This information is explosive and sobering. It is not opinion, speculation, or conjecture. It is pure, 100%, documented FACT.
And Columbia Conservative Examiner has it.
Now that we have been treated to days of Kennedy-worship, it is time to come back down to reality. The funeral is over, and citizens need to know the REAL Ted Kennedy. This story will tell it all.
Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Human Liberty Thrown Under the Bus
I hate to break it to you, but your friends, family, and co-workers who may be Socialist in their thinking are more than willing to sacrifice all of your rights--that's right, throw ALL of your liberties under the bus--in order to achieve their goals.
This is Communism-Socialism's dirty little secret.
And this is my topic of discussion today at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
In order to get 'government mandated healthcare for all' and government-controlled endeavor previously handled by the private sector, they are more than willing to take your guns, free speech, and everything else.
I encourage you to click on the link above and read. And pass it along. Thanks!
This is Communism-Socialism's dirty little secret.
And this is my topic of discussion today at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
In order to get 'government mandated healthcare for all' and government-controlled endeavor previously handled by the private sector, they are more than willing to take your guns, free speech, and everything else.
I encourage you to click on the link above and read. And pass it along. Thanks!
Friday, February 27, 2009
Quote of the Day from Alan Keyes
"Barack Obama is an extremist Communist who will destroy this country. And we have to stop him."
--conservative Alan Keyes
Friday, February 20, 2009
How 'Bout a Salary Cap for Actors, Sports Figures?
Oscar-award winning Actor Sidney Poitier stated on Thursday that Hollywood CEOs should have their salaries capped just like banking executives who accept bailout money from the federal government.
In fact, he stated that ALL CEOs should have their salaries capped at $500,000 per year whether they accept bailout money or not.
You see, my friends, the vermin Socialists crawl out from under the woodwork when somebody like Obama gets into the White House.
I have a question for Mr. Poitier. How 'bout a salary cap for actors and sports figures too? Huh?
I mean, the money you people make is 'obscene,' to borrow a term from your fellow liberals who describe the money CEOs make.
Answer me this, Mr. Poitier. Is it acceptable for a baseball player to sign a contract worth over 100 million bucks, such as is common today? Is it 'morally and ethically' proper for an actor to make 10 million bucks for one movie?
I doubt Hollywood types like Mr. Poitier would accept any such caps that they readily prescribe for others. But if for some odd reason they are open to such an idea, I have a suggestion. Let's cap actors' salaries at $100,000 per year no matter how many pictures they make. Let's set sports figures' salaries at a maximum of $200,000 per year.
With all that money we are saving just from actors and sports figures alone we could probably bump up garbage collectors' wages to $60,000 per year.
How's that for 'fairness' Mr. Poitier?
In fact, he stated that ALL CEOs should have their salaries capped at $500,000 per year whether they accept bailout money or not.
You see, my friends, the vermin Socialists crawl out from under the woodwork when somebody like Obama gets into the White House.
I have a question for Mr. Poitier. How 'bout a salary cap for actors and sports figures too? Huh?
I mean, the money you people make is 'obscene,' to borrow a term from your fellow liberals who describe the money CEOs make.
Answer me this, Mr. Poitier. Is it acceptable for a baseball player to sign a contract worth over 100 million bucks, such as is common today? Is it 'morally and ethically' proper for an actor to make 10 million bucks for one movie?
I doubt Hollywood types like Mr. Poitier would accept any such caps that they readily prescribe for others. But if for some odd reason they are open to such an idea, I have a suggestion. Let's cap actors' salaries at $100,000 per year no matter how many pictures they make. Let's set sports figures' salaries at a maximum of $200,000 per year.
With all that money we are saving just from actors and sports figures alone we could probably bump up garbage collectors' wages to $60,000 per year.
How's that for 'fairness' Mr. Poitier?
Saturday, December 20, 2008
"The Revenge of Che"
On numerous occasions The Liberty Sphere has decried the lifting of Castro's butcher/mass murderer Che Guevara to hero status by college students, Obama supporters, and others of the liberal persuasion.
As we have stated before, Obama campaign offices around the country had pictures of Che hanging on their walls. Tee-shirts with the image of the Communist hitman are a hit on campuses.
And immediately following Barack Obama's election, a statue of Che Guevara was erected in Central Park in New York City.
