to the highest office in the land. For those of us who have been awakened by the speed in which Obama and his followers have succeeded in transforming America, the part that Saul Alinsky has played in this drama is quite amazing. Alinsky grew up in Chicago and is hailed as the father of community organizers and Obama does not hide his pride in his Chicago ―community organizing past. In fact it is fair to compare Lenin‘s relationship to Marx with Obama and Alinsky. Conservatives can vilify Marx and Alinsky but they would be better served to try to understand these brilliant men rather than dismissing them and the motivation of the politicians who use their ideas to seek power.
Although it may not be immediately apparent, America is now in real jeopardy of a full fledged second revolution. Some have suggested we are at the brink of a civil war, but it may be more accurate to look at the similarities between today and the forces at work as more analogous to the Revolutionary War.
At the present we have had a mostly quiet transition to radical socialism, because it has been done under the cover of a complicit press and government education monopoly, but as more Americans wake up to the radical ―transformative policies of Obama, it may not stay that way. This is especially true if Obama continues to be successful in pushing through social and economic policies aimed at destroying the fundamental principles of this country and the wealth and standard of living of the vast American middle class.
It is my sincerest hope that Obama is slowed in his rush to take over the major instrumentalities of American government, because if he is successful the inevitable result will be armed conflict. Unlike other countries that have been lulled into a takeover by the tyrants who use lies of a socialist utopia with little or no resulting armed revolt, America‘s armed citizens are not defenseless against tyrants. Also there may be at least a third or more of the population willing to rise up in rebellion if that is the only option left open to them. This portends a less than peaceful response if radical forces are successful in their coup. Also, there may come a point where many in the military have to choose between blind loyalty to a radical counter culture commander in chief or fighting with the true American Revolutionaries. It is my deepest wish that it does not come to that, but one would have to be in total denial to think that all Americans will simply roll over once they understand what is happening to them.
In essence we are continuing the Revolution of America‘s founding. We are the descendants of freedom loving Revolutionaries and we are now fighting the new tyrannical policies of radicals who are well on their way to taking over America. In 1776, this revolution was forced on us by a capricious Monarch who levied unbearable taxation and other intolerable policies which inevitably led to the original Boston Tea Party – a rebellion that told the tyrannical King George that we would not stand for ―taxation without representation . Today the radicals and their lackeys in the media dismiss the ―tea party rebellion and protests, but this is the beginning of something potentially much larger than either major party understands. They are waking up the sleeping giant and there will not be a peaceful resolution unless the radical community organizer‘s ―transformative movement is slowed in its insatiable quest for power and control. It is my sincerest hope that this new ―tea party rebellion will be able to keep their protests peaceful, but it is not altogether clear that this conflict will always stay that way. Freedom loving people – descendants of America‘s brave Revolutionary founders know that freedom is worth fighting and dying for. Let us hope that America can return to its founding principles without a second bloody revolution.
So when all is said and done the American Patriot may once again be forced to fight a revolution that has morphed from a fight against an oppressive Monarchy in 1776 to a struggle against radical socialist despotism in the early 21st century. Although it can be said the country has been moving slowly toward socialism for almost a century, there always seemed to be a spirit and will in the American people to keep these tyrannical forces from taking over. But with ascendancy of Barak Hussein Obama to the Presidency, an activist judiciary, sycophantic press and a complicit legislative branch, the forces of radical socialism are moving at warp speed to once and for all destroy the middle class and the capitalist engine that has created America‘s extraordinary wealth and power and substitute the failed ideology that has been a primary tool of tyrants – the false utopia of big government socialism.
Whether you want to call yourself a Patriot or true American Revolutionary to the Counter Revolution of the Radical socialists – the goal is the same: return the instrumentalities of government back to ―We the People and fight the forces of darkness and oppression; To build in firewalls and new mechanisms that will prevent the radicals from taking over America‘s great birthright; To make sure that government once again remembers that they work for us – not the other way around.
So who are ―tea party members fighting? Many of the elitists, advisors and surrogates surrounding Obama want to destroy the freedoms and rule of law given to America and the world by America‘s original revolution and substitute their radical tyrannical utopian vision instead. The leaders of this movement like Alinsky himself are essentially quasi-gangster tacticians or counter culture revolutionaries with Law Degrees and PhDs. Ayers is nothing more than a retired terrorist with a PhD. Wright is essentially an anti-American, Anti-Semite preaching a religion of hate and justifying his warped world view by claiming victimhood – all the while hiding behind the cross of Christ. These are the voices that have had and still have great influence over Obama. And of course Alinsky‘s community organizers and his rules for radicals are and have been Obama‘s greatest influence.
Alinsky‘s minions tell us that his rules are derived from many successful campaigns where he helped poor people fighting power and privilege. The fact that Alinsky trained with Al Capone‘s gang to learn how to execute these campaigns somehow gets lost in the praise. For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing, or should we say, intimidating people until they can actually do something about it. According to Alinsky, the organizer must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating and searching out controversy. Alinsky might say, the first step in community organization is community disorganization. The recent agitating efforts started out with the attack on public figures like Bush 2, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and other prominent targets of opposition who pose the most threat to their movement. Now with the apparent successful healthcare takeover, slandering the Tea Party Movement, they are literally attacking average middle class Americans as well. This is a major miscalculation. In the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, the vast majority of radicals and their supporters will invariably be voted out of office, unless of course these socialist tyrants are able to somehow rig the elections. Heaven help us if they are successful in interfering with the democratic process in the coming elections for there will be hell to pay if that happens.
The Paradox of Politics and Religion
America once again is at a crossroads in its history. When Ronald Reagan left office, the country turned slightly left into the Bush-Clinton-Bush era. On the talk radio circuit many pundits made the observation that there was very little ideological or philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats over those two decades. Republicans moved away from conservative principles and advocated fiscal spending policies that resembled Democrats, and many Democrats talked like conservatives on social issues in order to appear more centrist for their electorate. Bush the younger, learning from the elder Bush‘s mistake on taxes, tried to have the best of both worlds by continuing the Reagan tax cuts while promoting pork projects, war spending and pandering to special interest groups. George W. Bush went an amazing five years before he actually used his veto, and that veto was on a social not a spending issue. The political dynamic of Democrat versus Republican in the Bush-Clinton-Bush era was not very exciting because aside from the rhetoric surrounding a few social issues and methods for responding to 9-11, their core philosophies were not very different.
To say that the philosophy and political climate changed with the election of Barak Obama to the presidency is a vast understatement. Obama took the slow steady move toward European style socialism from his predecessors in the White House and took a very hard turn to the left indeed. So many of us who fell asleep the last two decades trying to find any meaningful differences between a Bush Republican and a Clinton Democrat are now wide awake and left wondering: what is happening to the great American experiment and what does it all mean?
While we are left scratching our heads trying to unravel the mystery of Barak Obama, an informed citizenry must at least make some attempt to come to an understanding of the origin and political philosophy of key players in this battle for the soul of America. Deciphering opposing ideologies has taken on a new importance for many of us who are not optimistic about the path we are on and it becomes even more imperative that we try to make sense of what this all means for the future of America and the American people.
To many of us, understanding the origins and nuances of a political philosophy may seem like a daunting a task. There is, however, a simple way to look at this. For the purposes of this discussion, let us assume that there are three branches of the tree of political philosophy: on the left, appropriately enough, are those thinkers who have influenced modern Liberal or Progressive politics; on the right, are thinkers who have influenced extreme Nationalistic or Religious politics; and the middle branch is the simply the evolution of thinkers who have influenced America‘s founding principles. Certainly one can argue about numbers of branches and where a specific thinker lies on a branch, but this is a good starting point. Key philosophers and thinkers will be discussed in later chapters. A visual representation of where they appear on respective branches is provided with related topics defined in the Appendix and Index for easy reference.
In America today there is confusion about what exactly constitutes political or religious ideology. A paradox of political philosophy is that there are religions that control states and hence are very much political organizations, and there are political movements that act like religions in their missionary zeal and use of language. Understanding this phenomenon helps to avoid the conundrum that inevitably comes from trying to make heads or tails of competing ideologies. If a religion controls the state is it not a political entity? If a political ideology acts like a religion, does it deserve to be treated differently from other religions?
Two ideologies that can be described in religious terms are Marxism and the American Radicalism of Saul Alinsky. It is widely known that Marx was an avowed atheist. In fact, Marx is famous for saying that Religion is the opiate of the people. For true believers of Marx, however, it is fair to argue that Marxism itself is the opiate for the Proletariat or supporters of the government worker. The premise that Marxism can be viewed as a religion originated from a very stunning chart first described by Bertrand Russell in A History of Western Philosophy, in his words ―to understand Marx psychologically . This shows Marxism in a very different light. The church of Marx is the Communist Party. Yahweh is equivalent to Marx‘s concept of dialectical materialism. This is explained in greater detail later, but in its simplest terms, Marx used the method of ―dialectic that he borrowed from Hegel and applied it to his ―materialistic belief in the struggle between the capitalist and the worker. The translation of the second coming is the workers revolution where they rise up against the capitalists. Of course that means that Hell is reserved for those capitalists who have oppressed the workers. Finally, the Millennium or great utopian vision is the Communist paradise on earth.
Bertrand Russell – A History of Western Philosophy
Yahweh = Dialectal Materialism
The Messiah = Marx
The Elect = The Proletariat
The Church = The Communist Party
The Second Coming = The Revolution
Hell = Punishment of the Capitalist
The Millenium = The Communist Commonwealth
In America today, Russell‘s original translation of the religion of Marxism can be applied to the similar evangelical zeal demonstrated by the followers of the modern tactician of Radicalism, Saul Alinsky (1909-1972). Alinsky has been presented to the public as a benign, almost saintly figure who believed in helping the poor improve their living status by his grass roots concept of ―community organizing . On the other hand, very little is mentioned about his associations with Al Capone‘s gang and some of the extreme tactics used by his followers to accomplish their goals. Over time Alinsky seemed to be worshiping a religion of ―community organizing . Like Marxism, Alinsky‘s philosophy is very much a religious experience to true believers. Alinsky‘s ideas in practice have proven effective enough to be a major contributor to Barak Hussein Obama‘s presidential election victory.
As Marx was influenced by Hegel, Alinsky expands on the principles of Marx and he becomes the Messiah for this new utopian vision of ―community organizations . The church itself is a newly reformed Democrat Party. The second coming is Obama and the subsequent transformative Radical revolution in America. As we have begun to see with the ascendancy of Obama, punishment is reserved for former republican administrations, for corporate executives who make too much money, the entire middle class and essentially all capitalists who do not confer power to the ruling elite. Finally, the Millennium for followers of Alinsky whose aim, some may say is to transform this country into the Former United States of America and a new utopian Socialist Commonwealth.
Extrapolated from Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy
Yahweh = Community Organizations
The Messiah = Alinsky
The Elect = Union and Government workers
The Church = The New Democrat Party
The Second Coming = Barak Obama and the New Marxist revolution
Hell = Punishment of Republicans, Conservatives and Middle Class
The Millenium = The Radical Socialist Commonwealth
Less than seventy years after Das Kapital (1867) and the Communist Manifesto (1848) were published, the Russian revolution (1917) led to the first Communist state on a grand scale, the Soviet Union based on the principles laid down by Marx. The October Revolution (1917), the Bolshevik party, led by Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) workers’ Soviets, overthrew the Provisional Government in Petrograd. The Bolsheviks appointed themselves as leaders of various government ministries and seized control. This all happened in the back drop of World War I. After devastating losses during World War II, millions of Soviet citizens murdered by Stalin in purges, forced starvation, and death camps, over forty years of ―cold war with the United States and the West, and complete collapse of the economy, this Communist government based on Marxism failed. In 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and in December of 1991, the Soviet Union disintegrated into fifteen separate countries.
Less than forty years after Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals (1972), Barak Hussein Obama ascended to the office of President of the United States (2008) which led to the first large scale attempt to impose the principles of Karl Marx in the United States of America since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal of the Great Depression. As of the writing of this book, the revolution has so far been a bloodless coup. It remains to be seen if it stays that way.
Radicals versus the American Middle Class
There have only been four times in American History where the survival of this country has been in serious jeopardy. Some might say that all the great wars could be counted, but the true life and death situations for America comprise a very short list: the first event was the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War; the second was the Civil War; the third was the Great Depression; and the last World War II. In each of these significant periods, there was serious doubt whether or not America would survive.
Although the battle we are in today is certainly different, the situation is just as grave. We are in the midst of a great Ideological War and the primary target is the American middle class, the very foundation of America‘s government and whether or not the Constitution has any real meaning anymore. What makes the outcome more uncertain is the fact that so many are not aware that this conflict even exists. Although the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are a part of the bigger conflict, the real struggle is the ideological war between the forces of freedom and oppression.
Though we have not seen the massive global conflagration of WWII, or anything like the bloodiest conflict in American history, the Civil War, we are in a life and death struggle nonetheless. The enemies we fight have not been properly identified, but that does not make them any less deadly. In fact it makes them even more so. Despite military successes, America is nowhere near victory. How can we when we do not even know who we are fighting? The enemy is not one but two tyrannical ideologies and their members who we have grossly ignored and underestimated. We have responded to the attack of 9-11 and have won on the battlefield, but political correctness keeps America‘s leaders from naming and therefore truly confronting the enemy. We are also ignoring the larger threat from within – a massive wave of Socialism that if left unchecked will radically change America and destroy the middle class.
In the battle to protect the middle class, we must first start by fighting the corruption of language. What is really meant by someone‘s political affiliation and what views and philosophies do they really hold? In the long term, only when the media and the educational institutions do their job to teach and report fairly, can we prevent the inevitable road that leads to tyranny. For the power hungry elitist, the misuse of language is both a tactic and part of an overall strategy to remake America. If there is no definite meaning, then that elitist has the flexibility to be whatever the polling data says or to go wherever the ―political winds are blowing.
One point of view is that a traditional conservative is on the side of individual Liberty; on the other side ―Statists , who call themselves ―liberal or ―progressives , are for large Government programs that some say are on the side of Tyranny. Certainly if you consider yourself as a modern ―liberal in America (not to be confused with the classical liberals of the 17th and 18th century), not many of you would agree.
Americans who call themselves ―liberals would most likely proclaim that they are for helping the poor, advancing the rights of the union member or the common wage earner, providing healthcare for all, and against ―unjust wars. All are noble goals. But the fundamental problem is that left unquestioned, these noble ideas in the hands of unscrupulous tyrants become mere bumper stickers without any real meaning. At what point does ―liberalism transform into ―socialism and government tyranny?
Although Obama has flip-flopped or lied on many of his campaign promises, he has indeed kept his promise to bring change and to transform America. But is this ―change leading us on a path to Socialism from which we may never recover? Since it has happened with the sanction of a majority of media outlets and the blessing of the secular priests of the University, most of us are not even aware that it is happening. In fact, there are those who are still feeling the glow of the recent election who are happy to see ―change , because after all, that is what they voted for. Unfortunately, it is a truism that you should be careful what you wish for since ―you just might get it!
What is going on today is reminiscent of the cartoon image of a tribe of cannibals boiling captured hunters alive. Gradually the cannibals add more and more wood to the fire, and as the water gets hotter and hotter we can hear the hunter‘s plaintive cries of ―What‘s that smell, I wonder what‘s for dinner? How many of us are wise enough to get out of the pot before we are boiled alive? What started out as a trickle of rain is now a grand deluge. What started out as a slight tide is now a full fledged Tsunami. We are drowning and many of us, like the men in the boiling pot, are not even aware that it is happening!
The first thing that needs to happen is for many of America‘s more somnambulistic citizens to wake up. Once awake, we can begin to focus on some basic concepts that have led to this point. The proper use of language is crucial to this political dialogue in helping America find the way out of this morass. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say has vanished in the evaporating mist of the political sophistry that has been taken to new heights. The parsing of words like the famous Clintonian defense during his impeachment trial: ―It depends upon what the meaning of the word is, is is only one of the more pernicious of many statements that we have endured in recent history. The most basic of terms has been misused and corrupted by politicians more interested in power than good government.
Unfortunately, even those who are attempting to educate often confuse us with terms not easily understood. Although some of the concepts here are new, the attempt is to make them accessible to the average person. The origins of America‘s current political ideologies are broken into three branches and the philosophical roots of these movements are described by the philosophers and ideologies that populate this tree. Although it is easy to confuse extreme positions on the far left or right branches, and there are instances where Socialism and Fascism overlap such as in Nazi Germany, both extreme branches have the commonality of strong centralized government control that ultimately leads to tyrannical repression of individual rights and freedom.
The middle branch is not simply the derivative of America‘s founding principles, it is the fundamental evolution of thought from Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Edmund Burke, John Locke, Montesquieu and America‘s founding fathers including Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Jay. Unfortunately, few of us are still taught this in school and certainly precious little American history comes from broadcast and print media.
Many conservative pundits have noted that objective journalism in America is dead. The ―free press who have morphed into cheerleaders for the present administration should take a great deal of the credit or blame for the present situation. America has just gone through a bloodless Revolution that perhaps started in earnest prior to WWI and Wilson, came to life during the Great Depression and FDR, was slowed during WWII and post WWII boom, re-energized during the radical 60s and 70s and more so with the Carter Administration, lay partially dormant during the Bush-Clinton-Bush years, and became fully realized with the election of Barak Obama to the White House.
By connecting the dots it appears that Lenin is to Marx as Obama is to Alinsky. Saul Alinsky (1909-1972), the author of as Rules for Radicals is known by the title ―father of community organizations . Middle class Americans might not have voted for Barak Obama if they were fully informed about the extent to which Saul Alinsky and his ideology is intertwined with the policies of Obama and his supporters. Saul Alinsky has made it clear what his community organization is about: ―“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-nots on how to take it away.” And what becomes clearer when one reallyunderstands the true goal of this ―Practical Primer for Radicals is that Alinsky‘s target is not simply the very wealthy but the entire middle class. This certainly makes sense from the ―Marxist perspective. The destruction of the middle class in America is important to achieve the Marxist dream of pitting the rich against poor. As long as there is a strong middle class, Marxism fails in America. Once the middle class is destroyed, however, America is ripe for Marxist class warfare.
This may come as a shock to many Americans, especially those in the middle class who thought they were voting for a ―change and ―hope . What those Americans were actually voting for was a radical revolution that if left unchecked will inevitably destroy their standard of living and quality of life. Terms like ―change and ―hope make people feel good but what do they really mean? ―Change and ―hope are religious ideals and feelings even when they are espoused by secularists. Marxists may call themselves atheists, but their actions and doctrine have a theology. Marxism to true believers is practiced like a secular religion. And as many pundits have noted, the election of Barak Obama has taken on the trappings of a religious experience for many of his followers and for others his ascendancy to President is like the coronation of royalty. This type of adulation has given Obama a great deal of political capital to move his radical agenda forward, and what is most striking is that this has been accomplished by a charismatic yet extremely inexperienced politician whose greatest self admitted accomplishment is ―community organizing in Chicago.
Obama‘s first days in offices saw the economy shrink with the largest spending bills in the history of this country. Some of this was inherited from the previous administration. However, pouring many more times the amount of fuel of spending and debt on the fire is strictly Obama‘s doing. Obama had the chance to show prudence, but his ideology would not let him. Obama and his followers are on a rocket pace to transform this country from the greatest economic and military power in the world to their vision of a socialist utopia. If this is true, what we are likely to see may turn out to look more like an Orwellian Multi-cultural Banana Republic than utopia.
It is important to know how we got to where we are, and in doing so to help shed light on who Obama is and where he is taking us. Unfortunately the press has abdicated its responsibility to inform the public in its transparent attempt to help Obama win and look good in office. The majority of media outlets seem to be acting as members of Obama‘s public relations team rather than objective journalists. As has been said by conservative talk radio hosts, if the majority of media outlets did their job of objectively reporting the news, talk radio would be out of business. The important thing is to clear the air as much as possible and to ask reasonable people to make reasonable decisions based on facts – not the emotional propaganda that has bombarded television and radio broadcasts, print media, and University classrooms.
It is unfortunate that we did not have more discussions about the nature of Alinsky‘s philosophy and his influence on Obama prior to the presidential election. Although conservative talk shows and commentators have begun the national dialogue, and Alinsky‘s name and tactics of politics are being discussed more and more, the patter unfortunately is still laced with the political correctness that keeps the vast majority of them from coming right out and saying that if Obama is following the game plan of Rules for Radicals – his policies are Marxist or socialist in practice. Whatever label you choose many if not most of Obama‘s actions and big government programs are antithetical to America‘s founding principles of individual freedom and responsibility.
The question is what can we do to restore America‘s founding principles? Self seeking ideologues have always been a part of this great but imperfect country, but it is hoped that we can find leaders like the mythical Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra‘s movie fable Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to put us back on track. As you recall the movie isabout the symbolic everyman fighting corruption. Appointed to a senate seat, Jefferson Smith, instead of rolling over for the corrupt bosses, proceeds with a one man filibuster – a David versus Goliath struggle. After many hours and his voice very hoarse, Smith pleads: ―Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. And, uh, if that’s what the grownups have done with this world that was given to them, then we’d better get those boys’ camps started fast and see what the kids can do. And it’s not too late, because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you, or me, or anything else. Great principles don’t get lost once they come to light. They’re right here; you just have to see them again!
On June 26, 2009 Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, gave an extraordinary one-hour speech reminiscent of Jefferson Smith, shortly before the final vote of the cap and trade bill. As will be described in more detail later, this energy bill will create a “bureaucratic nightmare” that will cost millions of jobs and put the government in places it has no business going. For a second, or more accurately an hour, Jefferson Smith was alive on the House floor fighting America‘s Boss Taylors. Unlike the Hollywood movie, however, the people lost this one by a narrow vote. We shall soon see whether this was a temporary setback for liberty or the first step toward the birth of the Former United States of America.
America is at a pivotal moment in history, not that different from the Civil War. At the present America‘s war of ideas is a relatively bloodless affair, but the stakes are just as high. Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg address said: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” Today America is engaged in a great Ideological War that is tearing this country apart as surely as the Civil War did seven score and four years ago. This battle of ideas is indeed testing whether this nation can endure.
Declaration of Independents
Independent voters will either be largely responsible for taking back this country fromthe Marxist ideologues or partly to blame for this country becoming The Former United States of America! The time is now for thinking Americans to unite against aforce that is on rocket pace to transform America from a Representative Republic based on free market capitalism to a single party Radical socialist dystopia. Unfortunately, many Conservative pundits offer few strategies for effecting meaningful change and far too little of it appeals to Independent voters. Most of their advice lacks solid goals, tactics, and solutions for getting traditional conservatism across to that segment of the population that may be loosely labelled as ―Independent .
The successful conversion of Independent voters and Libertarians to the Republican Party may be the only way to slow down the Marxist blitzkrieg in America. Ross Perot proved in the 1992 Presidential election that there are about a third or more American voters who are neither a Democrat nor a Republican. The 1992 Presidential race was virtually a dead heat with Clinton, Bush and Perot each polling about a third of the voters prior to Perot mysteriously jumping out and then jumping back into the race. Many recent polls confirm that this one third number for Independents is still true today. Recent Gallup party affiliations Polls have flip-flopped since 2005 for Republican to Democrat, yet Independents are increasing in numbers:
|2009 Apr 20-21||Rep – 27%||Dem – 36%||Ind. – 36%|
|2005 Dec 5-8||Rep –36%||Dem – 31%||Ind. – 31%|
It is been up and down between the Democrats and Republicans in the last few years, but it is apparent that there are about as many Independents or more as those affiliated with the two major competing parties. So the game for politicians is to find ways to reach out to this very amorphous diverse group. Some are so far left or right– they arrive at the same point – Libertarian. Some are so far off the map they really mean it when they say wanted to secede from the union. The point is there is a large voting block out there that has never found a party that they feel represents them.
In a Pew Research poll from a May 21, 2009, self identifying Liberals are less than 20% of the population, while Conservatives are 37% and Moderates 38% of thepopulation. On a tactical level, Conservatives have some advantages. There are more moderate and conservatives Americans than those on the left. Many on the left would like to conclude that the Democrat party is trending upward but the only real group consistently trending upward is Independents.
After the Obama victory and the Congressional Democrat sweep, Democrat pundits make the claim that their victory is complete and that Americans are no longer conservative or more specifically Republican. Many Democrats are exhilarated with the recent success. But the more telling polls show that their position is anything but secure. Americans rightly do not trust congress – which at the present time is Democrat controlled and has been for two election cycles. An April 30, 2009, at the height of recent Democrat popularity, Rasmussen poll had only Eighteen percent (18%) of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job, while 46% rate its performance as poor. As low as these may seem, they represent a continuing positive trend in the first months of 2009 and are the best numbers Congress has scored in nearly two years. People are dissatisfied with Congress and about 80% of the population self identifies as moderate to conservative.
The point here is that Independents are not all walking in lock step to the propaganda of the left. The Democrat base may think George Bush and Dick Chaney are responsible for all the ills in America, but a vast majority of non-Democrats are not happy with Congress in much greater numbers than their dissatisfaction with Bush. From the same Rasmussen poll, 70% of all those polled say most members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than in sincerely helping people. Only 17% think congressmen put the interests of other people first. These numbers have remained largely unchanged since surveying began on this question in late 2006. A hopeful sign is that there are an ever increasing number of people who do not approve of how the Congress and the President have started off this new administration. For just the second time in more than five years of tracking (May 2009), Republicans led Democrats in the May Generic Congressional Ballot. Forty-one percent (41%) say they would vote for their district‘s Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat. Rassmussen‘s Generic Congressional Ballot states that
Democrats held a six- or seven-point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and the Republicans actually took a two-point lead for a single week in the middle of March. Since mid-April, the parties have been roughly even. The trend is definitely toward the Republicans, so as the famousquote from Mark Twain – ―Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated .
There are many ways to interpret these numbers. Neither of the parties in this two party system has anywhere near a majority and Independents are trending upward, while Republicans are levelling off, and Democrats are trending down. It is wishful thinking on the left that Independents trend to the Democratic Party. The evidence shows otherwise. It is quite likely that Independents will react to actions, not speeches in the coming election cycles. It is likely that the hidden taxes that show up in the Middle Class ―tax cut and out of control spending may prod Independents and Democrats voters alike to look for some new faces in Congress and the White House.
Which party deserves the support of Independents based on their ability to listen to Independents? Which party is more elitist? The Republican Party has a reputation of being a ―white elitist club, but a simple survey of the millionaire and billionaires who support Obama and the democrat party proves that both Parties are supported by very wealthy donors, and based on Obama‘s estimated funding in the last election, it is clear that the elitists who supported Obama far exceeded the campaign finance limit of $84 million cap that McCain agreed to.The Daily News notes that “records show that four out of Obama’s top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants – Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).” According to Opensecrets.org, the organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates that were not exactly from Acorn‘s socioeconomic group. So we must ask ourselves: who does Obama owe his allegiance to – Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, GE, JP Morgan Chase or to members of the middle class, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent?
Once upon a time in America both the Democrat and Republican Parties had appeal to the middle class. Since FDR, the Democrat Party‘s government entitlement programs have given them the image of advocate of the worker or the ―little guy . A certain percentage of the middle class as well as the altruistic upper class, especially various moguls and celebrities in Hollywood, have been attracted to the Democrat Party. Although mostly untrue, the Republican Party has been successfully labelled the party of the ―white fat cat though today you can find as many or more super rich white fat cat Democrats today than Republicans. But that does not stop the lie from being repeated. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Tim Gill, Arthur Blank, Barry Diller, Michael Eisner, David Geffen, Charles Gifford, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Norman Lear, Penny Pritzker, Steven Spielberg, Steve Tisch, Oprah Winfrey have all donated millions of dollars to Obama and the Democrat party. In deference to Ms. Winfrey, not all of the mega-rich donors are white or male.
So why does the Republican Party get all the bad press for being the party of the white ―fat cat ? Many Republican politicians appear to be just a part of the fraternity of elitists in the Beltway and not part of real America. If you are Joe the Plumber or Suzie Soccer Mom, you begin to suspect there might be an issue with the credibility of some of America‘s elected officials being in touch with the average man. Bush Sr. had the famous embarrassing moment during the 1992 campaign at a supermarket check out. He appeared to be totally baffled about what a scanner was. Of course, we have been told that this was an exaggeration, and may have been good propaganda from the Clintons. The cameras and editing made it look worse than it was. Of course Bush Sr. ―knows about scanning technology and of course he has actually been to a Supermarket before . But the damage was done.
So the average Joe in America asks himself – ―How can you relate to me if you do not even know what the inside of a supermarket looks like? The answer of course is that no matter how important his job function working as Director of the CIA, Vice President and then President, Bush Sr., by this slip up, showed how disconnected he was from the average American.
The Republican Party is flawed and certainly the most recent Bush Administration and RINO (republicans in name only) congress acted more like democrats in their votes on spending bills. They have shown gross fiscal irresponsibility. They have done much to deserve the scorn of America. Americans, who believe in the basic tenets of the Constitution and Free Enterprise, whether motivated by White guilt or a protest vote against the Bush Administration, are starting to wake to the fact that the vote for Obama may not have been in their best interest.
The Republican Party continues to make missteps. Did Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee actually agree with Democrats who vilify and minimize voices on the right like Rush Limbaugh because it is for the good of the Republican Party or because he thinks that the answer to moving the Party forward is to play nice and ―go along to get along ? That strategy did not appear to work so well for John McCain. Is this the best policy for the RNC? If anything, the RNC needs to become more aggressive and above all else find and promote quality candidates who follow the ideals of America‘s founding fathers. Unfortunately political reality tells us that third parties historically have been a dismal failure in America, so the only logical conclusion for conservatives is to remake the Republican Party to be more representative of the middle class and the average American. The Democrat Party is officially the Party of Big Government Radical policies.
If Republicans are to counter this Big Government Radicalism, they should not be afraid to defend themselves and their principles. They should be more aggressive when taking on foes. It is highly unlikely that Obama‘s tepid response to the Iranian protests during their recent fraudulent election will win approval from most Independents and patriotic Americans. Obama‘s response looked weak and similarly Republicans who do not have the courage to defend their principles also look weak. Looking weak to your allies or enemies alike is seldom if ever a winning strategy.
Therefore it should be fair game to call Supreme Court nominee Sotamayor on her bigoted and racist comments. Republicans should not cower in the corner, but during the Sotamayor hearing, for the most part, they did. They should develop a voice that can cut through the propaganda and speak clearly to the conservative base while giving a majority of the Independents a place to turn. The real issue is having the courage to stand on principle. Obama did not have to talk about taking sides in the Iranian election; he merely needed to speak out clearly and forcefully about the atrocities committed against the Iranians students who peacefully protested and stand up for the principles of America‘s founding and the 1st amendment. Similarly, there is no reason for Republicans to shy away from labelling Sotamayor‘s comments bigoted if they obviously are. The electorate will vote for more Republicans when voters finally begin to understand just how radical the Democrat agenda is and as soon as the Republicans speak out in a principled manner and counter with honest and articulate candidates. Sotamayor, Ginsberg and their Radical agenda may be fait accompli to the RINOs in the beltway, but they must be fought. Do we really need a stand up comic for a Supreme Court judge whose most meaningful answer to a meaningless question about what she did during Christmas was to answer that like many Jews she was probably eating at a ―Chinese restaurant ? Do we really want a clipped haired pudgy female Woody Allen with no actual courtroom experience to be a permanent member of the highest court in the land? It is stunning that with all the great legal minds in this country we are left with the likes of Kagan and Sotamayor on the highest court.
But the rational conservative should truly judge the individual, not the party. At this point, if a so-called ―blue dog Democrat would stand up to his party‘s bosses, he should be supported. Unfortunately, Democrats who have had the courage to stand up to the arm twisting of their party have been few.
Despite all the defects in the Republican Party, the Republican nominee will have an excellent chance of winning 2012 due to the very real probability that the weakness of the economy and the state of national security prior to the election will look a lot like it did right before the 1980 election that put Reagan in the White House. Independent voter‘s favorable rating of Obama dropped precipitously from inauguration to the midpoint of his first year in office – from 60% to 45%. If this trend continues, Obama is in trouble. But a few questions exist. Can the love fest between the media and Obama successfully overcome these trends and get him re-elected anyway? If the media is successful in continuing to sell Obama and his rubber stamp congress, are we going to see the same sort of failed economic policies that FDR tried during the Great Depression? If the Republican nominee wins in 2012, will he or she be able to reverse the massive spending and socialist programs put in place by the Democrat Congress and the Obama administration? Is the damage to the country reversible?
Obama will be a footnote in history – but not for being the first Black President. The fact is that he had a white mother and he was raised by white grandparents in the tropical paradise of Hawaii. This does not sound like the background of a poor African American ghetto child to me. By all accounts this is the first radical to hold the highest office, though some would argue he is the second socialist (FDR being the first) to hold that office. We can only hope that a new Republican President can undo the damage as well as Reagan did after the failed Carter years.
Ronald Reagan, arguably one of America‘s greatest presidents, won landslide victories by sticking to principles and being able to communicate them effectively. The newly elected president the great communicator – with his messianic call for Hope and Change – has at least one of the two virtues that made Reagan great. But Obama‘s vision is not America‘s Founding Father‘s vision. Obama‘s vision has been heavily influenced by the Marxist master of Community Organizing Saul Alinsky.
In the 1960s and 70s, Saul Alinsky became one the primary tacticians for America‘s existing domestic radical movement. Although he is known as ―the father of community organizers , his belief system leads to Marxism. His tactics and ―rules for radicals are all his own, except for some guidance he picked up working with the Chicago mob. Saul Alinsky devised a playbook to show how radicals could take control of America by focusing on the middle class. Flowery biographies written by admirers describe his love for helping the poor and his upbringing in the Jewish Ghetto of Depression era Chicago. But his community organizing had one primary goal – to fight and bring down America‘s system of government and distribute the wealth to the ―have-nots . This sounds a great deal like Marxist ideology. Some biographies speak admiringly about his University of Chicago experience as a juvenile delinquency researcher, but most of them fail to mention the many years his research consisted of time spent with Al Capone‘s mob, learning gangster tactics for community organizing that form the core of his ―Rules for Radicals .
His admirers wax poetic about how he would immerse himself in the neighborhood, ―listen to ordinary people’s troubles and needs, assess where power lay, and empower previously divided groups to seek common goals by standing up to government and corporate machines . Translation: Alinshky learned how to use mob tactics to extortmoney or favors from large corporations. Although some biographers insist that he had little patience for militants or Communists – that he was just a simple ―community organizer . This is like saying Al Capone was just a simple businessman! Alinsky‘s handiwork has finally come to fruition. Alinsky‘s rule # 5 is ―Ridicule is man‘s most potent weapon. It‘s hard to counterattack . Obama got elected byslamming Bush and giving us an empty message of ―hope . He plans to get re-elected and promote his Marxist agenda by keeping the public distracted by demonizing and ridiculing Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney and any other conservative voice who questions his policies.
We are left with the question: why is America being attacked from both within and without? The easy response is that enemies from outside view America as a threat. America‘s combination of free enterprise, representative democracy and scientific innovation has been wildly successful relative to other systems. One would think that failed systems around the world would try to emulate America‘s success. Some do, but the vast majority do not. For many leaders of governments around the world it appears that the lust for power and control often trumps the desire to improve one‘s own country. Sadly, the rule for most of the countries in the world is a tortured journey toward bigger centralized government and less personal freedom, and America‘s way of life with the emphasis on individual personal responsibility is the exception. And as many of us already know, those individual freedoms we have long held to be a given are quickly disappearing as the forces of tyranny and big centralized government policies gain a foothold in America. The reason why America is being attacked from within is more complex, but essentially it is a battle of ideologies and a battle for power. To these elitists, freedom must go to achieve their power. Marxism is a proven tool for tyrants who make promises of economic equality. It is a devil‘s bargain. Individuals will have less opportunity and less freedom in exchange for promises that tyrants have no intention of keeping.
Certainly, fundamental freedom starts with the ability of the Government to provide opportunities for success. The Declaration of Independence talks about the ―pursuit of happiness – not the guarantee of success. Opportunity for success drives people to achieve. Guaranteed outcomes do not motivate producers in a society. Only those on the bottom, who feel they are entitled to receive gifts from the labor of others, are empowered by a system that guarantees outcomes. In a just society, however, success has to be earned. By providing Americans the freedom to reap the benefit from their own work, America has prospered. But this prosperity and success never is enough forthose who want equality of outcomes or a society that ―spreads the wealth .
Does the promise of spreading the wealth really make for a more moral system? In the simplest sense, morality is a code of conduct by which people regulate their lives. To the philosopher the question becomes how people ―ought to conduct their lives. One of the few universal moral truths comes from the simple golden rule: ―do unto others as you would have them do unto you . In many ways, true morality may have more todo with free choice than forced behavior. Though the threat of punishment is certainly a valid method to maintain a civil society, it does not necessarily make a more moral one. And America‘s system where no ruler or tyrant can impose his will on any individual strengthens the ―golden rule . Tyrannical systems guarantee that a dictator will inevitably ―do unto others and not particularly worry about his subjects being able to ―do unto him.
True conservatives believe in America‘s founding principles of natural law and the moral imperative that no man has a right to oppress any other man. Thus, America has by far the most moral of political systems. It is more moral because the individual has more freedom to succeed or fail and everyone in America has the promise of living by the golden rule by choice and not by the threat of force by a capricious tyrant. As long as there are kings, tyrants, or dictators, political morality does not exist. Only a system where no man is a tyrant over any other man can ultimately claim to be a moral one. Tyrants have used Marxism to limit freedom in virtually all places where socialism and communism have been tried. So a promise of spreading the wealth is seldom if ever kept. Real wealth, like the bounty of America is almost always created by individuals who are given opportunities to prosper from their creations – not by leaders making promises they can not keep.
The strength of America‘s Founding system of Government is actually proven, not by the fact that it was a perfect moral system from the beginning, but rather by the fact that there were real inconsistencies and imperfections in the Constitution that had to be resolved, and America‘s founders were wise enough to give us mechanisms such as the amendment process to actually make necessary changes. How do you have freedom for all when a segment of the population is in chains? The answer was resolved with America‘s great Civil War and the abolition of slavery and the subsequent 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution. This is the true measure of America‘s greatness. No man is perfect. No system of government is perfect. But over time, this system has provided not only more wealth for more people than any on the planet, it has also shown an ability to be self healing and capable of correcting great wrongs. No other system on as grand a scale as America can make those claims.
For the non producers in society, ambitious demagogues have found a following that would much rather share the fish of others rather than fish for themselves. By promising a utopia where everyone is equal and no one is wealthier than anyone else, many a thuggish dictator has gained power. Invariably the people get the crumbs of an ever decreasing pie, while the leaders and their elites in their government do very well indeed. Though the people may suffer in these socialist utopias, those at the top prosper. As a very wise teacher once said to me: ―In the end, things for free cost too much!
How long does it take before we understand that the forces of darkness and duplicity are hiding behind platitudes and hollow slogans? When Obama says chillingly the Day GM files bankruptcy that the government is ―reluctantly taking ownership of about a 60% share of the company, does anyone really believe that he or any other of his fellow elitists are really upset with having this additional power of controlling the new Government Motors? The real question is does the government have a right to take over a private auto company? For anyone who is not still in a fog of hero worship, if Obama is really reluctant, why not just let the company go into bankruptcy and save the country billions of tax payer dollars? It is like a scene from the movie Godfather where the Don tells all the local small business owners that he ―reluctantly is taking over their businesses and he is ―making them an offer that they can‘t refuse! As mentioned earlier, Obama‘s mentor Saul Alinsky learned his activism in the streets of Chicago from Al Capone‘s mob. From an interview with Playboy magazine 1972, responding to a question about what he learned from Capone‘s gangsters, he responded: ―I learned a hell of a lot about the uses and abuses of power from the mob, lessons that stood me in good stead later on, when I was organizing.