A new article on Che by Mark Goldblatt is of particular interest, because it delineates in stark detail the horrors perpetrated by Che in order to advance Communism in Cuba and other areas.
To whet your appetite, here is an excerpt:
Thus, in essence Che wanted to take the 'revolution' for Communism to the U.S. mainland by firing Soviet nuclear bombs into the heart of New York City.
Some 'hero,' eh?
As we have stated before, Obama campaign offices around the country had pictures of Che hanging on their walls. Tee-shirts with the image of the Communist hitman are a hit on campuses.
And immediately following Barack Obama's election, a statue of Che Guevara was erected in Central Park in New York City.
A new article on Che by Mark Goldblatt is of particular interest, because it delineates in stark detail the horrors perpetrated by Che in order to advance Communism in Cuba and other areas.
To whet your appetite, here is an excerpt:
Oh, and here’s Che lamenting the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis: “If the missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of America including New York. We must never establish peaceful coexistence. In this struggle to the death between two systems we must gain the ultimate victory. We must walk the path of liberation even if it costs millions of atomic victims.”
Thus, in essence Che wanted to take the 'revolution' for Communism to the U.S. mainland by firing Soviet nuclear bombs into the heart of New York City.
Some 'hero,' eh?
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
An 'International Environmental Court'?
Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.
But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment".
The Telegraph of the U.K. has the whole story.
It would appear that the neo-Communists of the European Union, who clearly wish to 'rule the world' as they attempted to do with their 'International Criminal Court,' are on the move to implement and enforce global enviro-nutcase dogma.
Barack Obama has stated he is all for it.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Obama's Pravda
Pravda was the official state-approved news agency of the Communist Party Politburo in the USSR under Lenin, Stalin, and a host of other Soviet presidents.
In the early days of the Communist government in Russia, the Politburo consisted of 5 members--Lenin, Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Lev Kamenev, and Nikolai Krestinski.
These 5 formed the Communist Party central committee, and Pravda, as the nation's leading newspaper, served as the propaganda arm of the central committee.
It is interesting to note that Pravda had been in existence before the Bolshevik Revolution that brought the Communists to power. After the revolution the ruling central committee simply seized control of the newspaper, and it became an official part of the Politburo.
A series of related events with regard to news and how it is disseminated have all come together to form a chilling pattern in the U.S. today that is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union.
Obama has repeatedly made it clear that he has very little patience or tolerance for criticism in the media. He has threatened TV and radio stations over running McCain-Palin ads that told the truth about his dubious past and present associations. His surrogates have made it known that they have every intention of silencing conservative voices on radio, one way or another. And now, Obama's choice for Attorney-General has stated he wishes to place 'reasonable limits' on free speech on the Internet.
During the campaign, Obama's staff also suggested that they intend to attempt to 'nationalize' the Internet so that government can have complete control over Internet content.
Meanwhile, at the very same time, the mainstream media, represented by MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek Magazine, and others, very obviously and overtly promoted Obama's quest for the Presidency.
An obvious question arises as to whether or not the mainstream media knew something the rest of us didn't. Did they see the handwriting on the wall with regard to Obama's intention of cracking down on opposing voices in the media? And did they decide early-on that they would position themselves to be smiled upon approvingly by Obama and his minions, thus making themselves the perfect tool that Obama would use to spread his propaganda unchallenged?
At the very least, NBC and its other networks have openly admitted their agenda--to help Obama succeed (stated by Chris Matthews of MSNBC).
Clearly, this is not journalism or unbiased news coverage. This is reinventing a news organization to become an official voice of the Obama machine.
And if the networks and newspapers cited above continue down this path, not only will it mean the death of journalism in America on the part of the major traditional news organizations, but these news organizations will officially become Obama's Pravda.
Lenin and Stalin would be proud.
In the early days of the Communist government in Russia, the Politburo consisted of 5 members--Lenin, Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Lev Kamenev, and Nikolai Krestinski.
These 5 formed the Communist Party central committee, and Pravda, as the nation's leading newspaper, served as the propaganda arm of the central committee.
It is interesting to note that Pravda had been in existence before the Bolshevik Revolution that brought the Communists to power. After the revolution the ruling central committee simply seized control of the newspaper, and it became an official part of the Politburo.