Most of us understand how people can be intimidated by the threat of force. The tougher question is how is it possible that even very intelligent people can become obedient accomplices without the threat of force or obvious intimidation? The answer is demonstrated by a landmark social psychology experiment conducted several decades ago and replicated with various socio-economic groups many times since. Stanley Milgrim‘s famous social psychology experiment originally had college students participate in a so-called ―learning experiment . They were to help ―subjects (who were really working with the experimenter) learn by initiating a ―shock when subjects gave incorrect answers. In reality, the subjects were not getting shocked, and the real purpose of the experiment was to see how far people would go – how obedient they would be when told by an ―authority figure – in this case a very official looking Doctor in a white lab coat – to keep shocking past the point of injury or death.
Describing the experiment, most people would immediately respond – ―There‘s no way I would endanger another person‘s life just because a man in a white coat told me to do so . But the data proves otherwise. Milgram found that after hearing the learner’s first cries of pain at 150 volts, 82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks; of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator’s end, at 450 volts. Almost 80% of the ―real subjects would obey the authority figure up to the point of inflicting death! When this experiment was first performed, it served as the basis for explaining how a seemingly advanced civilization in Germany could have been turned into the willing accomplices of the evil leaders who directed the holocaust.
This experiment not only explains the insanity of the holocaust, but it also shows that intellect and background have little to do with the psychology of obedience to an authority figure. The only difference today may be that the sociopath in charge they are obeying, instead of jumping on a table top and yelling in a beer hall may be an articulate man of mixed race in front of a teleprompter who was chosen by puppet masters for his ability to reach the sufficiently softened and obedient electorate.
It almost appears as if brainwashed masses follow the piped pipers who would imprison them and are blinded by lies and empty promises. Although there are still men and women who love freedom, they are in short supply. We find them in the military. We find them in small towns (and occasionally a large city) unspoiled by the propaganda of government schools and the media. We find them reading the speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. And yes, we find them listening to talk radio.
Reagan‘s vision and actions were true to Ameria‘s traditional American founding principles. Obama‘s actions are antithetical to Ameria‘s founding principles. Obama‘s socialist utopian ideals are patently un-American and will destroy the American middle class if left unchecked. After the first months of the Obama administration, it is clear that the man has very little allegiance to the principles that made America great. He is in fact leading us down the failed path of large centralized governments: Governments that promise Hope and Change end up delivering not much more than poverty and despotism. People who give up freedom for change end up getting change they do not want and if any hope is left, only the hope that they can find a way out.
The change we have now is destructive to the middle class and is patently anti-American. When the new Executive Department and Congress purposely spends trillions of dollars for phony ―economic stimulus bills, cap and tax bills, government mandated health bills that will negatively impact generations to come, hence ―generational theft – that is anti-American. When a President of the U.S. apologizes for the sins of former American leaders while travelling abroad – that is anti-American. When political leaders from any party use a crisis – in some cases a crisis they helped to create – for their own personal aggrandizement rather than to help we the people – that is anti-American. And when the Department of Homeland Security targets those individuals with traditional conservative values and labels Veterans as ―threats – that, too is anti-American.
Once upon a time in the Bush-Clinton-Bush years of the last twenty years it was fair for the Independent to joke about how the Republican and Democrat parties were almost identical. One talk show host joked that it was a game of ―two card Monty. Well that was then. The time for being a proud contrarian is over. A startling combination of a biased liberal press, outright Marxist anti-American University system, and questionable special interest funding has succeeded in electing a radical socialist to the highest office in the land.
It may someday come down to a mortal choice, a passive acceptance of a Tyrannical government or a bloody revolution. Men of freedom would rather die trying to be free than live in chains. Ameria‘s founding fathers were such men. Time will only tell if the next revolution will be bloodless or Ameria‘s next bloody civil war. Patrick Henry‘s famous speech is not much taught in the government re-education camps of the public schools today, but as a reminder it goes like this: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
The Rise of Middle Class Revolutionaries
Rediscovering the true revolutionary rules of America‘s founding can be viewed as a return to the founding principles and the bill of rights for a country that has lost its way. Most of these precepts are not new. Most of these revolutionary principles are in harmony with America‘s founding documents, so they should not come as a shock to anyone who has spent time reading the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, or the US Constitution. They only seem radical to the modern eye brainwashed by progressive propaganda. We must merely examine these documents with new eyes not clouded by a century or more of leftist radical influence.
There are many others who have called out similar rules, and certainly they are not the only ones we need to consider. In the end, most of these rules are designed to protect and promote the middle class in America which is under attack. We can produce a firewall to protect us from the Socialist and Statist who wants to remake this country in their image and undermine the principles that Americans have fought and died for.
The confusion and misinformation on the left is exemplified by a recent TV pundit waxing poetic about the greatness of Lincoln and how much he had in common with Obama and the democrat party. The educated student of history knows that Lincoln was the first president of the GOP and Lincoln would have very little in common with Obama – except perhaps the size of their ears. So it is not surprising that if you ask the average government educated student in this country to name Lincoln‘s party affiliation you will probably get the answer Democrat. If you ask the average Government educated student which Party‘s President was in charge more during peace time in the last Century – you would probably get Democrat. Again it is a wrong answer. Wilson, a Democrat started and concluded WWI. FDR, a Democrat started and concluded WWII. Truman, a Democrat started Korea. Eisenhower, Republican ended the Korean War. JFK, a Democrat started the Vietnam War. Johnson, a Democrat continued the Viet Nam War. Nixon, a Republican – ended the Viet Nam War. The last two wars under the Bushes balances the equation, but the nod still goes to the Democrats by a count of four to two.
To be fair, it is not clear that any war would have or could have been avoided by either party, but the propaganda and misinformation coming from Government schools have made many members on the left ignorant of the facts, and once you know that, it is easy to see how they can be manipulated. And ultimately they must be held responsible for electing an inexperienced Community Organizer from one of the most corrupt cities in America to the highest office in the land.
The far left – learning well from the king of the art of ridicule, Saul Alinsky – has been masterful at vilifying and turning Republican leaders into either caricatures or out right monsters. They do an excellent job of piggy backing on the sycophantic media and outright Marxist University professors, demonizing conservatives and especially Republican Presidents, turning them into cartoon characters and idiots – even if the idiot in question is a Jet Fighter pilot and with a graduate degree from Harvard. On the other side, the biased press proclaims that Nobel Prize winning law school dropout Al Gore, despite evidence to the contrary is a benevolent genius dedicated to public service and saving the world from global ecological disaster, as he jets off in his carbon consuming private plane for another six figure speaking engagement. And now that Democrats are in power, they use intimidation tactics reminiscent of a Stalinist or perhaps a Chicago mobster. Today we see the new administration going after lawyers and policy makers in the past administration for obvious partisan political reasons. Even when there is no apparent law that was broken, these Stalinists attempt to intimidate the opposition by threatening law suits or other punishment.
Of course, Obama does not quite have total control to actually make these tactics work as long as we have the semblance of the rule of law. Nevertheless, many of his operatives are working at warp speed to bypass the rule of law for political payback – to reward those on the far left who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome and to punish as many Republicans in the Bush Administration that they can.
An ex post facto law – a law made up after the fact to justify prosecution – is not constitutional. (Although there have been a few exceptions allowed by the Supreme Court regarding Child protection and Domestic violence.) It is clear that the Obama administration is dancing right up to creating an ex post facto law, or a bill of attainder (legislative acts that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.) And if the Obama administration is successful in arguing for the Constitutionality of the mandate clause in the Health care legislation, the US Constitution will have effectively been eviscerated. What meaning does the 10th Amendment have? Once the Federal government can mandate – essentially order an ordinary citizen to buy something – where and what is the limit of the federal government‘s ability to control and dictate to the citizens? Can they tell us what car to buy? Can they tell us what food we can eat? Can they tell us what house we can buy – essentially where we can live? Yes, yes and yes.
If the Supreme Court fails in its duty to uphold the founder‘s desire that we should have limited government, and instead blithely chooses a ―broad interpretation of the subverted and perverted Commerce Clause, this sacred document will become nothing more than worthless ink and paper – like so many other worthless Constitutions of totalitarian regimes around the world. This attack on the Constitution is tyranny in action. For the sake of the future of America, and to avoid untold bloodshed and misery, we pray to God that the Supreme Court makes the correct decision.
And the attacks from the left do not stop at the goal of destroying the Constitution. If the Republican (or any Conservative) in question is too brainy to make buffoon charge to stick, they do their best to turn that Republican into the devil himself! It certainly worked on Nixon. They tried on Reagan, however, and failed miserably. The media coined him the Teflon President when they failed. None of the dirt they kept throwing at him would stick! Even while the press was doing the far left‘s bidding, Reagan‘s success both in foreign policy and domestically could not be undone by their anti-Reagan propaganda coming from the Democrat opposition and the left wing press.
And Reagan‘s appeal to Middle Americans of every party muted any effort they had to bring him down. They tried on the Bushes with mixed success. They managed to get GHW Bush out after one term, but there were other forces at play. Bush 1 going back on the pledge of ―Read my lips, no new taxes! and Ross Perot‘s 3rd party entry into the 1992 election, helped to get Alinsky‘s first protégé into the white house – Hillary Clinton!
That is right! Hillary has a direct connection to Alinsky and legend has it that he even asked her to work for him. It has been rumored that she declined, but she obviously picked up more than the basics from Alinsky to help her and her charismatic, prevaricating, philandering husband get into the White House. And God knows, we cannot directly attack Obama and say he is incompetent or inexperienced, because to do so would mean that that person must be a racist. Is that not correct Janine Garafalo? Other than the experience of running for President, he was a US Senator for a little over a year before he started his presidential campaign. He was a state senator before that. And his real practical experience is from the Alinsky school of community organizing – an organization that has a lineage directly from Al Capone! Why is the media not doing its job of letting the electorate know of these connections? Why do those who control the media treat this man as if he and his wife were royalty or a demigod?
It is a sad spectacle – the Media with sycophants getting tingly feelings down their legs when he speaks. But once people, especially in the middle class, finally connect the dots between Obama‘s Alinsky Community Organizing past and the failed policies that he is promoting, with or without the tingly feeling media sycophants and propagandists – and vote Democrats out. The question becomes why has the radical left been unable to secure more control despite their dominance in the media?
What a member of the middle class needs to know is that radicals and Marxists have failed to gain a strong hold in the US for a very simple reason – the size and prosperity of the American middle class. While it may be true that as many as 35 million Americans live in ―Poverty , it therefore also true that there are over 250 million Americans who live at a middle class or higher level. To put that in perspective, the booming nation of India now has a middle class about the size of America‘s! However India has a population of about 1.1 Billion people! So that means that over 750 million of their people live in poverty. Americans have prospered per capita more than most countries, certainly more than any country its size, creating the most wealth for the most people of any country on the planet. That is, the 250 million plus members of the middle class in America is so huge a percentage of the population that the Marxist play book of class warfare of the haves versus have-nots does not work here (except during economic hard times – and this could partly account for the messianic appeal of Obama). How many times have you heard Obama say the word ―crisis and ―Great Depression ? It almost appears as if Obama and his fellow Radicals are taking an economic recession and purposely turning it into the next ―Great Depression .
Today the game has changed. Now that the Democrat Party has been taken over by radical Ideologues, the middle class has been targeted for extinction. The new Radicals in power understand that they cannot achieve total success with a strong middle class in their way. So it is fair to say when Obama tells us that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression, he is not saying that in order to help prevent the next Depression, rather he and his fellow Marxists see this as the opportunity to once and for all destroy the Middle Class. He and his fellow travellers are going full speed ahead to help make sure that in fact this becomes the next Great Depression.
We need to know what is at stake. There is a great map of America that puts the size of America‘s economy in perspective compared to the rest of the world by showing how various countries‘ GDP compares to a US state. For example, Russia and its economy are comparable to New Jersey a few years ago when this map was produced and perhaps as large as New York with their recent oil boom revenues. But for now just take a quick look at just how prosperous America is compared to the rest of the world:
States renamed for countries with similar GDPs –
According to recent statistics, despite the contracting economy of the U.S., at approximately $14 Trillion in GDP (2009), America‘s economy is almost as large as the next four economies combined – China, UK, Japan and Germany! It is not really surprising then to realize why the former Soviet Union failed so miserably – its largest state – Russia with a population of 140 million people is said to have about the same GDP as New Jersey‘s population of 8.6 million (or New York if you believe more recent estimates)! Whether you agree with these estimates are not, best estimates of per capita GDP of Russia varies between $5,000 and $12,000 and the GDP of the US is about $47,000. No matter whose statistics you use, America‘s per person wealth is from four to ten times that of Russia! And for those Europhiles out there, who love to quote the success of the European Union, remember that although they have about three times the population of America they only have a slightly larger overall GDP;
EU‘s per capita GDP is about $21,000 – less than half that of America‘s.
If one looks at the bombardment from the left leaning media, one might think that America is only a land of rich or poor – when the facts could not be further from the truth. America has a huge middle class – approximately 87% of the population or more. The fact is due to the incredible wealth of America, even the poor have access to Government subsidized housing, food stamps, a multitude of social services and, access to the best Healthcare system in the world. And contrary to the propaganda to the contrary, every emergency room in every hospital in the U.S. will treat anyone, citizen or not, with or without Health Insurance. Healthcare and social services to illegal immigrants is a good portion of the problem. Although there are efficiencies that certainly can be had by reforming the healthcare system, there is no doubt that the real strain on the system is the millions of illegal immigrants who get free access to a vast array of social services including healthcare.
By early 2009, California had over $20 billion budget shortfall (and growing) and the ―Governator so eloquently put it: ―unlike de Federal Govenmont, ve cannot print money! Interestingly, though California has been tacking hard left, even the progressive land of Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer and Diane Feinstein voted down additional taxes to make up for the failure of the state legislature in Sacramento to balance the state‘s budget. There is no doubt the heavily dominated Democrat Legislators who have mismanaged the budget do not have the courage to cut unnecessary spending. By objective estimates, simply stopping free services to illegal aliens will cut more than half of this budget deficit.
With the implosion of the Republican party and the far left in control of the white house and both houses of congress after the Bush-Clinton-Bush years, it is time to end the fence sitting and the 3rd party Independent party non-sense. It is not so much that we have to agree with the Republican Party, but we must certainly understand that the Democrat Party is now synonymous with big government that will lead to the destruction of America‘s founding principles. We must vote against the Big Government Democrat party in order to save this country from descending into the waste bin of history and becoming the Former United States of America. For those around in say 1989 – at that point in history, did you ever think you would hear the term The Former Soviet Union?
Alinsky‘s followers clearly targeted the middle class, and over the last decades with the help of a left wing establishment that allows unrepentant terrorists to teach and God damning America Black Liberation Theology Preachers to preach. This teaching and preaching have reached the highest office in the land. Slowly and methodically a significant number of the middle class has been converted to their Marxist ideology hiding behind benign terms like ―Community Organizations . And that is the brilliance of their scheme. A recent cable channel interviewed a spokesman for Acorn and made the startling observation that (Acorn) ―they are all about the money.
Well that is only half the truth. That money comes from somewhere. That money comes from the likes of George Soros and far left billionaires who back Obama. And why do they back Obama? Are they backing Obama because they are altruistic and patriotic? A tyrannical regime that controls the private sector through intimidation the way the Obama administration does, offers these leftist robber barons a chance to minimize their competition even more. And the list of Hollywood idiots may in fact have other psychological reasons, such as ―white guilt and feeling good about voting for a Black man proving how sensitive they are to the plight of the oppressed. (Of course it never crosses their minds that the Marxist policies they support will lead to real oppression!) There is also the reality that these Obama backing super rich become even richer by backing a more powerful centralized government that favors them. So this relationship does not seem to be completely altruistic.
What makes this a bit different from most conservative books is that philosophers on all sides of the battle are highlighted. So unlike those who label things indiscriminately, the term ―Marxist has an historical perspective.
Perhaps a comparison is order. The original battle between freedom and tyranny has evolved from the Divine Rights of Kings vs. The Rights of the people to Radical Marxists vs. Conservatives. Even so, modern leaders start to resemble monarchs when you have a leader being treated like royalty. After more than a generation since Alinsky‘s followers took control of the Universities and the mass media, they now have their own king who they treat with a reverence not seen in America since the Camelot days of John F. Kennedy. One will even find some commentators comparing JFK to Barak, and Jackie to Michelle. As David Greenburg stated in Slate Magazine why white liberals were drawn to Obama: ―…another clue may lie in the presidential bid of a figure Obama’s devotees love to invoke: John F. Kennedy. It has been quite a love fest.
Obama has already been given the Messiah treatment by Marxists in the press, so it is not a stretch to compare him to royalty with Divine Rights. Early liberal thought was very much a battle fought over the divine right of kings versus the rights of individuals (and their legislative bodies that represented them). This was a battle between the King who was above the law versus the people who were subject to the laws and the whims of the King. Marxist radicals do not have a king, but they do have a leader is starting to look and act like one.
The new king of America started his ascension to the throne in the windy and corrupt city of Chicago. Chicago, where Obama lived, went to church, served in the State Senate and later U.S Senate before becoming President, and is a city with a long history of corruption. Most recently, we have all heard about the former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich who was arrested on federal corruption charges December 9, 2008. The charges involved conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. The Justice Department complaint alleges that the governor conspired to commit several “pay-to-play” schemes, including attempting to sell Barack Obama’s vacated United States Senate seat to the highest bidder.
Ultimately, Blago appointed fellow Democrat and former state attorney general Roland Burris. Burris was seated after some initial opposition in mid-January 2009. On January 8, 2009, the Illinois House of Representatives voted to impeach Blagojevich by a 114–1 vote for corruption and misconduct in office. This was the first time such an action has been taken against a governor of Illinois, making him the second state official in Illinois history to be impeached. He was subsequently convicted and removed from office on January 29, 2009 by a unanimous 59–0 vote in the Illinois State Senate. In a separate vote, the Senate voted unanimously to permanently bar Blagojevich from holding public office again in the state of Illinois. Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn was subsequently sworn in as new governor.
Before Blago – George Ryan, the last in a 25-year string of Republican governors in Illinois, declined to run again at the conclusion of his term in 2003. Eventually, he was indicted on 22 counts, including racketeering, bribery and extortion. Democratic candidate Rod Blagojevich handily beat his Republican opponent in the election to replace Ryan. So the people of Illinois exchanged a crook with an R next to his name with one with a D. The results have been about the same. What’s also quite interesting is that George Ryan was married to the actress Jeri Ryan – of Star Trek fame – who somehow managed to get their “sealed” sexually incriminating divorce filings “unsealed” so that some unknown fellow named Barack Hussein Obama could run for senate and easily win against the well know George Ryan. Funny. Not funny ha ha, but funny don’t you think?
While there is no real evidence to support the charges, a longstanding piece of political folklore claims Chicago Mayor Richard J Daley, believing a JFK victory could do great things for Democratic politics in Chicago, made sure JFK would not lose Illinois in the 1960 presidential election. Although Kennedy only took the state by 9,000 votes, he won Cook County by 450,000 votes, with some Chicago precincts going to him by
10 to one margins. As they said, they voted ―early and often !
So where does Alinsky fit into Chicago politics? Karl Rove has said, ―Members of Congress should also worry about how Mr. Obama is “keeping score.” He is steeped in the ways of Chicago politics and has not forgotten his training in the methods once used by Saul Alinsky, the radical Chicago community organizer. Alinsky’s 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals,” is a favorite of the Obamas. Michele Obama quoted it at the Democratic Convention. One Alinsky tactic is to ‗Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.‘ That is what the White House did in targeting Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer .
The only thing missing from the Rove quote above is that in addition to ―polarizing their real success has been in their ability to actually demonize their political enemies. Richard Nixon was not just a political enemy – he was the devil himself. Substitute all Republican leaders and judge for yourself whether or not the sycophantic press has not been a co-conspirator in this Alinsky style propaganda war. And if a failing McCain campaign comes up with one of the most charismatic and startling Vice Presidential picks in Sarah Palin, the left need not worry. The complicit press will find a way to take her down, and take her down they did!
It is indeed unfortunate that the average American did not get the necessary warning information about Obama from their local newspapers, most of the media outlets, and the McCain campaign prior to November 2008. One would almost have to believe in conspiracy theories to accept that the McCain campaign knew all of this information but failed to adequately warn us about Obama. He refused to hammer the three associations where Obama was vulnerable: Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Saul Alinsky.
Even the Fox news Channel did not really connect the dots and alert us to the real danger in Obama’s Association with the community organizers who ultimately are Saul Alinsky’s thugs and offspring. The simple way to view this is in the same way that Lenin and his street proletariat is the offspring of Marx. Fox News spent a great deal of time trying to make the case of Obama‘s association with Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist, and the membership in Jeremiah Wright‘s Black Liberation Theology Church
– but Alinsky, who is arguably the real malicious influence of both the Clintons and Obama – even Fox missed this. To Fox‘s credit they did spend some investigative reporting on Acorn, but they have failed to really expose just how Alinsky and radical groups like Acorn were tied together.
Acorn is an example of one of the community organizations that played a pivotal role in helping to elect Barak Obama. The fact is that other than his time in school as a student and teacher, Obama‘s resume is so thin that ―Community Organizer is all that is really on it. There is no business that he has run. There is no ―real world experience. There are a few years of public service: There is a term as state senator and a year as US Senator before his run for president. Where is his experience for the highest position in the land? The bigger question is where was the media in asking the tough questions about his lack of experience? Where were the questions about his associations with community organizations like Acorn and their record of questionable behavior?
For example, Acorn has had multiple accusations and convictions of voter fraud. The Media, except for Fox News, has been conspicuously silent about this has not reported the corruption and scandal that ties Obama to his primary job experience – the community organization known as Acorn. Acorn, among other things, is noted for intimidation tactics used to force banks to make subprime loans and is therefore a prime causative factor in the recent Housing Bubble and economic meltdown. But where was and where is the outrage of Obama‘s connection to such a mob-like corrupt organization? As RottenAcorn.com reported, ―They mastered the art of pressuring banks – often through radical and controversial methods – to provide subprime loans to all comers…Its political agenda is driven by a relative handful of political thugs for hire. And it is a fact that now that they have Obama in power–Alinsky‘ssupremedisciple, they are following one of Alinsky‘s prime directives – to start taking from the ―haves .
But have we thought it through, what the ramifications of taking from the ―haves and redistributing the wealth? The American middle class is an amazing success story, but there has been a non stop effort to destroy it and the foundation of America with it.
In the short term, every American should become knowledgeable of its enemies within. And though Obama has proclaimed that only the top 5% of wage earners taxes will go up, it is no doubt that not only will he not be able to keep his campaign pledge, the American middle class will no doubt bear the greatest per capita burden of this wealth redistribution.
So what are the rules that can protect American and the middle class? In the long term, some of these principles that follow should become amendments to the Constitution with the simple goal of re-establishing rights that have been eroded over time. Some basic precepts that can save America from the radical attack on the middle class are:
#1 – Understand the Philosophical Roots of the United States of America.
We must know where we came from to better understand who the enemies of the middle class are.
#2 – Protect and preserve the 1st Amendment. In addition to protecting free speech, we must understand the Freedom of Religion Clause in the 1st Amendment. We must protect talk radio from the Orwellian ―fairness doctrine and similar ploys to limit conservative free speech. We must also comprehend why Hate Crimes Laws are unconstitutional. We must prevent Executive Department Appointed Judiciary and Law suits that are used to intimidate opponents and stymie Free Speech.
#3 – Secure the Borders and America‘s Cultural Identity. It is necessary to block Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for the well being of the country and preserving the middle class. It is paramount to prevent America from becoming a One Party Government. Comprehensive Immigration = Amnesty = One Party Rule = Tyranny.
#4 – Abolish the IRS and existing tax code in order to slow down the profligate spending by the Federal government, and return fairness to taxation. We must remember that a key reason for the original Revolution was to fight taxation without representation. We must repeal the XVI amendment and abolish the IRS and install a fair tax.
#5 – Promote the Supremacy of Federalism and States Rights. Promote the X Amendment and protect the individual from a tyrannical national government. Repeal the XVII amendment. We must have a foreign Policy based on the doctrine of America First.
#6 – Pass the XXVIII Amendment following the lead of the XXII amendment of presidential term limits and install Federal Congressional Term Limits. Reduce undue influence of Foreign Governments and eliminate Career Politicians.
#7 – Promote Science and rational environmental policies as practical adjuncts to the capitalist system. Fight against Eco-extortionists who are using thinly veiled attempts to destroy the system and the wealth of the middle class by couching it behind bad science and scare tactics. Stand up to politically motivated science policies that are out to destroy America‘s energy system. Undo ―cap and trade or ―cap and tax .
Recognize the historical importance of America‘s innovators and inventors in the free market as the fundamental reason for America‘s success and the wealth it has given the middle class.
#8 – Acknowledge Secular Religions in order to reclaim a true separation of Church and State. We must understand why Secular Religions infringe on the First Amendment and destroy the values of the middle class.
#9 – ―The Government-Education-Media Complex must be recognized for what it is.
Begin to implement the Voucher System and Home Schooling to counter the Education monopoly. Disband union funded government and government funded unions. Understand why monopoly in Education is not qualitatively different from monopoly in Business, and we need to see the link between the education monopoly, the media monopoly, and government policy. The link between GE, parent of NBC, MSNBC, and the Obama administration needs a thorough investigation.
#10 – Separate the Judiciary from the Legislative Process. Re-establish the link between States Rights and Composition of Supreme Court; abolish all lifetime judges except the Supreme Court; and follow a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution for clarifying the role of Judiciary. Impeach or vote out judges who legislate from the Bench. Show how Freedom of Speech and Reform of the Judiciary is linked. Understand why Shari‘a Law (and any other foreign law) is incompatible with the Constitution.
Each rule is intend to make reform as simple and straight forward as possible yet show the philosophical roots that are behind them. In almost all cases, these principles are already seen within the founding documents – with a strong dose of original intent of the Constitution, a dash of wisdom from the Federalist Papers, other noted philosophers and thinkers, and good old common sense. For the serious student of conservative American political theory and practice the goal is to make the process of making and interpreting law as plain spoken as possible.
This is where the new energized new American Revolutionaries must go. Ronald Reagan enlisted the so-called ―Reagan Democrats – not by pandering – but rather by being the great communicator of sound ideas. Reagan did not seek out conservative democrats – they came to him! The far left has been trampling on the Constitution and the basic American values for the better part of the last hundred years, and only have been slowed when conservatives won the white house or one or more houses of congress. The left has had their great visionaries like Wilson – and his failed League of Nations, FDR – the man who took a depression and turned it into a ―Great Depression ; the anti-Semitic catalyst for the emergence of Islamo-fascism – the peanut farmer from Georgia, and now the great disciple of Saul Alinsky – the Messianic Community Organizer from one of the most corrupt cities in the history of this country.
It is time for the working man and woman, small and large business owners and workers, who make up the vast majority of the engine that runs this great country to realize that their future is not linked to socialist elitists who, with the help of radicals like Saul Alinsky, and now his greatest disciple in the White House, seek to destroy the American dream and replace it with their warped utopian vision. The great author George Orwell wrote 1984 (some 40 years before that date) about a horrific ―dystopia in the future where Big Brother was in charge and personal freedom was non existent. Over the years leftist Professors created fear in the students sitting in their class rooms by warning them that the threat for this nightmare vision came from the right on the political spectrum. They were only partially ―right . The middle way is not by any means related to fascism. America‘s philosophic roots come from abiding by the Constitution and the rule of law. The fact is that the ideology for the former moderate Democrat Party has moved so far left, anything to their right is fascism.
This dystopian nightmare has historical precedent in both extremes of the political spectrum; socialist states like the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and National Socialist Party of Germany. Again, we have allowed demagogues on the left to define who we are. The left is in denial if they think that the real threats to personal freedoms come from conservatives who abide by the US Constitution. The threats come from elitists on the left who want power, and followers of Militant Islam whose laws and religion are fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution.
As Obama was recorded at a SF fundraiser during the campaign giving a speech to the elitist white wine drinkers in SF and how they must fear those common folks. He said, ―It is not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren‘t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations . America‘s founders were enlightened courageous men, many who died clinging to their guns and religion. Generations of great patriots in the military – many of them too died clinging to their guns and religion. It is imperative to not let the followers of Shari‘a Law, Rev Wright and his anti-American black liberation theology, Bill Ayers the terrorist, Saul Alinsky the Marxist ―community organizer , Karl Marx and all of their socialist or anti-American viewpoints be allowed to undermine America. The good news is that there were never more than about a third of the Colonists who fought the British and ultimately secured America‘s freedom. We need not despair. If as Paine so beautifully put it – there are more ―sunshine patriots and summer warriors than true warriors – there are still more than enough patriotic Americans to take the country back!
The Philosophical Roots of the United States of America
The following diagram describes the flow of three major branches of political philosophy and their evolution over two millennia. The goal is to answer the questions: where did we come from and how did we get here
This tree of the history of Western Political Philosophy has been influenced greatly by the monumental work of Bertrand Russell – A History of Western Philosophy, and other eminent works on the subject. Certainly many other visionaries could go on this tree, but this simple diagram may help in clarifying political terms often misused. Appropriately, on the far left are some of those who influenced the present day socialist and Marxist ideologues. Those on the right have inspired fascist ideologies. The middle path leads us to the founding of the United States of America.
It is no doubt a contentious point of view that modern American liberalism or progressivism is simply socialism by another name. The terms need not be that confusing, but ideologues have purposely hidden their real purpose in order to promote their agendas. It is actually shocking that Obama has been caught on tape promoting the idea of single payer health care not once but twice in 2004 and 2007, yet he vehemently denied that his proposed government controlled healthcare is a ―Trojan horse for the goal of a single payer system in 2009 when he crammed a monumentally
unpopular monstrosity of a healthcare bill through the congress? How can he get away with such outright contradictory statements? Holding contradictory positions appear to be the coin of the realm of many politicians but it is hard to find a time when there has been so blatant a disregard for consistency or the truth as there is today.
Certainly in America, couching a socialist program and renaming it liberal or progressive gets more traction in the market place of ideas. Socialism at its simplest is state ownership of the means of production. It is a fair statement to say that with the nationalization of banking, ownership of two of the three major manufacturers of autos in America, the cap and trade Energy bill, and government controlled Healthcare, the
Democrat Party of ―liberalism and ―progressivism is now promoting policies that will lead to state ownership of production and control the economy of America. These policies lead us to a steady socialist path if not outright socialism.
Fascism at its most basic is an authoritarian government with a single party or ideal that controls its citizens by intimidation or extreme nationalism. Nazi Germany used a combination of extreme nationalism and government socialism to control the people. Islamic states have used theocratic and secular variations of fascism. Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq was more secular. The present regime of Iran is a theocratic version of fascism. The recent farce of an election in Iran and the subsequent protests give us hope that the people will throw off this repressive regime and the theocratic bonds that have made a storied people slaves to fascism hiding behind religious dogma.
Modern American Conservatism is more in line with the Liberal values of freedom of Religion, Natural Law, rights of the individual, utilitarianism, prudence, and private property. Once upon a time, liberty and these were ideals were highly valued in America. Today the forces of Marxism and Fascism are undermining these principles.
Roots of Socialism
From this diagram we see that Plato‘s Utopia – The Republic – is the first in a line of socialist utopian visions that have culminated with the present Marxist-Alinsky ideology. In The Republic, Socrates tells us that we are like prisoners in a cave, and what we perceive of the world is like the shadows we cast on the walls. We think that the shadows are real, but reality is something we cannot see. From this original concept, we have many philosophers including Hegel who believed that reality was not to be found in everyday observation. What is interesting about Hegel, besides his obvious influence on Marx, is his singular belief that there can be no state without a battle between rich and poor. Of course, this is paramount in Marx‘s vision. This is the fundamental reason that modern Marxists tacticians like Alinsky work so hard at destroying the middle class.
Marxism‘s idea of a social utopia is similar in concept to Plato‘s Republic. Plato tells us there are three classes and the Guardians are the only class with political power. In the new American socialist utopia, those Guardians are the elites where only a select few have power. The new American ―Guardians are Congressmen, Senators, Judges, and the unelected bureaucrats of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of Government. Although America‘s founding documents expressly prescribes a system
of checks and balances between an executive, legislative and judicial branch of government, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Marxists in power today are moving us as fast as they can to change America to a government of the Guardians, by the Guardians, and for the Guardians.
Debates about to what degree someone is socialist or Marxist is purely academic.
Alinsky is substantively a Marxist who may have been ―impatient with idealistic true believers of Communism, but his views are not qualitatively different. Obama may not yet outright own all of the means of production to officially be labelled a socialist, but what do you label him if he is successful in owning a majority stake in two of three auto manufacturers, regulating the largest banks, well on his way to controlling almost 20% of America‘s economy with government controlled healthcare, and about to implement a cap and trade policy that will give government mandates that effectively dominate the entire energy sector?
Marxists drones do not appear to care how wealth is created because the propaganda they are fed on a daily basis is about spreading the wealth – not creating it. Those elites who do understand the benefit of the American system actively work against it in order to seize power. They do not much care about the ultimate welfare of the people. It is almost as if the unwashed masses are to be treated more like pets or children. Ultimately, the Guardians know best. Although it is fair to say that Marx himself was not motivated by power, his ideology has served as a tool for tyrants all over the world to gain and maintain power.
It actually takes some work to objectively understand what Marxism really is and ―how the world really works to quote radio Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Marx was the descendant of Rabbis, but was raised by middle class German parents who converted to Christianity. Marx met up with Engels, a British Factory Manger, in France where he went to study Socialism. After failed attempts at journalism, Marx lived a rather tragic, poverty stricken life in England, but he was a prolific writer and in England wrote Das Capital and The Communist Manifesto. So from this set of experiences–especially thevision of the plight and miserable conditions of the wage earner of the early Industrial Revolution in England, Marx developed his system – a variation of Hegel‘s ―dialectic . Marx added his definition of ―materialism and came up with the concept of ―dialectical Materialism . The motive force behind Marx‘s dialectic is ―material not ―spirit as Hegel had devised. And from this ―materialism he was able to turn his philosophy into an argument for the ―production and ―distribution in economic systems. The term ―Dialectic is used because the process is never fully realized and it is always evolving.
There are several questions that need to be addressed by digging a bit deeper into the origin of Marx‘s political philosophy. In fairness to Karl Marx, it is very easy to see why he was sympathetic to the plight of workers during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. Marx, like many of his followers, fully well believed that it was the more humane cause to have sympathy for the wage earner rather than the insensitive, greedy and cruel Capitalist factory owner. But as Saint Bernard of Clairvaux said: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And for the victims of the failed experiment in the former Soviet Union, and oppressive dictators around the world who preach Marxist doctrine to secure and hold power, Marxism has proved to
be hell on earth. On the other hand, while no one is saying that Capitalism is pretty or perfect by any means, it has been the engine that has produced the most wealth for more people on the planet than any other system. In America where Capitalism has been more fully realized than Europe, it has given over 250 million people, middle class or higher, almost 90% of its population, a very high standard of living that is the envy of the world.
Marx did not see this potential of capitalism or perhaps he would not have been so sure in the inevitability of the worker‘s struggle to overcome the greedy capitalist. To the true believer, Marx‘s ideology has become a religious belief that the world would ―evolve and eventually free the ―wage earner from the oppressive Capitalist employer. But the reality of his political philosophy is that it has been used as an excuse for tyrannical leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Chavez and Castro to gain power and brutally crush dissent. And in all cases this has led to economic disaster for their citizens. For example, after seventy plus years of Communist rule, the GDP of Russia with 140 million people is only equivalent to the state of New Jersey by one measure, and by a more generous measure (with the aid of recent jump in Oil prices) maybe as high as the GDP of New York. In both cases, New York or New Jersey has a tiny fraction of Russia‘s population and hence the per capita wealth is many times greater for citizens of New Jersey and New York.
Millions of people have been slaughtered in tyrannical Marxist regimes, while America and capitalist systems all over the world have prospered. Of course, there is some poverty and injustice in America. But the ideological radical Marxists do not really care to work within the American system proven so remarkably successful for a very large middle class. It is almost as if their intentions are to exacerbate the problems of the poor as a tactic to effectively tax the middle class out of existence. When the middle class is destroyed there will be real class warfare that will allow them to reach their own utopian aspiration to defeat Capitalism and the American free enterprise system.
Roots of Fascism
As a young person, one starts out with slogans and ―bumper stickers that assure us of
America‘s moral high ground: Peace is good (and the corollary War is bad), feed the poor, altruism is good. Then as we get older, we might question the practicality of some or all of these beliefs, and have romantic notions that heroic exploits of great conquerors – Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn – are to be revered. The exploits of the warrior city state of Sparta cannot help but capture the imagination. One of the early inspirations for war as a romanticized ideal was the heroic battle of three hundred Spartan‘s and their last stand at the battle of Thermopylae against many thousands of Persians.
Romanticized notions of hero worship can be found in the writings of Rousseau and Nietzsche. Nietzsche‘s Ubermenschen and the Spartan warrior state may be the major contributors to philosophic roots of the National Socialist Party, the Nazis Party, responsible for the slaughter of 6 million Jews and starting World War II. Nietzsche‘s philosophy that only the pure race of Superman – the Ubermenschen – can achieve the truly heroic human is also a direct link to the nightmare of modern fascism. Today we see variations of fascism in both secular totalitarian states and Islamic variant of fascism –cloaked in a head scarf hiding behind an unreformed medieval religion.
Prior to full blown modern Fascism of the 20th and 21st Century, there was the Romantic Movement inspired by Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau maintained a dislike for authority of any sort and sought to restore a proper respect for the creativity and worth of individual human beings. But this romanticized view led to hero worship and though the romantic notions of Rousseau began as a desire for individual liberty, the end result of his world view was not dissimilar to Nietzsche‘s. Rousseau exploration of the political implications of these ideas: his notion of individual liberty and his convictions about political unity helped to fuel the romantic spirit of the French Revolution. However, without the rule of law, this Romantic Movement led to notions of hero worship and eventually to the ―supermen which influenced Nietzsche and eventually the Nazi movement, and finally it‘s most recent virulent strain in Militant Islam.
But when one spends time objectively analyzing their end product one is left with the conclusion that romantic hero worshipers have been responsible for untold death and misery to achieve their vision of the great leader or the superman. Where there is hero worship, death and destruction soon follows. One need only look at the carnage that follows leader by names such as Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein. In some cases religious leaders are just as guilty of bringing about unimaginable cruelty and death in the name of saving or promoting their religion. And as we mature, some of us realize that neither hero worship nor socialism holds the moral high ground. In both cases, they lead to despotism. The moral high ground and the more perfect union is found somewhere in the middle. This is where America‘s founding fathers meant for us to be.
Philosophical Roots of America
Who are we as a nation? Where did America‘s philosophy of governance come from? Why is America‘s system of governance preferable to other systems? What is the difference between the two most oppressive and tyrannical ideologies on the planet – Fascism and Marxism? Why are they grave threats to the continuing survival of this great country?
The best place to start in attempting to answer these questions is Aristotle. Aristotle, who was known for his pragmatic point of view was more grounded in the world as we see it than the other giant of early Greek philosophy Plato. Aristotle influenced early Islamic scholars such as Avveroes, whose translations of Plato and Aristotle were passed down to St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century, which became a central doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Church prior to Aquinas was influenced to a greater extent by Platonic ideas which were expanded to fit into Church doctrine by St. Augustine and others. The importance of Aquinas and his appeal to ―natural reason became paramount to the Liberals of the 17th Century, who later influenced America‘s Founding Fathers.
Next, in attempting to ascertain where America‘s founders got some of their key ideas, it is necessary to look at John Locke and Montesquieu. Montesquieu held that
“government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another”. This led directly to America‘s Founder‘s belief that the new American government required a clear delineation of each branch of government and a balanced separation of powers. In John Locke‘s Second Treatise on Government he discusses a state of nature and the law of nature. Prior to Locke, Aquinas via Avveroes via Aristotole, were all proponents of the natural law thesis. St. Thomas Aquinas probably had the most direct influence on Locke: “Every law framed by man bears the character of a law exactly to that extent to which it derived from a law of nature. But if on any point it is in conflict with the law of nature, it at once ceases to be a law: it is a mere perversion of law Itis fair to say that the concept of the rights of man, and the principle of laissez-faire capitalism owe its origins to natural law doctrine. From this concept, there is a breakfrom the Tyranny of the Monarch where his subjects have rights to their own property, possessions and “free exercise of their industry“.
And this is where we must understand where American ideals begin. It is hard for a modern man to put himself in the mindset of 17th century and to understand just how radical Locke‘s ideas were at the time. If you go back a couple of millennia, you can trace the glimmers of natural law back to the Greek Stoics and in particular to Zeno. Zeno believed that there was not such a thing as chance, and everything in nature is subject to natural laws. In some ways this makes sense for the stoic, because they prized the life of the individual where virtue was the sole and only good. Where they differ from the natural law philosophers of the 17th century is that the Stoic does not believe that happiness, possessions and health are important. From the 17th century to the present, health, happiness, individual rights and property are primary in the modern doctrine of Natural Law.
By the time of St Thomas Aquinas, God and religion began to play a significant part in the development of the concept of natural law. As a thumbnail sketch of the evolution of the Church, it is fair to say that from the time of Constantine, when Christianity and not the pagan religion of Mithras was named the primary religion of Rome, through the Middle Ages and through the Reformation and the Renaissance, the church was dominant over individual states or governments. Not to diminish the importance of Christianity for the last two millennia, but it is almost by chance that Christianity developed into one of the world‘s most dominant religions. The fact is that Constantine had a choice between Christianity and Mithrasism (the worship of the Persian Sun God) as the way to mollify and control his soldiers. Christians in the third century were actually a smaller minority than followers of Mithras, but were very aggressive in their evangelical zeal and successfully became the state religion. Conversion to Christianity was a relatively easy process of admitting one‘s sins with a reward of everlasting life.
This was an attractive notion to warriors about to go into battle.
Early Christians were a pretty shrewd lot. At the time Christmas was created in 320 AD, Mithraism was still very popular. The early Christian church had gotten tired of their futile efforts to stop people celebrating the solstice and the birthday of Mithras, which happened to be December 25. So the pope decided to make Jesus‘ official birthday coincide with Mithras‘ birthday. No one knows what time of year Jesus was actually born but there is evidence to suggest that it was in midsummer. So the Church from its earliest days was very adroit at marginalizing its competition for the hearts and minds, not to mention souls of the people.
We can mark the beginning of the end of the dominance of the Catholic Church with the development and growth of new independent churches such as the time Henry VIII made his break with the Catholic Church. So with the Catholic Church first being split between two empires the East and West, and then the Western Church being challenged by States and monarchs until the dogma of a single church doctrine was defeated and multi-denominational churches of Christianity were born.
But for many centuries there was no real disagreement with the accepted concept of the divine right of the king. That changed by the 17th century, as philosophers and thinkers like John Locke were successfully challenging the King‘s power. Locke‘s first of his two treatises on Government is very important because it was a very powerful argument against Sir Robert Filmer’s “the natural power of Kings”. Filmer, a devout believer in the divine rights of Kings, essentially supported the monarch‘s position and it is no surprise that he was knighted by Charles I. According to Filmer, the king is above human laws, and it is wrong that “mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjugation, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please”. From Filmer’s point of view, the king is a descendant from Adam, and hence where the monarch gets his divine rights. So is important to realize that political power is not derived from any “social contract”, but entirely from the authority of the father over the child. This became the basis of how the king justifies being above the law.
This theory sounds absurd to most in the modern world, yet it must be remembered that there is nothing particularly unnatural about this way of thinking. Russell notes that Imperial Japan prior to World War II held that all political power was assimilated in a similar same way. That is, the Mikado can trace his dissent from the Sun Goddess. Russell conjectures that there were two main causes for the defeat of the divine right in England. One was the multiplicity of religions and the other was the conflict for power between aristocracy, the wealthy middle class and the king.
What is fascinating about the middle ages is that while the unreformed catholic church was conducting their barbaric Inquisition, an Islamic scholar Averroes, in his treatise on Justice and Jihad wrote a commentary on Plato’s Republic, stating that the human mind can know of the unlawfulness of killing and stealing and thus of the five maqasid or higher intents of the islamic shari`a or to protect religion, life, property, offspring, and reason. The concept of natural law in fact entered the mainstream of Western culture through Averroes‘ commentaries on most of Aristotle‘s works and his commentary on Plato‘s Republic, which ultimately ended up influencing the writings of Thomas Aquinas.
So it is fair to note that because of the enlightened Islamic philosopher Averroes, the great Greek philosophers were rediscovered in the west and Aquinas was able to put forward his theories on Natural Law that later found its way into Locke and America‘s founding fathers. It is a fact this was an historical period where the Muslim world was more advanced than the West. This all changed with Europe and America‘s rise of science and the move toward religious tolerance. All of this had a crushing effect on religious dogma. It is not difficult to see that the real difference in the development between Islam and the West was due to the inability of Islamic thinkers and men of science to win the battle of ideas with fundamentalists. This unreformed dogmatic victory for Islamic fundamentalists eliminated free thinking and stifled the progress of the Islamic world at the same time that the West was evolving and prospering. Not all theories of natural law had the same outcome. In Hobbes’ opinion, the only way natural law could prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. As stated earlier, however, John Locke incorporated a different view of natural law.
Edmund Burke‘s view, which is close to Locke‘s view, tells us that ―There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity – the law of nature and of nations . Locke turned Hobbes’viewpoint upside down, saying that if the King went against natural law and failed to protect “life, liberty, and property,” people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one. This obviously had a major influence on the Founders who used this point of view as justification for the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson, echoing Locke, appealed to unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Locke‘s original writing stated: ―no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty and or possessions“. It should also be noted that Franklin changed Jefferson‘s original draft: ―we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable . Many of us who believe in the importance of our creator inthe founding of the miracle of America like the original text better!
So this is the basic flow of ideas of where America has come from. Looking at the diagram at the beginning of this chapter, America since its founding has seemingly always been under the pressure from one or both of the oppressive philosophies on the extreme branches. And for those oppressive philosophies, telling the ―truth has never been part of their fundamental political ideology. In the overall worldwide struggle for power, radicals on both extremes tell lies to further their cause. As Burke wisely tells us ―Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing. In fact, the true believers on both sides of theideological extremes have often ridiculed America for immorality and decadence as a way to argue against its principles.
America has not been perfect by any means, but it is quite easy to give examples of its moral superiority to the other two competing branches. In the conversation today, religious doctrine, socialism and altruism (whether religiously or secularly motivated), are usually assumed to be morally and ethically superior to a Republic that engages in competitive free enterprise system and has religious and individual freedom. Although there is no clear objective way to proclaim which political system is more ethical, there a scientific approach based upon the evidence to make a strong case why America‘s system is preferable in economic terms, utilitarian terms, and ultimately in terms of fairness and opportunity to prosper.
Two opposite points of view show just how vast the differences are in the world of ethics and morality. On one side was the Utilitarian view of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who postulated the Highest Good – the Summum Bonum – is the pinnacle of what is moral; and that thing is best which provides the greatest good for the greatest number. On the other side Immanuel Kant believed that the only thing truly good was something ―good in itself – and was prior to experience – a priori. Both
made points and had significant arguments why their system of ethics was preferable. In the end, however, neither point of view is totally satisfactory. But certainly both have their benefits. If you believe that wealth for the greatest number of people makes sense, you have a utilitarian outlook. Wealth is neither good nor bad ―in itself , but in the real world it seems to make a great deal of sense.
An interesting side note to Mill‘s version of Utilitarianism is that he did not agree that all pleasures can be quantified. That is, he also believed that there are qualitative ways to experience what makes people happy and only those who have experienced pleasure of the intellectual as well as the physical kind are able to judge their relative quality.
From this Mill argues that intellectual pleasure may be just as important as physical pleasures to achieving happiness. Nevertheless, because of the difficulty in finding what really makes us happy physically and intellectually, we often find ourselves avoiding pain as much as actually seeking happiness.
What motivates people to do the right thing? Mill believed that in addition to fear of punishment, we are also motivated by such things as self-esteem, guilt, and conscience. Certainly, guilt appears to be an active motivating force for many people in America today. ―White guilt helped to get a black man elected in an overwhelmingly white country. Guilt also seems to be working for Marxists in America who cannot motivate the white middle class by appealing to the evidence. Instead, guilt relating to race, gender and wealth has been an effective strategy to gain power. Although it is certainly true that Locke and other liberal thinkers of his age were influenced by Utilitarian thought, it can also be said that there is another branch of Utilitarianism that breaks off to influence Marx as well – at least as a rhetorical device if not an actual belief.
Since it seems that there is no one ethical system that is perfect, which one might be considered the most perfect system of morals? Perhaps the book of Ecclesiastes – ―To every thing there a season, a time to live, a time to die, a time to plant, a time to reap – is a good place to start. From a purely universal point of view, almost all religions have in one form or another what we know as the Lord‘s Prayer – ―forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and the Golden Rule: ―Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . America‘s system of governance has more in common with these very basic moral codes than either of the two versions of tyranny – fascism or socialism.
Impact of these Ideologies on America
America‘s founding principles have been ignored at the Universities and presented in a biased way by the media. The message to Americans from those ―trusted sources is often that America is war mongering, imperialistic, and oppresses the poor. This is exactly the message that Saul Alinsky and his followers promote. When examined these claims are false. America fought the Civil War in part to liberate slaves and to make good on the Declaration of Independence‘s self evident truth that ―all men are created equal . America has fought wars not as occupiers, but as liberators. America rebuilt imperial Japan and Nazi Germany and now they are two of the most prosperous countries in the world. Kuwait and Iraq have been liberated from Saddam. America has produced the most wealth for more people than any country on the planet. These facts do not seem to get in the way of America‘s enemies both within and without repeating over and over again the big lie.
With Obama‘s victory, Alinsky and his mob tactics have been successful in achieving at least part of his Marxist vision: the beginning of the end of the American middle class. Reading articles on Hillary Clinton‘s connection to Alinsky, you would think that Alinsky is not really a radical Marxist but rather almost a saintly character. In her College thesis, Hillary actually compared Alinsky to Martin Luther King. Georgetown University historian Michael Kazin, called Alinsky “a tactician more than he was an ideologist.” That may be true but that does not mean there was not a very strong Marxist dogma driving his tactics.
As Alinsky tells us in Rules for Radicals – he despises the middle class and everything it stands for. When you combine Karl Marx with Al Capone you have Saul Alinsky. Jed Babbin (in Human Events Magazine March 2007) notes that Alinsky, did post graduate research in the streets of Chicago: ―He attached himself to the Capone gang, attaining a perspective from which he viewed the gang as a huge quasi-public utility serving the people of Chicago. By calling it research, the left has made Alinsky‘sgang relationship more politically palatable. This Alinsky connection to ―organized crime suggests that Alinsky‘s community organizers are indirectly students of one the most notorious gangsters in American History – Al Capone. This explains a great deal about why these Community Organizations like Acorn use intimidation to achieve their ends. After all – the ends justify the means to the true committed Marxist and the mobster! If Obama is a follower of Saul Alinsky, what does that suggest about the tactics that we can expect from him?
And it is amazing that many pieces of the puzzle of Barak Hussein Obama‘s ascendancy to power were there to warn us. Unfortunately a fawning media and uninformed electorate, feeling white guilt over slavery and the oppression of Blacks in America, have been manipulated beautifully by a Democrat Party and enemies both within and without America, literally willing to do anything to gain power. Although the Democrat Party since FDR has shown socialist tendencies, there were always forces that managed to keep the genie of Marxism in the bottle. Between FDR and Obama the Democrat Party leaned left but could not really be labelled as socialist.
Nevertheless, the Democrat party has had a consistent history of socialist leaning policies. LBJ‘s Great Society had moderate success in moving America to the left, but corruption and the Viet Nam war forced LBJ from returning for a second term. In the final analysis The Great Society did much more harm than good. There is no doubt that the Great Society had supporters who thought that they were doing the right thing, but it has been proven to be a major waste of money with very little benefit for the ones it intended to help, due in large part to excessively large social programs and imprudent and inefficient spending. The outcome of 40 years of Great Society programs designed to help Blacks and other minorities has left them more dependent and poor than when the programs started. And one of the nasty unintended consequences of the welfare spending is the toll it took on the Black family: over 70% of Black births now are out of wedlock. And the Black poverty rate is the highest of any ethnic group in America. In 2007, Poverty as defined by the US Census, in Black single families was 44% versus 5.8% of all married families!
This means that almost half of all Black children start out with a tremendous disadvantage, and it can be argued that the policies that were designed to help them have made their lives worse. The cure was worse than the disease! The real cure ultimately will be the social cure that motivates Black men to stay home and participate in the raising of their Children so that they escape the bondage of poverty – not by a handout – but by stepping up by being responsible husbands and fathers – not deadbeats! A system that freely throws money at an issue and indirectly encourages bad behavior is the problem – not the solution! This tactic sounds a lot like what goes on in the education establishment – just keep throwing money at it as the system degenerates and student test scores keep declining. Will we ever understand that simply throwing money at social problems is not the answer? As exemplified by poverty programs and government based education – blindly throwing money at these programs do more harm than good!
Affirmative Action and racial preference has given a percentage of Blacks like Barak Obama an advantage to get ahead. Even with Affirmative Action the vast majority of Blacks continue a downward spiral caused in large part by policies that were designed to help them. So the net is that they are less able to compete in a competitive society. By this criterion, the Great Society fundamentally has to be judged as a dismal failure.
But that does not stop the tyrants hiding behind noble objectives in and out of the Democrat Party from raising their ugly head again. After the Viet Nam war, the Georgia Peanut Farmer did his best to thwart the forces of liberty, but he was swatted down by the great Reagan. But here we are again. America sits at the crossroads where we can either continue to move down the path of the failed socialist tyrannies, or to come back to the original founding ideals of Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Reagan.
When discussing the massive failure of the Carter Administration it is difficult to maintain any sort of objectivity, because his policies are so antithetical to a true conservative. When Arafat, Carter and Gore (and now Obama himself – rewarded not by any other accomplishment other than winning the presidential election and providing hope for those progressives in Europe.) share Nobel prizes, it says more about the Marxist ideologues on the selection committee than whether any of these people deserve this award. A Nobel peace prize used to be an honor and now it has become a badge of shame. A few facts of his administration: Unemployment during the Carter administration was as high as 11%; Interest Rates were as high as 21%. The American people endured the double whammy of ―Stagflation – high unemployment and high interest rates at the same time. More than sixty American hostages were held by Iran for 444 days – and were released right before Carter left office and Sheriff Reagan came to town. The birth of the new Islamist movement occurred in Iran during Carter‘s administration as Carter unwittingly helped to remove the Shah and the vacuum was filled by the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. Islamo-Fascism in the modern era was born during the Carter Administration.
Clinton is another man of the left who, despite his impeachment and being caught lying under oath, today still has near rock star status in the Democrat Party. Although there is significant evidence that Clinton‘s foreign policy as well a seeming never ending string of scandals kept him preoccupied and not focused on protecting the country. This at least partly contributed to the lack of readiness prior to 9-11. Bill and Hillary (an actual student of Saul Alinsky), were political pragmatists and after her ―it takes a village universal Healthcare proposal was stopped in its tracks, Bill and the
Republican led congress were actually able give America to a relatively prosperous eight years. The problem was that during the Lewinsky scandal and subsequent Impeachment trial, Clinton and his team, according to former advisor Dick Morris, took their eyes off the ball when it came to national defense. The ―wall their administration created to separate the intelligence agencies prevented them from sharing information. This is a key reason we lacked the Intelligence needed to prevent the attack on 9-11.
Mark Simone stated while he was sitting in on the Mark Levin radio show: with the new administration in power it appears that the last three democrat presidential administrations have one thing in common – they are all at war with the agency that is directly charged with keeping America safe – the CIA. Nancy Pelosi‘s accusation that the CIA lied to her about EIT (enhanced interrogation techniques) without putting forth evidence support her claim is only the latest in a string of anti-CIA activities by those patriotic Democrats. Carter virtually dismantled much of the CIA by no longer allowing informants to speak to the CIA. This is patently absurd since the whole premise of getting ―bad guys to give up information of their planned nefarious deeds is a great deal of what the CIA does. So the Carter Administration made the CIA the enemy and said that we need ―choir boys and only technological intelligence to keep us safe. The cold reality is that it takes ―bad guy informants to find the ―bad guys no matter how good America‘s technology is.
And maybe the most harmful policy of all was when Clinton‘s cronies put a ―wall between the CIA and other law enforcement agencies. That is the one policy that can be argued is most directly responsible for not preventing 9-11, and is highlighted in the 9-11 commission report. From the Washington Post April 2004: ―The disclosure that
Jamie Gorelick, a member of the September 11 commission, was personally responsible for instituting a key obstacle to cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks raises disturbing questions about the integrity of the commission itself. Ms. Gorelick should not be cross-examining witnesses; instead, she should be required to testify about her own behavior under oath. Specifically, commission members need to ask her about a 1995 directive she wrote that made it more difficult for the FBI to locate two of the September 11 hijackers who had already entered the country by the summer of 2001.
For those of us to have been fortunate enough to have had teachers or professors who revere the founding documents of this great country and have taken the time to try to understand their meaning, it is and has been very difficult having a reasonable discussion with many of our fellow citizens who do not agree with these principles. The biggest problem is that due to the massively flawed government education system, there is a vast number of otherwise well educated people who have been brainwashed to blame America first for all of the ills in the world rather than to be proud of the greatness of this country. America has much to be proud of; we have done many great things. But if you talk to these brainwashed drones, you would think that America‘s success has only been accomplished at the expense of other countries.
This notion is absurd, but as Lenin says, you repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth. The truth is that America has one of the highest, if not the highest standard of living for a greater percentage of its citizen than any country its relative size in the world. This was accomplished by the genius of the founding fathers and a Representative Republic, combined with rule of law and the notion of protecting private property, driving a free enterprise system that helped to produce scientific breakthroughs and innovative and desired products. It has given us the largest economy on the planet. Despite propaganda to the contrary – even the poor have access to the best healthcare system on the planet! No one who needs healthcare is turned away from any U.S. emergency room. It is no wonder that the rest of the world votes everyday with their feet in trying to get here both legally and illegally.
But let us not be confused with facts when we have brilliant professors and talking heads on TV telling us everyday how bad we are. We are committing cultural suicide to allow seditious and treasonous behaviour to continue while these traitors are hiding behind the first amendment and their guaranteed government jobs and tenured professorships. One wonders if their tune would be the same if they actually had to work in the free market?
America‘s capitalist system has winners and losers, and we have a past of oppression and racism. In response, we abolished slavery and written it into the Constitution with the XIII amendment. In socialist or fascist systems lead by a single point of authority, there is no mechanism for change unless the tyrant in charge sanctions it.
Neither system can be called more moral and ethical than a system based upon the rule of law and the necessity of telling the truth. In America‘s judicial system, perjury or lying in a legal setting is a punishable offense. As long as the rule of law is functioning properly, America‘s judicial system is the more ethical and moral system. But no system can be moral or ethical if there are no standards of right and wrong, or those rules can be modified easily by those in power.
Any system begins to break down when politicians and other elite groups get a pass and are not held accountable for their misdeeds. The key here is that the judiciary has to be independent and not be in lock step with the other branches of government. If you live in a system where the rule is flip flopping and holding opposite viewpoints simultaneously – where is the truth found? When there is government sanctioned duplicity and the judiciary is not independent of the two other branches of the government, the truth takes a back seat to an ideological agenda. What is frightening today is the real possibility that we are entering the world of a single party rule. With all instruments of government in the hands of one party, where are the checks and balances?
Marxists say we exploit the worker and therefore they justify their lies for the greater goal to achieve their worker‘s paradise. Fascists whether they are thugs in a Banana Republic, or Militant Islamists, justify their lies to protect their dogma from theperceived evils of America‘s decadence, fail a basic test of ethical behaviour. They are in a consistent mode of lying and justifying their duplicity.
So it is ironic indeed, that both the Secular Marxist and the Fascist hiding behind dogmatic principles both attack America based on issues of morality, both of these ideologies are by nature corrupt and built on deceit. And somewhere in the mix is this jealousy of America‘s wealth and success. They do not really understand it. How could hard work and creativity and the selfish profit motive be a good thing when other people are poor? Every true believer to Allah or to the Social Utopia knows that personal self interest is a bad thing. Wealth achieved in this way must either be decadent and an offense to Allah or accomplished at the expense of the poor worker by the greedy, imperialistic, war mongering middle class — to paraphrase Saul Alinsky.
Is Atlas Starting to Shrug?
Some of us may think we are starting to live in a world that is not very different from the vision Ayn Rand created in her book Atlas Shrugged. We are definitely living in a time where the producers are being squeezed by the ever expanding central government. Is it really true that America‘s government is now firing CEOs and running two of the three largest Auto Manufacturers in the Industry? Is it true that America‘s government has effectively bailed out and control some of the largest banks in America? Is it true that America‘s government is going to take over production of energy production with the cap and trade bill? Is it true that America‘s government has just taken over about one sixth of the economy by nationalizing healthcare? At what point does Atlas shrug, and it all falls apart? Who is John Galt? Is he a man about to throw up his hands and take his fellow producers with him? Is he a man who believes in individual excellence and not Government excess? It is highly unlikely you will find him in Barak Obama‘s administration. John Galt in Atlas Shrugged eventually went on Strike (original title) – and in doing so let the non producers fend for themselves. Are we headed for a similar fate?
Although the real nightmare of a 1984 type government may not have come to fruition in America yet, we have already begun the nightmare of Atlas Shrugged. In Atlas Shrugged, the leading industrialists and businessmen refuse to allow the government to exploit their labor for the “general good.” As an aside, this sounds a lot like the Marxist who attempts to coerce the producers by using the same Utilitarian rationale – do it for the ―general good . The end result is anything but the ―general good . Like non producing tyrants and elites everywhere, the only real beneficiaries in a socialist system are the elites and the non producers. In American society, the vast majority of us who play by the rules are decimated by the spread the wealth philosophy and opportunities once thought of as a birthright are stolen.
In Atlas Shrugged, the heroine, Dagny Taggart finds society imploding around her as the government increasingly asserts control over all industry, while society’s most productive citizens, led by the mysterious, John Galt progressively disappear. Galt describes the strike as “stopping the motor of the world” by withdrawing the “minds” that drive society’s growth and productivity. This is designed to demonstrate that the economy and society would collapse without the profit motive and the efforts of the productive. When Atlas shrugs, what happens to the formerly advanced world? One need not look any further than a few central and South American banana republics to find out. Is that what is in store for America after Atlas shrugs?
There are enemies at home and abroad that question the morality of America‘s success as a tactic to destroy us – to divide us by guilt built on lies. In reality, we have nothing to feel guilty about but sociopathic tyrants do. As psychologists tell us, psychopaths do not have a conscience and a key trait that all seem to have in common is their ability for deceit and lies and do so in a charming way!
America‘s wealth is derived from the work and creativity of individuals, not government mandate. No matter how the wealth is created, it in and of itself is neither good nor bad. Wealth, however, gives citizens of that country options, and prosperity gives more opportunities for good. There is very little nobility in starving and suffering except among certain religious orders or monks. For the rest of us a good steak is preferable to eating gruel. There is no reason to feel guilty for success if it is fairly earned through hard work and creative endeavors. It is a false morality that tells you that suffering is preferable to happiness.
There are some seemingly noble idealists who say that based on America‘s economic blessings we should share in America‘s success – we should do more. Again, based on simple statistics, America gives more back in charity than any other major industrialized country. In overall Charitable giving, according to Sources at World Bank WDI in 2005, the U.S. was by far the largest charitable giver of all nations on the planet. Charitable giving as a proportion (%) of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Industrialized Countries (where it makes sense to compare), the amount individuals give to charity varying from 0.14% of GDP in France to 1.7% in the US, followed by the UK at 0.73%. The U.S. figure is more than twice as much as the closest industrialized charitable giver the U.K
To put this in perspective, not just in percentage of GDP but absolute terms, the U.S. gives almost 2% of its GDP to charity – which is a huge $238 Billion – about 66 times the giving in France and 15 times the giving in England! France gives a paltry .14% of their GDP to charity, and England is second of industrialized nations with .73% of the GDP given to charity. It may not be that the people are really that much less generous in Europe. The exceedingly high tax rate may put a damper on some of their charitable inclinations.
Now that Obama is in the process of removing charitable deductions from the tax code, America is on its way to emulating the not so generous folks in Europe. This is consistent with the socialist approach. Make the people dependent on the government. There is no clearer example of this as when the government so burdens the tax payer that he can no longer be as charitable as he once was. But this is exactly what the elites want – the people must get their charity from the Government – not from the goodness of individuals and the private sector.
But to some America still does not give enough. In fact, it seems that there are those who would rather kill the fisherman and divide up the remaining fish rather than learn how to fish for themselves. And there are others who simply want to destroy the decadent fisherman whether they eat the fish or not. The forces of socialism fall into the first group. The forces of fascism fall into the second.
In reality, there are pure ideologues who flat out despise America and what it stands for: freedom, capitalism, and the middle class. Certainly the Marxist despises the success of the middle class. How can they go about their class warfare when almost 90% of the population is living a middle class lifestyle or better? But instead of praising the wonders of how America has prospered and created this miracle of wealth for a large and vibrant middle class, Marxists do their best to attack that success. Where is the criticism from that so-called objective free press when Marxists are left unchallenged on their propaganda about poverty, race and gender inequality in America?
Of course, it is tragic that poverty exists, but this debate has gone way beyond talking about the glass being half empty. The fact, as measured by the percentage of Americans in the Middle Class – is not just half full, it is almost 90% full. So the poverty and childhood poverty is a constant drum beat, but there are no accurate explanations of the causes given by the Marxist controlled Media and University System. Factoring the poverty numbers that are dramatically increased because of the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants added to the system, and the social problems caused by Black and other single mothers raising children alone, we are left with the politically incorrect and politically inconvenient fact that there is very little poverty in America.
But the Marxist agenda does not include a fair accounting of the causes of the poverty that does exist. Instead, Marxists condemn the entire system that produces the largest wealth in the world instead of addressing the two social issues that are directly related to poverty that exists in America – Illegal Immigration and Black males abandoning their families. And of course the reason one does not hear an accurate accounting of these social issues is that as soon as the rational person begins this discussion he is labelled a racist. It has been a very effective deterrent to rational discussion by the Marxists. If America is to survive, we must be able to address these problems rationally. How many black men need to be elected President of the United States before we can drop the race card every time there is a serious social issue that involves an ethnic or racial group that is not white?
The Marxist wants to divide up the pie and spread the wealth and if successful under Obama, that pie will undoubtedly shrink and there ultimately will be a lower standard of living for the largest group that drives this economy – the middle class. It is a sad truth that anyone in the middle class who voted for Obama has committed cultural and economic suicide.
Where are those objective journalists reminding us of the facts about America‘s success? Where are the teachers and professors stating facts to reinforce the greatness of America in their classroom rather than spewing the never ending propaganda that all the evil in the world has been created by the imperialistic white man from America? Instead they take social issues that indeed exist but exaggerate and mislead to promote their agenda. Alinsky and the other Radical Marxists have targeted America‘s middle class and with Obama‘s election they are about to oversee the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world! And guess where that money is coming from and who is going to get it?
Facts and fairness do not matter to the Marxist. Justice to the Marxist and to the likes of Saul Alinsky is punishment for the Capitalist and especially the middle class. For those in the middle class who work hard and play by the rules the reward used to be a good to great standard of living for almost all and for a few fabulous riches. Today, producers are punished and those who do not are rewarded. But the drum beat continues for the white male: feel guilty about your wealth, feel guilty about your race, and feel guilty about your gender. And yes, hand over your hard earned money for the
―public good . And be happy that you have the good sense to assuage your guilt by voting for an articulate black man for president!
By the recent Presidential election, America has been shown to be one of the least racist nations on the planet. How else could you explain a predominantly white country electing a black man to the highest office in the land? But do not worry. These facts will be ignored as the relentless Marxist continues to berate the greatest country on earth until they remake it into their utopian vision.
But the facts of the greatness of this country did not stop Alinsky‘s followers from their radical anti-American agenda. And it certainly does not stop George Soros and the other Anti-American enemies within trying to bring this country down. Although Alinsky despised the middle class as any respectable Marxist elitist would – he knew that the key to a successful ―revolution in the US lay with converting enough of ―those war mongering , ―materialistic , ―imperialist middle class members to their side.
Alinsky says: “Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead (written in 1972) center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is.” But he says this not because he respects the middle class – on the contrary, he says: “Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.” Alinsky goes on to say: “begin to dissect and examine that way of life [the middle class lifestyle] … He will know that ‘square’ is no longer to be dismissed as such — instead his own approach must be ‘square’ enough to get the action started.”
The attack on the middle class over the last few decades since Alinsky‘s death is breathtaking. How could those of us in the middle class, who have been the prime beneficiaries of this greatest country on earth, let the radicals who despise us take almost complete control of the Education establishment and the main vehicles of disseminating news? Before we discuss actions that can be taken to neutralize the Government-Media-Education Complex, let us discuss America‘s first line of defense – protecting the 1st Amendment.
Protecting and Preserving the 1st Amendment
Amendment I — Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said, while the dark eyes looked deep into Winston’s own. Down at street level another poster, torn at one corner, flapped fitfully in the wind, alternately covering and uncovering the single word INGSOC. In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the Police Patrol, snooping into people’s windows. The patrols did not matter, however. Only the Thought Police mattered.—George Orwell, 1984
“You know, most people, when they read ‘1984,’ were scared. When Barack Obama read it, he started taking notes.” — Rush Limbaugh
1984 knockin‘ on your door, will you let it come, will you let it run your life; Someone will be waiting for you at your door when you get home tonight; Ah yes he is gonna tell you darkness gives you much more than you get from the light; it‘s time you started thinking inside your head that you should stand up and fight; oh just where will you be when your freedom is dead; won‘t you listen tonight; Classic plastic cooppers well they’re your special friends; they see you every night; Well he calls himself your brother but you know it is no game –You‘re never out of his sight … lyrics to 1984 by Randy California of Spirit
Orwell was a very prescient fellow. He saw what the future would look like and it was not a pretty sight. Now the year 1984 has come and gone. He may not have quite got the date right for countries in most of Europe and the U.S., but in many parts of the world much of his dystopian nightmare exists: North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Communist China and the dysfunctional former Russian empire. Despite the euphoria of those friends of Obama who now think that big Government is the answer, a few of us are a little more than concerned that we in the West are moving closer to that Orwellian nightmare of centralized government where personal freedoms are not allowed and newspeak, doublethink and the thought police becomes the order of day.
In the pre-Internet age it was a fairly easy process to suppress free speech by closing down the newspapers or controlling the few broadcast news stations that existed. And America‘s founders like Ben Franklin knew ―Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Today the process is a bit more involved but the result is not much different. As Iran showed us recently, it is counter productive to crack down on protesters the way they did during their recent farcical election. The government can only do so much to keep new cellular and internet technologies from exposing their tyrannical crackdown. But the sheer volume of information on the Internet makes sorting out the fact from the fiction and the good from the bad a herculean task. So in many ways too much information is almost as good as not enough to the tyrant. Ironically, although many libertarians sing the praise of the Internet and free speech, the masters of propaganda embrace the noise, and use it to their advantage. The masses have neither the skill nor the time to sort through the clutter to find meaningful information. So that is where the government comes in. As Lenin reminds us ―A lie told often enough becomes the truth. All the government has to do is keep repeating the lies over and over again.
Conservative talk radio is actually the last line of defense before the Marxist ideologues have complete control of free speech in America. Arbitron statistics tell us that 90% of everyone over 12 years of age listens to the radio. That is higher percentage than newspapers, magazines, television and the Internet. So with that kind of reach, it is safe to say that in raw terms, more people of all ages potentially get their news from the radio than any other source. Of course, the one format that specifically targets news junkies is the News/Talk format. Over 90% of the News/talk radio listeners tune in to ―conservative shows versus only about 10% who listen to ―progressive stations. AmericanProgress.org estimates ten times more listeners tune in to conservative talk as ―progressive talk radio. So the estimate of conservative listeners is about 90% of 50 million listeners per week or about 45 million listeners (Arbitron, ―Radio Today: How America Listens to Radio, 2007 edition, ). This scares the hell out of the Marxists hiding behind benign organizations like American Progress. Orwell himself could not have come up with a better name. Who else could have thought up a name like American Progress whose goal is to revert back to an oppressive and equally Orwellian 1949 law called the Fairness Doctrine?
So why does this disparity exist? In the American Progress report, they state ―The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 gave station owners and hosts free reign to fill their programming with ideologically conservative content. To the Marxists, this must mean that there is something wrong with the fact that the Orwellian fairness doctrine was repealed. The fact that the market place tells radio owners and programmers which programs are popular means little to Marxists. The Marxists asks themselves, ―How can this be? There must be a systemic imbalance that must be corrected. The American Progress report admits that the Fairness Doctrine will not resolve the situation and most probably understand that the market conditions are so different from 1949 when the Fairness Doctrine was instituted that they have little chance of using this argument to accomplish their objective to limit or marginalize conservative talk radio.
But they have other ways to reach their goal of silencing conservative talk. They cannot understand how market forces can be the reason for this disparity. As any conservative could tell them, the reason they listen to conservative talk is simply due to the fact that the rest of the media is firmly left wing and they are bombarded with it daily in virtually all of the television news and major newspapers. Other than conservative talk radio, only one cable news channel Fox News is remotely conservative. So it is plain to conservatives that talk radio is the only place to hear the ―news and views you won‘t hear anywhere else as one local conservative talk station advertises. That is the only reason. But the ideologues at American Progress ignore this fact. Instead, they have some tortured logic that states that ―When 91 percent of the talk radio programming broadcast each weekday is solely conservative—despite a diversity of opinions among radio audiences and the proven success of progressive shows—the market solution has clearly failed to meet audience demand. So what they are telling us that the free market is wrong and it is up to government to tell us what is right. Do you see a pattern here? When elites acting in the supposed best interest of the people, tell the people that your vote – your choice is wrong – that we the government elites know best, how is that anything other than Marxist theory applied to broadcasting? How is that anything other than tyranny of the elites over the free expression of the people? Let us be clear, there are hundreds of stations and other media forms that a person can choose, yet to the Marxist, there must be something wrong with the system if their ideas only get a 10% share in the free market!
So in true Orwellian fashion, American Progress‘ answer is to promote more free speech by shutting down those syndicated shows that conservatives listen to by forcing conservative outlets to broadcast minority programming. In true Marxist fashion, the battle is always about poor versus the rich. In this case, this means drumming up statistics to show how minority ownership (you get twofer here – play the race card as well as the economic guilt card) is low and therefore needs to be addressed. Surely this is merely a ploy to bust up successful conservative syndicated shows from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Of course, they do not seem nearly as concerned about breaking up the monopoly situations that favor their ideology in the Alphabet news channels, CNN, and newspapers. Conservatives might be willing to consider their solution to more minority ownership in talk radio the moment they do likewise in the rest of the Marxist controlled media. That will never happen.
But now that Marxists control the executive and legislative branches and are getting close to complete dominance of the judiciary, it is quite likely that a government backed program like the one spelled out in the American Progress report will soon be a reality unless we can stop it. Here is what the Orwellian future looks like if this program is enacted based on American Progress‘ recommendations that the FCC should take to ensure local needs are being met:
· Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.
- Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.
- Demand that the radio broadcast licensee announce when its license is about to expire and demonstrate how the public can participate in the process to determine whether the license should be extended.
- FCC should be required to maintain a website to conduct on-line discussions and facilitate interaction with the public about licensee conduct.
So this is how the Marxists limit free speech. Cloak it in protecting minorities. Limit the term of licenses. Then bring in the gangsters to intimidate the broadcaster the way they did to the banks and the auto Industry. Of course, this is done in the light of day with public participation and even on-line discussions! This is the mother of all doublethink in our time. If instituted–either as a direct assault through Congress–orby the Federal Government using witch hunt style show trials in order to intimidate broadcasters – the result will be to stifle free speech – especially that speech that is critical of the government. We are approaching the point where we have a single party rule that controls all media outlets. We should be very concerned. This doctrine will not only, not be ―fair , it will also insure that the first amendment has been officially destroyed. Dissent by those on the conservative side of the political spectrum will be officially silenced.
It is not that difficult to envision Nino Rota‘s famous theme to The Godfather playing in the background as Rahm the ―enforcer Emanuel is telling radio station owners that he is going to make them an ―offer they can‘t refuse . Then he goes into a profanity laced tirade and tells them to play ball or he‘ll shut them all down. The Alinsky-Capone-Chicago gangsters will do what they did to other industries they helped to destroy, they will ―reluctantly take procession of their stations if they don‘t play ball. Conservative talk radio will be muted. Will that be the end of talk radio?
The age of the Alinsky gangster is not that new. In most of the thuggish totalitarian regimes in the world, it is the norm and not the exception. It is not new to America either. It is just the scale and the speed at which the government is successfully stifling meaningful debate and opposition that is new. Stalin tore Lenin‘s statues down, changed the name of the city – but his central mode of controlling people did not change from Lenin‘s famous quote: a lie told often enough becomes the truth. Like the workers in the Former Soviet Union, the vast majority of American drones who believe the lies gushing from Washington are willing participants in a mad power grab by Radical Socialist Activists who use these drones the way our good friend Lenin used the workers in the former Soviet Union to successfully overthrow the Czar. Their moral rationalization is clear: Whether the tyrant was in a thuggish regime like Nazi Germany or the worker‘s utopia of the Former Soviet Union – the ends justified the means. So what if a few rights are swept under the table. Change is all that matters! And the Germans after Weimar Republic and Russians after the Czar got change. Are you ready for that kind of change? Are you ready for Government sticking its punitive head into everything you do? Are you ready for a Government that either resembles the iron boot Tyranny of Nazi Germany or workers utopia gone horribly wrong of the Former Soviet Union? What kind of unique Socialist hell are we in for if the tyrants are successful?
And what is with the idiocy of people who vote for change for change sake? What if the change leads to tyranny? Has government education so numbed critical thinking in this country that a majority of the population would just vote for a ―bumper sticker slogan? No it is more complex than that – but not much more.
Some conservative talk show hosts admit: ―our shows would not exist if the rest of the media did its job . The thirst, the demand for Conservative points of view is directly attributable to the fact that almost all newspapers and media outlets lean left and in some cases far left. And essentially, if Government Schools and the media did its job of educating America‘s citizenry in an unbiased way, this book too would be unnecessary. There is little evidence to the counter argument that these media outlets are fair. They proved in the last election, they are not. Bernie Goldberg – long time journalist for CBS has authored two rather compelling books on the subject – Bias and A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.
Both books do a very good job of exposing and successfully arguing the case for all of us who live it – the vast majority of media outlets are not populated with objective journalists. These talking heads, in some cases out right propagandists and public relations for the Democrat Party carry the water for left leaning causes and especially this history making President. There is a particularly good defense of Goldberg after a recent comment by CBS anchor Bob Schieffer, who said: “He has (Goldberg) found a way to make a living by criticizing CBS news and journalism as a whole”. Chris Norman a blogger to this on-line article responded: ―That is right – what’s Schieffer’s point? CBS and the media have given him a wealth of bias to expose and criticize. Schieffer alone provides a steady supply. The fact that Bernie Goldberg has made money writing books about the real issue of media bias does not take away the legitimacy of the criticism – no matter how sinister Schieffer lamely tries to make it sound. By the way, I find it far more honorable to have made a living out of criticizing liberal bias like Bernie Goldberg has, than to have a made a living out of engaging in media bias as has Schieffer and his ilk.
Perhaps the most blatant example of media bias to ooze from a major network in a long time was the love fest that ABC afforded Obama in his quest to ram his single payer health care plan down the throats of the American people. Not one. Not two. But three hours of interviews and propaganda were provided by ABC from the White House. What makes this particularly unique is that the White House has never quite been used like that before to promote a single agenda item. Historically the White House has been used for historic bill signings or declarations of war – not blatant propaganda. The day started with Good Morning America broadcasting from the south lawn. That evening Charles Gibson gave the next leg of the broadcast from the Blue Room. Finally, Gibson and Diane Sawyer moderated a one-sided discussion about the future of health care with the president in the East Room on a special edition of Primetime.