A series of related events with regard to news and how it is disseminated have all come together to form a chilling pattern in the U.S. today that is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union.
Obama has repeatedly made it clear that he has very little patience or tolerance for criticism in the media. He has threatened TV and radio stations over running McCain-Palin ads that told the truth about his dubious past and present associations. His surrogates have made it known that they have every intention of silencing conservative voices on radio, one way or another. And now, Obama's choice for Attorney-General has stated he wishes to place 'reasonable limits' on free speech on the Internet.
During the campaign, Obama's staff also suggested that they intend to attempt to 'nationalize' the Internet so that government can have complete control over Internet content.
Meanwhile, at the very same time, the mainstream media, represented by MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek Magazine, and others, very obviously and overtly promoted Obama's quest for the Presidency.
An obvious question arises as to whether or not the mainstream media knew something the rest of us didn't. Did they see the handwriting on the wall with regard to Obama's intention of cracking down on opposing voices in the media? And did they decide early-on that they would position themselves to be smiled upon approvingly by Obama and his minions, thus making themselves the perfect tool that Obama would use to spread his propaganda unchallenged?
At the very least, NBC and its other networks have openly admitted their agenda--to help Obama succeed (stated by Chris Matthews of MSNBC).
Clearly, this is not journalism or unbiased news coverage. This is reinventing a news organization to become an official voice of the Obama machine.
And if the networks and newspapers cited above continue down this path, not only will it mean the death of journalism in America on the part of the major traditional news organizations, but these news organizations will officially become Obama's Pravda.
Lenin and Stalin would be proud.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
I Make No Apologies
It seems I have taken some heat in certain circles of the blogosphere for saying that 'Barack Obama will never be my President.'
I make absolutely no apology for saying it, and I still adhere to that sentiment as much if not more today than before the election.
As far as I'm concerned, there can be no compromise with Socialists. That is my political line in the sand.
Socialists-Marxists-Communists-Fascists-Nazis are all part and parcel of the totalitarian movement that has witnessed not only the greatest governmental failures in the world but the the most heinous murders of innocent dissenting citizens in the history of mankind.
And this is why I maintain that the 'choice' of Barack Obama for President is illegitimate. There is absolutely no way that anyone with such blatant disdain and disregard for the Constitution could ever be a legitimate President, no matter what the electorate says.
As I was watching local television news earlier, a woman was interviewed who said it was time for all sides to 'put aside their differences and come together in unity for change.'
Unify behind WHAT? Change WHAT, exactly?
An economic program that will probably push the country over the precipice into another Great Depression? Nope!
A policy toward the War in Iraq that ignores the grave dangers Islamic terrorists in the region pose to the West? Nope!
An utter disdain for the U.S. Constitution that maintains that because it does not 'redistribute wealth' by robbing from the haves to give to the have-nots, it is thus flawed? Nope!
A tax program that uses the IRS as a welfare agency by giving 45 million Americans who pay no taxes at all a check from the government? Nope!
A healthcare proposal so drastic that it will overwhelm the system, forcing healthcare rationing on millions of our Senior adults so that 20 million illegal aliens can get medical care? Nope!
A disregard for human life that is so blatant that it withholds medical care from infants that survive botched abortion attempts by starving them to death in dark closets? HELL, no!
So tell me, what, exactly, can we 'unify' behind?
As far as I can tell there is nothing in the Obama plan that can be supported by ANY thinking, principled and ethical American citizen.
The woman in the television interview, by the way, stated that she didn't think people who voted for McCain would 'put their differences aside in order to strive for unity behind Obama.'
You bet your sweet patootie we won't, sister!
Count me as one of the loyal opposition from top to bottom. I will fight tooth and toenail the Obama-Democratic plan to ruin this country.
And frankly, if we had a better candidate at the top of the ticket, we would not be in this position on November 5.
Yes, I supported McCain, but reluctantly, as you will remember if you read this blog regularly. I felt that a vote for McCain gave us the best chance at keeping Obama out of the White House.
But that doesn't mean I was a big McCain supporter. My decision to endorse him and vote for him was purely tactical.
In fact, I have always been one of McCain's biggest critics. But, for better or for worse, I made my decision based upon the hope that Obama would lose.