Emotion not content ruled the event. With the majestic shots of the White House as backdrop, we witnessed a glorious example of media propaganda that would make Leni Riefenstahl proud. Not only was there no real debate about this health care plan affecting life and death decisions for all Americans, but ABC did not even allow the opposing side to purchase commercial time to state their objections to the plan. Is this journalism? This may go down in history as the nadir in broadcast journalism and the parent company of Mickey Mouse may never regain any journalistic credibility after this outrageous show of bias. It was indeed a ―slobering love fest that would have been humorous if there was not so much at stake. Even the very liberal editor from the SF Chronicle Phil Bronstein had a recent blog that sums it up, ―Love or lust, Obama and the fawning press need to get a room”.
We must use and protect the few conservative media outlets open to us. We must preserve and protect the 1st Amendment. We cannot let the far left manipulate the system in an Orwellian fashion with the so-called ―fairness doctrine or any other scheme to intimidate broadcasters to limit the few Conservative talk radio or TV outlets we have. In Great Britain, the ―thought police Jacqui Smith, has banned talk show host American Michael Savage from entering the country – lumping him in with violent Muslim terrorists. Although some in the left and conservative circles alike may find Savage offensive at times, there is no evidence from his over a dozen years on the air that he has ever preached violence. This may be the first of many volleys to come to silence conservatives.
As it stands today, Americans with conservative and traditional points of view have only one place to go to possibly achieve any representation at all. The Republican Party is the last hope against the onslaught of radical Marxism that has taken over the Democrat Party. The Republican Party is by no means ideal, but the time for petty bickering among Conservatives is over. There are too many political eunuchs that claim to be on the side of Liberty, but are not. There are too many people who call themselves conservatives or patriotic but do not defend or hold fundamental principles of liberty. On the contrary, many conservatives are ―sunshine patriots and do not have the fortitude to call the enemy by its proper name.
To these castrated conservatives who are Republican or Conservative in name only, they refuse to say we are fighting Militant Islamists. Instead they tell us we are engaged in a ―War on Terror . This is patently absurd, because as Daniel Pipes has brilliantly noted in Militant Islam Reaches America – terror is a tactic like ―surge or ―blitzkrieg . We are not at war with a ―surge – we are at war with a people who have high jacked a Religion – Miliant Islamists or Islamo-Fascists. The Marxists in power have taken it one step further and have even erased even the word ―War from the conversation. In the politically correct speak of the Marxists in power we are now engaged in an ―Overseas Contingency . Can the language get any more mangled than this? And for those Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) who continue to define the political opposition as Liberals or ―progressives , they must realize that this is not in an ideological war against Liberals. We are in an ideological war against ―Statists if you are trying to elevate the debate and radical Marxists if you are just telling it like it is.
We live in the age of Orwell‘s doublethink. According to Orwell‘s own words: doublespeak is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Let us list some examples of his doublethink from Obama: ―I will abide by campaign finance laws to limit contributions to my campaign. I will not try Bush Administration officials for using Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. I will add three million jobs to the economy. I support the free market system. Here‘s the reality: Obama did notabide by campaign finance limits and took many millions of dollars more in campaign contributions when it became obvious that he could raise much more money than allocated by the exiting campaign limits. Obama has allowed his attorney general to pursue Bush officials for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques that he considers ―torture after he said he would not allow that to happen. From Dec 2008 to April of 2009 the nation has lost over 5 million jobs with no end in sight. In April, the media did its best to cover for Obama, from the National Journal: ―April’s job loss of 540,000 looks pretty good when the monthly drop of payroll employment in the previous four months averaged 700,000. Bailing out banks and auto companies are not free marketpolicies. Proposing a government controlled single payer health care is not a free market policy. Firing CEOs of auto companies is not a free market policy. Virtually every policy Obama where the government gets involved with the economy hurts the free market.
Now under pressure from the far left of his party, Obama is waffling in discussing whether certain Bush administration officials should be held accountable for the ―enhanced interrogation techniques against a select group of three known terrorists – including the mastermind of 9-11. It is now convenient for some in the new administration to label non-lethal and proven effective ―enhanced interrogation techniques as ―torture . So simply change the definition of EIT and call it ―Torture , and now you can have the likes of Barbara Boxer – (D) Senator from California in the SF Chronicle May 10 state: ―This is the rule of law, and if anyone broke that law, it seems to me, those people should be held accountable…let us have a truth commission. Just the sound of ―truth commission coming out of duplicitous members of congress makes me shiver in thoughts of Orwell‘s 1984. Ms. Boxer is big on enforcing the rule of law for political enemies, but her concern about the rule of law when it concerns ―immigrants who come hear illegally – not so much! And of course, the Speaker of the House, the third person in line to the Presidency, has offered some contradictory statements on her briefings on EIT – what she knew and when she new it is in dispute. She has conveniently forgotten that she was briefed on EIT in 2003 and therefore would be in no position to call for an investigation if she did nothing to prevent the EITs. She has essentially called the CIA liars, and now there are several other members of congress and CIA memos that supposedly contradict her testimony. It will be interesting to see how long this soap opera on Capital Hill plays out.
What other ways do the Sophists in charge manipulate the language? How about the use of a term that actually contradicts what it really does? It is hard to believe, but what else do you call: Limiting or silencing dissent unfairly by calling it the ―Fairness Doctrine ; a politician who grows government like a socialist calling himself a ―Compassionate Conservative ; a doctrine that negates the civil rights of one race to show preference to other races is called: ―Affirmative Action .
There are many bright folks who do not see the fanaticism and religious zeal in the secular world. The world that preaches ―free speech but shouts down anyone they do not agree with: That is the kind of free speech that radical students at Berkeley engaged in when they did not like a guest Speaker – Israelis Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2000. So they proceeded to steal newspapers from all of the news stands that announced the time and place of Netanyahu‘s speaking engagement.
But that was just the start, with just a small mob of a couple of hundred or so protesters, a sympathetic or cowardly (take your pick) Berkeley police force allowed them to shut down the ―speech – which also led to the shutting down of subsequent speeches in those bastions of tolerance San Francisco and San Mateo.
This came from the same group that founded the Free Speech Movement. To remind those who were either not born yet or too high on prescribed or non-prescribed medications, the Free Speech Movement was the 1960s series of protests that were unprecedented at the time; students insisted that the university administration lift a ban on on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students’ right to free speech and academic freedom. As reported by the Jeruselum Post on the Netanyahu event:
The protesters, predominantly white, included some Arabs. A number handed out copies of the Worker’s Vanguard, a Marxist biweekly. Are we seeing a pattern here?Is this what David Horowitz meant by an Unholy Alliance? Now that Netanyahu is prime Minister once again in Israel, it will be interesting to see if he will be taking part in any speaking engagements at that Bastian of free speech known as the University of California at Berkeley. For the time being the secular Marxist only steals newspapers and occasionally engages in a small riot here or there. At least they are not burning anyone at the stake yet!
So finally what is a hate crime and how does it relate to the first amendment? In the simplest terms, all crimes should be judged on facts, not on interpreting the ―thoughts of the accused. If a homosexual is murdered, and the jury finds the defendant guilty and he is subsequently executed, what else can we do for the victim? Should we strap the executed criminal in the seat and give him a lethal injection again since this was a ―hate crime ? Again Orwell saw the inevitable nature of ―thought crimes and what would happen when the government enacts laws based on ―thoughts of the accused rather than facts of the case. At some point, you don‘t need an actual crime to take place; you just need the government to prove that the accused is guilty of ―thinking bad thoughts.
While the government is coming up with new laws to stifle the first amendment, they are letting certain religions get away with contradicting the freedom of religion clause in the 1st amendment. Secular religions and shari‘a law, when examined closely, are intolerant of other religions and are ―prohibiting the free exercise of other religions.
We should not be fooled by autocratic religions hiding behind the first amendment. Both secular religions, as well as religions tied to the state are politically and ideologically at odds with the Constitution. We must aggressively move to limit religions that use first amendment rights to destroy America‘s way of life. Both of these ―religions are making direct attacks on the 1st Amendment, and we must acknowledge their destructive effects. We must not misinterpret the 1st Amendment to be a suicide pact. We must protect true freedom of religion. Other religions should not be given preference over any other religion in the name of a secular ideology. And a religion that fails to separate theology from its legal structure should not be considered only a religion if it does not allow for a true separation of church and state. Which is it – a state controlled by religion or a religion controlled by the state?
It is the sacred duty as Americans to protect and preserve the 1st Amendment. We should be cautious, however, and be ever vigilant when the Media fails to do its job. Free speech needs to be free of propagandists. At a bare minimum, modern propagandists need to be ridiculed in the same way that we would ridicule a propagandist from another time.
Chris Mathews reporting on one of Obama‘s speeches said the following: ―I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. Based on the recent love fest with Obama, one might suspect Chris Mathews or one of the others sycophants in the media to have said the following: “I had an almost apocalyptic vision that I was never able to forget. It seemed as if the earth’s surface were spreading out in front of me, like a hemisphere that suddenly splits apart in the middle, spewing out an enormous jet of water, so powerful that it touched the sky and shook the earth. Actually this was a quote from Leni Riefenstahl after hearing Hitler give a speech in 1932. The 1st amendment is a precious gift. We must not let propagandists, intolerant religions, or secular religious ideologies destroy the 1st amendment.
Securing America‘s Borders and Cultural Identity ―Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” — Theodore Roosevelt
“A wise and free people must focus their attention on many objectives. First is safety.” —Federalist Papers #3 
―May in not happen, in fine, that a minority of citizens become a majority of persons by adding alien residents, mercenaries, or people in the State without voting rights? . .
. In the tempestuous scenes of civil violence, [non-citizens] may give a superiority of strength to any party with which they may associate themselves.”–Federalist Papers 43
―But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half-exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States; you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States . – – Dick Cheney
Viva Zapata was a fabulous movie with a very well written screenplay by the author of The Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men –John Steinbeck. As evidenced by his depression era themes, Steinbeck was no real lover of capitalism. He is more sympathetic to the farm worker‘s plight than the business owner. Nevertheless, Steinbeck‘s classic screenplay for Zapata (played by Marlon Brando) contains a monologue that is a testament to self reliance. ―This land is yours. But you must protect it. It will not be yours long if you do not protect it. If necessary, with your lives, and your children with their lives. Do not discount your enemies. They will be back. And if your house is burned, build it again. If your corn is destroyed, replant. If your children die, bear more. If they drive you out of the valley, live on the mountain, but live. You always look for leaders, strong men without faults. There aren’t any. There are only men like yourselves .They change. They desert. They die. There are no leaders but yourselves. A strong people is the only lasting strength. Rather than blindly following corrupt leaders, Steinbeck‘s Zapata warns the common man to depend on himself.
It is politically incorrect to mention that Mexico and most Latin American countries historically have been more corrupt than the U.S., but after all, that is where the term Banana Republic originated. Zapata, as an historical figure, is symbolic of the corruption that began with the birth of Mexico and is still quite endemic today. America has always been a magnet for the poor but today the problem of immigration has been compounded by the politics of special interest groups in America who see illegal immigrants who cross the borders as either cheap labor or a voting block to get and maintain power.
Samuel Huntington in Who Are We? compared the country of origin of the five principal countries in 1960 versus 2000. In 1960 foreign born in America was fairly evenly dispersed between Italy, Germany, Canada, United Kingdom, and Poland – between 750 thousand and 1.25 million. In 2000, Mexico‘s count was almost 8 million, with China, Philippines, India and Cuba about 1 million each. And the numbers of immigrants both legal and illegal make that estimate most likely on the low side. But to compound this, the fertility rate of Hispanics is 3.0 compared to 1.8 for non Hispanic. One does not need to be a population scientist to know that a European middle class English speaking population is being replaced by uneducated poor Mexicans and Hispanics. Although there is no data yet available to assess completely how this group of immigrants will assimilate to America, there are a couple of troubling things we do know.
In 2000, almost 90% of native born Americans graduated from high school compared to fewer than 34% for Mexican born. Mexicans make up approximately 25% of the prison population. So the conclusion is that we have millions of uneducated immigrants who will be putting a strain on the social system – especially prisons and welfare services. The myth that they ―all come here to work is proven false by investigating the facts. But the Democrats who want their votes and the RINO republicans who want cheap labor do not care about these facts. Prior to 2000 when the numbers were relatively small, America managed to cope. But those days are over. For power seeking Democrats, this shift of poor Mexican and Hispanic voters as a percentage of the population will just about guarantee their victory for the foreseeable future. Moderate RINOs will make that small special interest group of their constituency happy who benefits from cheap labor, but ultimately they are just like the hunters in the cannibal‘s pot – they are asking ―what‘s for dinner? and nobody is around to tell them – ―it‘s you! .
Hispanics will grow from twelve to an estimated 25 percent of the US population by 2040. Most of these immigrants will be the poorest of the poor from Mexico, and a large percentage of illegal immigration will be accomplished by organized smugglers. Even President Clinton warned that the organized smuggling of people into the US is ―a threat to national security . But in reality, all illegal immigration is a threat to national security. Logic tells us that it only takes one terrorist – Islamic or otherwise – slipping past the porous border to do us immeasurable harm. As Professor Huntington explains, ―The economic and political forces generating this threat are immense and unrelenting. Nothing comparable has occurred previously in the American experience .
There can be strong empathy for the Mexican and Latin American people with no love lost for their government or those in America who want to take advantage of them. However, nations have laws and borders, and securing those borders is a necessary precondition for calling itself a sovereign state. What nation exists if it has no defined borders? What kind of nation do you have if the people speak different languages and can not communicate effectively? What kind of nation do you have if you have different cultural traditions and do not share a common bond? The simple answer is that without an orderly process of legal immigration and an assimilation process to understand a common language, ancestry and customs – there is no nation – only a multi-cultural mess. The land of the ―melting pot now becomes the land of ―separate pots – Balkanized and at war with itself. That is now what is happening in America. The middle class American must understand the Marxists who run things are salivating to have twenty or more million illegal immigrants granted citizenship. With only a few more million votes, they will be guaranteed a one party rule indefinitely and this will mean the death of the middle class in America.
Again for seemingly a noble cause – to help the poor – many Americans are ambivalent about ―Illegal Immigration . The language of those who support it, conveniently omit the term ―illegal from the dialogue and call those who oppose illegal immigration as ―racists . The famous race card is again used to shut down rational debate. And if you are not on a border state and have not witnessed first hand the criminal and dark side of Illegal Immigration, you might not really think it affects you. Based on statistics, it will and the crime and gang violence is moving to states all over the country. The media, sympathetic to all causes of the left, do not tell you the stories of the violence committed against American citizens and the fact that at least a quarter or more of the prison population in America is Illegal Immigrants! With the recent drug wars, it is estimated that there have been more deaths in Mexican border towns last year than all of the deaths during the entire Afghanistan and Iraq war! Time Magazine April 2009 article states there have been ―more than 7,000 Mexicans murdered since the start of last year — almost 2,000 in Juárez alone.
Of course, those guilty of turning a blind eye to this danger are both found on the left and right. It is apparent that there are businesses that influence those politicians on the left and right to turn a blind eye to enforcing illegal immigration due to their quest to find cheap labor. And it is equally apparent that there are those in the Democrat party keen on allowing Illegal immigrants to become instant citizens because they see this as instant Democrat votes! The importance here is that Laws only have meaning if they are enforced. In those regimes led by thugs rather than the rule of law, a law is anything the thug says it is on any given day!
And we find ourselves moving in that direction, where politicians have the nerve to only apply Laws that give them political currency. It is fascinating that some rules of Law are worth pursing and some are not. Both George Bush and most of the Democrat Party have turned their heads the other way when discussing enforcing the Rule of Law regarding the millions of Illegal Immigrants who have broken laws to come to this country. Instead they cloak the issue around the deceptive term ―Comprehensive Immigration Reform . It is simply Amnesty for law breakers at the most basic level. The average American understands this, but that does not keep politicians from trying to sell them the big lie!
The answer to the Illegal Immigration issue is simple and straightforward: strengthen the meaning of citizenship by eliminating the forces on the left and right who bypass the rule of law and tolerate illegal immigration. Small ―r Republicans like Bush and McCain, who back Comprehensive Immigration plans – or more precisely Amnesty for Illegal immigration – are committing political suicide. Amnesty for illegal immigrants may in fact destroy the Republican Party if passed. Certainly the results of the last two election cycles have shown that Republicans are out of touch with people who want ―change from failed policies of the past. Republicans who ignore the will of the American people suffer from the delusion that if they show how inclusive they are they can get both Hispanic and other ―moderate voter support. This is patently absurd and the results of the last two elections have shown that Republicans who reject core values of border security and opposition to big Government spending have opened the door wide open for the revolution that we are now experiencing. The statistics tell us that Hispanics vote according to economic class in just the same way that white and other ethnic groups vote. Those at near or at poverty level – which would be virtually all illegal immigrants – will vote Democrat.
There are several policies that many conservatives talk about: banning Chain immigration, prosecuting companies for hiring illegal immigration. But just talking about this and wishing will not make it so. Again, this is where Republicans need to learn from the community organizer (without the illegal tactics that is) and energize true believers to make it clear that it is not just a few groups like the Minutemen who care about this issue. We need to make sure that only legal citizens have the right to vote and make it clear that politicians will not be able to change demographics and outcomes of elections by immigration policies designed to act as a voting block to nullify the will of legal citizens. These rules are interdependent and a stepping stone to Marxist policies that could seriously impact the middle class. That is, unconstrained immigration not only buys votes for democrats but gets them closer to their Universal Healthcare goal. And the biggest losers in universal healthcare will be the aging baby boomers and the vast middle class who will see their healthcare rationed in order to take care of others who pay nothing into the system.
With the help of a poor underclass freshly imported from Mexico and Latin America, the only missing ingredient for a complete Marxist takeover is making sure they have voting rights. Once that happens, the Marxists can get the votes necessary to pass Cap and Tax – Destroying the Energy Sector in much the same way the back room Health Care fiasco will destroy the best healthcare system in the world. It will give the Democrats a stranglehold on the Government that Republicans and conservatives will not be able to break. So we must see how Amnesty for Illegal immigration, open borders, and Healthcare are all part of a very simple plan that has been playing out for almost a century – and certainly has gained traction in the last thirty or so years since Alinsky wrote his radical treatise. If this happens, the soft tyranny that Levin talks about moves us much closer to the full blown tyranny that many of us fear. What stops the forces of tyranny if America is reduced to a one party system? If the Health insurance mandate forcing Americans to buy a ―product of service is not found Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, then logically there are no limits to what the Federal Government can mandate. If this happens, this may be the spark that ignites the second revolution.
If we are to use the language in a meaningful way, we must decide once and for all if we are in a war or not. And if we are truly at war we must secure the borders – not just from poor Latin Americans – but perhaps more importantly Islamic terrorists. There are those out there mostly on the left, but some from the right who think that as Dick Cheney suggested, the terrorist attack of 9-11 was a ―one-off – that is, it was an isolated case and we should not be in either Iraq or Afghanistan. But Cheney also notes: ―That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against America at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers from a blast down below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh,; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in ’96; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then, of course, the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss that we suffered on that day.
Militant extremism‘s genie is now officially out of the bottle since they declared war with us after the Shah of Iran was removed and a tyrannical theocracy was put in its place in Iran. With that came the other Islamic threat in the spread of Wahabi inspired terrorism from Al Queida and Bin Laden that has culminated on the attack of 9-11.
We just did not quite take it seriously until 9-11 and the shock of seeing the towers come down woke most of us up. But not all are awake or rational. We also have conspiracy nuts, who blame Bush or Israel for the towers coming down, those who ignore the history of the other attacks on the U.S soil prior to 9-11, and those who see this like the Clinton administration – as a police action – and not an act of war. And the latest idiocy to be added to the list – giving Miranda rights to terrorists captured in Afghanistan!
Language is important. Clinton was wrong to label these occurrences anything but acts of war. Jihadists were treated as common criminals and hence the response was a ―police action – and a half hearted one at that. With 9-11, most of America woke up from sleep of complacency and realized we were at war. For politically correct expediency, we still failed to name the enemy and we continue to do so. How can you defeat an enemy you refuse to even admit exists? Once again: We do not have a war on the tactic of terror. The enemy are fascists who took over an already unreformed medievil religion that has been a ripe breeding ground for militancy. And now, to further mislead America, Obama is calling this an ―overseas contingency operations . Orwell is having a good laugh as he is rolling over in his grave!
It is time to stop blaming America‘s culture and way of life for causing the fascist Militant Islamists to attack us. Samuel Huntington rightly noted in the Clash of Civilizations, where there are Muslims, there are ―bloody borders . Of course, the Militant Islamist apologists like to emphasize Israel as the cause of Muslim outrage. As a side note, it is fascinating to try to comprehend Obama‘s pastor mind numbing anti-Semitic rant claiming that a tiny nation with six million Jews is guilty of ―ethnic cleansing – while they are surrounded by over 100 million hostile Arabs! As Samuel Huntington warned us about Muslim wars, ―Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders.
When do the left wing ideologues and Marxists in America‘s government finally realize that there is nothing we can do in the west to ameliorate the situation other than to convert, pay tribute or die? Of course, the rational alternative is to simply defeat this enemy the same way we defeated Nazi Germany and Japan in World War II and the former USSR during the cold war.
Militant Islamists have been at war with us long before 9-11. Instead of being pro-active and taking the fight to the enemy in the 80s and 90s, we let the enemy develop new and more elaborate strategies to attack us. Unlike America‘s leaders after 9-11 there were those who in their minds, knew exactly who was the enemy, and the head of that snake was in Iran – not Afghanistan or Iraq. Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand institute took out a full page ad in the New York Times immediately after 9-11 on October 2, 2001 and declared the following: “What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad-mongers only by taking out Iran.” Instead of targeting Iran, we choseto go after Osama bin Laden directly with a battle axe rather than with a sabre. Actually it is more like we went after a fly with a cannon rather than a fly swatter when we should have been chopping off the head of the snake in Iran as well as Wahabi breeders of bin Laden in Saudi Arabia. We mistakenly thought if ―liberated Iraq from the thug Saddam Hussein, we would be welcomed with open arms as liberators. We have also mistakenly thought that democracy was something Iraqis and other Arab countries would embrace. We were wrong. Peikoff was right then and recent history has proven him right now.
The only thing missing from his declaration was the equal battle that we need to fight against the Wahabi backed Saudis in Saudi Arabia– not just in Afghanistan. (After all most of the 9-11 highjackers were Saudi) It seems, however, that oil money has been able to buy the Saudi kingdom politicians in the US and the West who have kept them from being the central target. Of course, the real question is how do we wage war in the land of Mecca without angering about a billion Muslims? One answer may be to look at Militant Islam whether originating from Iran or Saudi Arabia the way we looked at the USSR during the cold war. The new cold war enemy of America and the West should be replaced by Militant Islam. It is time we started learning from America‘s success fighting the cold war and realize that we are in for a multi-decade battle if not longer. It seems that the biggest obstacle to this is oil. As long as we are dependent upon foreign oil, we will have leaders telling us we are fighting ―terrorism and ―overseas contingencies rather than fighting those key countries that are prime breeding grounds for this war.
Instead of developing all of the vast oil resources we have in Anwar and off the coast, maximizing America‘s coal, and building Nuclear Plants as fast as we can, we are doing 180 degrees opposite of what we should be doing. The piddling benefit from ―green energy sources will not reduce America‘s foreign dependency from Saudi Arabia and the other enemies of America. But this self destructive policy will serve the interest of the Marxists in power and the Militant Islamists. They are both more than happy to sell us the two big lies that ―green programs and ―cap and trade will help our energy needs and save the planet.
Since we are doing the exact of opposite of what we need to do in order to be self sufficient in energy, the prognosis is that we cannot win this war. As it stands now we are being defeated by Marxists within and Fascists without. The only question is do we have a chance to reverse course in order to keep from becoming The Former United States of America? We are only going to be able to defeat this enemy if we stick to America‘s core values as Reagan did during the cold war. If we do, we can once again defeat the forces of fascism as we cleanse the body politic of the plague of Marxism. But right now it is looking grim.
In responding to 9-11 we made strategic and tactical mistakes, but we put the enemy on the defensive and that was a good thing. Eight years after 9-11 and we have not been attacked. But instead of praising the brave men and women in the CIA and the success of keeping America‘s homeland safe after 9-11, the Obama administration appears to be playing partisan politics with America‘s national security and is cherry picking information to make the case that waterboarding and putting caterpillars in a box with a terrorist is torture and beyond the pale! Waterboarding sounds pretty harsh since it makes the terrorist think that he is drowning. Apparently only three terrorists were waterboarded and there was no permanent damage done except for rumours that the poor terrorist with the caterpillar is still having nightmares about his experience.
Cheney maintains that the value of the information they got from the mastermind of 9-11 and the man who cut off Daniel Pearl‘s head, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed prevented a 9-11 type attack on Los Angeles. Why has the Obama administration failed to release the classified memos that Cheney says is evidence that proves his allegation about the success of this EIT? If Mr. Obama is willing to give the order to put a bullet in the head of three pirates to rescue one sailor, why is he not willing to use waterboarding to save the life of thousands of Americans? Michael Medved has suggested on his nationally syndicated radio talk show that the only reason Obama gave the order is because he thought they asked him for ―a tax not ―attacks !
Not securing America‘s border has a double whammy effect. There is the prospect of a one party rule because of the make up of poor illegal immigrants, and the real possibility that a terrorist could get past a porous border. Americans who understand who we are fighting and what we are protecting see it clearly. We are fighting Islamofascists and we must aggressively take the war to them. We must also protect the integrity of America‘s founding principles and not let one party control all the branches of government.
For the Republicans in name only like George Bush, there was a mistaken notion that if we bent immigration laws by giving Amnesty of the 12 to 20 million Mexican and Latin Americans who have crossed the borders illegally this would somehow turn into a voting block that would help Republicans win elections. Tom Tancredo stated in a 2008 article in Facethestate.com about Obama getting 67% of the Hispanic vote and McCain getting a smaller percentage of Hispanic vote than Bush: ―What changed was the number of Hispanic citizens who went to the polls in 2008, not their party allegiances. If you correct the voting data for income and education levels, Hispanics vote much the same way as other Americans of similar socio-economic status. And make no mistake about it, if 20 million poor Mexicans are allowed to vote they will vote Democrat in future elections.
These poor people coming across the border are not coming here for vacation homes, and they will undoubtedly vote overwhelmingly like the rest of the poor in America – for the Marxist social welfare programs of the Democrats. So the message for Republicans is that your future might be better served by sticking to the principle of fairness and the rule of law which will also serve the best interests of the middle class. Immigration laws were broken and turning a blind eye to either in order to curry votes or assist business cronies get cheap labor is a losing game for the Republicans. Those immigrants who stood in line and got here legally are rightly upset. The ability to break laws sends a message that America is not that different from the Banana Republics they came from – laws are flexible with a little bribe or when it is politically expedient.
But because of the bloodless revolution that has occurred over the last 40 years or so, many of us have been brainwashed to ignore or minimize the negative impact of illegal immigration on America. And even the Republican Party under Bush 2 attempted to curry favor with Hispanics by rewarding illegal immigrants with the so called Comprehensive Immigration Bill. It boggles the mind that that Republican administration was so blinded by forces that want cheap labor, foreign influence and just bad advice to think that rewarding illegal immigrants to the detriment of America‘s legal citizens is a good policy. If Amnesty is enacted someday, it may be the death knell for the Republican Party. The decision would almost certainly guarantee that the Democrat Party will have an insurmountable voting block for decades. The majority of Americans are not that suicidal and realize that there is only so much room in this ―ship of state and that at some point the boat sinks if we do not respect the basic rules of physics. Restrictions are necessary on the numbers that we allow in, or we may end up drowning in our own benevolence.
Populists like Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs tell us that we have been selling off America to the Chinese and other foreign countries for decades. Globalism and unfair trading agreements like NAFTA have destroyed America‘s manufacturing base by off shoring both skilled an unskilled jobs. It serves no purpose to lay the blame completely at the feet of Obama. But the Bush-Clinton-Bush tide of economic treason has now turned into a Tsunami with Obama. The pie in Obama‘s first hundred days shrunk by 6.1%. If we reach a number approaching 10% in one year – that would be over a Trillion dollars! If 2% shrinkage forecast this year is accurate that is still $280 Billion – twice the entire budget deficit of 2001! And why would they care if the middle class and producers in this country‘s standard of living shrinks, as long as they can get their 25 to 50 million new Hispanic votes by amnesty for Illegal immigrants and opening up the borders, they will have more than enough votes to counter yours – if and when you ever wake up and decide to take your country back!
The middle class must back policies that will secure the Borders in order to maintain America‘s Cultural Identity. It is necessary to block Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for the well being of the state and preserving the middle class. It is paramount to prevent America from becoming a One Party government. In the end, Comprehensive Immigration = Amnesty = One Party Rule. And one party rule will signal the end of the middle class in America.
Abolishing the IRS and revising the Tax code ― We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle – Winston Churchill
―I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it is possible. – Milton Friedman
―Inflation is taxation without legislation. – Milton Friedman
―We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork. – MiltonFriedman
―The Fed is like a jockey riding an elephant. Most of the time, the elephant is docile and controlled. But if something happens to make the elephant stampede, all bets are off. – Justice Litle
The income tax has increased the intrusiveness of the federal government beyond anything imaginable by those representatives who crafted the 16th Amendment. One possible way to start the process of correcting this is by repealing the 16th Amendment in order to restore the original taxing power of Congress and replace it with a simpler fair tax and a Fair Tax amendment. This would effectively deny 435 representatives, many of whom are bought and sold for by special interests, any power to enact Income or other similar taxes. For example, this would restrict Congress from levying an annual consumption tax. Congress would retain the right to impose a uniform sales tax only.
This simpler sales tax or ―fair tax would be paid by all residents of this country. As people buy and consume more they pay more in taxes, all of their savings would appreciate without any additional taxation. And of course, this would mean that there would no longer be any need for the dreaded IRS because there would be no annual returns to file. Does the average American from the great and over-taxed middle class comprehend what that actually would mean? To make this new Fair Tax Amendment stronger, it also needs to increase the voting requirement for any tax increases to three-fifths of each House with presidential signature required. This would protect the president‘s veto privilege and to prevent an ―omnibus tax bill where the Congress hides a great deal of their pork projects. The new amendment can give the IRS several years to phase it out while a new revenue system is put in its place.
Until this new Fair Tax amendment is passed we live in the world of bad choices with the present state of the economy. In a country where the people supported by the government have more votes than the private sector is the beginning of the end of the country we grew up in. That is where we are today. The correct answer to unnecessary projects is to spend less, but the opposite is happening. The deficits and out of control spending is not the answer to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, the Marxists in power are not really interest in ―stimulating anything other than their power base. The only game for President Obama and his fellow Marxists is to continue to mislead and lie until even his loyal groupies in the Media and out finally wake up and see that they too are about to go over the cliff! There is a real possibility of economic collapse. There will come a time when some of these representatives may actually read a bill they sign into law and realize that a multi-thousand page tax code with the word ―simplified in it is finally killing the goose that lays the golden eggs!
The ―simplified tax code that is a thousand pages plus document is exactly the kind of law that Madison and Hamilton feared when they penned the Federalist paper #62 ―It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. It is outright theft from the American people by being incomprehensibly long and mercurial in scope that even tax specialists have trouble deciphering it. The new Secretary of the Treasury Department had problem with his tax software program – and he is the man who is supposed to oversee the IRS! Of course, he is either an innocent victim of the incomprehensible tax laws or maybe – as Sean Hannity calls him – his real name should be Turbo Tax Cheat Tim! Either way, we are seeing that even at the highest level of Government, folks are either cheating the system or unable to fathom the law.
And if Obama really wants to overhaul something with a positive effect on the Federal Government, why not start by abolishing the IRS, repeal the XVI amendment, and replace it with a fair or Flat tax amendment? Well any Marxist community organizer can answer that question! Let us have all those taxes. In fact let us tax everything. Repeal of the XVI amendment first and abolishing the IRS under this Marxist regime will not happen. So the divided middle class must unite to end this madness. Republicans and Independents must unite to take back the county and one significant way is to propose and ratify a Fair Tax amendment to the Constitution.
It is difficult to understand how members of the middle class who voted for Obama actually believe his lie that he would not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 per year. At what point do even the cool-aid drinking supporters begin to understand that these out of control spending policies are creating other state and local taxes as well as indirect taxes such as inflation. They will tax everything that is not nailed down. But then again, they might figure out how to tax that too! Then there is the spectre of inflation and other hidden taxes. It will take more dollars to buy the same products, so isn‘t this equivalent to a tax?
The good news is that there are signs that even lefties in the California are getting tired of the tax and spend policies with a recent election to raise taxes being given resounding thumbs down by the voters. If you are a resident of California or one of the other states with a state tax, you are not seeing state and local taxes go down. In California there is over a $20 Billion deficit, so immediately there was an increase in 1% on state sales taxes with undoubtedly more hidden and not so hidden taxes to come. At some point even granola eating Californians will wake up to who their elected officials are and may actually start to vote tax and spend liberals out of office!
And if anyone is keeping his eyes open he notices that local taxes have gone up. He will notice that the price of everything from stamps to parking meters have gone up. He will notice a multitude of taxes and hidden taxes are taking more from their wallet, yet the euphoria of getting rid of that inarticulate white guy and replacing him with a hip young black guy is just too important, too historic a moment to think about out of control spending policies and how these policies are lowering the standard of living for virtually everyone in the middle class. This economic down turn is not felt the same way by the very rich or the very poor. The poor are getting more services, so they are happy. They are happy with getting the fruits of someone else‘s labor. So the rich take and hit and can only buy one yacht this year instead of two. In the end it is the backbone of this country, the great middle class that is taking it in the shorts. This economic down turn does not seem to affect those wealthy Hollywood elites who spent $30,000 a couple for an Obama attended Democrat fund raiser. So not only do the Marxists have the Media and Education monopoly, they have Hollywood stars and moguls for cheerleaders! How long will it take for the middle class to stop supporting those middle class hating lefties‘ Hollywood movies and find other ways to entertain themselves?
Please do not call Obama a Marxist or socialist because that would mean that the government has the control of industrial production. The government does not have complete control of the banking industry, the auto industry, or soon to be energy and health yet. But do we really have to have complete government control of all means of production before we call these Democrats what they actually are – Marxists and Socialists?
The tax reform issue is similar in difficulty to Congressional Term limits and Campaign finance reform. There is a massive entrenched group living very well off this corrupt system. Despite the argument for it, not much has happened that gives anyone hope that we are closer to a flat or fair tax. The Tea Parties have given some new life to the issue, but none of this is going to get traction without a repeal of the XVI amendment and getting rid of the income tax. Like a Congressional Term limits amendment, we have to tie the hands of the corrupt politicians and special interest groups. Once the amendment is repealed, the vacuum will then be filled nicely with either a flat or fair tax.
We are long overdue for a change in the way Americans are taxed. Obama is warning us, ―the greatest crisis since the Great Depression. Or is he warning us of his intentions to take advantage of this recession and use it to create the next ―Great, Great Depression? And who knows, Obama may try to repeal the XXII amendment and keep his Messianic Presidency going for as long as his buddies Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have been in power! The magazine cover – Obama‘s picture superimposed with the famous FDR cigarette holder in a 1930 auto – it is enough to make sane men scream.
Article 1, sec. 7 in the Constitution clearly gives the power of raising revenue to the House of Representatives. In sec. 8 Congress shall have power to ―lay and collect taxes…for the general welfare and common defense. So what do we have today? Asrogue nations start Nuclear Programs and test rockets, the new administration has seen fit to cut Defense spending while spending trillions of dollars on questionable stimulus packages and financial bailouts. Let us get specific. The Obama administration has cut over $1 Billion from the Strategic Defense Initiative in the same time frame that North Korea is firing multiple long and short range missiles and Iran is moving at break neck speed to produce a nuclear weapon.
There is ample evidence that revenues from any reasonably fair or flat tax will more than cover necessary Government Programs and the National Defense, but those on the other side will not let us take away this gravy train without giving us one hell of a fight. As it stands today, they are winning. They have organization and the existing law on their side. We have a majority of Americans and the best interest of the America on our side.
So are we at least getting a great national defense with all that new spending in Washington? Despite all the taxation and spending, the Marxists are not making us more secure from external threats. And their cheerleaders in the press are even prepping us for the next attack. For example, it is difficult to find the logic in Frank Rich‘s New York Times article of May 30, 2009 defending Obama‘s weak defense strategy. So according to Rich, this future attack of course will be Bush and Cheney‘s fault. Cheney‘s argument is that ―half measures leave us ―half exposed . Of course, to be true to the argument, the lack of border security, especially the southern border is probably less than a full measure. Rich, like many angry leftists, prefer to spend their time blaming the Bush Administration rather than the Islamo-fascists for the attacks and why we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only concrete thing that the Federal Government is actually fundamentally required to do is to provide for ―the common defense . Although liberal commentators like Frank Rich are already blaming Cheney and Bush for the next time America is struck by a terrorist by second guessing everything that has been accomplished and attempting to make the case that the efforts should be put elsewhere. Here is a news flash for Mr. Rich, since 9-11 we have not been attacked. Whether or not you or anyone else agree with the way the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan have been conducted, it is clear that the proof is in the results. If there is one real major blunder that occurred prior to 9-11 it was the way the CIA was eviscerated by the press and the democrats when they had power under Clinton and Carter.
Then Rich proceeds to push the white country club theme of the Republican Party because some Republicans actually question if Colin Powell, the military general, supposed moderate, who voted for Obama rather than his friend the war hero John McCain is really a Republican or not. Let us see: Condeliza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and a few others were appointed by Bush. Here are the facts Mr. Rich: Over four years and 24 appointments, Bush named to his Cabinet five women, four African-Americans, three Hispanics and two Asian-Americans. Before Bush, no person of color had been named to any of the four most prestigious Cabinet jobs — at the departments of State, Treasury, Defense and Justice. He named two blacks as secretary of State and a Mexican-American as attorney general. Those facts do not prevent this fine reporter of the New York Times from misleading in the name of left wing propaganda.
Not much spent on common defense and the spending maybe general and there may be ―welfare – but this new administration‘s out of control spending – more for the welfare of the corrupt few rather than for the general welfare. Government is getting bigger while small and large businesses are being taxed into oblivion. So Obama is going to cut defense from a 4 Trillion dollar budget. To put the $1 Billion slashed from SDI in perspective, that is .002 of the budget. If a rogue nation fires a missile and we are attacked, it will be on the present administration‘s head – not Bush‘s.
And the present administration‘s tax policy reminds me a children‘s story. It is about the Goose who laid golden eggs in the kingdom of US. Well this Goose was indeed special. The farmer, Mr. Obama, who owned the special goose, had twenty geese total. But only this special goose laid golden eggs. In fact, this goose not only laid golden eggs, but it laid more eggs than the next four geese combined! But one day the farmer got greedy and decided that he was feeding the Goose who laid the golden eggs to much. Mr Obama thought to himself ―Maybe if I fed the other geese more and this special goose less, I would have other geese that would lay golden eggs. Farmer Obama spread the feed around to the other geese. Of course, since this was a very, very special goose, his plan did not work. In fact, the special goose stopped laying golden eggs altogether and the rest of the geese merely got fat. To make matters worse, they too hardly laid any eggs at all. But the good news is that farmer Obama went out of business had to sell his farm to a very wise man Mr. Reagan. Mr. Reagan began feeding the special Goose again.
Of course, the moral of this story has nothing to do with the present political situation. As a postscript, Farmer Reagan got rid of all this pigs on the farm and spent more money on making the special Goose strong and the special goose rewarded him with more golden eggs than ever! That is how the fairy tale ends. But whether or not we have a fairy tale ending or a nightmare for the American middle class will in large part depend on whether or not a man on a white horse, the next Ronald Reagan can rescue us. It will actually take several men and women to restore this country to its founding principles of less Federal Government and more personal freedom. A very big part of this solution is whether or not we can return fairness to the tax code for the American middle class and slow down the profligate spending by the National government.
The Supremacy of Federalism and States Rights
―That government is best which governs least – Henry David Thoreau
“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only have the law of nature for his rule.” John Locke
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. — XVII Amendment to U.S. Constitution
Before a student of American history can understand how America truly works, he needs to insulate himself from noise of today‘s educational institutions and the mass media, and even former Presidents, with their simplistic notions about the virtues of democracy. The Founders were educated men and knew quite well the history of the failed democracies of Greek city states and early Rome. A pure democracy was never their intent in founding America. Discussions, therefore, about promoting democracy in the world have very little to do with promoting the true core values. For those who take time to scratch below the surface, there is very little recorded success of pure democracy. The founders knew without necessary checks and balances, democracy would devolve into either anarchy or tyranny.
When George W. Bush said that a primary goal in going to Iraq was to free the people of Iraq and give them ―Democracy , what exactly did he mean? In reality, are the Iraqi people ready for the foreign concept of ―Democracy when they have been under a thuggish dictator for decades and have lived for centuries by the rules of a religion with a book of Shari‘a Law that does not separate the church from the state? And when we support free elections with a culture with no history of free elections such as Gaza, should it surprise us that they choose a terrorist group Hamas to run their government? And why have very bright fellows from the ancient Greeks to Thomas Hobbes been fearful of the tyranny of Democracy? Was it true that most of the Greek city states experimenting with pure democracy devolved into anarchy? Why did the founders of this nation choose to establish an Electoral College to determine the election of the President instead of simple popular vote or direct democracy?
As evidenced by the victory of George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential election – many of us learned a great civics lesson. Although Gore had narrowly won the popular vote, he did not win the Electoral College vote, and he was defeated. Why did the founders put together a system that could have this result? Of course the answer to those of us who have spent some time studying this greatest of experiments in representative democracy is that historically, pure democracy fails. Over time it is easily corrupted by sophistry and the use and misuse of language and issues of the day. Special Interests, both foreign and domestic, during specific national elections in a simple direct democracy can focus their efforts on only the large population centers. The Electoral College is a perfect example of a key check in the system that can be seen to be very important in protecting the rights of individual states with their diverse population make up. The Electoral College and the election of 2000 did exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended for it to do.
Although there was much angst among the Gore supporters and understandably so, the overwhelming majority of counties and individual states voted for Bush. George W. Bush carried 2,439 counties to 674 for Sen. Al Gore. Bush carried over 78% of the counties and 30 of 50 states. We did not hear about those statistics from the media. However, we did hear about the travesty of how a president could win the popular vote and not get elected. The Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they instituted the Electoral College. The vast majority of America, as shown on this map, got exactly who they voted for, George Bush.
In a similar fashion, just as the Electoral College in a Presidential election is preferable to a simple majority vote, the original Constitutional clause of Senators elected by state appointment is preferable to simple direct democracy. The XVII amendment was a mistake much in the same way a simple majority vote in the Presidential election would be a mistake. By returning the right of the election of senators directly to simple popular vote, the smaller cities and counties no longer have representation. Large population centers now can control who can become a senator. More importantly the Founders knew that simply making electing senator a popularity contest opened up states to ―carpetbaggers who, with their moneyed interests, could literally waltz into any state that had a weak candidate and literally buy the office. Does Hillary Clinton or Barbara Boxer come to mind? In fairness, does John McCain fit this profile as well? This leads to the tyranny of the moneyed special interests.
A State‘s right as prescribed in the X amendment says the following: The Powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution nor prohibited by the States, are reserved for the States respectively or the people. Many issues now in the purview of the FederalGovernment need to return to State or local decision making. For example, although healthcare needs reform – it does not need an overhaul by the Federal Government. When you peel back the onion of the 50 million or so Americans not covered by health insurance, there may be less than 10 million that are actually truly needy. That is,
when you factor illegal immigrants and the young working class making a middle class wage who chooses a BMW over healthcare, this is far less a problem than it is being portrayed by the media.
There is nothing in the constitution that says life, liberty and ―free healthcare ! The point is that if the Federal Government can control Healthcare they control almost 20% of the GDP. When the Federal gets involved it is almost always about power and nothing to do with real reform. If the Federal Government would simply get out of the way, the wealth of America‘s competitive free enterprise system would allow us to continue and improve the greatest healthcare system for America‘s citizens. Of course we must address healthcare for the truly needy, and certainly costs must be contained, but there is no doubt that the media and America‘s politicians have misrepresented the problem. Of course, the dirty little secret that every hospital emergency room in Border States can tell you are that a vast majority of the costs are going to treated illegal aliens.
The battle over healthcare appears to be lost. Is it possible to repeal this misguided bill before it does irreparable harm to the country? In 2007 the CBO estimated that 17% of America‘s GDP was spent on healthcare and expected to grow to 25% by 2025. With control of banking, the auto industry, education and healthcare, Marxist now have a majority control of the economy. America is no longer be a Marxist leaning government; we are well on the way to becoming a true Marxist state!
Let us analyze the following statement on Healthcare reform from Senator Judd Greg (R-NH) –―Reform starts with paying for quality, not quantity. According to a study at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, as much as $750 billion is spent each year on procedures or health-related services that don‘t necessarily help patients get better. And physicians are paid more when they order more tests, procedures and office visits, whether you need them or not. So thequestion for Senator Greg is who does he want to be ordering tests, procedures or whether you need office visits – The qualified doctor or a federal bureaucrat? Sure everyone wants reform but do you really want to put you or your family member‘s life in the hands of a bureaucrat? The hypocrisy is that the elitists do not follow the same rules they force upon the middle class and the rest of society. Did Barak Obama send his children to public or private schools even though he receives large contributions from the Government teachers unions and promotes them to the exclusion of policies such as voucher programs that have been proven to raise test scores of inner city children? Do you really think that the gold plated health plan that Senator Greg and his fellow elitist club members in the Senate is going to be the same as the health plan they will palm off on the public? Do you think that if Senator Greg or one of his family members were fighting against a life threatening disease and the bureaucrat overseeing his health plan told him that a life saving procedure is not available to him because he does not qualify for this rationed procedure — would he be so eager to promote this plan?
One way to stop the tyranny of the Federal Government is promote state‘s rights and the counter intuitive way to do that is by repealing the XVII amendment and put the elections of senators directly in the hands of the states, rather than a direct popular vote. The bottom line reason we should not have a direct popular vote for Senators is that it can be corrupted by special interest lobbyists in large population centers, and since the enactment of XVII amendment, that is exactly what has happened. The XVII amendment is a perfect example of what is wrong with simple direct democracy. As discussed later in the issue of Term Limits, incumbent senators and Congressman have a near insurmountable advantage in the election process due to money and staff allocated to each of them as well as the special interest funding incumbents are able to bring to any re-election campaign. So we have a process where elected officials become lifetime club members as long as they play by the rules of their special interest puppet masters. The founders got it right the first time. This XVII amendment needs to be repealed. Then a term limits amendment needs to follow shortly thereafter. Over time tyrannical forces have managed to bend the system. We need to bend it back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
We must give power back to the state legislators and to the local governments. It is more prudent for US Senators to be discussing the business of the people with state senators and local representatives rather than big moneyed special interest groups.
Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil asks us ―How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you? Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis. How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs. Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations. There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.
In a sane society, putting their country first would be a given. But it seems some politicians are not satisfied with just being American leaders – they strive for the approval and consent from foreign countries. Perhaps there is money involved, perhaps there is prestige involved, but there is no room in this country for representatives to bow to the will of special interests – especially foreign interests. Those representative or appointed officials of the US who are found supporting foreign governments to the detriment of the United States should be brought to trial under sedition laws and if necessary tried for treason. And although Supreme Court Judges are not elected, it should be clear that their function is to interpret THE Constitution – not a foreign country‘s legal system – no matter how benign or ―advanced these judges might think it is. Plainly that is not what they were hired to do. If an employee decides to take it upon him or herself to make decisions by conferring with competitors, that would be grounds for firing. There should be no difference for government employees. We need to fire them if they are bringing aid or comfort to America‘s enemies.
One simple remedy for an over reaching Federal government is to give back the States the right to choose Senators – not the special interests who have the ability to buy elections. Foreign Policy decisions should be made exclusively in the best interest of American citizens. In a sane society, this would be a given. It is almost as if we have American leaders who actually strive for the approval and consent from foreign countries. It is worrisome when China and other foreign countries have such a large portion of the national debt. When do foreign debt holders start using this leverage and start dictating policy to elected officials? And how many corrupt politicians are just as happy to fund their campaign and lifestyle with foreign as well as American special interest money? In a more perfect union, those corrupt representatives that are found supporting foreign governments to the detriment of the United States would be brought to trial under sedition laws and if necessary tried for treason.
Foreign legal rulings should not serve as a basis for interpreting the US constitution. Hypothetically speaking, what if we have judges who cite Dutch legal precedents? Then we amend the Constitution and now it is OK for men to have sex with boys – let us call it the NAMBL law. And the next thing you know we are all the way to other side of the spectrum citing Shari`a Law – saying it is OK to murder your daughter for religious reasons if she flirts with a non Muslim. From this throwback law, Honor Killings become acceptable as a basis for interpreting the Constitution. No foreign legal rulings should serve as a basis for interpreting the US constitution. What does Ruth Bader Ginsberg think of this?
A good place to put us back on a track to a system the Founders would recognize is to promote individual, family and community rights and responsibilities in acts of self-governance. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the freedom as Americans is expressed in the unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The chief purpose of Government is to make sure we have those rights. According to the founders, the only legitimate government is one that is sanctioned by the people. The government is the People. As Jefferson stated, when the government fails in its duty to allow these fundamental rights to the people, we have a moral duty to alter or abolish that government.
Although we give lip service to the founding documents and especially the Constitution, we must recognize that there are many examples where the original intent is ignored by judges who have decided that they can breathe new meaning into the law. And perhaps an even worse problem is that the government has ceased to be accountable to We the people and particularly the middle class, and instead appear to respond only to their moneyed special interest groups. Not all rulings by the judiciary are constitutional. As showed earlier, by interpreting the freedom of religion clause, the courts have expunged Amierica‘s founding religion Christianity, while allowing secular religions free rein. The intent of prohibiting ―the free exercise thereof was to avoid making restrictive laws about religion – not preventing the ―free exercise of religions that atheists or Marxists deemed restrictive to them.
There are strategic goals that will strengthen the Founding principles such as abolishing Income Tax by repealing 16th amendment. This will slow the growth of Big Government by making it more difficult for them to keep reaching into American‘s pocket books. Repealing the 17th amendment will strengthen Federalism and reinforce the 10th amendment, thereby giving rights back to the States and the middle class; rights that have been slowly taken away by the ever expanding Federal Government. There are tactical things that can be done as well: fight the forces that would limit free speech by protesting Orwellian programs like the Fairness Doctrine and fight their more malicious Alinsky-gangster techniques used to intimidate Radio Station owners and other Conservative news outlets. We can do this by specifically enlisting sympathetic groups who believe in free speech. We also need to ratchet up the protest against Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants masquerading as Comprehensive Immigration reform – enlisting and energizing the majority of Americans who want secure borders and who do not believe breaking America‘s laws should be the road to citizenship. And finally we must continue the tax revolts known as ―Tea Parties to energize those folks who understand that huge deficits and uncontrolled spending is not the road to economic health – it is the road to Big Government, a shrinking Private Sector and ultimately Tyranny!
After the take over of the Banking Industry, the Auto Industry, we are on a course to have the Federal Government oversee everything from Healthcare, to Education and more. We are watching Amierica‘s formerly republican form of government become a Marxist tyranny. But where is any meaningful criticism from the press? Where is any real criticism of the Obama Administration? And is conferring with America‘s enemies and be filmed bowing to Islamo-fascists considered a high crime or misdemeanour? What about bankrupting the country? How about leaking CIA classified documents or printing embarrassing pictures that can be used by America‘s enemies in a time of war? How about destroying the will of America‘s Intelligence Agencies to do their jobs for fear of prosecution?
Although we are blessed to have access to more information at our fingertips than at any time in history with the Internet, the sad fact is the information alone does not make people smarter or less susceptible to manipulation. As discussed before, Stanley Milgrim‘s fifty year old social psychology experiment that has been replicated many times, demonstrates quite convincingly that even ―educated people can be intimidated and coaxed to do bad things. Originally the experiment was used as an explanation of how a formerly civil society in Germany could be complicit with the horrific atrocities of the holocaust.
But one does not have to go that far to see how otherwise intelligent people can be convinced to do things that are not necessarily in their best interest or the interest of their country – by simply being susceptible to intimidation, propaganda, conforming and being religiously obedient to accepted authority figures. And based on this experiment, it is alarming that a leader has achieved the cult status of a secular Messiah. It is hard to believe but in June 2009, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said on MSNBC that ―Obama is sort of God looking down on us and going to make us bad guys good again. The majority media and press, rather than criticizing the foibles and the imperfections of the man we have elected president, are literally calling him ―God . Instead today we hear a deafening silence of criticism from the mass media. It is stunning that although the new President has produced some outrageous gaffs – such as stating there are ―57 states or on Mexico‘s Independence Day calls it ―Cinco de quatro . Except for that one cable channel that claims to be fair and balanced, no one in the Media takes issue or makes fun of these remarks. At what point does it become acceptable to criticize this Messiah without being labelled a ―racist ?
America is not quite a Banana Republic yet, but selective enforcement of laws is a good first step. Shutting down the private sector, Nationalizing Banks, helping to destroy whole Industries, is a good second step. Left to its logical conclusion, it is not hyperbole to say that America in actions and deeds is starting to look a lot like a Banana Republic. And the San Francisco Chronicle, not known for its Conservative outlook had the following statement on the front page of the Sunday May 24th 2009 edition discussing the out of control spending in the first three months of the Obama administration: ―It is a relentless curve of red ink that will, within the decade, take U.S. debt levels to the record reached at the end of World War II, from 40 percent of the nation’s output now to 80 percent, and then rapidly thereafter into the realm of banana republics.
It would be a good thing if America‘s public officials both elected and appointed take their oath of office seriously. The Constitution allows each chamber of Congress to expel a Member, with the concurrence of two-thirds of its members. To minimize the old boys club that we now have permanent committees should be put in place toregularly expel those officials who are deemed unethical or have been proven to break a law while in office. Why is there still a sitting congressman who has been found on tape with obvious bribe money in their freezer? Why is a member allowed to avoid taxes through off shore property, allowed to be a member of the budget committee? How is it possible that a congressman caught forcing his employees to make illegal campaign contributions still remains in office? The first two are Democrats, the last one a Republican. There are easily a couple of dozen Congressmen with equal or worse offences.
A 2007 proposal that would have the power to initiate ethics complaints against members of the U.S. House of Representatives is not being enforced. This proposal is worthless since it only allows House members to initiate complaints. Democrats and Republicans in the House have a longstanding truce. They will not file ethics complaints against each other, so misdeeds go unpunished. The Constitution provides that all civil officers of the United States, including the President and the Vice President, may be impeached on the basis of “high crimes and misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4), which certainly includes violations of the oath of office. We urge Congress to invoke this underutilized tool more frequently, and especially when executive and judicial branch officers repeatedly and egregiously act in ways not specifically permitted to them by the Constitution.
The Constitution further provides that the Judges of the supreme and inferior courts of the United States “shall hold their offices during good behavior” (Article III, Section 1). Congress should adopt the sense that “good behavior” in judges rests on adherence to their oaths of office to support the Constitution, and that violation of their oaths is cause for removal from judicial office, including immediate impeachment, if necessary in cases of egregious violations of support of the Constitution. We also urge the Senate to adopt standard periodic reviews of the “good behavior” of judges, reviewing their records of decisions and comportment at least once every five years after confirmation, and to terminate the appointment of any judge not receiving affirmation of “good behavior” from a majority of Senators.
Ameica has currently strayed from this understanding that the only valid purpose of government is to protect individual citizens’ rights, and instead it has gotten out of control and it now infringes on the rights of citizens with every new law. And because the nation has lost this perspective on the legitimate objectives of government, the federal structure outlined with detail in the Constitution is no longer honored. This straying from constitutional limits is worrisome because it inhibits the government from carrying out those legitimate functions authorized by the Constitution. Further, a government that has lost focus on its only valid purpose will embark on a course of systematic violations until we eventually have a shrinking economic pie that culminates in the death of the middle class. The Declaration of Independence asserts plainly “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.”
The Constitution limits the powers of government by division of those powers into separate branches and levels of government. At the national level, the central governing powers are divided into the coequal legislative, executive and judicial branches, so as to offer checks and balances on the unbridled exercise of ruling authority over the states and individual citizens. Moreover, the Constitution is explicit in listing the few and restricted powers that are assigned to the United States, together with the powers that are prohibited to the several states.
There is a children‘s story that may be instructive. It goes like this: Once upon a time there were bad old men who made the animals of the jungle fear and respect them. But that is not good. So a new leader arose who told the people, we do not need spears – we need hope! The bad old leader was clumsy and everyone made fun of him. Of course, after the big lion attack, he went out with other hunters and killed some bad animals, and now everybody is safe. And the mean old leader though was not able to pass his spear as chief to one of his sons or followers because they were not very good at explaining why they needed to kill the animals to make the village safe. The old leader stepped down for his time had come and gone. The new leader came to power.
He is well spoken and he gives us ―Hope . He says: ―I hope that there are no predators like lions, tigers and bears in the woods today. You see, I trust the world. You can reason with animals. We can be liked and not hated anymore if you follow me. It is just that the previous leaders had too many spears and bows and arrows and that made the animals nervous. So nervous in fact that it is really our fault that lions and tigers kill some of us. I know that we are better than that. We do not need spears to protect us from the animals – we just need hope! And of course, the new leader led the people outside the cave without spears or arrows–and of course…they were eatenby the lions and tigers and bears!
There is no need to tell you the moral of this story! We are living it! So this is what America‘s new leader wants. Change from a mean old capitalist country that thrives on rugged individualism and free enterprise. And who needs those old fashion religions and founding principles? We do not need those guiding documents. Who needs a strong military? Who needs the Strategic Defense Initiative ―star wars ? No all we need is Hope! We do not need to protect ourselves from thuggish dictators with a strong defense. After all, it is America‘s fault that they attack and want to destroy us. So from now on people — just hope! Oh yes, let us just apologize for all America‘s past sins and all will be well!
We have a disastrous economy in large part because of an over reaching Federal Government. The congress has exercised powers beyond those delegated by the Constitution and the power of the states has been usurped. One solution is an amendment that restores the Commerce Clause to its original meaning. That is, it states that activities within a state are free from the regulation of the Federal Government (by several states) and to be left completely free to any regulations as that state may choose. This law does not restrict the Congress from retaining its power to regulate interstate commerce. Another amendment that may help is to limit congress‘ incentive to engage in International treaties that allow congress to impose its will on local government while perversely engaging in an international legal obligation simply to gain an increase in domestic legislative power. And finally another amendment would address federal intrusion into states for the express purpose of forcing adoption of certain policies without having to take responsibility for the tax or political implications. For example, when the Federal Government forced states to pass a 55 mph speed limit law as a condition for receiving federal highway funds, the federal government took credit for a policy without having to take the political cost of raising taxes. These amendments are a start to limiting the over reaching federal government and returning power to where it belongs – to the states and we the people of the middle class. Unfortunately the federal government is growing, not shrinking. As Obama makes his world ―apology tour, much of the time is spent justifying his profligate spending to European socialist and Arab fascist countries. It is odd indeed that even the Communist Chinese and socialist European countries are questioning his fiscal policies. Nevertheless, based on the bows to Saudi kings and the warm greetings from despots, he appears more at home with fellow Marxists abroad than many of his own citizens. Obama‘s critics have been cringing with every apology he makes to tyrannical thuggish regimes. They scratch their heads and say that he must be naïve. Is he is just paying back his biggest foreign and domestic special interest groups? Billionaire Soros who has been so masterful at moving funds around to his advantage. Of course the problem is that when you tell the average Obama supporter that there is something corrupt with George Soros and his ―hedge funds, they ask you what does landscaping have to do with anything?
Frank Capra Americans believe that in the end Jefferson Smith and George Bailey will defeat old man Potter and boss Taylor. The only problem is it might take a while for Mr. Smith or George Bailey to show up. One day when the folks who actually work for a living and voted for this change wake up –they may humbly admit their mistake and begin to slow this train down. Because we are headed for an Orwellian hell – a Marxist train wreck! This is not your daddy‘s Democrat Politician who got elected siding with the little people. These are spoiled elitist radicals who have successfully taken over government from a power hungry Democrat party and rudderless watered-down Republican party. To say that the Bush-Clinton-Bush years were not true to America‘s conservative principles would be an understatement, but the radicals who are supervising this coming train wreck are making the government largesse under the Bushes and the Clintons look like the proverbial drop in the bucket.
They are starved for power! And they plan to make you pay – especially you unenlightened Neanderthals who vote for traditional American values and cling to your ―guns and religion and think that the definition of marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. At some point, America and the great middle class will wake up to what is happening. We must promote the Supremacy of Federalism and States Rights. We must also promote the X Amendment and protect the individual from a tyrannical national government. We must repeal the XVII amendment. We must add amendments to the constitution that strengthen states rights and roll back unwise court decisions that have given more power to the federal government than is absolutely necessary. We must have a foreign Policy based on a doctrine of America First, and that America we will be saving will be the American middle class.
The XXVIII Amendment: Federal Congressional Term Limits
We need Federal Congressional Term Limits in order to reduce undue influence of Foreign Governments and eliminate Career Politicians. Although there are numerous arguments over the years that have been put forth for Term Limits for elected representatives, not much has happened. Even in the wake of the 1994 Contract with America, some local and state term limits legislation has occurred, but the real need for Federal Congressional term limits has not be adequately addressed. Although there are many arguments for and against Term Limits, the single most compelling argument is the unmitigated graft and corruption so pervasive in the Congress and the appalling number of representatives under criminal and ethical violations, that term limits is the only cure for this cancer in the body politic. Unfortunately in Congress, there is no one watching the whore house but the pimps and the johns. At the present time there is virtually no real mechanism for Congress to expel ethical and alleged criminal violators – except in those rare cases where criminal charges actually stick and the slime ball gets sent to prison.
This particular list calls out the hall of shame – the top 20 most corrupt members of congress. The Republican Party has plenty of warts and there are 14 of 20 republicans on this list. Of course, there are more violators than are included on this list. Here are few worthy of special attention. Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) a nine-term member of Congress, representing Louisiana‘s second congressional district. On June 4, 2007, Rep. Jefferson was indicted on 16 criminal counts, including two counts of conspiracy to solicit bribes, two counts of solicitation of bribes by a public official, six counts of honest services fraud by wire, one count of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, three counts of money laundering, one count of obstruction of justice and one count of racketeering. The indictment stems from multiple instances in which Rep. Jefferson agreed to perform official acts for 11 different companies in return for bribes payable to him and his family members. The indictment was the culmination of a criminal investigation that began in approximately March 2005.
The 94-page indictment outlines in considerable detail multiple bribery schemes in which Rep. Jefferson participated. These include bribes that Rep. Jefferson sought in the form of cash payments, stock, and a percentage of revenues from iGate, a telecommunications firm in Louisville, Kentucky, that were paid to ANJ, a Jefferson family-controlled company. In addition, Rep. Jefferson used his congressional staff to plan trips to Africa for the purpose of promoting iGate‘s business ventures and used congressional letterhead for similar purposes. In addition, Rep. Jefferson offered a bribe to a Nigerian official in Potomac, Maryland, in exchange for using his position to benefit a Nigerian joint venture. Rep. Jefferson placed $90,000 of the $100,000 intended as the front-end bribe to the Nigerian official in the freezer (giving new meaning to “cold cash) of his Washington, D.C. home, separated into $10,000 increments. This money was later recovered by FBI agents during a raid of Rep. Jefferson’s residence. In 2009 Jefferson‘s trial is over it will hopefully put the man where he belongs – behind bars.
The next member of the House of Shame is Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) a 15 term member of the House of Representatives representing New York‘s 15th district. Rep. Rangel‘s ethics issues stem from leasing rent controlled apartments, improperly using congressional stationary and failing to disclose rental income on his personal financial disclosure forms. Mr Rangel‘s main violation may be minor because in 1988 he failed to disclose a mere $75,000 in rental income from n a Villa he purchased. Small potatoes, except that Rangel‘s duties in the House include being the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee – the committee that is in control of raising all revenue for the Government under Article 1, sec. 7 of the Constitution. It is good to know America‘s money is in such good hands!
Then there is Jerry Lewis (R-CA) – not the comedian – but he sure knows how to make a joke out of the system of ethics in the House of Representatives. His alleged crimes stem primarily from the misuse of his position as chairman of the committee to steer hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks to family and friends in direct exchange for contributions to his campaign committee and political action committee. Needless to say this can go on for quite a while. We have a good number of 435 members of congress who probably have done some version of what the big boys have done. The only difference is that this member of the hall of shame is so brazen that it is shocking! Yet they all have one thing in common. Though several of them are under criminal investigation, not one of them has stepped down willingly.
We have had a Randy ―Duke Cunningham go to prison, but he is the exception not the rule. Behind this graft and corruption one will find lobbyists and money trails that should be more than enough to convict a large number to actionable crimes. But nothing happens. With more lobbyist and supporter‘s money, they are able to fight indefinitely these charges – even when they have William Jefferson on tape with the ―cold cash hidden in the freezer! They will not police themselves – so a start would be by passing a Congressional Term Limits Amendment!
The reason the average American needs to push hard to pass a Congressional Term limits amendment is because special interest groups have stolen your vote! Voters in the United States are being represented by incumbent politicians whose loyalty is to their big money donors, not the people who put them office. The game is clear: give the people the rhetoric they want to hear to get and stay in office. Then spend all the rest of your time soliciting money to fund future campaigns. So where in this mix is the business of running the government and representing their district? You might see pandering a bit come election time and a few well publicized pork projects to feed to their constituency, but the vast majority of the 535 members of this good old boys club spend most of their time working on raising campaign funds, getting re-elected, and not representing their constituents.
Why do we need term limits? Don‘t elections suffice? Not really when we get politicians who from the moment they get elected spend virtually all of their time raising money so that they can maintain their power. So they subsequently play to their special interest bases and get all sorts of funding and that it makes it just about impossible for any new candidate without a fortune to run against them. So we need term limits.
For the first 125 years of the Republic, about 35 percent of the members of the House retired before every election. They were not usually faced with potential defeat if they chose to run again – but they did it anyway. It was expected. Average turnover in the House for the entire first century of the government was 43 percent in every election. But fast forward to last 40 years or so. In 1998 we had 97.8% of incumbent Representatives get re-elected – and average rate of incumbent re-election from 1964-1998 was an incredible 93%. There is something definitely broken with the system.
Federal Congressional Term limits as an amendment to the US Constitution is long overdue. Responding to “the Imperial Presidency” of FDR, the XXII amendment was ratified in 1951. The “Imperial Congress” – all 535 of them — has been reluctant to see the need to limit their term of office like the President. It is a fact that corrupt politicians overstay their usefulness and offer little benefit and much harm – especially to the middle class. Many of them come to congress and spend almost all of their time taking special interest money and using it to run for office. By no means is it a limit of freedom. It has the great potential to limit the Pork and special interests that now pollute the system. If one goal of a representative democracy is better representatives, term limits is a beginning. The reason we have not seen Federal Congressional term limits is the fact that historically speaking amendments have all started in the Congress. There is a loophole that gives us a chance to start a grass roots effort to start the process and ratify an amendment using the state legislatures. The same 2/3 to propose and 3/4 to ratify hurdle applies.
For more than a decade, there have been some very cogent arguments for the need for term limits. Real Term Limits Now More than Ever by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute in 1995 presents a good case for term limits. The reason that a term limits amendment has not come to fruition is the fact that many Republicans in Congress like the good old boys club just as much as the Democrats. But this has to end. When Newt Gingrich and the 1994 historic Republican Congress put together their famous Contract with America – it included term limits. #10 was the THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.
Unfortunately, it was sufficiently vague that it did not go after the real issue: The need is for an amendment to the Constitution for Congressional Term Limits with the express purpose to limit the ―Imperial US Congress in the same way that the XXII amendment limited the ―Imperial US Presidency . Naturally, Contract #10 did not get much steam where it was really needed in the US Congress. We have seen some success on the state and local level. Of course, the problem with congress and Washington politics is that even the reformers like Newt and the 1994 Congress do not easily or willingly give up that great aphrodisiac of power!
So the answer is that we the people must force the Republican Party to do the right thing. As it stands now, the only kinds of Republicans that will be left after Alinsky Radicals have their way – will be the acceptable small ―r ones like an Arlen Specter (turncoat from Republican to Democrat defeated in is primary race for senate in 2010) or John McCain. So the reality is that the middle class and the rest of right thinking America must make it clear that the only way we will back the new Republican Party is to make Congressional term limits a key part of the new Republican platform. Once Republicans get either House it is imperative that their leaders push for the amendment: two terms for senators and six terms for Representatives. The language should be similar to the XXII amendment. It will be quite easy to write, but it will be one hell of a challenge to make it happen!
The reason that incumbent republicans will resist is represented by either self deception or politician speak. Former House Majority Leader Richard Armey’s remark during the Newt years, “If we Republicans can straighten out the House . . . then I think maybe the nation’s desire for term limits will be diminished.” That has beenproven to be categorically wrong. So we the people have had enough of the posturing and the excuses. The simple answer is for us to focus on the other way to amend the Constitution – through State Legislatures. So we will have a twofer if we can focus on the States. We can probably count out the likes of California, New York and Massachusetts with Democratic strong holds. And the numbers of states we need are large, but it is doable: Thirty Four to Nominate and Thirty Eight to Ratify. It is a daunting task, but it can be done.
Although Democrats after the 2008 election have control of significant number of State Legislatures, there is much dissatisfaction with their financial condition. With California saying no to new taxes to balance their budget in May 2009, any thing is possible! Democrat controlled state legislatures are by far the ones in the poorest financial shape with 18 of the 20 biggest deficits in Democrat controlled or split states. Only Arizona and Kansas have GOP run legislatures that fall into the top 10 in deficits. But this is the place where Republicans must put their greatest effort. Republicans can take (push those Democrat legislatures where it is either split or close in numbers) the 38 States needed to ratify the XXVIII amendment limiting the terms of Congress by simply focusing on 2 key issues: Fiscal Responsibility and Congressional term limits that will give the middle class a voice back in the US Congress. The point is that as Alinsky may have said (or may not) – Think Globally – Act Locally. So we are stealing one from their play book. The goal is to pass a U.S. congressional term limits amendment by acting locally and at the State level. The Republican Party can no longer sit back and not be pro-active on this. No one said that this would be easy – but it is very much doable – if the Republican Party returns to #10 on the Contract with a vengeance! Make it very specific: A US Congressional Term Limits Amendment is a winning strategy for the Party brave enough to promote it.
Term limits can be a powerful political force, if the results in numerous State legislatures and candidate results are taken into account. In 2008, Congress‘ approval rating started out at 23% and dipped to 18%! Yet, if you hear the anti-term limits focus you would think that a whopping 10% turnover is proof that we do not need term limits. In some years more Representatives leave in a coffin rather than through the door after being voted out. The former Soviet Union would be proud of those numbers since they are approximately the same as the turnover rate right before the fall of the USSR in 1989.
The statistics are shocking! In 1998 – 97.8% of all House Representatives were re-elected. In 1986 – the re-election rate was 97%. In 1990 – 96% of all Senators were re-elected. Where has the media been in giving out these important statistics to the public? Do not expect your Representative or Senator to give you this information. It may be harmful to their political health! Is this what the Founders had in mind when they came up with the bicameral Congress? It is interesting that in the articles of Confederation there was a specific description of term limits. And since the Constitution was amended in 1951 to limit the imperial presidency to two terms, it only makes sense that the two branches of government have equal treatment. In the last decade or so, term limits achieved success in places like Oklahoma, Colorado, California, but the victory seems hollow when compared to what needs to be done. The forces aligned against term limits have been able to stem the peoples will and certainly on the national level they have been successful. One example Dan Greenburg mentions in his 1994 article is that New Jersey passed two term limits measure but the state Senate, relying on the opinion of its in-house counsel about the unconstitutionality of term limits, refused to vote on the bill.
In spite of the fact that often to get it on the ballot, term limit organizers only have short periods of time to gather signatures, in location after location, large numbers of signatures favoring term limits is easily raised. And the fact that the Supreme Court has found against state imposed term limits, we the people can take it out of the hands of 5 misguided judges. There is no way that even the stench from the bench can take away term limits if we pass an Amendment to the Constitution. There is and will continue to be a national grassroots effort that has won popular votes in over 15 states and the movement is growing despite the best efforts of the powerful forces aligned against them. Despite some very nasty campaigns from some Big Moneyed interests, term limits still has a vast majority of American support.
In reality the only real opponents of term limits are the incumbent politician and those special interests such as labor unions and very large companies who buy favors such as beneficial Regulatory legislation for their respective industry. Term limits is a good and positive issue for the Republicans if they are smart enough to grab it and this time, unlike in 1994, do the right thing and use all their efforts on state and local level to get a constitutional amendment passed. There are some interesting opponents of term limits. Companies such as the large phone companies, large electrical and power companies, and these big businesses are aligned against term limits for the simple reason that they have spent millions and millions of dollars to buy politicians and it is very inconvenient for them to have to solicit favors from new ones!
Politicians do the bidding of their big corporate masters and the will of the people is silenced. It is very simple: large special interest groups have a valuable investment in US senators and US Congressman. Many provide subsidies and regulations from the federal government that are benefit to those companies and their shareholders. But while the key problems here is the cost keeps going up to run for office and hence the price to buy a congressman, more and more money is wasted that goes into special interests legislation – which of course is fundamentally harmful to we the people. Special interests must be stopped unless they promote the will of the people and its general welfare. This is what the Constitution intended- not to be ruled by special interest groups.
But in the mix of this is a fairness issue associated with the tremendous advantage of incumbents over the new blood that wants to compete for a congressional or Senate seat. In simple terms congressional term limits will help negate the incredible inequality that exists for incumbents. It is not only the special interest money that incumbents have; they also have for example, nearly $1 million per year to run their office – freebies such as staff salaries, office expenses and travel. That alone is almost an insurmountable barrier to a new member trying to compete for a congressional seat or Senate seat. In addition, both the House and the Senate have authorized taxpayer-funded lawyers to intervene in term limits litigation. The simple truth is that term limits will do what the founders intended, to return the government back to citizen representatives not career politicians.
So let us recall, House incumbents‘ re-election attempts succeed over 90% of the time! In some years that is a higher percentage for incumbent re-election than in the former Soviet Union! In the 19th century, the turnover rate was almost 50% and this guaranteed that there was a regular influx of new members‘ new ideas. They were more in tune with the desires and wants of the people. One interesting side note is that Congress has one small microcosm where they established term limits within their own structure. In order for members to keep from developing an unhealthy loyalty to the intelligence bureaucracy, that one of course undermines their independent thinking, they instituted a mandatory term limit for intelligence committees. But the fact of the matter is that we are living in a time where career politicians and their special interest
masters are leading us away from a country based on the founding principles. The public is intuitively very intelligent in this regard, and they understand the necessity of term limits. The only issue today is to focus on a grassroots effort and the will and fortitude it will take to make Congressional term limits the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
There is an interesting anecdote in Greenburg article that discusses how Senator George McGovern tried and failed with a small business he started after he spent 18 years in Congress and he quipped: ―I wish I’d known a little more about the problems of the private sector I have to pay taxes to meet a payroll I wish I had a better sense of what to look to do that when I was in Washington. So this is very telling and thiswould be a very good test for the career politician. Send them home periodically and make them fend for themselves. Some of them and most of them in fact will no doubt go back to their hack work as lawyers. What we will no doubt find is that we are better off with average small business people running things rather than slip and fall attorneys with pancake makeup and expensive haircuts ignoring the wishes of the people.
There is the old lawyer joke: ―what do you get when you have 50 slip and fall trial lawyers drowned at the bottom the lake? Answer: A Start! Please note that there are productive members of the legal profession who provide a valuable and worthwhile service to the country. It has been pretty accurate to say that trial lawyers of the John Edwards variety are despised for their hypocrisy and harm they do to the country. So it is not surprising that many people say that they view Congress is the same way they view slip and fall trial lawyers. You probably do not care for them much – unless of course they are helping you. But in the long run this compromise of re-electing self serving politicians is a deal with the devil because the real loyalty of these long-term congressman and senators are with their special interest masters and not we the people.
Greenburg talks about the fact that longer serving congressman are generally less fiscally and less conservative. This makes sense. Why should they be – it is your money! And in a Cato Institute analysis by Steve Moore and Aaron Steelman, they found that term limits would push many congressional vote totals in a more conservative direction. God knows, we could use that now. The best way to re-energize and take back this government is to bring legislators with new ideas and better incentives from the people, not the special interest groups, as a way to guarantee that the founding principles are upheld.
So let us look at some of the arguments used against term limits. For example it is said that term limits are undemocratic. That is they restrict choices and people should be able to vote for as many people as they want. The House has congressional elections every two years, they face term limits every election. Problem with that of course is that as stated before, incumbents have a tremendous advantage when there is less than 10% turnover. This is not anywhere near the level of democracy that the founders intended. The former Soviet Union had more turnover. What does that tell you about how broken this system is? Term limits will undoubtedly expand the number of potential candidates and breathe new blood and new life into the system.
Incumbents have a huge advantage in the election process. There are huge barriers to entry by challengers, and taxpayer-funded benefits of staff, travel allowances, and the benefit of course, of special interest political donors. In California for examples, state-level term limits in 1990 led to an increase of over 25% and candidate filings and over 50% for state assembly. There is anecdotal evidence, that one retired Senator can impact the entire political structure of one state: for example, when George Mitchell decided not to run for Senate, there were city Council members running for state representative, state representatives running for State Senate, and state senators running for Congress, and of course, US representatives running for the Senate.
There is another argument that there is already high congressional turnover, we do not need term limits. This has been shown to be patently false. There is another argument that term limits will harm small states. Some argue that smaller states without seniority will be at a disadvantage to the likes of larger states like California. But this argument ignores the institutional changes that would occur after term limits. Merit not seniority will rule the day. The chance is much higher that with a higher turnover, important legislative committee chairmanships would be assigned based on merit and not solely on seniority.
And of course there is the argument that term limits will lock out experienced legislators. Of course there is merit to the argument that experience is beneficial in most jobs, but it is patently clear that most of the experience representatives and senators have is fund-raising and glad handing, not representing the majority of Americans. And for those who say that many years of experience is necessary to represent and to legislate for the American people, ask yourself whether you would really like to have a thousand Bureaucrats 2000 miles away or a thousand of your average citizens chosen at random from the local phone book to make laws for you?
There is another argument that what really is needed is campaign finance reform, and not term limits. In many ways these two things are tied together and should be looked at in reverse – term limits may help us get real campaign finance reform.
Conservatives with a long memory will remember that Obama said that he would abide by campaign finance laws that would limit the amount of spending on the presidential election. But after it became apparent that he was going to easily exceed that number in private fund-raising, he did what all politicians do, he flip-flopped. So the answer to get around these special interests is to elect politicians who are not so tied to lobbyists and special interest groups, and the result may be that we actually pass and enforce a campaign finance law. Pass term limits first, then good legislation such as campaign finance reform and other reform to benefit the people is more likely to come to pass.
There is another argument that under term limits, unelected people run Congress. This argument runs on the theory that the departure of senior incumbent representatives will create a vacuum in which more and more decisions will be made by unelected lobbyists or staff. But the exact opposite is true. Lobbyists, the bag men for special interests, are in fact pulling the strings on many of the incumbent Representatives and Senators. It will not necessarily be a panacea to have new blood in Congress, but it is more likely that the lobbyist influence will be reduced. Staffers under term limits are likely to be turned over as well as new blood comes into the system. So the reality is that is another red herring.
One particularly cynical justification for term limits is that position that if politicians know they are only in office for a short time, they can run up pork related projects without having to take responsibility for the outcome when they are out of office. The problem with this argument is the fact that there is no consequence today for running up deficits and pork spending, so why would it really matter if a representative is termed out or not? If a person is corrupt, he is corrupt whether in office for eight years or eighty! The only way to deal with corruption is to hold politicians responsible for their actions. Right now politicians are not punished for ―cooking the books . On the contrary, they are rewarded for this behavior from voters who feel they benefit indirectly from these pork projects and in funding from special interest groups who benefit directly. If a businessman or individual in the private sector ―cooks the books they go to jail. A simple solution for this behavior is actually having statutes that would punish politicians for ―knowingly cooking the books. This might slow down corruption a bit. It seems to have some positive effect in the private sector.
The fact is that his special interest donors will go away as soon as a politician loses the power to do their bidding. Special interests will have to start over in their goal of cultivating a new corruptible politician and this may just slow them down a bit. Who knows – they may find themselves having to deal with a politician who is not bought and sold for. Now that is a concept! Term limits by itself is no panacea. Corrupt politicians will do bad things whether they are termed out or not. But the question is whether turnover just might get a better balance of honest to corrupt politicians. Today the corrupt are the rule rather than the exception.
And finally there is the argument that term limits are unconstitutional. The simple answer is that with the passage of the 22nd amendment that requires the president of the United States to have only two terms, term limits has been firmly etched into the Constitution. Not only is it constitutional, it is necessary given the way representatives have drifted away from actually being responsive to the people. In a narrow Supreme Court decision five to four, US term limits versus Thornton, the ruling was that states do not have the authority to limit the terms of their respective congressional delegations. Representing dissenting opinion Justice Thomas pointed out quite clearly that this ruling ignored the very clear meaning of the 10th amendment. That which is not reserved for the federal government is ―reserved to the states respectively or to the people. Despite this judicial setback, we still have the goal of the XXVIII amendment to look forward to.
There are many reasons for term limits. Instead of career politicians we begin to build a Citizen’s Congress. With term limits we begin to break the bonds of special interests and lobbyists and can move closer to actual direct representative government. And by destroying seniority what we actually enhance it is a meritocracy or the best to be rewarded. Term limits introduces fresh new ideas and unlike the story about McGovern, after his nearly 20 years in Congress, we might start to have people who have actually functioned in the real world and could relate to their constituency. McGovern of course, could not quite relate to the problems of starting a small business until he had the challenge of starting one himself after he retired. At that point he gained some humility when it failed. But it would have been nice if he had that same humility when he was actually in the Senate.
Term limits would necessarily minimize lobbyist influence and bring a more natural balance to the process. A tighter rein on Congress would provide a greater incentive for representatives to be responsive to the will of the people. As an example, the initial vote the initial Bush stimulus bill in 2008 was defeated in the House HR 3997 with 228 nayes to 205 ayes. That initial bill failed because a significant number of House members were up for re-election. These congressmen were afraid of the real possibility that if they were non responsive to the vast majority of their constituents and failed to vote against the bill, they would be voted out of office in the upcoming election. Unfortunately the Senate, not under the same pressure as the House, repackaged this pork and now of course, they have rammed several questionable stimulus bills down our collective throats!
We need to put an end to this sort of political opportunism and Term Limits is a start in the right direction. Today the time has come to limit perhaps a greater threat to the country than the ―Imperial Presidency ever was, the ―Imperial Congress . The pompous nature of the ―imperial congress was never more evident than recently when California Senator Barbara Boxer rudely interrupted General Michael Walsh who had the temerity to call her ―M‘am : ―Do me a favour and call me Senator, I worked so hard to get that title of Senator. Although he did not respond, this what the General should have said, ―Where I come from, Ma’am is salutation of deep respect, whereas Senator is synonymous with power hungry prevaricators who waste the people‘s money…Senator. ―Senator Boxer was later put in her place by the Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Harry Alford who accused Senator Boxer of being ―condescending and racial to Blacks and threw in a couple of ―Ma‘ams just to make it truly Karmic justice. Boxer is the poster child for why we need Term Limits.
This ―Imperial Congress has been transformed into an unquenchable vampire joined at the hip with the Executive branch along with domestic and international special interest groups never sated by the blood they continue to suck from the majority of tax paying citizens, the middle class. Congressional Term limits legislation is not a panacea any more than the XXII amendment was, but it is a start. At a minimum it would help to restore respect and dignity to Congress. With a few Jefferson Smiths in Congress, we might just have less corruption and more responsiveness to the will of the people and the great middle class that put them in office.
―A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves. — Bertrand de Jouvenal,
Global Warming theory has quite a few doubters. But not in the Democrat party. With the recent success passing the cap and trade energy bill in the house, the radical environmental eco-extortionists who have taken over the Democrat Party are about to hammer the final nails in the coffin of this country. If they are successful in implementing it we may soon become the Former United States of America.
America can not afford to take any more body blows. First the extortionists used the recession to take over the banking system. Then with the help of their union bosses in the UAW, government ―reluctantly took over two of the big three auto manufacturers.
With cap and trade they will have taken over energy. All that they need for virtual control of the majority of the production of the country is to successfully pass a government controlled healthcare bill. Extortion has been successfully used to get control of banks, the auto industry and now energy by scaring the hell out of people. These are called tactics to followers of Alinsky or extortion to others.
Fear and extortion has been used effectively to pull off a power grab that is stunning in its scope. To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, if the terrorists and enemies of America are planning to destroy us, they better hurry up because Obama and the out of control Congress is going to beat them to it! Radicals steeped in propaganda, junk science and scare tactics intend to inhibit the growth of the country in the quest of their utopia. What happened to science as a tool for the benefit of the country and the people – not the special interest groups, the religion of Global Warming and other Eco-extortionists? What will happen to the great innovators and inventors once they are under the thumbs of government bureaucrats?
Here is a list of great American Inventors and products that helped to create the wealth of America:
Alexander Graham Bell – Telephone
Thomas Edison – Lightbulb
John Browing – Semi-automatic rifle
Willis Carrier – Air conditioning
Samuel Colt – guns
Henry Ford- Assembly line – Autos for the masses
Robert Fulton – Steamboat
Charles Goodyear – vulcanize rubber – tires
Cyrus McCormack – mechanical reaper
Eli Whitney – Cotton Gin
Samuel Morse – telegraph
Jonas Salk- polio vaccine
The partial list of American inventors is the basis for the growing economy. None on this list were funded by the Federal Government. Admittedly, the initial development of the Internet and some of the early micro chip technology grew out of Government programs such as NASA and the space program and the Defense Department. Most revolutionary inventions, however, such as the telephone and the incandescent light bulb have come from American private inventors and entrepreneurs – not the Government. The question is why? What do we do right to encourage this kind of creativity and innovation. Certainly it was not government subsidies. The vast majority were ―disruptive technologies that changed our world.
In virtually all cases, the successful innovations were productized and continued to develop into multi-million and billion dollar industries: Yet even the Computer and the Internet would still be only used by a tiny number of scientists if not for the ingenuity and product development of the private sector. The Aviation Industry owes a great deal to Government programs and the Air force, yet it was private enterprises that partnered with the government to make the airline industry and commercial flight possible. Similarly, where the Federal Government played an initial role in a product, the inventor and entrepreneur has been responsible for bringing it to the market. For example, the Internet became a powerful tool for the masses with the invention of the web browser, higher speed broadband, and more powerful hardware and software of the PC. This was not a government organized event. If it were, we would still be
typing on typewriters! Just think of all of those great technology products we imported from Communist countries. It is very simple, let the government continue to take over industry and it is inevitable that we will start to have the same kind of world class products we see in Cuba or Venezuela or the former USSR!
When a man has the freedom to dream and to realize the benefit from his creation – the whole society benefits; when society takes that motivation and benefit away, innovation is stifled. That is the simple reason socialism does not work. The individual works for himself and his family. If he produces something of great value, he should be rewarded accordingly. In all socialist systems where the Government goes about the job of dividing the pie, the producers stop producing. Socialism has been and will always be a failure. In the end, the only beneficiaries in the system are the elites who invariably live very well indeed while they spread the crumbs to the people. Socialism is a false pledge that promises equality but promotes class warfare; promises more but delivers less; promises utopia but gives us hell.
Socialism and innovation do not mix. Without these inventions and the wealth they created, there would be nothing but primitive societies running around in ragged clothes and living in huts. Think Cuba and their wonderful automotive industry or the bread lines of the former USSR. The tyrannical Arab countries where much of the world‘s oil is found today did not invent the technology that they use to get it out of the ground. Nor did they invent the refining technology that converts it into gasoline and the plethora of other oil based products. America did. The West did. The Arab world did not fail to produce innovation because of the inferiority of their citizens, but rather because of the tyranny imposed on these people by their dogmatic religion. These tyrannical regimes have prevented the likes of the modern day Avveroes from creating and inventing. Arabs and other oppressed people are in no way inferior to Americans, rather it is their tyrannical state religion that has held them back and is responsible for much of the reason America has prospered while they have not. It is important to grasp why America is great and begin to fight against the propagandists and liars who are trying to use any number of crises to their political advantage. Are we really ready to let the government make all of our decisions and start looking like these other failed civilizations?
Take a close look at this list:
Nolan Bushnell Video Gaming
Samuel Colt A Mass Market
Joan Ganz Cooney Children’s Television
Georges Doriot Venture Capital
Charles Richard Drew Blood Banks
George Eastman Easy-to-Use Cameras
Henry Ford Affordable Cars
A. P. Giannini Branch Banking
Samuel Insull Cheap Electricity
Pierre Omidyar Online Auctions
Raymond Ingram Smith Gambling
Lewis Tappan Credit Reporting System
Frederick Winslow Taylor Scientific Management
Juan Trippe The Jet Age
Sarah Breedlove Walker Grassroots Saleswoman
Clarence Birdseye Retail Frozen Foods
Walt Disney Entertainment Empire
Ruth Handler Marketing Toys
Martha Matilda Harper Retail Franchise Network
Ray Kroc Restaurant Chains
Estée Lauder Marketing Cosmetics
Cyrus McCormick American Big Business
Malcom McLean Containerized Shipping
Samuel Morse A Better Telegraph
Jean Nidetch Weight Loss Therapy
Ida Rosenthal Brassiere Tycoon
Isaac Merritt Singer The American Multinational
Albert Spalding Sporting Goods Stores
Levi Strauss Blue Jeans Empire
John Wanamaker Department Store
Thomas Watson Advanced Business Machines (IBM)
Virginia Apgar Newborn Baby Evaluation
Edwin Armstrong Modern Radio
Leo Hendrik Baekeland Plastic
Alexander Graham Bell Telephone
Herbert Boyer Biotechnology
Willis Carrier Air Conditioning
Raymond Damadian MRI Scanner
Donna Dubinsky Personal Digital Assistants
Thomas Edison The Science of Innovation
Ray Kurzweil Pattern Recognition
Russell Simmons Cross-Marketing Culture
Samuel Slater American Factory System
Fred Smith Overnight Delivery
Elmer Sperry Modern Navigation
Joseph Wilson Photocopying
Wilbur and Orville Wright Human Air Travel
Edwin Drake Oil Drilling
Oliver Evans A Better Steam Engine
John Fitch First Steamboat
Robert Fulton Steamboat Services
Charles Goodyear Vulcanized Rubber
Theodore Dehone Judah Transcontinental Railroad
Gary Kildall PC Software
Francis Cabot Lowell Consolidated Manufacturing
Hiram Maxim Machine Guns
Garrett Augustus Morgan Affordable Gas Masks
Elisha Otis Safe Elevators
Henry Miller Shreve River Rights and Navigation
Ted Turner 24-hour News
George Westinghouse, Jr. Safer Railroads
Eli Whitney Industrialization
Robert Woodruff Global Distribution Network
This list is simply American inventors and innovators. Their work is the source of America‘s wealth, and this amazing creativity of products and services is the reason America has the largest GDP in the world. Why would we want to change the dynamic that created this wealth? Do the Marxists really think that by killing the system that created this wealth, that they will achieve their socialist utopia?
The oppression in the tyrannical systems of the world is due to governments being inextricably linked to either a state or secular religion. These religious backed governments or government backed religions do not promote individual freedom. Systems like these do not allow the necessary freedom that could produce the likes of Thomas Edison or Alexander Graham Bell. America‘s wealth has been created by individuals given the freedom to achieve their goals and the entire society, especially the vast middle class in America, has been the beneficiary of these great inventions and achievements. In fact, the whole world has been.
When you pick up a phone, the technology did not originate from the Sinai Peninsula, it came for an individual‘s laboratory in America. When you turn on a light bulb that stays on for more than a few seconds, that technology was also invented in America.
We have literally given the world light to see and the ability to communicate across the globe. This is not a country that oppresses people; this is a country that has given people the chance to escape from the bondage of superstition, poverty and tyranny. That America‘s wealth has been built by exploiting other people is patently false. In a competitive world, there are losers and winners, but America‘s history has been about the growth and the development of its citizens – not the exploitation of others. We have been liberators not conquerors in the wars we have fought. Regarding exploitation by governments, America haters should look first at the corrupt Marxist banana republics and religious tyrannies for the plight of their people if they want to see what exploitation really is!
America‘s Government, like all governments are much better at spending other people‘s money than producing things. If anything, Government has inhibited innovation through a burdensome tax code and endless regulations. Despite the Government, not because of it, innovators and inventors have made very large contributions to America. But for every one of these great contributors there are thousands and thousands of small innovations that have also been a part of this growth and the greatness of America.
It is true that Government has contributed by helping to start some of the great industries. Government projects such as the Space Program and National Defense projects have been the incubators for some industries, such as Microprocessors used in the computer industry and numerous other products and services associated with the original Internet. In the final analysis we need to ask ourselves, why did so many of the key industries of the last century come from the toil and creativity of Americans? It is likely that most of the people on this list could have done there work elsewhere but they did not. It was America that produced these men and women. And it was America‘s freedoms that allowed them to profit from their labor and creativity.
Although I allow the argument that there are some things Government can do as an incubator, ultimately the best thing Government can do is to just get out of the way!
One place government needs a reality check is their almost religious zeal in promoting the theory of Global warming. Global warming has morphed from a theory to a religion. Even if someday it is proven that Global Warming exists – how can they prove it is man made? What about sun spots that point to possibility that the sun is responsible for temperatures rising on other planets in our solar system, does that mean sun spots could be responsible for temperature rising on earth? What about geothermal heat from deep in the earth that ―pollutes the atmosphere?
And now they are calling the air we exhale (CO2) a pollutant? And of course the greatest of all green house gases is H2O – water. Marxist love to tax things, so expect to see taxes on the air you breathe, the water you drink, and perhaps your bodily waste someday. And now what about the evidence that in fact we may be at the beginning of not only a Global Cooling – but a new Ice Age or at least a Global Cooling? Let us not confuse the masses with good science or facts! They tell us to hope and do things like drive toy cars and live like primitives. That may solve the problem! In the final analysis what it really does is it fits their agenda to kill the middle class.
So what is cap and trade, affectionately known by what many of us think it really is, cap and tax? Here is what it looks like to Joe the Plumber playing a game of pokerwith boys. Take a group of players. Give each, say 10 chips. One chip = one beer. If Joe asks Jim to get him two beers, he must give Jim two chips. John can ask Jim to get him a beer but he will lose a chip to Jim. Of course, there are some differences between exchanging poker chips for beer and the cap and trade system, but not much.
Cap and Trade provides economic incentives for reducing emissions. The ―chips cannot be bought and sold; instead they are given a limited or ―capped amount that they can pollute. For example, if the limit is 50, that is 50 credits or chips that a company can use. No additional chips will be provided by the government. As the company nears their cap limit, they must buy credits (chips) from other companies. This is the trade part. So the government is giving companies an incentive lower pollution output.
Sounds noble, but here is what it will really look like in practice. According to American Solutions, cap and tax will do the following:
- Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent
- Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation
- Raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year
- Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent
- Destroy 1-3 million jobs per year, every year until 2035
So the middle class again takes it in the shorts. Average gas prices in 2009 are conservatively projected to be (somewhere between $2 and $3) around $2.50 per gallon. So a 15 gallon fill up at that rate costs $37.50. After adjusting for inflation your new fill up after cap and tax will cost you $63.75! Natural gas, electricity rates will go up dramatically. If the cost of living goes up $1,600 that is equivalent to additional $1,600 added to your income tax bill. And of course, the cherry on the top is that one to three Million jobs will be lost every year for two dozen years or more!
After we clear all of the hot air, so to speak, ―cap and trade bills promoted by the radical environmentalists in congress are all bills that guarantee that there will be substantial economic damage done to the American economy with no proof of substantial benefit to the environment. If the science was rock solid, there would still be some reasons to go slow and determine the best alternatives and whether or not there is really anything substantive we can do to protect us from Global Warming. Unfortunately, the left has learned that ginning up a crisis and making like ―Chicken Little – the sky is falling , is the best way to speed their agenda through the congress without scrutiny. Because the science of global warming is far from settled, and of course, even if the eco-extortionists could prove the existence of global warming, they are still left with the real burden of proof whether or not it is man made or not.
And based upon the cap and trade policies instituted in Europe, we can expect some nasty surprises. Nearly every European country participating has higher emissions today than when the treaty was first signed in 1997, and emissions in many of these European nations are actually rising faster than in the United States. By limiting the supply of fossil fuels, any cap and trade policy would raise the cost of energy. The bottom line is that cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses. The Congressional Budget Office has noted that such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor, and certainly a huge burden on the middle class.
So the question is will cap and trade really have a positive impact on the environment and global warming or is it just another way for the Statists to raise taxes? The most ambitious measure proposed is the Kyoto Protocol, but even if the U.S. were a party to this treaty and the European nations and other signatories were in full compliance the treaty, this would only reduce the Earth’s future temperature by an estimated 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050–an amount too small even to verify. The science does not hold up to detailed scrutiny.
So the real reason for ―cap and trade is that the Statist wants to use the junk science of global warming to actually ―cap and tax . Charles River Associates predicts that a ―cap and tax bill will cost us between 1.2 million to 2.3 million jobs by 2015 and many times that over time. Many of these jobs will be lost for good, due to the impact of higher energy costs on economic activity. Jobs in the manufacturing sector will be sent overseas. This will significantly raise domestic manufacturing costs while developing nations will undoubtedly refuse to impose similar restrictions. The net result is consistent with the Marxist strategy to distribute the wealth as the American economy experiences a substantial outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to those nations with lower energy costs.
We must promote Science as a practical adjunct to America‘s capitalist system. We must fight Eco-extortionists who are using thinly veiled attempts to destroy America‘s free enterprise system and the wealth of the middle class. We must fight politically motivated science policies. We must recognize the historical importance of America‘s innovators and inventors in the free market as the fundamental reason for the success and the wealth it has given the middle class.
Secular Religions: Reclaiming True Separation of Church and State
― Whenever people are certain they understand our peculiar situation here on this planet, it is because they have accepted a religious Faith or a secular Ideology (Ideologies are the modern form of Faiths) and just stopped thinking. –Robert AntonWilson
―When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. – Sinclair Lewis:
“Whether favorites of a king or of people, men have too often abused their positions of public trust by using the pretext of public good to sacrifice the national tranquility for personal advantage or gratification.” –Federalist Papers #6 
―Christianity has been purified of inessentials inherited from a barbarous age, and nearly cured of the desire to persecute. There remains, among the more liberal Christians, an ethical doctrine which is valuable: acceptance of Christ‘s teaching that we should love our neighbour. Bertrand Russell Mortimer Adler wisely states: If an action is morally bad in itself, it cannot really serve a good end, even though it may on the surface appear to do so. Men in power have often tried to condone their use of violence or fraud by making it appear that their injustice to individuals was for the social good and was, therefore, justified. But since the good society involves justice for all, a government which employs unjust means defeats the end it pretends to serve. You cannot use bad means for a good end any more than you can build a good house out of bad materials.
Marxism and the Fascism do exactly that and fundamentally it is why both are failed ideologies and why inevitably death and mayhem follow in their paths. The jury is out whether the American experiment will survive, but the reason America, despite its flaws, has survived and prospered in the more than two hundred years since its founding, is due to building a good house, however imperfect, out of good materials! To better understand where the secular religions came from, it helps to dig a little deeper into the political nature of Islam and Christianity. From there we can see more clearly the religious nature of secular religions.
I believe that there are many well intentioned highly educated folks out there who see all religions as the enemy. For example, the dogma of the Christian church is to be feared because historically, the Church held on to truths that were proved to be untrue – like the earth being the center of the Universe, and persecuted some great men of science like Galileo. From this history and his perspective of Christianity, the great writer Sinclair Lewis envisioned that the next generation of fascism would come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. In all deference to Mr. Lewis, the latest iteration of fascism did come from a religion and a nationalist zeal, but their symbol was not the cross of Christ – it was the symbol of the crescent and scimitar of Islam.
And despite the ongoing war that the militant wing of Islam has been waging against America and the West, there are many who continue to deny it and much of this is due to the fact that as in Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others. But some religions are free game with the Media and some are not. When it comes to acceptable religion bashing, Catholic priests are vilified in the Media relentlessly without any backlash or hardly a word in their defense. Try that with Islam and you get a fatwa that could mean a death sentence for the journalist or writer who speaks out against them. Does anyone remember Salman Rushdie and his book The Satanic Verses? He has spent most of the last 20 years since he published the book in hiding. How about those courageous media folks who are too timid to publish a cartoon with a picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head for fear of reprisal from Muslim extremists? Is this simply shoddy journalism or just plain cowardice?
Today in the Netherlands we have another brave soul willing to speak out against the harmful effects of Militant Islam on his country, Geert Wilders. The Dutch are conflicted in the same way that many Westerners are taken in by the propaganda from a Marxist leftist media and Islamic front groups like CAIR. Islamic front groups demand tolerance of Muslims while Muslims preach intolerance and destruction of the West. Tolerance is a lofty goal, but it is not a suicide pact. Likewise, the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution is not a license for one religion to attempt to destroyall others in the name of ―freedom of religion . Sanity must exist somewhere when evaluating the best course of action to these threats. It ultimately is not complicated. Shari‘a Law is incompatible with the Constitution and the basic tenets of freedom of speech and religion. We do not allow Presbyterians to advocate the destruction of Lutherans. Why do we allow Islam to effectively do the same to the entire Judeo-Christian heritage? What kind of cultural and societal death wish and myopia do we have that leaves us incapable of seeing that Islam is using America‘s belief in tolerance and the Constitution against us? At some point, a sane civil society cannot let this intolerant ideology and radical political doctrine hiding behind a religion to either destroy us or drastically change who we are.
One thing that all forms of fascism have in common is intolerance. But America‘s belief in tolerance does not mean that we should be tolerant of ―intolerance and fascism. On the contrary we ultimately must destroy all forces of fascism and intolerance if the civil society is to survive. But whether you call the tyranny fascism or simply the religion of Marxism – the methods proscribed by Lenin holds true – the lie told often enough becomes the truth – and the power of the press is for those who ―ownone . In any totalitarian regime – that power of the press would be the Government! In America, when it can be argued that from 80 to 90 percent of the journalists are cheerleaders for one party, there is not much difference than if the iron fisted dictator was writing the stories. Not only does the reporting lean to the left, there is an additional bias of sympathizing with Fascism – as long as this particular brand of fascism hides behind a religion.
Daniel Pipe’s book Militant Islam Reaches America makes the distinction between Islam the religion and Militant Islam or Islamism the ideology. Militant Islam is comparable to Nazism or Marxism in that it is a radical political ideology that has the stated goal of taking over the world. In light of 9-11, Fukiyama’s “end of history” theory – that the West has won and the rest is faits accomplis – is seen as a little pre-mature.
As Pipes states, ―The problem at hand is not the religion of Islam but the totalitarian ideology of Islamism. As a faith, Islam has meant very different things over 14 centuries and several continents. What we can call “traditional Islam,” forged in the medireview period, has inspired Muslims to be bellicose and quiescent, noble and not: one can’t generalize over such a large canvas. But one can note two common points: Islam is, more than any other major religion, deeply political, in the sense that it pushes its adherents to hold power; and once Muslims do gain power, they feel a strong impetus to apply the laws of Islam, the shari`a. So Islam does, in fact, contain elements that can justify conquest, theocracy, and intolerance.
And this threat is very real. Unlike the former President and others who use confusing and inaccurate labels like “evil doers” and “war on Terrorism” and the present
President who is even more off base calls it a ―contingency operation , Pipes clearly defines the enemy: Militant Islam. As Pipe eloquently states, “And if it is true that most Muslims are not Islamist, it is no less true that all Islamists are Muslims.”
Pipes does a good job of describing the peaceful – yet insidious groups that use the court system and the ultra-tolerant media to get special treatment and promote their cause – as well as the more visible violent strain of Islamism. Tolerance toward Islam in America allows a double standard – e.g. a sanitized view of Islam is pushed in public schools and the main stream media and negative Islamic views are not tolerated. Contrast that with negative reviews of Christian or Jewish groups who are all too prevalent in schools and the media.
Pipes holds out hope that Turkey, as secular moderate Islamic state, can co-exist with the west and be a model for other Islamic states. (Recent event show Turkey moving toward radicalism and way from secularism). What is not so hopeful is the fact that virtually all the other Islamic states in the Middle East are moving closer toward Muslim fundamentalism – not closer to Western secularism. Pipes shows us an interesting fact that the core of the Islamist movement is in fact highly educated over-achieving Westernized men (most of the 9-11 highjackers) – not the underclass in abject poverty that we have been told is behind this radical movement. On the contrary, this is very convincing evidence that indeed ideology – not poverty is the driving force behind Militant Islam. The issue is not that poverty causes radicals. The issue is that intelligent radical ideologues use poverty, intimidation, and brainwashing (Madrasas) to help promote their cause.
Pipes dedicates a couple of chapters to Jamil Al-Amin – a.k.a Rap Brown and Elijah Mohammed – a.k.a. Elija Pool – and the Nation of Islam and the Black Muslim movement. It is clear that radical Islamists have used these demagogues and their ilk to their advantage. It is important for Black and White and all Americans to understand this phenomenon and realize that NOI and the Black Muslim movement is not just a reaction to racism. As Al-Amin commented in his book Revolution by the Book “…the Constitution of the United States…its main essence it is diametrically opposed to what Allah has commanded”. This is a statement of sedition. These people want to take away your constitution and replace it with the Qur’an. So for those in the Obamaadministration ready to close Gitmo down and bring them to America‘s prisons, I would have them read this chapter as a warning of how the whole movement of Black Muslims was in large part started by an ideological underground that also started with a prison population of angry criminals.
For moderate Muslims and the West to win this war, the West must not appease these neo-fascists hiding behind a head-dress. We must realize that so-called moderate Muslim organization like Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), American Muslim Council (AMC), Muslim American Society, et. al. all defended Al-Amin a convicted murderer as a good Muslim. This is perhaps the least of their sins. These groups could prove to us that they are not supporters of Militant Islam by denouncing the likes of Al-Amin, Ahmad Adna Chaundry (another convicted murderer), Mohammad Salah (accused of financing aid to Hamas). In all cases their silence is deafening.
So what can we do? The first step is to wake up and call the enemy what it is: Militant Islam and understand that it is as insidious and dangerous as any strain of fascism we have witnessed. We should set about not to just defeat the nebulous notion of “global terrorism”, it is time to put a face on who the enemy is. Perhaps the Bush administration used the vague “terrorist” label for diplomatic reasons. I hope that is their reason. But I agree with Pipes and von Clausewitz that “a contradictory goal in war is a mistake”. And we are at war.
So who exactly is the enemy? The inner core is the likes of Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, the Taliban and their ilk. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been a successful first pass due to the fact that we have not had an attack on American soil since 9-11, but the job is far from over. The second ring is larger population of militant sympathizers in most of the Arab world and other Islamic countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bosnia. There may be as many as 150 million or 15% of the Muslim world that fall into this group. And the third ring is non-religious but Militant Muslims nonetheless, but those infected with Anti-American hate. Miscellaneous fascist thugs like Khadafy and the recently executed Saddam Hussein fall into this group. So the final toll may be as much as half the Muslim population.
So we must realize that what we have is not exactly what Samuel Huntington called the “Clash of Civilizations”. I think it makes more sense to call it a class of ideologies. A good example is that fact that militant Muslims do a great job of killing other Muslims that do not go along with the program – as exemplified in 100,000 plus dead Muslims in Algeria, and many times that number in the Iran-Iraq war. It is the radical ideology of their religion that drives them to kill non conforming Muslims as well as Westerners.
One possible answer is an updated version of George Kennan’s cold war doctrine. As Pipe states, this war is “a long term patient but firm and vigilant containment of (its) expansive tendencies.” Above all else it is time to know who the enemy is we arefighting. We cannot win this battle by calling it either a war on terror or an overseas contingency. Unfortunately the next time we are hit, the Marxist sympathizers ingovernment and out who helped to elect Obama will scurry about pointing their fingers and looking for people to blame, and of course the answer is for them to look in the mirror!
And here there is an important difference between the modern religions of Christianity and Judaism compared to Islam. Islam has not gone through anything resembling an enlightenment period or reformation. Simply, Islam has not changed from their mediaeval ways like Christianity or Judism. Islam is ruled by a book – Shari`a Law – that does not separate the political from the religious or moral doctrine. The evolution of Western Civilization took a critical turn toward enlightenment with the rise of Science, with the gradual political acceptance of new sects of Christianity, and the shared power between the representatives of the people and the King. This culminated in the Founding of America with the US Constitution and 1st Amendment that gave the people protection and tolerance to practice any religion they choose. Nothing like this has happened in the Muslim world. Today the Islamic world is much as it was 14 centuries ago when Mohammed first raised his sword in Jihad and Holy war of Conquest. There is no difference between the political or church doctrine of Islam in Shari`a Law. The Constitution and the 1st Amendment that allows freedom of religion is totally unacceptable in Islam. Islam‘s basic tenet is ―Convert or Die . Not much room there for political discussions or disagreements on moral issues.
To be fair to Islam, it is not the only religion that has been shown to be intolerant of other beliefs or held on to ancient dogmas. For centuries Catholicism and the Inquisition showed the true nature of intolerance. The big question for many who like nice neat boxes is: When do secularist ideals start looking a lot like a religious movement? As I will show with the help of Bertrand Russell, I believe that Marxism is very much a secular religion aligned with the similar motivation and philosophy of St Augustine – to help the poor – and has its own theology hiding behind an ideology that can easily be translated from the Judeo-Christian model.
When one looks at the Inquisition is some detail, we find that this was not just some short lived blip in history but a massive atrocity that lasted from about the 12th Century well into the 18th Century. Some estimates are that as many as 50 million people or more were murdered brutally: tortured with inhuman devices, burned at the stake and all sorts of unimaginable atrocities were committed. Until the rise of Nazism, we thought we had put this kind of nightmare from the past behind us. But that is not so. There is one religion that over the same time period may have an even more horrific record. Today we hear that their religion has been high jacked by a Militant arm that has actively promoted suicide bombing and slaughter of innocent people. But that may only be partially true. This religion is said to be responsible the deaths of millions of Christians and Hindus. In the quest to be politically correct and not incite violence, those statistics are difficult to confirm even in this Internet age. But the numbers are still in the millions of deaths. Certainly this carnage of the ancient Catholic Church and Islam is one of the better arguments for being an atheist or agnostic. How can you believe in God who sanctions either of these religions with this bloody history?
The excuse for this carnage is found in the Muslim holy book that is still taken literally. Fortunately, most Christians and Jews look at the Bible in allegorical terms in order to reconcile some of the more obvious mistakes shown to false by science and the harshness of medieval justice which cannot be reconciled with modern law. Neither of the books are books of peace. The Qur‘an calls out for wholesale slaughter of the infidel. And if one takes the proclamations from the authors of the bible literally, all sorts of retribution and punishments are justified. For example, just one simple line in the bible is the justification for much of the murder of women during the Inquisition who were labelled witches: ―Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live . (Exod xxii. 18) As Russell so succinctly puts in his work Religion and Science: ―Modern liberal Christians, who still hold that the Bible is ethically valuable, are apt to forget such texts and millions of innocent victims who died in agony because, at one time, men genuinely accepted the Bible as a guide to conduct…
Before we discuss the secular religion of Marxism, it is first important to see the unreformed Catholic Church represented by the Inquisition which sanctioned mass murder and torture in the name of religion. Because we are either ignorant of the historic roots of America‘s own cultural journey or in some cases we are embarrassed and wish to forget the mass murders done in the name of God and the Church, many commentators have skipped lightly over this connection. It is true that one of the greatest mass murders in recent memory were carried out by a godless group of fascists in Nazi Germany – the holocaust and the murder of six million Jews. It is also true that even in the age of enlightenment that has successfully minimized the inimical influence of the Church; there are still mass murders and torture committed in the name of a Religion.
But those barbaric practices no longer reside in the Catholic Church. As Russell tells us in Religion and Science written in 1935 right before the horror of the Nazism and World War II, ―The threat to intellectual freedom is greater in our day than at any time since 1660; but it does not now come from Christian Churches. It comes from governments. I would suggest that there is one religion that needs to be added in our time – Militant Islam. When Russell published Religion and Science in 1935, Russian and German despotism were at their height: ―The persecution of intellectuals in Germany and Russia has surpassed, in severity, anything perpetrated by the Churches during the last two hundred years . Though Nazi fascism and the former Soviet Union are gone, we are living in an eerily similar situation today – only the players have changed. Soviet style Marxism has begun to not only take hold in Europe, but as we look at the Alinsky tactics in America, we are beginning to see the kind of ―Stalinist propaganda and political correctness formerly reserved only for the former USSR, being applied here in America.
Fortunately modern Christianity shares very little with the original tyranny of the medieval Catholic Church. Although the Catholic Church indeed has much to be ashamed of when one examines the misery that was inflicted on ―heretics during the Inquisition. Fortunately today in America and most of Europe, those days of bigotry and torture of heretics have long been over. Torture for many of us today is simply listening to Marxists hiding behind false promises and sanitized names mangle the language and justify the unjustifiable, and of course, do it with a smile and the complicity of the mass media. The modern Church has succumbed to modern politics and science, and those days of bigotry, torture, and murder in the name of the Church have been swept clean by the sands of history.
Modern Jews who survived the holocaust and now primarily live in either Israel or America have a credo – Never Forget. This of course is important for their very survival in a world where Jews have been slaves, scapegoats for political reasons in Russian and Eastern Europe, and of course nearly exterminated by the holocaust in Nazi Germany. But we must also never forget that only a few centuries ago the Church instituted one of the most brutal and deadly periods in man‘s history – the Inquisition. As the great philosopher Santayana has warned us: Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
Since the rise of science and the West, this newest of monotheistic religions – though quite successful in conquest from the 7th to 15th Centuries, has been overshadowed militarily by the great power of the West in the last four centuries. But with the rise of a new revolution in the ancient land of Babylon, and the belief that the West is too decadent and weak to use their power against them, once again they have the notion that they will be able to force infidels to convert, pay tribute, or die. And now with a splintered West, they see the opportunity to partner with the worst imaginable infidel – the true unbeliever – the Marxist. But their behavior is understandable – it is written in their book. Their morality is very much the ―ends justify the means . Telling the truth only matters to fellow believers, so deception and lies and anything that works is justified. And of course, as we have seen all too often, mass murder and torture is done in the name of their God.
It is their unholy comrades in secular atheistic West that are harder to comprehend. How do the ideologues of a social utopia manage to rationalize and justify allying with suicide bombers? Their morality rings hollow to the rational mind. Is mass murder of innocents ever justified as a response to injustice either real or imagined? In addition to the fascist doctrine hiding behind Islam, we also have very aggressive secular religions in America. In today‘s world there is no one quite as fanatical as those who hold beliefs in subjects like: Global Warming, Gay Marriage, Pro-Abortion – all seemingly secular ideals that in true evangelical fashion, tell us that they are on the side of reason and that those who do not share their view are not. To these Government educated elitists, these lofty ideas are divorced from nasty religion and its dogmas and therefore superior to our backward ways. But when you scratch the surface, however, there seems to be some from these groups who hold on to their dogmatic notions and evangelical zeal, even when shown convincing evidence to the contrary, in much the same way as Christians did before the reformation. Like the Church that dismissed the evidence presented by Galileo, the Church knew better that the earth, not the sun, was the center of the universe! The Church of Global Warming has been shown some very compelling arguments that Global Warming theory may be wrong or at least have very little to do with man made pollutants. But the true believer does not let facts get in the way of their beliefs! The point is that Global Warming Believers have made up their minds. How different are they really from the Church elders who told Galileo that he was wrong about earth not being the center of the universe!
There may come a time when Global Warming may or may not be shown to be a valid theory; or changing the definition of marriage may not be seen as the most positive thing for society; and there may come a time when a more evolved, a more moral society will equate pro-abortion laws with the acceptance of slavery as one of the greatest mistakes in American history. Not that I am cynical, but it does seem that some of the elitists pushing this agenda seem to be getting very wealthy off it. The followers, like all religious followers ―believe that they are doing ―good – the moral and right thing. The heads of the Church, like Al Gore, if judged by the expanding size of their bank accounts, they are doing very ―good indeed!
If the cure for unregulated Capitalism is more Government, the cure is worse than the disease. Ideologies that promote big government as the cure to social ills go in either one of two directions: toward Marxism and a belief in a social utopia, or to a ―man on a white horse (or in the more recent iteration where an entire Religion) rides in to save the people from the evils of the world. The middle way, as Thoreau told us is: That government is best which governs least. Of course, too little government leads to anarchy, and too much leads to either a form of Marxism or fascism. In both of those cases, history has shown that both are massive failures and the breeding grounds for mass murder, and despotism – on a par with the travesties committed by intolerant religions. The jury is still out whether this experiment of the United States of America, that has attempted to balance freedom of the individual with the necessity of the state, will manage to stay the course and not take either of those two paths that inevitably lead to tyranny and oppression.
The sad fact is that the secularist Marxists and other of their comrades on the left are content to align with those forces that wish to tear down the civil society. That is, because they believe that the ends justify the means. This is the moral center of Marxism – seen in both the works Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky – his modern day torch bearer. ―The End justifies the Means is a maxim which originated in an accusation made by Protestants against the fellow Christians. Although few would openly proclaim such a cynical maxim, it is clearly the conception which justified the atrocities of Stalinism and the use of terror by some who claimed to be pursuing the socialist objective.
Merideth Kolodner in International Socialist Review 2005 reviewing Trotsky‘s take on mean, ends, and morality says:
One of the most frequent points of attack for critics of Marxism is the idea that Marxists believe that the ends justify the means, in other words, the ends can be achieved ―by any means necessary, as Malcolm X put it. Revolutionaries who adhere to this dictum are portrayed as immoral (or amoral), driven solely by the quest for power and willing to perform all manner of atrocities along the way. In fact, it is the ruling classes worldwide that live and die by the notion of the ends justifying the means. They will bomb villages ―to save them, detain thousands of men charged without a crime in the manufactured ―hope of catching one terrorist, and test dangerous drugs on their own unknowing soldiers and citizens to better ―understand and defeat the enemy. When asked whether or not the economic sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s was worth the price of one million dead Iraqi children, the U.S. secretary of state at the time, Madeleine Albright, answered on national television,
―The price, I think, was worth it. To her, the ends justify the means.
So the Marxist does not deny that they engage in ―ends justify the means morality, they simply rationalize their behavior by claiming that America does it too! The difference is that America‘s Constitution and the rule of law – when properly interpreted and executed serves as a moral compass to provide a check against an overreaching Executive branch – with the Congress and the Judiciary. In modern Marxism, exemplified Saul Alinsky – they do not have such a mechanism. They preach ―ends justify the means morality period. They are he says – ―practical revolutionaries . Rules for Radicals defends belief that the end justifies the means: “to say that corrupt the ends,” writes Alinsky, “is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles … the practical revolutionary will understand … [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.” “The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the ends justify almost any means… There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father.”
And we hear this subtext of the moral equivalency between the founding and the Marxist struggle in the speeches of Obama in his great ―apology tour as some of his critics claim. A fundamental mistake that traditional conservatives have made is to let this moral equivalency between the founding revolution from chains of a tyrannical King with the Marxist‘s struggle willing to destroy our civil society to implement their utopian vision. As shown by failed programs like LBJ‘s Great Society, America has tried very hard to solve the poverty of minorities by throwing money at the problem. Those policies, like most welfare programs, have failed because ultimately they perpetuate rather than solve the problem. Marxist elites reject the rights of individuals and instead of trying to help those who suffer from poverty escape; they actually would prefer to exacerbate the situation, to actually make it worse in order further discontent and greater acceptance of their ideology.
And Marxist ideology, though a noble vision, is and always will be a tool for tyrants. The Marxist elites ultimately do not believe in the importance of individual freedom and they justify any atrocity on the grounds that they are bringing the masses closer to their socialist ideal. America‘s founding principles are based on the belief in the inherent uniqueness of every individual and the rights of all men to live freely and the necessity of a rule of law and a civil society. Rights do not come from governments or other men; they are inalienable rights from our creator.
Marxists, who have substituted their leaders for God and who equate their struggle with the American revolution are flat out wrong. There is no comparison. The only law that Alinsky or most of his Marxist fellow travelers believe in is the law of the jungle or the law of the gangster. America‘s belief system has given freedom and a higher standard of living than any society in the history of the world. Marxism has proven to be that noble idea that has enslaved and impoverished all those who are not fortunate enough to be a member of the ruling elite. A despotic Monarchy, such as King George‘s England or failed Marxist governments in the USSR, have much in common. They oppress their people in the name of the king or a greater good. Marxists who equate America‘s revolution with theirs are wrong. There is no moral equivalency.
Before we continue on the unholy relationship with Marxism and an unreformed violent religion, we need to focus on what that horror looks like. A lesson can be learned today and it is more important than ever to focus on the nightmare and death unleashed by medieval religious doctrine because it can serve as a sober wake up call on the fact that when the state and religion are one entity, the tendency to promote unfathomable death and torture become the rule – not the exception. History teaches us with the rise of science and the age of ―enlightenment superstitions are swept away by reason, human progress can indeed happen. But it has not been a pristine path to get here. And sadly, opposite forms of tyrannies can indeed be strange bedfellows in promoting their quest for power and the subsequent subjugation of mankind.
In America today it is a mistake to view Religion in a simplistic box – only pertaining to the major Monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. With the assistance of a lexicon that shows that theology of the Catholic Church is not that different from the ideology of Marxism. If we accept this as possible, then it is not a difficult leap of faith – pun intended – to see that the term ―Religion can have a wider meaning. This is very important for modern America and the tradition of the separation of Church and State. If the Church of certain secular ―religions are allowed free rein in the State, the original intent and benefit of separation disappears, and we are left once again with the prospect of a tyranny of a ―belief system that is harmful and destructive to the society.
No doubt those who subscribe to secular beliefs do not believe that they are engaging in any religious activity. For many secularists, they consider themselves agnostic or atheists, and find traditional religion repugnant. I understand this very well. Until the age of Enlightenment, the historical atrocities committed in the name of Religion are well documented. But secularism by itself does not prevent a society from becoming as dogmatic or tyrannical as traditional religions. In an atheistic movement – that preaches and promises its followers a social utopia – I have a difficult time is seeing how that is qualitatively different from any other religion or belief system. And if that is so, if America‘s very successful system of government is to succeed, we must make sure that the firewalls that have been put in place by the founders to separate Church and State do likewise for these utopian ideologies that have all the trappings of a religion.
Unfortunately for the modern American ―liberal , when you clear the dust of confusion and the manipulation of these lofty goals, these lofty ideals are not that different from the utopian vision of Karl Marx. However, only a small fringe on the very far left, predominantly secure tenured professors or the like, have the nerve to actually admit that they are Marxists. Like ―Communism during post World War II America, the term ―Marxism for the most part, has been expunged from the public debate. Even in the #1 Best Seller – Liberty and Tyranny, Levin does not cross the line and call these ideas and programs ―Marxist . He opts for the seldom used term ―Statist which does not have the same impact or meaning as Marxist, Socialist or Communist. We have many examples from both Republicans and Democrats afraid to define their terms more precisely. As I mentioned before, for political reasons unclear to many, George W Bush labelled his fight against the perpetrators of Sept 11 and the killing of over 3000 American Citizens as a ―War on Terror . As I have discussed, ―terror is a tactic – not an enemy. Even those like Levin who warn us of the ―Soft Tyranny may be unintentionally misleading us by giving some of us the false security that there can be gradations of tyranny. But really is the tem ―soft tyranny helpful when the transition from partial to total despotism can come in the blink of an eye? Tyranny is like the lake in the winter. It may only take a few cold days before it becomes very hard indeed! There are numerous other examples that come under the title of ―political correctness – speech that is sanctioned but invariably either misleading or inaccurate.
And believe me, Marxism is a religious experience to the ―atheists who believe in it.
Russell made a very interesting comparison of how St. Augustine used the appeal to the oppressed in gaining followers, and likewise how Marx did the same thing but with a slightly different lexicon:
Yahweh = Dialectal Materialism
The Messiah = Marx
The Elect = The Proletariat
The Church = The Communist Party
The Second Coming = The Revolution
Hell = Punishment of the Capitalist
The Millenium = The Communist Commonwealth
And with the New Democrat party we have something similar:
Yahweh = All Powerful Central Government The Messiah = Alinsky
The Elect = Union and Government workers The Church = The New Democrat Party
The Second Coming = Barak Obama and the New Marxist revolution Hell = Punishment of Republicans, Conservatives and Capitalists The Millenium = The Radical Socialist Commonwealth
Actually the conundrum that Marxism has is the mixed message of the nature of social Darwinism. On the one hand Marxists want to proclaim that as Dialectical Materialism predicts, we are ―evolving toward the inevitable social utopia. Marx thought that
Darwin‘s theory of evolution could be a basis for reinforcing his utopian vision.
However Darwin‘s theory is found to have more in common with Capitalism than Marxism. Capitalism is ―creatively destructive to competitors who are inefficient, and when left relatively free, you might almost say it is a Darwinian struggle for the survival of the fittest.
Marx of course saw his utopian vision as a struggle favoring the worker and not the Capitalist who actually creates the company and creates wealth. Among Marxists and other utopian visionaries there seems to be this disconnect between wealth and the creators, inventors, and innovators actually responsible for that wealth. There is this naïve belief that all of the great innovations of science are a given fact of nature and all we have to do is divide and distribute the wealth that miraculously appears out of nowhere. The utopians who believe in Marxism have a child like naïveté about the creation of capital and wealth. But it is the elites who have learned to use Marxism for their benefit. Since Marx‘s original writings, thuggish dictators and the elites who struggle for power have used Marxism as a tool to grab that power. Marxist ideology is at its heart a noble but childish dream and despots around the world have used this naïve dream to enslave not liberate the masses.
Let us try to shed some light on the word ―Tyranny . Despite the attempt to define and understand what is despotic or tyrannical, there is still something missing from the debate. Tyranny comes in many forms, and in this age we seem to focus almost exclusively on the political origin of despotism. The truth is that Tyranny can be political, religious or both.
America was founded by moral men, religious men. But men that made sure that the despotism of religion or a tyrannical monarch would not interfere with their goal to become ―a more perfect union and it is why the bill of rights and the 1st amendment guaranteed that right. It is not by chance that in addition to freedom of speech the 1st amendment guaranteed freedom of religion. And that means all religions. There are secular religions that are preventing the free expression of other religions. Movements and belief systems like Marxism are essentially Secular Religions and the courts have made a grave mistake by limiting other religions from the public square while giving Secular Religious activity a free rein in the schools and other public venues. The
simple answer of course is to treat secular religions the same way that any other religion is treated.
We must finally acknowledge Secular Religions in order to reclaim a true separation of Church and State. We must understand that Secular Religions inevitably infringe on the First Amendment and promote policies that ultimately will destroy the middle class and America as we know it.
The Government-Education-Media Complex
Who is GE? A simple question, yet one that is at the core of the first horn of a two horned monster of Education and Media Monopolies directly tied to the US Government. This kind of centralized control of education and journalism by the Federal Government was never envisioned by the founders of this country. The giant Monopolies in Education and the Media are clear and present dangers to liberty and the great middle class.
GE is the manufacturer of all sorts of wonderful products from healthcare to jet engines to light bulbs. GE is over 130 years old, the direct outgrowth of the innovations of Thomas Edison. GE employs 300,000 people world wide and is one of the largest companies in the world. But GE is also parent company of NBC, CNBC, MSNBC – and it is a major broadcasting conglomerate. This in and of itself is not a problem – until we start to uncover the relationships between the network arm of the company and its influence in the Government and the ties between GE contracts and Federal Government initiatives and programs. There is an ever increasing link between Governmental policies shown to directly benefit GE to the detriment of its competitors, and more importantly to the detriment of the citizens of the United States.
Murdoch‘s Fox News Network is not immune from public scrutiny as well. Wherever there is possible collusion and monopolistic practices – especially in the larger entities like Fox and GE that control so much of the media outlets we have, there needs to be a close examination. And if necessary a remedy must be found to bring competition and real balance – not just slogans. Though Fox does not get a free pass, the evidence indicates that the most immediate threat to liberty and a ―free press is GE and its ties to large Federal programs that their networks support either directly or indirectly by being a cheerleader for Obama. Probably the most blatant cheerleading came from ABC news who gave Obama unprecedented full hour of Prime Time coverage of his pitch for healthcare with no opposing viewpoints. Opposition could not even buy commercial time during this hour. Has ABC become a public relations arm of the Obama administration? That may be a new low in broadcast journalism. If MSNBC‘s competitor Fox News has a legitimate claim that there is bias in MSNBC‘s reporting that is one thing, but if it can be shown that the parent company is winning Billion dollar contracts as a direct result of supporting and promoting the Government‘s agenda, then that is a whole new ballgame.
In addition to the business and government collusion and special interest groups, there is a one entity that takes up a huge portion of Federal and State Budgets – Education. The monopoly of NEA and other teachers association should be challenged – and broken up like any other monopoly or Trust for the simple reason that there is a concerted effort to limit programs that could bring competition to the world of education. It would be one thing if the Education bureaucracy was doing a world class job and our sons and daughter were beneficiaries of the greatest Education system on the planet. On the contrary, report after report shows how poorly our children score in test relative to other countries and it is obvious to the objective observer that simply throwing money at a broken system does not work. And Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study in 2005 concluded: ―the notion that America‘s public school problems are confined to inner cities, and that our wealthy suburbs produce world-beating high school graduates is a myth. Many nations that typically outscorethe United States in math and science at the eighth-grade level did not participate in TIMSS 2003. However, eight of these nations participated in another test of mathematics and science: the 2003 Program on International Student Achievement (PISA). Every one of the eight countries significantly outscored the United States on the PISA test.
The unwritten requirement that all Americans have to have a college degree is a good way to accomplish two things. First, if you want to brainwash young people, having them completely programmed for an extra two to four years may do the trick. Also, if you want to support an extra few thousand propagandists known as liberal arts professors, one needs an extra few hundred thousand students. The whole thing is really quite ingenious. But here is how it really works. The work force breaks down into four segments, roughly evenly divided, according to Harry J. Holzer, a Georgetown University public policy professor who specializes in studying the labor pool. About a quarter drop out of high school, about the same earn high school diplomas, another fourth get some further education but not a college degree, and the
rest earn bachelor‘s degrees or greater. ―We have really let go of career and technical education in the United States, says Holzer, a former chief economist at the U.S.Labor Department. ―There are millions of kids on their way to prison who could have been electricians and plumbers. We all wrapped our heads around this idea that only if you go to college and get a B.A. are you a success. As a society, we demeaned people who worked with their hands.
To put this in its most basic terms since three fourths of all students fail to get a college degree and a much small get a technical degree, there is some real inefficiency and waste of the higher education system. Would it not be preferable to have more technical institutes that train for practical professions so that vast majority students without degrees can be trained to be carpenters, plumbers and electricians? If the University System was graded on its ability to produce well educated graduates, it would get a 25%! That is not just a failing grade, it is almost unfathomably poor. That is not counting the fact that the vast majority of Social Science undergraduate degrees have minimal value to most corporations and it is reflected in their low starting salaries. Being competent to add and read is something a simple high school degree should provide for anyone entering at the bottom of the work force hierarchy. A four year liberal arts degree extends adolescence and has a mild affect on improving the unemployment numbers, but little else. A four year social science degree for someone who goes to work for a corporation is wasteful. The company that hires these students end up spending a great deal of time and energy on training. It is a very inefficient way of building a productive work force.
If you are a professor in any one of a number of social science disciplines, you probably do not see it the same way. In reality, the real numbers of graduates with truly valuable degrees are Business, Accounting, Engineering, and most of the hard sciences. So the real success rate of a University education is probably closer to 10% to 12% using the National Survey of Recent Graduates (NSRG) as a baseline that shows less than half of all graduates are in the sciences or engineering! Edufacts 2008 graduates showed that engineering and sciences earn by far the highest incomes with all the social sciences coming out at the bottom about half the expected earnings.
Steven Proudfoot found, in the 2006 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), that degrees in the fields of social and related sciences, health, and psychology accounted for more than half of all those earned by this group of recent graduates (23%, 18%, and 15%, respectively). On the K-12 front, the teacher‘s unions have effectively shut out any competition.
Voucher funded private schools and home schooling as well as non-monopoly public charter schools should be allowed to compete openly with the goal of providing the best and most well rounded education for K-12. It is a sad example that at the same time that Obama is approving the shutting down of charter and voucher programs in the inner city of Washington D.C., programs that directly provide a better product to poor children, he is sending his two girls to a private school that none of those inner city parents could afford for their children. The fact that the media glosses over this kind of hypocrisy is testament to just how untouchable and beyond criticism Obama is.
The Education establishment is ungrateful for the blessings that this country affords them and is ideologically motivated by radicals who promote beliefs fundamentally antithetical to the founding. Saul Alinsky unfortunately was not the only Marxist radical in the sixties and seventies spewing anti-American propaganda. Radical anti-American propaganda grew out of the anti-Viet Nam war movement. This anti-American sentiment became the rule and not the exception and found its way to students in the Universities, and a lesser degree in K-12. The outcome has been to create a smug group of educated Marxist drones unable to think for themselves and ―blame America first .
And for the conservative the answer to this problem is quite simple and just. Government Schools in part are wholly funded by tax payers must be looked at very much the way Teddy Roosevelt viewed the Trusts and Monopolies that impeded Capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th Century – they must be ―busted up. Government Schools are a monopoly that funds the democrat party. And in return Democrat politicians keep right on funding these failed institutions because Government schools fit the agenda of Big Government.
And similarly, Media monopolies tied too closely to Government must be examined. The evidence surrounding the benefit in subsidiaries of GE, the parent company of the NBC network, and head cheerleader for Obama, MSNBC must be investigated. There is much circumstantial evidence that while MSNBC (and most of the alphabet channels for that matter) are cheerleading for Obama and his policies, certain subsidiaries of GE will show a direct benefit. To list a few: GE Capital is getting $224 million from the FDIC to help alleviate the credit issue. GE Green Energy – Obama carbon tax credit and ―cap and trade or some say ―cap and tax proposal if passed will punish most other sources of energy – but not GE. In Obama‘s Healthcare proposal GE has already received a major multi-million dollar contract.
For the most part, GE‘s employees are not the problem. GE recruits about 7% of their employees from the Military. Like the majority of teachers in the teacher‘s union, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the people who work for GE are honest and good citizens. Until the felons at the top of the food chain were finally caught, one could have said the same thing about the vast majority of employees at Enron. That, however, does not give GE a pass. In the end, the deals that may be felonious or at bare minimum unethical are being done at the top, and those are the folks who need to be exposed and shown the door, or perhaps the inside of jail cell.
As a general rule we should eliminate tenure for University professors as well as guaranteed pay for K-12 public school teachers should be eliminated. Instead a merit system should be put in place to determine employment and pay grade at any level of the teaching profession. Although freedom of speech is always encouraged, teachers should stick to their subject matter and they should be judged on the quality of the teaching of their respective disciplines, not on their ability to spout Marxist or other secular dogma. State Universities and K-12 government schools in particular, due to their funding by tax payer dollars, should strive for a balance of ideas that reflect unbiased discussions of topics – not the propaganda of secular ideologues.
As it stands now, the Government Education monopoly stifles debate. Instead there needs to be competitive government sponsored and non government sanctioned schools that allow open debate of political ideas. Secular ideologies must be treated in the same way as the Government now treats Religions. The Government must either allow or ban both secular and traditional religions from the classroom to be truly fair. This should be accomplished by legal means if necessary. There is no need for a federal department of Education. Where exactly is it written in the Constitution for the requirement of a Federal Department of Education? State and local governments should control their own educational institutions – focusing on local. The Federal Government should only get involved if those institutions break laws or act in ways contrary to the US Constitution. It alarms me that once the Federal Government has the power to control content of Education everywhere in the country, the next step to control entirely what is acceptable and not. It is not that big a stretch to envision a Maoist style central government that will someday put the letters ―RE and a ―hyphen next to ―Education on the doors of schools throughout this country!
But just talking about these goals is not enough. Education or the ―indoctrination of our children has been left in the hands of the Secular believers in the Marxist Religion for too long. There is no room in the teaching of our children for strict ideologues of any stripe, yet they are the rule not the exception, both in the courts and in the Education establishment. If one was to scratch the surface or look under those ―Black robes who unapologetically legislate from the bench, underneath one will find an unreconstructed socialist at heart and anything but a strict constructionist in practice. You are being told by your government that your schools are free from Religion – free from those harmful values like the Ten Commandments and the Lord‘s Prayer.
Instead, your Government educated school children are being taught the importance of the religion of Global Warming, the religion of the Community Organizer, and most of all – the religion of Marxism. So let us break this down. As good disciples of Alinksy, most teachers do not consider themselves radicals. Most teachers are part of a noble profession. But whether most of them or aware of this or not, they have been radicalized by un-American ideals and quasi-religious beliefs, that have been pounded into them for so long there is little room for individuality. The courts created the first major path for this indoctrination by intentionally (or not) eliminating prayer and traditional Judeo-Christian religion from the classroom while letting the followers of the Secular Religions of Marxism and Global Warming and the like to have free rein in our schools.
On a Federal level, it is time for smart legal minds to begin to make the case for the return to a level playing field in government schools. Either we allow all religions to be a part of the dialogue in our schools or we eliminate all religions – including and especially those religions that insidiously hide behind the cloak of altruism and secularism Marxism, and the Religion of Eco-extortionism. While that legal revolution is going on, it is important that we educate the base of conservatives and open minded Independents who understand that while this Federal process is going on they must work at the local level with their local school boards and PTAs. No doubt many of these brainwashed Marxists will be resistant. After all, they consider themselves to be on the side of the good ―progressive causes. In most cases they do not see that they are pawns and foot soldiers in the battle to take over this country – one child at a time. Not to be cynical, but programs like ―no child left behind has a more insidious meaning when taken in this context.
So the fact is that we have the numbers, but they have the system and the propaganda tools in place to keep us divided while they promote their Marxist agenda. Because of their funding by tax payer dollars, State Universities and K-12 government schools should strive for a balance of ideas that reflect unbiased discussions of topics – not the propaganda of secular ideologues. As it stands now, government education is a monopoly that stifles debate. Instead there needs to be competitive government and non government sanctioned schools that allow open debate of political ideas. Secular ideologies must be treated in the same way as the Government now treats Religions. The Government must discourage both secular and traditional religions in the public square, if that is what they intend to do, to be truly fair.
Today, however, the threats do not primarily come from business sector; the bigger threats to the civil society and fair functioning economic system are the monopolies that exist in the public sector – the media, education – and the Federal Government itself – The Government-Education-Media Complex. Government has a role, but that role is not to disrupt the free market. Government‘s role is to not make up rules as you go, but enforce rules that enhance the free market. Complete laissez faire form of Capitalism is not advocated. Capitalism works best when markets are free from the strangle hold of monopolistic practices. The creative engine of Capitalism will implode on itself if the markets do not have referees to prevent the system from getting so out of kilter that there is no longer real competition. The Bush-Clinton-Bush years were twenty years of too much government intervention – not too little. We have moved from meddling from the Federal Government in the private sector to an outright takeover.
Most conservative economists tell us that no company is too big to fail. The end result will be painful, but in the long term it will be more beneficial than the Economic Armageddon we are heading for by postponing the inevitable. At some point, we must pay America‘s debts one way or another. Despite the bailout of GM and Chrysler, both went bankrupt – but not before flushing billions of tax payer dollars down the drain. The UAW was the prime beneficiary of this bogus bankruptcy procedure with Chrysler getting 55% of the stake in the company while punishing small investors and pension fund holders who got next to nothing. The UAW with 465,000 members in their latest Labor Department disclosure report (and millions more family members and retirees), contributed 99% of its $1.9 million in political giving to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org. Their top recipients included President-elect Barack Obama ($21,390) and House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller ($11,000). The fact that there was a significant contribution from UAW to democrats in 2008 election probably had nothing to do with this payback to the UAW. But one wonders. Opines National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix, “It is chilling to think that 75 years of government-authorized forced union dues have transformed union bosses into such a political juggernaut that the U.S. President wants to reward them for helping bankrupt a once-giant auto firm. The UAW andthe unholy relationship between the unions have effectively decimated one of the great American companies for a few benefits for their members and to the detriment of the rest of tax paying Americans. It is most probable that the company could have avoided bankruptcy if the unions had not been so powerful. But instead of punishing the one group that contributed most to GM‘s downfall, they were rewarded by the Obama administration – and apparently a quid pro quo for campaign donations. Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?
As Teddy Roosevelt showed us about a century ago, at some point monopolistic practices must be fought to make capitalism work more effectively and efficiently. It is a positive thing to bust up trusts and monopolistic practices that eliminate competition. Efficient and successful capitalism resembles a sporting game. There needs to be rules to avoid total chaos and anarchy. Prior to his presidency, the government had generally liaises faire with big business, and did not much get in their way. Roosevelt believed, however, that the government had the right and the responsibility to regulate big business so that its actions did not negatively affect the general public. Although some considered him an enemy of big business, he never fundamentally challenged its status, believing that its existence marked a necessary part of the country’s economic evolution. Although Congress had passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, former Presidents had seldom used it for their political agenda.
When the Department of Justice filed suit in early 1902 against the Northern Securities Company, it sent shockwaves through the business community. The suit alarmed the business community, which had hoped that Roosevelt would follow precedent and maintain a “hands-off” approach to the market economy. At issue was the claim that the Northern Securities Company — a giant railroad combination created by a syndicate of wealthy industrialists and financiers — violated the Sherman Antitrust Act because it was a monopoly. In 1904, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government and ordered the company dismantled. The high court’s action was a major victory for the administration and put the business community on notice that although this was a Republican administration, it would not give business free rein to operate without regard for the public welfare.
Roosevelt then turned his attention to the nation’s railroads, in part because the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had notified the administration about abuses within the industry. In addition, a large segment of the population supported efforts to regulate the railroads because so many people and businesses were dependent on them. Roosevelt’s first achievement in this area was the Elkins Act of 1903, which ended the practice of railroad companies granting shipping rebates to certain companies. The rebates allowed big companies to ship goods for much lower rates than smaller companies. However, the railroads and big companies were able to undermine the act.
Recognizing that the Elkins Act was not effective, Roosevelt pursued further railroad regulation and undertook one of his greatest domestic reform efforts. The legislation, which became known as the Hepburn Act, proposed enhancing the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission to include the ability to regulate shipping rates on railroads. One of the main sticking points of the bill was what role the courts would play in reviewing the rates. Conservative senators who opposed the legislation, acting on behalf of the railroad industry, tried to use judicial review to make the ICC essentially powerless. By giving the courts, which were considered friendly to the railroads, the right to rule on individual cases, the ICC had less power to remedy the inequities of the rates.
When Roosevelt encountered this resistance in Congress, he took his case to the people, making a direct appeal on a speaking tour through the West. He succeeded in pressuring the Senate to approve the legislation. The Hepburn Act marked one of the first times a President appealed directly to the people, using the press to help him make his case. The passage of the act was considered a major victory for Roosevelt and highlighted his ability to balance competing interests to achieve his goals.
Today we need a ―trust buster in the mould of Teddy Roosevelt, but not to go after business, but rather the Government Media Education monopoly. The Marxists in power have done their best to nationalize major segments of the economy. They have helped to bankrupt two of the three major auto companies Chrysler and GM and have effectively taken ownership of both. They have nationalized most of the major banks with their TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) program. This one is particularly galling since it is not the deregulation of the banking industry that was the primary cause of the ―troubled assets , but rather it was the executive branch and legislative branh forcing the two primary Government back lending agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home loans to people who could not afford and did not deserve them (sub-prime mortgages). Then the repeal of Glass Steagall Act brought down the one barrier that had kept fraudulent speculators from repeating the acts that helped cause the Great Depression. It appears that the Marxists in power are moving as fast as they can to nationalize as many industries as they can. This policy will have a destructive impact on companies that have not already been decimated by bad government decision. In the end, the big losers in all of this are members of America‘s great middle class.
It is not by accident that Candidate Obama talked about the worst economic disaster in America since the Great Depression. He should know because his fellow legislators in the Congress and Senate helped to manufacture it by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and passing the Graham-Leech-Bliley Act. Those were the key actions that created this financial melt down. Obama had an even more pernicious role in this by being part of that benign ―Community Organization known as Acorn. The Alinsky trained Acorn thugs, Obama‘s ―brown shirts , became the intimidation force that coerced banks to make these bad housing loans in the first place. He is doubly damned in this fiasco, yet the obsequious press gives their Messiah a pass on all of it because he is one them.
It took the lobbyists a couple of decades of effort and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars to finally repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and introduce one of the worst pieces of legislation since the Hawley-Smoot Tariff. The Graham-Leech-Bliley Act opened Pandora‘s Box by lifting restrictions on private banks merging with investment banks. Like all good Marxists and prevaricators, instead of taking responsibility for their acts, they slandered the ―free market and incorrectly labelled it as the culprit. But this crime was not committed by the ―free market anymore than the Hawley-Smoot Tariff had a positive effect on trade and the economy. Repealing the Glass Steagall Act gave speculators a license to print money – or print heavily leveraged securities. Now they had the tax payers of America and full faith and credit of the system backing securities that consisted of sub-prime loans and other fraudulent instruments.
The net is that the Federal Government‘s action created this financial crisis; and the same legislators who caused this fiasco by repealing Glass-Steagall, passing Graham-Leech-Bliley and forcing Freddie and Fannie to issue home loans to people who could not qualify, now have the nerve to tell the American people that they are going to fix it by controlling the Banking industry and coming up with the largest spending bill in U.S. – perhaps world history. The use of the word ―Trillion has now become a part of our vocabulary. The numbers and mountains of debt are astronomical and mind numbing. A fifth grader who can add sees that these numbers do not add up. Who is going to pay for this debt? What will happen when nations like China stop buying America‘s debt?
The simple fact is that America‘s lapdog media let the American people down by not screaming at the top of their lungs about this fraud committed by Congress. Instead they turned a blind eye to it because one of theirs was running for President. The time has come for Government Monopolies to be ―busted along with their propaganda arms of the Media and Government schools. If one steps back rationally, it is very easy to see that once a central Government becomes so large and all powerful that it has control of the majority of key industries in the private sector, including almost all of the media outlets, as well as the entire Education process, it does not matter if you label it socialism or Marxism. The end result is the same – a majority of the means of production is controlled by the government. Tony Soprano doesn‘t need to take ownership of the Sporting Goods store he is extorting money from; he just needs to make sure to get his ―unfair share. As it stands today the system is broken, perhaps beyond repair. The middle class is in even more danger than they ever were with ―greedy robber barons and business tycoons! The fraud perpetrated on the American tax payer has passed way beyond anything even the most avaricious robber baron or gangster could have ever contemplated. This fraud is now into the trillions of dollars and debt will approach and exceed the GDP.
What Conservatives fail to understand is that this double standard exists in large part because they have been asleep at the wheel. For at least a generation, radical foot soldiers from the army of Saul Alinsky and other Marxists throughout the Education establishment have successfully taken over and created an Education monopoly. Today, not only are we seeing the effects of this activism in K-12 and the undergraduate Universities, but we also are seeing that a very high percentage of very left wing Law Professors that have replaced a once relatively conservative group. Northwestern law professor John McGinnis in an article on his study of law professors’ political campaign contributions showed that in a survey of America’s top-22 law schools, 80 percent of professors who donate to political campaigns give predominantly or exclusively to Democratic candidates. An 80 or 90 percent number isprobably a good raw number for the entire Government Education Monopoly and for the Government Media Monopoly.
As printed in American Journalist Apr 2006, on first glance this telephone survey of over thousand journalists appear to track somewhat to the left of the rest of the adult population. It is probably much higher than that. First, although the journalists who self identify as pretty far to the left is over three times the number of the average American, and about twice the number that say they are a little to the left. On the right, however, less than half the number of Journalists self identify as a little to the right compared to average Americans. And the biggest question mark in this survey is the notion of journalists who say they are in the middle. If you ask a left leaning ideologue whether or not he thinks Bill O‘Reilly is in the middle, they would scream that he is a far right whack job on Fox News. If you ask a conservative if Geraldo Rivera is in the middle, he would most likely say that he is an ally of Hispanic activist groups and the Democrat Party. It is fair to say that there is much larger percentage of journalists who lean to the left than to the right. If it were possible to get a study that did not rely on self identification, it is more than likely that the journalists in the middle would actually be leaning a lot more to the left than they admit. Refer to work done by Bernie Goldberg and others. Although about 35% of journalists self identify as middle of the road and over 40% actually admit to left leaning, the real number to be accepted in the club is probably closer to the 80% or more, roughly the same percentage that tracks for law professors.
So when you dig a little deeper at actual donations from journalists you get a little closer to the truth, for after all – do you really expect journalists be unbiased and simply report a story? William Tate in Investors Business Daily examined the Federal Election Commission records of donations during the last 2008 election cycle and found that there were 235 journalists donating to Democrats while only 20 gave to Republicans for a total of $225,563 to Democrats and $16,298 to the GOP-inclined. That translates that 92% of them put their money on Democrats. Maybe my 80% estimate is not that accurate after all. Maybe it is more. And if you are conservative you can not help but laugh to see how the far left interprets the following study done in 2007 by Bill Dedman at MSNBC did, examining political donations by journalists over several years and found a similar overwhelming number of Democratic journalists (125 of 143 political donors while only 16 gave to Republican candidates and two others gave to both parties). Rather than make the obvious observation that almost 90% of journalists gave to Democrats because they are liberal, the author of the article for the LA times concluded: ―Those same donation figures could also be used to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republican journalists are a whole lot stingier than their liberal colleagues.
It did not occur to this LA Times writer that perhaps the numbers were attributable to the fact that the vast majority of the press is Democrat and this finding has nothing whatsoever to do with which party is more generous. Of course, the evidence is that conservatives and especially religious conservatives are demonstrably more generous. According to Arthur Brookes of Syracuse University, ―Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). Based on this study and many others it is highly unlikely that the 90% of all journalists in this example gave more because they were more generous. The logical conclusion is that there are a much higher percentage of journalists who are Democrats.
One very insightful moment that gets to the heart of how the media negatively affects a key government national security policy happened in an interview of the author and military buff Tom Clancy by Judy Woodruff of CNN. They were discussing the CIA‘s role in failing to prevent 9-11. Quite unexpectedly Clancy had a shocking answer to a question Judy Woodruff asked, as she was transparently attempting to place the blame for 9-11 on a failure of the CIA, which has been the whipping boy of the left wing news media since the Carter days. ―How could this happen, why didn‘t the CIA prevent this attack. How prepared are we? she asked. He responded, ―People always ask that when things go wrong. But you don‘t ask the question when things go right. You can‘t tell when things go right in that business…We need to upgrade human intelligence…You can‘t find out what‘s in a person‘s mind without talking to that person. The news media doesn‘t love our intelligence community. She responded,―Sure we have every right to ask these questions about failed security when they go wrong . Clancy responded, ―Sure you have every right to ask anything you want…when was the last time you said that we should invest more in human intelligence? And Woodruff responded, ―We would never take a side… Clancy said,―CNN helps the intelligence agencies to fail, why don‘t you help them to succeed once in a while? She had this shocked look on her face as she went to break. Unfortunately, CNN was not alone in helping to eviscerate the CIA. Most media outlets except a few on talk radio did the same thing.
One thing pundits are not supposed to do is to get too close to the truth. This is especially true if the prime propagandist is clearly shown to be a very real part of the problem. In the future, it is clear that if we are struck again, it will be because of the following reasons: by going after the CIA, the Speaker of the House actually accusing the CIA of lying, Democrats have reverted back to pre 9-11 battle with our primary intelligence organization, and in doing so, the CIA once again is being hamstrung in the name of partisan politics; cutting strategic defense initiatives (SDI) at a time when rogue nations like North Korean and Iran are rattling their sabres; closing down Gitmo before a plan is put together is as they say, putting the cart before the horse; and labelling caterpillars in a box and waterboarding torture for the purpose of political payback of the previous administration. As exemplified by the failure of 9-11, the media monopoly can be a very negative influence of a faulty national security policy when their one sided debate is convincing enough to actually result in the evisceration of the primary agency designed to protect us, the CIA.
In the purest sense a monopoly condition is a natural outcome of a Darwinian survival of the fittest. For example, although most of us would like to see multiple software vendors directly competing with Microsoft, it really is not practical or beneficial to the consumer. After Microsoft won the standard of the desktop for operating systems and applications by competing openly in the marketplace, the outcome for the rest of the computer industry was not less opportunity but more. That is, thousands of smaller companies sprang up to supply hardware and software for this newly created ―ecosystem of the personal computer. For those of us old enough to remember the pre-computer or early computer days, we can appreciate the benefit of standards in computing. Certainly we would have a difficult time plugging in our toaster and other appliances if we did not have some standards of electricity that the utilities provide. And the same holds true for many products sold in the mass market. So for some industries a partial monopoly is the natural condition of free enterprise.
The world of radio broadcasting is somewhat analogous. Although it is nice in theory to have more than a few conglomerates own most of the radio stations, the product we get with syndication is a superior product. Simply the ability to have the top commentators and hosts have a voice in markets all over the country is a good thing for
the consumer. Why would a local market prefer to listen to Uncle Jed‘s News Hour when he has the opportunity to listen to America‘s best and most intellectually stimulating and entertaining hosts? That analogy is easy to see in the TV broadcast industry. What would news be like if the only news we could get would be local broadcasters? Would those on the left be happy if Jim Lehr or any of the celebrity anchors, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, or Charles Gibson were forced off the air so that only local news anchors and minority news was presented?
To revisit the computer analogy, if the government forced minority ownership into each market, this would be like the government forcing every small or minority computer operating system vendor into their local market and not allowing people the choice of purchasing a standard product like Microsoft that ultimately provides the best products with the most applications at the best price. Monopolies in markets that are the natural outcome of free competition are not bad if the result is a better product and it is done within the constraints of a free market without collusion, price fixing or any other unfair practice.
Monopolistic practices are not the preferred state, but it is a natural state of the world that the Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest may lead us to only a few survivors. But artificially constructed monopolies formed by collusion, corruption and government influence are of course bad. In fact, a monopoly formed by government intervention is the most harmful of all because it is the most corrupt of all. When you combine a conglomerate that owns a major chunk of news and information outlets cheerleading for the government while apparently receiving significant government contracts, this is worrisome indeed. When you have the government forced break up of free market broadcasting in the guise of ending monopoly practices, all you really end up with is a single government monopoly which is worse than any dominance of an industry by a small number of broadcasters. The broadcasters at least are motivated by money and inevitably put the best product on the air in order to maximize their profits. Government on the other hand is motivated by ideology and that is truly where free speech ends.
Then you have the issue of the education monopoly and their inevitable symbiotic link to government. Here you have teacher‘s unions raising funds for democrat candidates and in return receiving special favors. The President essentially killed off (by eliminating funding) a successful voucher program for inner city minority students as a payback to the union. How would Jefferson Smith stand on this issue? Would Jefferson Smith object to having teachers teach about freedom but their very unions do everything they can to make sure there is no free competition of ideas in their own profession? Smith responded to the cynical Miss Saunders: ―You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty’s too precious a thing to be buried in books, Miss Saunders. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I’m free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn’t, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that.
Many of us have thought that Liebling‘s ―Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one quip applied to other countries, not ours. With the concentration of government backed media outlets in the hands of a few moguls, it may be truer now than ever. When government is party to the monopoly only corruption follows. Monopolies are bad but when the Government and Monopolies combine it is a catastrophe for the individual.
In conclusion, too many American citizens are either willingly ignorant or have been brainwashed against America and its founding principles to pay attention to the monopolies that threaten us. It is unfortunate that these people have not taken the time to read fully the Declaration of Independence the U.S. Constitution and those wonderful documents written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay — the Federalist papers. If they had, they might not have been so susceptible to biased government education and media propaganda. It is for this reason alone that the government education and media monopolies must be broken up.
Recognize ―The Government-Education-Media Complex exists and fight it. The Voucher System and Home Schooling needs to be implemented to counter the Education monopoly. Ultimately a monopoly in education is not qualitatively different from monopoly in Business, and we need to fight the unholy alliance of the education monopoly, the media monopoly, and government policy.
Separating the Judiciary from the Legislative Process
A constitution that is systematically ignored or misinterpreted is a dead constitution. We are approaching that reality today. The constitution is the sacred document of the country. The text of that document is the supreme law of the land. Over the course of two centuries there have been many lower court justices and even Supreme Court justices who have ignored or changed the meaning of that text for their own social or political purposes. Therefore, an amendment should be passed that requires all judges to obey the text of the Constitution unless that particular text itself is altered by an amendment. Judges who knowingly pass judgements contrary to the text of the Constitution should be suspended or disbarred for either incompetence or for knowingly legislating from the bench. It all is very simple, but until we have accountability from all branches of the Federal government, this amendment is unlikely to happen.
The time has come to eliminate lifetime appointments to the bench for all but the Supreme Court. We need to strictly evaluate judges on their ability to interpret the original meaning of the Constitution – not those that legislate from the bench. According to the Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton, aka Publius said that the Judiciary ―will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure…has no influence over either the sword or the purse… weakest of the three departments of power (Montesquieu); that it
can never attack with success either of the other two…it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches… it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, … Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing….. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. ..Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both… this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices it isindispensable thatthey should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them… Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges… —PUBLIUS
In deference to Mr. Hamilton, if he were alive today, he might not be so enamoured with the concept of a ―permanent tenure of judicial offices , for too many judges we have today ignore the text of the constitution or purposely misinterpret it. There is a benefit in theory of removing undue influence on judges by giving them a permanent position; however, it appears that judges can be greatly influenced by the media and propaganda like the rest of us mere mortals. And if Mr. Hamilton could have envisioned the insidious nature of propaganda and the media today, he might have held a different position.
As shown earlier by the Milgram experiment, intelligence is not really a major factor in manipulating people. Even Supreme Court justices can be manipulated by propaganda and a lock-step insular Media. There is a need to restore judicial boundaries to the courts. The Constitution’s Article III, Section 1, gives judicial power to the Supreme Court and “such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution set the limits of that judicial power. The purpose of the courts was not to determine “the spirit of the Constitution,” but rather to examine the words within the Constitution as stated by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers: “the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.”
Simply translated that means that the law should be the original interpretation as written in the Constitution and not subject to judicial fiat. No doubt the courts have far exceeded their authority. For example, the judiciary recently has cited the 14th Amendment in striking down state laws; in the process they have created a Leviathan – to quote Hobbes – that was never the intention of the founders. Much of this activism can be traced to the likes of Justice Hugo Black who said: “We must attempt to ascertain the spirit of the Constitution to interpret it.” He flat out set a precedent thatwas wrong and never the intention of the founders.
Those who believe in a Federalist doctrine advocate the exact terms in Article III of the Constitution and a strict review of judges ―behavior . For example, an option proposed by the Reagan New Federalist Platform states that, ―Congress adopt a five-year sunset on authorization for each such federal court inferior to the Supreme Court, together with the five-year review of all judges assigned to such courts, to ascertain whether those judges have exhibited the “good behavior” of adherence to their oaths of office to support the Constitution, as described elsewhere in this Platform. There doe not seem to be anything in the constitution that would prevent term limits for justices below the Supreme Court. Term limits for judges has essentially the same benefits as Congressional term limits. Although it is not a panacea it certainly is desirable for as some say, removing the ―stench from the bench.
Again in deference to Mr. Hamilton, trained legal scholars were rare in 1776, but we have a country today littered with Bar certified attorneys. In 2006 The Bureau of Labor Statistics tallied 761,000 lawyers in the United States. In 1776, the entire population was just a little over two million. That means that today we have a population of attorneys that is about one third of the entire population of America when Hamilton made his statement. This is an example of what is a more meaningful argument when discussing what things should change in America over time. Due to the fact that we have such a large population of lawyers and judges to draw from today compared to
1776 there is no reason to any longer accept Hamilton‘s premise in Federalist Paper 68 that only ―few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges . This is a valid difference between then and now.However, the language of the constitution itself is a different story. The text as written should strictly be enforced, and if changes need to be made, that is why we have the amendment process.
The counter argument that only experienced judges can do the job is no longer as meaningful as it once was if that experience is given to us by those with limited objectivity and questionable honesty. Although in a perfect world, judges would have the combination of experience, honesty, and objectivity – the latter two may be more than acceptable in a world of corruption and special interests.
We also need to hold elected officials and the Judiciary and the unelected anti-American forces accountable for putting America‘s security interests in jeopardy. We must emphasize the importance of freedom of religion – not freedom from religion.
Contrary to Obama‘s recent pronouncement, this is not a secular country. It is a Christian country founded on Judeo-Christian values. Any religion is tolerated, but we should not tolerate Shari`a Law or the secular religions of Marxism, Atheism and Global Warming that aim to supplant traditional values or the US Constitution. These are religions that aim to destroy this country. The constitution is not a suicide pact. All religions should have a voice but they should not be tolerated if they are destructive to the Constitution or other religions – and hence to we the people. Clearly a religion that professes ―jihad or holy war and offers non believers – infidels – the lovely option to either convert or die – is not compatible with the US Constitution.
Tolerance has limits. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Shari`a Law does not separate Church and State – which makes it incompatible with the Constitution. It is indeed an unholy alliance when you have Anti-American atheists and Marxists who are happy to destroy America for their utopian warped ideology – even if it means conspiring with Islamists who not only want to destroy Conservative Americans and traditional Christian values, but also the morals of the Hollywood left. Those on the left are probably first on their list for conversion or death
And 2009 Obama made his first Supreme Court Nominee, a female Latina named Sonia Sotomayor. She was caught on a taped speech giving us exactly what her judicial philosophy is, ―court of appeals is where policy is made.” The fact that she tried to cover her statement with a wink and nod, does not mean that she intends refrain from being an activist on the court. More stunning is a 2001 speech at the University of California, Berkeley, later published by the Berkeley La Raza (“The Race”) Law Journal, Sotomayor: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Immediately many Conservative Commentators took the bait and called her a bigot or that the statement was racist.
The term ―racist only applies to white men who slander people of color. If you are a person of color, you are free to slander white men and their institutions or acceptable religions such as the Catholic Church to your hearts content. This is the equality Martin Luther King had in mind when he said that a person should be judged on the―content of their character, not by the color of their skin . As Stuart Taylor in the National Journal responded to Sotomayor‘s bigoted remark, “Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.
Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: ‘I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life’ — and had proceeded to speak of ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences.
Obama is not the only recent president to make a poor choice to the Supreme Court. Among the sample list of the things that conservatives found offensive with Bush 2‘s administration: Amnesty for Illegal Immigration – masquerading by the name of Comprehensive Immigration Reform was at the top of most lists; attempting to turn over port security to terrorist sponsoring Dubai and being a little too cozy with Saudi princes for most Americans; and the bad judgement of nominating Harriet Meyers, Bush 2‘s good friend and maybe even a good lawyer, to the Supreme Court. In all of these cases and more, Bush 2 either held a losing strategy or just plain had bad judgement.
Trying to win Hispanic votes by giving in to their more radical leaders is counterproductive to Conservatives and directly harmful the American Middle Class. In some cases that meant that America‘s leaders were aiding the corrupt government of Mexico itself. This policy is directly harmful to most Americans: adding to the strain on the Healthcare System, the Education system, and the criminal justice system. Approximately 25% or more of the prison population are Illegal Immigrants. This blows a hole in the argument that they only come here to work. Any sane person not in the beltway can see that unfettered immigration is unsustainable. Any sane person can see that it is Mexico‘s problem to fix their government and provide a better economic system that allows more opportunities for their people. Any sane person can see that desperate Mexicans and other Latin Americans racing across our borders to find a better life deserve sympathy, but they do not deserve access to American jobs, to the American healthcare system, to America‘s schools or anything else that Americans pay for unless we willingly choose to give it to them.
The winning strategy for Republicans interestingly enough, is not to pander to Hispanics on the Illegal Immigration issue, but rather emphasize social issues conservatives and a majority of Legal Hispanics Citizens agree on: e.g. Fundamental Christian values including traditional Catholicism as well as the recent conversion of many Latinos to other Protestant sects; Marriage defined as between a man and a woman, and other mainstream Conservative social values. The media will always use the race card against conservatives and it serves no real purpose to fight them head on. The majority of the media outlets will sympathize with the Democrat manta that uses either the gender politics or the race card to promote their agenda. Let us see, how do you spell Judge Sotomayor? Obama got a twofer with her – he has the race and gender card to fend off any criticism!
Two recent examples explain this. The election of Barak Obama was all about race and ―white guilt that has been hammered into a majority of white public school children and University students in large doses since the nineteen seventies. Now these radicals are in charge of the system instead of outside fighting it. And with the recent appointment of a female Latina to the Supreme Court, it was necessary for Conservatives and Republicans to voice their outrage. The response was muted by the press, but the criticism at least has warned some of us what to expect.
Her empathy and ethnic background should have nothing to do with her ability to be a fair judge. The only meaningful question is whether or not she is the most qualified person for the job. Sotomayor is not the most qualified to be on the supreme court any more than Harriet Meyers was the most qualified woman when Bush nominated her. Although Meyers lacked experience on the bench, at least she did not have a history of bigoted remarks. The shrewdness of this nominee is both brilliant and yet a cynical political move. Republicans who dare to take issue with one of her statements made at La Raza at UC Berkeley – everyone knows at the appellate level is all about making ―policy . Or more importantly if they take issue with a very bigoted, perhaps evenracist statement, that her unique experience of being a female Latina gives her an ability to make better judgments that white males – is beyond the pale. Simply if a Caucasian nominee to the Supreme Court had said that his experience of being a white male gives him better qualified than a female Latina – there would be an immediate outcry for the President to rescind the nomination.
We must separate the Judiciary from the Legislative Process. We must establish the link between States Rights and Composition of Supreme Court; abolish all lifetime judges except Supreme Court; and follow a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution for clarifying role of Judiciary. We should impeach or vote out judges who legislate from the Bench. We must realize that Freedom of Speech and Reform of the Judiciary is linked. We must also understand why Foreign Law is incompatible with the Constitution.
Many foreign systems of jurisprudence do not have the same right to private property or ―possessions that we have. Property is fundamental to America‘s system and is antithetical to Marxist and socialist systems throughout the world. An individual has a right to protect his life, liberty – and the original quote from John Locke – possessions.
“The State of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty and or possessions“. An individual can steal your property but only a government can do the same thing and call it a law.
But of course, as judges have moved away from understanding and abiding by the founder‘s principles of natural law, they are undermining the very basis America‘s legal system passed on to us by founders. This country has suffered for much too long from left or Marxist leaning judges who are not in agreement with the intent of the constitution and the doctrine of natural law and the importance of the notion that rights and laws are conferred on to the individual by the grace of G*d and not by other men or governments.
Stemming the Tsunami of Socialism in America
Stemming the Tide of Socialism once might have describedAmerica‘spresentsituation, but given the reality of America today, Tsunami is a more accurate description. Socialist and Marxist ideology in America did not happen over night and it has not been exclusively the product of one Party. It is a fair statement that what is left of the Democrat Party has now been officially taken over by Marxists. It is also true that the so-called moderate wing of the Republican Party, the party of the ―The Compassionate Conservative also has promoted socialist programs. Compassionate Conservatism is the tide of socialism. The policy of Barak Hussein Obama is the full blown Tsunami!
As Edmund Burke warned us, ―All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing . At present, evil in the world is winningbecause men are either doing nothing or they are acting like estranged brothers who hold petty grudges. It is absolutely necessary for the Republican Party to reconcile with Independents in order to save not only the middle class but America‘s entire way of life! The message for Independents of all stripes is to join forces with the Republican Party, not because it is the perfect representative of your ideals, but because it is America‘s last best hope to stop the Alinsky-Marxist radicals from a complete take over of America. And the message for Republicans is to stick to the founding principles that may not play in the far left media, but will play to Independents and even Democrats who are more than a little concerned with the prospect of a potential complete Marxist take over of America.
It is incorrect to say that evangelical political movements like Marxism are purely secular and without any religious content. Bertrand Russell shows us that there is a very easy translation from Marxist religious doctrine to Judeo-Christian theology. One can extrapolate from this to show how this same translation can apply to the more modern American version of Marxism that has been successfully promoted by the followers of Saul Alinsky.
Pure democracy is not what the founders of America had in mind and there were very good reasons for the way they established America‘s representative republic with the rule book called the United States Constitution. From the great thinkers of Locke and Montesquieu we have the concept of separation of powers to act as a firewall between a freedom loving people and the tyrannical instincts of some leaders. The cult of hero worship is a dangerous path and that when the so called free press abrogates its responsibility and ceases to be the people‘s advocate and becomes rather the cheerleader for the cult or the Messiah, we have crossed into dangerous territory indeed.
Sophistry and the misuse of language is a common tactic of the demagogue. When members of the Democrat Party support Marxist policies they are no longer merely ―liberal or ―progressives . When members of the Republican Party call themselves ―Compassionate Conservatives push socialist programs to ―get along they are no longer conservatives. And when engaging in war, euphemisms such as ―War on Terror or ―overseas contingency are misleading to the public. Inaccurate use of language will not lessen the threat or make it go away. Eventually we have to face the real enemy.
So language and its intentional misuse for political purposes is the first step to tyranny. Let us take the word ―Liberal . Liberal in modern politics finds it is origins with men like John Locke and other 17th and 18th Century Philosophers. To the extent that America‘s founders used the anti-tyrannical and anti- ―Divine Right of Kings language to give more freedom and liberty to the average citizen – that is a positive. Over time meanings changed. Liberal simultaneously became associated with spending, pork barrel projects and social services created during the Great Depression. And generations since have been brainwashed by Government schools to look only favourably at a warped version of Keynesian economic philosophy that FDR and his socialistic policies that came in the wake of this great economic slow down.
There are many scholars like the late great Milton Freidman who has interpreted these policies as taking a bad situation and making it worse. As Santayana warned, ― Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Thereis no doubt thatObama is repeating the policy errors of the Great Depression. The only question is whether it is intentional or not. People calling themselves ―liberal today have little in common with its historical origins. Liberals today are more accurately labelled Statists which includes Republicans like McCain or Bush, or Marxists which include Alinsky trained Democrats like Obama.
Conservatism direct disciples come from the Natural Law philosophy of John Locke and others who influenced the founders of America. From the shoulders of the great political philosophers covering over two millennia, America‘s founding fathers composed the great documents of the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and America‘s Constitution. In putting together the rules for future survival of America, many of them are not fundamentally different from ideas already promoted from great conservative thinkers who understand the importance of a limited Federal government. But once we get the critical mass of Independents to support these basic principles, we actually may get enough traction to make them laws, not merely the dreams of a few conservative think tanks.
The value of limited government and greater freedom for the individual has provided the necessary structure to produce this great middle class and wealth for the vast majority of America‘s citizens. We cannot let the forces of tyranny take America‘s birthright away from us. Many soldiers have fought and died for the greatness of America and unlike the America haters who despise America‘s values and the great wealth of America‘s middle class, we must remember why those great men fought for America‘s freedom. Real conservative values are the values of America‘s Founding Fathers.
The Great Communicator Ronald Reagan will never be equalled as a speaker and a voice for Conservative Values. Not only did he have a total command of the language, but he also had the ability to emotionally connect with people. Obama and Clinton in our lifetime have also been able to deliver good speeches: Obama with his majestic almost hypnotic voice, Clinton with the down home bite your lower lip to show empathy style. Yet they lacked Reagan‘sforce because they did not share hisconservative convictions. Obama has convictions, but his Marxist ―the ends justify the means morality is not compatible with America‘s founding principles and isultimately anti-American.
Reagan had the strength of conviction to cut taxes when his detractors disagreed, to call the USSR the ―evil empire when many told him to compromise and tone down his rhetoric, and he built up America‘s military and the Strategic Defense Initiative
―star wars with a doctrine of peace through strength when those both within and outside the Republican Party were against it. The result of Reagan‘s policies helped to win the cold war, bring Down the Berlin Wall and the USSR, and led to over two decades of economic growth and prosperity. Reagan achieved all this in large part because of his ability to bypass the left wing press and appeal directly to the great Middle Class, Independents and the famous ―Reagan Democrats . Reagan‘s communications skill came from his many years as an actor in Hollywood. While many of his political enemies have dismissed his acting background as an indictment against him, acting ability was probably his greatest asset in delivering his powerful speeches. But more importantly, Reagan was the only President in our life time that truly understood and represented the rights of the individual and values of America‘s Founding Fathers.
As Memorial Day recently came and went, one is reminded of two of the amazing speeches Ronald Reagan gave at Omaha Beach and Point Du Hoc Normandy on June 6, 1984 commemorating the 40th anniversary of D-Day. The more famous of the two is the one he gave at Point Du Hoc Normandy. The one at Omaha Beach, however, is the one that may be the more moving of the two because of the unique way Reagan was able to personalize the incredible story of Private Peter Robert Zanatta as told to
Reagan by Zanatta‘s daughter:
“Someday, Lisa, I’ll go back,” said Private First Class Peter Robert Zanatta, of the 37th Engineer Combat Battalion, and first assault wave to hit Omaha Beach. “I’ll go back, and I’ll see it all again. I’ll see the beach, the barricades, and the graves.”
Those words of Private Zanatta come to us from his daughter, Lisa Zanatta Henn, in a heart-rending story about the event her father spoke of so often. “In his words, the Normandy invasion would change his life forever,” she said. She tells some of his stories of World War II but says of her father, “the story to end all stories was D-day.” “He made me feel the fear of being on that boat waiting to land. I can smell the ocean and feel the seasickness. I can see the looks on his fellow soldiers’ faces — the fear, the anguish, the uncertainty of what lay ahead. And when they landed, I can feel the strength and courage of the men who took those first steps through the tide to what must have surely looked like instant death.”
Private Zanatta’s daughter wrote to me: “I don’t know how or why I can feel this emptiness, this fear, or this determination, but I do. Maybe it’s the bond I had with my father. All I know is that it brings tears to my eyes to think about my father as a 20-year-old boy having to face that beach.”
The anniversary of D-day was always special for her family. And like all the families of those who went to war, she describes how she came to realize her own father’s survival was a miracle: “So many men died. I know that my father watched many of his friends be killed. I know that he must have died inside a little each time. But his explanation to me was, `You did what you had to do, and you kept on going.”’
When men like Private Zanatta and all the allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy 40 years ago they came not as conquerors, but as liberators. When these troops swept across the French countryside and into the forests of Belgium and Luxembourg they came not to take, but to return what had been wrongly seized. When our forces marched into Germany they came not to prey on a brave and defeated people, but to nurture the seeds of democracy among those who yearned to be free again.
Today the living here assembled — officials, veterans, citizens — are a tribute to what was achieved here 40 years ago. This land is secure. We are free. These things are worth fighting and dying for.
Lisa Zanatta Henn began her story by quoting her father, who promised that he would return to Normandy. She ended with a promise to her father, who died 8 years ago of cancer: “I’m going there, Dad, and I’ll see the beaches and the barricades and the monuments. I’ll see the graves, and I’ll put flowers there just like you wanted to do. I’ll feel all the things you made me feel through your stories and your eyes. I’ll never forget what you went through, Dad, nor will I let anyone else forget. And, Dad, I’ll always be proud.”
Through the words of his loving daughter, who is here with us today, a D-day veteran has shown us the meaning of this day far better than any President can. It is enough for us to say about Private Zanatta and all the men of honor and courage who fought beside him four decades ago: We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.
About two decades before that Normandy speech, Reagan voiced his support of then presidential candidate Barry Goldwater – October 27, 1964. I find his central theme similar in content and consistent with my tree of political history:
―…if we lose freedom here there is no place for us to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that the government is beholding to the people, that is has no other power than the sovereign people is still the newest and most unique idea in long history of man‘s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self government or abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left and a right. Well I‘d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Man‘s age old dream, individual freedomconsistent with law and order or down to ant heap of totalitarianism and regardless of their sincerity and humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course…the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it‘s just they know so much that isn‘t so.
Today we have perhaps a more subtle but just as dangerous a set of enemies of Liberty as the ones those heroes fought on Normandy beach in 1944. As Reagan said so eloquently twenty five years ago – at least for now the land is secure and we are free and ―these things are worth fighting and dying for. Not to frighten those of you still boiling in the cannibal‘s pot, but time is running out to make things right or we may find ourselves living in the Former United States of America.
- Bill Clinton, Impeachment Hearing: ―It depends upon what the meaning of the word is, is .
- Shawn Hannity, Hannity Show Fox News, ―Journalism in America is dead .
- Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) – the author of as Rules for Radicals
- First 100 days Economic Report
- Frank Capra‘s movie fable Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
- Gallup Poll – Republican, Democrat, Independents, Apr 2009
- Pew Research poll from a May 21, 2009
3. Trend for voting for Republican candidates in April and early May according to Rassmussen:
Finally, Rassmussen‘s party affiliation, 2009
4. www.Opensecrets.org –
Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates that donated to Obama campaign:
|University of California||$1,385,675|
|JPMorgan Chase & Co||$650,758|
|Sidley Austin LLP||$574,938|
|National Amusements Inc||$541,251|
|Skadden, Arps et al||$510,274|
|Latham & Watkins||$467,311|
- ? listen to ordinary people’s troubles and needs, assess where power lay, and empower previously divided groups to seek common goals by standing up to government and corporate machines .
- 1984 by the band Spirit
- Alinsky, Playboy magazine 1972
- Patrick Henry
- Janine Garafalo
- Chris Mathews, Hardball, CNN Cable News
- Reuters Feb 2009, As a result of both the continued growth in the illegal alien population and the higher cost of governmental services, the current fiscal cost outlays for the illegal alien population in California are now approaching $13.1 billion annually – more than half the projected shortfall for next year.
- David Greenburg stated in Slate Magazine
- Apr 1, 2009 Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove
- George Orwell, 1984
- Barak Obama, SF Fundraiser, 2008
- Bertrand Russell – A History of Western Philosophy, 1945
- Plato – The Republic
- St Thomas Aquinas
- Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
- US Census, population statistics 2008
- Wikepedia, poverty in America
- Karl Marx, Das Capital and The Communist Manifesto
- Jed Babbin (in Human Events Magazine March 2007)
- Washington Post April 2004
- Lenin, lie often enough becomes the truth
- Sacramento Valley Pregnancy Clinic, medical description of partial birth abortion
- John Locke‘s Second Treatise on Government
- Greek Stoic Zeno
- Sir Robert Filmer’s
- Averroes, treatise on Justice and Jihad
- Edmund Burke – on natural law
- Locke, Second Treatise on Government
- Jefferson, Thomas – Declaration of Independence
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
- Comparison of charity of England, France, US, World Bank 2005
Charitable Contributions based on data from World Bank 2005
- Jeremy Bentham
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
- Immanuel Kant
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
- Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
- Orwell, 1984
- Spririt, 1984
- Franklin, Ben
- Lenin, Vladimir
- Arbitron, Radio Today: How America Listens to Radio, 2007 edition
- American Progress report
- Bernie Goldberg, Bias and
- Goldberg, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media
- Chris Norman, blog response to CBS anchor Bob Schieffer
- Primetime, ABC News
- SF Chronicle Phil Bronstein
- Daniel Pipes, Militant Islam Reaches America
- Orwell, George
- National Journal, 2009 unemployment statistics
- SF Chronicle May 10, Barbara Boxer
- Jeruselum Post on Netanyahu, Nov 2000
- David Horowitz,Unholy Alliance
- Leni Riefenstahl, responding to a Hitler speech in 1932
- Theodore Roosevelt
- Federalist Papers #3 
- Federalist Papers 43
- Dick Cheney
- John Steinbeck, Viva Zapata, screenplay
- Time Magazine April 2009
- Samuel Huntington, Clash of Civilizations
- Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand institute,New York,October 2, 2001
- Michael Medved
- Tom Tancredo stated, 2008 article in Facethestate.com about Obama
- Winston Churchill
- David Boa
- James Madison
- Delbert L. Latta
- Milton Friedman
- Milton Friedman
- Milton Friedman
- Justice Litle
- Frank Rich‘s New York Times article of May 30, 2009
- Henry David Thoreau
- John Locke
- 2000 Presidential election map
- 2007 the CBO estimates that 17% of our GDP is spent on healthcare
- Judd Greg (R-NH)
- Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil
- June 2009, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said on MSNBC
- SF Chronicle, Sunday May 24th 2009
- 1994 Contract with America
- Real Term Limits Now More than Ever by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institutein 1995
- included term limits. #10 was the THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators
- Former House Majority Leader Richard Armey’s
- 2010 Per Capita Budget Deficits
2010 Per Capita Budget Deficits
|2||New York||$ 703.47||Split||Democratic|
|5||New Jersey||$ 554.43||Democratic||Democratic|
|13||Rhode Island||$ 411.95||Democratic||Democratic|
8. Congressional turnover rates from 1964-1998:
1 Does not include persons who died or resigned before the election.
2 Number of incumbents defeated in primaries by other incumbents due to redistricting: six in 1982 and four in 1992.
3 Five incumbents defeated in general election by other incumbents due to redistricting.
Source: Ornstein, Norman J., Thomas E. Mann, and Michael J. Malbin, Vital Statistics on Congress, 1993-1994, beginning 1995, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Washington, DC, American Votes, biennial (copyright). http://www.cq.com
- Greenburg article
- Cato Institute analysis by Steve Moore and Aaron Steelman
- House HR 3997
- A SurveyUSA/CBS4 poll
- Milton Freidman
- Senator Barbara Boxer
- Bertrand de Jouvenal
- GDP stats US
- Rachel Carson
- American Solutions, cap and tax
- Charles River Associates predicts that a ―cap and tax bill will cost us between
1.2 million to 2.3 million jobs by 2015
- Robert Anton Wilson
- Sinclair Lewis
- Thomas Jefferson
- Billy Graham
- Ronald Reagan
- Federalist Papers #6 [3
- Bertrand Russell
- Mortimer Adler
- Animal Farm, Orwell
- Salman Rushdie
- Geert Wilders
- Daniel Pipe’s book Militant Islam Reaches America
- Fukiyama’s “end of history” theory
- Samuel Huntington
- George Kennan’s cold war doctrine
- overseas contingency
- (Exod xxii. 18)
- Russell, Religion and Science
- Religion and Science
- Religion and Science
- Santayana, George
- Merideth Kolodner in International Socialist Review 2005
- Rules for Radicals – Alinsky
- Levin, Liberty and Tyranny
- Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
- ABC News, Primetime
- Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study in 2005
- Harry J. Holzer
- National Survey of Recent Graduates (NSRG)
- Steven Proudfoot found, in the 2006 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG)
- Labor Department disclosure report – UAW and Obama donations
- National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix
- Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890
- Elkins Act
- Hepburn Act
- Glass Steagall Act
- Hawley-Smoot Tariff
- Graham-Leech-Bliley Act
- John McGinnis in an article on his study of law professors’ political campaign contributions
- American Journalist Apr 2006
- William Tate in Investors Business Daily
- 2007 by Bill Dedman at MSNBC
- Arthur Brookes of Syracuse University
- Tom Clancy by Judy Woodruff of CNN
- Frank Capra, Mr Smith Goes to Washington
- Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton
- Constitution’s Article III, Section 1,
- Hamilton in the Federalist Papers
- Justice Hugo Black
- Reagan New Federalist Platform
- 2006 The Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Federalist Paper 68
- La Raza (“The Race”) Law Journal
- Stuart Taylor in the National Journal
- Aaron Rodriguez at www.HispanicConservative.com
- John Locke
- Edmund Burke
- Milton Freidman
- Reagan, Omaha Beach Speech, June 6, 1984
Historical Tree of Western Political
Bertrand Russell – A History of Western Philosophy
Yahweh/ G*d = Dialectal Materialism
The Messiah = Marx
The Elect = The Proletariat
The Church = The Communist Party
The Second Coming = The Revolution
Hell = Punishment of the Capitalist
The Millenium = The Communist Commonwealth
Extrapolated from Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy
Yahweh-G*d = Community Organizations
The Messiah = Alinsky
The Elect = Union and Government workers The Church = The New Democrat Party
The Second Coming = Barak Obama and the New Marxist revolution Hell = Punishment of Republicans, Conservatives and Middle Class The Millenium = The Radical Socialist Commonwealth
Evolutionary Tree of Political Ideology: Key terminology and brief biographical notes (Encarta Encyclopedia and other sources)
Ancient Greek Philosophers – Ancient Western philosophy is marked by the formationand development of philosophy from around the sixth century B.C.E. to the sixth century C.E., and is defined largely by the three great thinkers: Socrates (fifth century B.C.E.), his student Plato (fourth century B.C.E.), and Plato’s student Aristotle (fourth century B.C.E.). Ancient Western philosophy is generally divided into three periods. First, all thinkers prior to Socrates are called PreSocratics; the second period spans the lifetimes of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; the last period covers diverse developments in philosophy, which includes the Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, Neo-Platonists, and Aristotelians. The end of Ancient Philosophy is marked by the spread of Christianity in the sixth century C.E..
Athens – Ancient Athens was the most powerful of the Greek city-states during thegolden age of Greece. Ancient Athens reached its zenith as a powerful city-state during the 4th and 5th centuries B.C. This was the age of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Pericles, and Sophocles. Ancient Athens was a small city compared to the modern city of Athens; its total area was around 2 sq. km.
Aristotle –(384 BCE-322 BCE) Born at Stagirus, a Greek colony and seaport on thecoast of Thrace. He studied under Plato. At the invitation of Philip of Macedonia he became the tutor of his 13 year old son Alexander (later world conqueror); he did this for the next five years. Among the texts are treatises on logic, called Organon
(―instrument ), because they provide the means by which positive knowledge is to be attained. His works on natural science include Physics, which gives a vast amount of information on astronomy, meteorology, plants, and animals. His writings on the nature, scope, and properties of being, which Aristotle called First Philosophy (Protē philosophia), were given the title Metaphysics in the first published edition of his works (60? bc), because in that edition they followed Physics. His treatment of the Prime Mover, or first cause, as pure intellect, perfect in unity, immutable, and, as he said, ―the thought of thought, is given in the Metaphysics. To his son Nicomachus he dedicated his work on ethics, called the Nicomachean Ethics. Other essential works include his Rhetoric, his Poetics (which survives in incomplete form), and his Politics (also incomplete).
Stoics – The Stoic school was established at Athens about 300 bc by Zeno of Citium inCyprus. Zeno, who derived much of his philosophy from Crates of Thebes, opened his
school in a colonnade known as the Stoa Poikilē (―painted porch ). Among his disciples was Cleanthes of Assos in the Troad (area surrounding ancient Troy), whose extant ―Hymn to Zeus sets forth the unity, omnipotence, and moral government of the supreme deity. Cleanthes was followed by Chrysippus of Soli in Cilicia. These three men represent the first period (300-200 bc) of Stoic philosophy. The second period (200-50 bc) embraced the general promulgation of the philosophy and its introduction to the Romans. Chrysippus was succeeded by Zeno of Tarsus and Diogenes of Babylonia; then followed Antipater of Tarsus, who taught Panaetius of Rhodes). Panaetius introduced Stoicism to Rome; among Panaetius’s pupils was Posidonius of Apamea in Syria, who was the teacher of the orator Marcus Tullius Cicero. The third period of Stoicism was Roman. In this period outstanding Stoics included Cato the Younger and, during the empire, the three Stoic philosophers whose writings are extant, namely, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Epictetus, and the emperor Marcus Aurelius.
Natural Law – Ancient – The ancient Greek philosophers were the first to elaborate anatural law doctrine. Heraclitus spoke in the 6th century bc of a common wisdom that pervades the whole universe, ―for all human laws are nourished by one, the divine. Aristotle distinguished between two kinds of justice: ―A rule of justice is natural that has the same validity everywhere, and does not depend on our accepting it or not; a rule is legal [conventional] that in the first instance may be settled in one way or the other indifferently. The Stoics, especially the philosopher Chrysippus of Soli, constructed a systematic natural law theory. According to Stoicism, the whole cosmos is rationally ordered by an active principle variously named God, mind, or fate. Every individual nature is part of the cosmos. To live virtuously means to live in accord with one’s nature, to live according to right reason. Because passion and emotion are considered irrational movements of the soul, the wise individual seeks to eradicate the passions and consciously embrace the rational life. This doctrine was popularized among the Romans by the 1st-century bc orator Cicero, who gave a famous definition of natural law in his De Republica: True law is right reason in agreement with Nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. . . . There will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times. In the
Corpus Iuris Civilis a compilation and codification of Roman legal material prepared (534 ad) under Emperor Justinian, a ius naturale is acknowledged, but there is no assertion that natural law is superior to positive law and no vindication of human rights (slavery, for example, was legal).
Christian – Christians found the natural law doctrine of the Stoics quite compatible with their beliefs. St. Paul spoke of Gentiles who do not have the Mosaic law doing
―by nature what the law requires (Romans 2:14). The 6th-century Spanish theologian St. Isidore of Seville affirmed that natural law is observed everywhere by natural instinct; he cited as illustrations the laws ordaining marriage and the procreation of children. Texts from Isidore cited at the beginning of the Italian scholar Gratian’s Decretum (circa 1140), the canon law textbook of the Middle Ages, stimulated extensive discussion among the Scholastics. The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on the natural law is the most widely known. In his Summa Theologiae (Summary Treatise of Theology, 1265-73) Aquinas called the rational guidance of creation by God the ―Eternal Law. The Eternal Law gives all beings the inclination to those actions and aims that are proper to them. Rational creatures, by directing their own actions and guiding the actions of others, share in divine reason itself. ―This participation in the Eternal Law by rational creatures is called the Natural Law. Its dictates correspond to the basic inclinations of human nature. Thus, according to Aquinas, it is possible to distinguish good from evil by the natural light of reason.
Modern – The German jurist Samuel von Pufendorf, the first to hold a chair of natural law in a German university, more fully developed the concept of a law of nature. The 17th-century English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke proposed an original state of nature from which a social contract arose and combined this theory with that of natural law. Locke’s doctrine that nature had endowed human beings with certain inalienable rights that could not be violated by any governing authority was incorporated in the American Declaration of Independence.
Statism – centralized political control: the theory, or its practice, that economic andpolitical power should be controlled by a central government leaving regional government and the individual with relatively little say in political matters. (Communism and Fascism)
Utilitarianism – (Latinutilis,―useful ), in ethics, the doctrine that what is useful isgood, and consequently, that the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its results. The term utilitarianism is more specifically applied to the proposition that the supreme objective of moral action is the achievement of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. (Influence Left and Center branches)
Plato (428?-347 BC), Greek philosopher, a disciple of Socrates, acceptinghis basicphilosophy and dialectical style of debate: the pursuit of truth through questions, answers, and additional questions. The writings of the middle period include Phaedo (the death scene of Socrates, in which he discusses the theory of Forms, the nature of the soul, and the question of immortality), the Symposium (Plato‘s outstanding dramatic achievement, which contains several speeches on beauty and love), the
Republic (Plato‘s supreme philosophical achievement, which is a detailed discussion ofthe nature of justice. The leaders whose goal is to become a philosopher king are known as the Guardians.) The great utopian state is described only as an analogue to the soul in order to understand better how the soul might achieve the kind of balance and harmony necessary for the rational element to control it. Just as there are three elements to the soul, the rational, the less rational, and the impulsive irrational, so there are three classes in the state, the rulers, the guardians, and the workers. The rulers are not a hereditary clan or self-perpetuating upper class but are made up of those who have emerged from the population as a whole as the most gifted intellectually. The guardians serve society by keeping order and by handling the practical matters of government, including fighting wars, while the workers perform the labor necessary to keep the whole running smoothly. Thus the most rational elements of the city-state guide it and see that all in it are given an education commensurate with their abilities.
The wisdom, courage, and moderation cultivated by the rulers, guardians, and workers ideally produce the justice in society which those virtues produce in the individual soul when they are cultivated by the three elements of that soul. Only when the three work in harmony, with intelligence clearly in control, does the individual or state achieve the happiness and fulfillment of which it is capable. The Republic ends with the great myth of Er, in which the wanderings of the soul through births and rebirths are recounted. One may be freed from the cycle after a time through lives of greater and greater spiritual and intellectual purity. Plato’s second trip to Syracuse took place in 367 B.C. after the death of Dionysius I, but his and Dion’s efforts to influence the development of Dionysius II along the lines laid down in the Republic for the philosopher-king did not succeed, and he returned to Athens.
Influenced by Socrates, Plato was convinced that knowledge is attainable. He was also convinced of two essential characteristics of knowledge. First, knowledge must be certain and infallible. Second, knowledge must have as its object that which is genuinely real as contrasted with that which is an appearance only. Because that which is fully real must, for Plato, be fixed, permanent, and unchanging, he identified the real with the ideal realm of being as opposed to the physical world of becoming. One consequence of this view was Plato‘s rejection of empiricism, the claim that knowledge is derived from sense experience. He thought that propositions derived from sense experience have, at most, a degree of probability. They are not certain. Furthermore, the objects of sense experience are changeable phenomena of the physical world. Hence, objects of sense experience are not proper objects of knowledge.
Kant, Immanuel (1724-1804), German philosopher, considered by many the mostinfluential thinker of modern times. The keystone of Kant’s philosophy, sometimes called critical philosophy, is contained in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), in which he examined the bases of human knowledge and created an individual epistemology. Like earlier philosophers, Kant differentiated modes of thinking into analytic and synthetic propositions. An analytic proposition is one in which the predicate is contained in the subject, as in the statement ―Black houses are houses. The truth of this type of proposition is evident, because to state the reverse would be to make the proposition self-contradictory. Such propositions are called analytic because truth is discovered by the analysis of the concept itself. Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, are those that cannot be arrived at by pure analysis, as in the statement ―The house is black. All the common propositions that result from experience of the world are synthetic.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770-1831), German idealist philosopher; Hegel’saim was to set forth a philosophical system so comprehensive that it would encompass the ideas of his predecessors and create a conceptual framework in terms of which both the past and future could be philosophically understood. Such an aim would require nothing short of a full account of reality itself. Thus, Hegel conceived the subject matter of philosophy to be reality as a whole. This reality, or the total developmental process of everything that is, he referred to as the Absolute, or Absolute Spirit. According to Hegel, the task of philosophy is to chart the development of Absolute Spirit. This involves (1) making clear the internal rational structure of the Absolute; (2)
demonstrating the manner in which the Absolute manifests itself in nature and human history; and (3) explicating the teleological nature of the Absolute, that is, showing the end or purpose toward which the Absolute is directed.
Concerning the rational structure of the Absolute, Hegel, following the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, argued that ―what is rational is real and what is real is rational. This must be understood in terms of Hegel’s further claim that the Absolute must ultimately be regarded as pure Thought, or Spirit, or Mind, in the process of self-development. The logic that governs this developmental process is dialectic. The dialectical method involves the notion that movement, or process, or progress, is the result of the conflict of opposites. Traditionally, this dimension of Hegel’s thought has been analyzed in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
Marx, Karl (1818-1883), German political philosopher and revolutionary, the mostimportant of all socialist thinkers and the creator of a system of thought called Marxism. With political economist Friedrich Engels, he founded scientific socialism (now known as communism); for this, Marx is considered one of the most influential thinkers of all time. In Paris, as a result of his further studies in philosophy, history, and political science, he adopted communist beliefs. In 1844, when Engels visited him in Paris, the two men found that they had independently arrived at identical views on the nature of revolutionary problems. They began a collaboration to elucidate systematically the theoretical principles of communism and to organize an international working-class movement dedicated to those principles.
Lenin, Vladimir (1870-1924), Russian revolutionary leader and theorist, who presidedover the first government of Soviet Russia and then that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Lenin was the leader of the radical socialist Bolshevik Party (later renamed the Communist Party), which seized power in the October phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917. After the revolution, Lenin headed the new Soviet government that formed in Russia. He became the leader of the USSR upon its founding in 1922. Lenin held the highest post in the Soviet government until his death in 1924, when Joseph Stalin assumed power.
Stalin, Joseph (1879-1953), general secretary of the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) from 1922 to 1953, the despotic ruler who more than any other individual molded the features that characterized the Soviet regime and shaped the direction of Europe after World War II ended in 1945. Although unchallenged by the early 1930s, Stalin worried about potential conspiracies against him, especially after the suicide of his second wife in late 1932. Stalin set in motion a massive purge of the party following the assassination of Leningrad party chief Sergey Kirov in December 1934, which many have speculated was masterminded by Stalin because he viewed Kirov as a threat. Although the purge began gradually, with selective arrests in 1934 and 1935, by 1936 the Soviet secret police were arresting and executing party members by the thousands. Highly publicized trials of leading party figures—including Kamenev, Zinovyev, and Bukharin—were staged in Moscow and resulted in their swift execution on trumped-up charges. In 1937 and 1938 the terror spread to all of Soviet society, including the military high command. Estimates of those arrested and executed from 1936 to 1938 in the Great Purge range between 1.5 million and 7 million.
Alinsky, Saul (1909– 1972) was a community organizer and writer. He is generallyconsidered to be the founder of modern community organizing in America. In the 1930s, Alinsky organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago (made infamous by Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle for the horrific working conditions in the Union Stock Yards). He also spent years in post graduate study working with the famous Al Capone gang. He went on to found the Industrial Areas Foundation while organizing the Woodlawn neighborhood, which trained organizers and assisted in the founding of community organizations around the country. In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the first chapter, opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Clinton, Hillary Rodham , born in 1947, secretary of state of the United States (2009-), Democratic member of the United States Senate from New York (2001-2009), wife of United States president Bill Clinton (1993-2001), and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination for the 2008 presidential race. During her husband‘s presidency, she became a powerful symbol of the changing role and status of women in American society. Her election to the U.S. Senate while being first lady was unprecedented in U.S. history. Alinsky offered “Miss Hillary Rodham, Wellesley College”, Oct. 25, 1968, a student government president who grew up in the Chicago suburbs. She was in the midst of a year-long analysis of Alinsky’s aggressive mobilizing tactics, and he was searching for “competent political literates” to move to Chicago to build grass-roots organizations. She turned down the job offer — and she has said little about Alinsky since their association became a favorite subject of conservative critics during her husband’s presidency.
Obama,Barak, born in 1961, the 44th president of the United States andthe first African American to be elected president. Obama was elected president in the November 2008 elections after securing the nomination of the Democratic Party and becoming the first African American to head the ticket of a major party. A member of the United States Senate from Illinois, Obama and his vice-presidential running mate, U.S. senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, defeated the Republican Party ticket of Senator John McCain of Arizona and his vice-presidential running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
Obama and his mother stayed in Hawaii until her second marriage to an Indonesian man, named Lolo, brought a move to Jakarta when Obama was 6 years old. At the age of 10, Obama returned to Hawaii to attend a prestigious college-prep academy, the Punahou School, and live with his grandparents. After graduating from Punahou in Hawaii, Obama studied for two years at Occidental College in Pasadena, California before transferring to Columbia University in New York City. Obama completed his undergraduate studies in political science in 1983. He then moved to Chicago to take a job as director of a community development program on the city‘s far South Side.