We can only hope that in 2012 we get someone like Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal, who will carry on in the great conservative tradition of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Jr., and many more.
But until then, I am geared up and ready to fight the onslaught of massive government expansion and intrusion under Obama and the Democrats. And yes, I will fight McCain and other RINOS as well if they are intent on 'unifying' behind Obama.
I make absolutely no apology for saying it, and I still adhere to that sentiment as much if not more today than before the election.
As far as I'm concerned, there can be no compromise with Socialists. That is my political line in the sand.
Socialists-Marxists-Communists-Fascists-Nazis are all part and parcel of the totalitarian movement that has witnessed not only the greatest governmental failures in the world but the the most heinous murders of innocent dissenting citizens in the history of mankind.
And this is why I maintain that the 'choice' of Barack Obama for President is illegitimate. There is absolutely no way that anyone with such blatant disdain and disregard for the Constitution could ever be a legitimate President, no matter what the electorate says.
As I was watching local television news earlier, a woman was interviewed who said it was time for all sides to 'put aside their differences and come together in unity for change.'
Unify behind WHAT? Change WHAT, exactly?
An economic program that will probably push the country over the precipice into another Great Depression? Nope!
A policy toward the War in Iraq that ignores the grave dangers Islamic terrorists in the region pose to the West? Nope!
An utter disdain for the U.S. Constitution that maintains that because it does not 'redistribute wealth' by robbing from the haves to give to the have-nots, it is thus flawed? Nope!
A tax program that uses the IRS as a welfare agency by giving 45 million Americans who pay no taxes at all a check from the government? Nope!
A healthcare proposal so drastic that it will overwhelm the system, forcing healthcare rationing on millions of our Senior adults so that 20 million illegal aliens can get medical care? Nope!
A disregard for human life that is so blatant that it withholds medical care from infants that survive botched abortion attempts by starving them to death in dark closets? HELL, no!
So tell me, what, exactly, can we 'unify' behind?
As far as I can tell there is nothing in the Obama plan that can be supported by ANY thinking, principled and ethical American citizen.
The woman in the television interview, by the way, stated that she didn't think people who voted for McCain would 'put their differences aside in order to strive for unity behind Obama.'
You bet your sweet patootie we won't, sister!
Count me as one of the loyal opposition from top to bottom. I will fight tooth and toenail the Obama-Democratic plan to ruin this country.
And frankly, if we had a better candidate at the top of the ticket, we would not be in this position on November 5.
Yes, I supported McCain, but reluctantly, as you will remember if you read this blog regularly. I felt that a vote for McCain gave us the best chance at keeping Obama out of the White House.
But that doesn't mean I was a big McCain supporter. My decision to endorse him and vote for him was purely tactical.
In fact, I have always been one of McCain's biggest critics. But, for better or for worse, I made my decision based upon the hope that Obama would lose.
We can only hope that in 2012 we get someone like Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal, who will carry on in the great conservative tradition of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Jr., and many more.
But until then, I am geared up and ready to fight the onslaught of massive government expansion and intrusion under Obama and the Democrats. And yes, I will fight McCain and other RINOS as well if they are intent on 'unifying' behind Obama.
Friday, October 24, 2008
'Socialized Energy'? Venezuela Suffers From It
With all of the talk of the government stake in bank ownership in the U.S. resulting from the struggles in the financial markets, Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez stated that 'this proves Socialism (Communism) is the best way, and the U.S. needs a new Constitution.'
Well, now. Let's see how 'socialism' has worked for good ole Hugo, shall we?
It turns out that the Commie overlord can't keep the lights on in his own country!
Yet this is precisely the direction Barack Obama wants the U.S. to take--more government control, greater government stake or ownership in business (fascism), and the resulting economic consequences.
Liberals never learn. Their ultimate goal of ushering in Communism in this country is based upon an idea that is a proven loser all over the world.
Even Chavez presides over a 'third world' country although he is sitting on all that energy. What a 'role model.'
Well, now. Let's see how 'socialism' has worked for good ole Hugo, shall we?
It turns out that the Commie overlord can't keep the lights on in his own country!
Yet this is precisely the direction Barack Obama wants the U.S. to take--more government control, greater government stake or ownership in business (fascism), and the resulting economic consequences.
Liberals never learn. Their ultimate goal of ushering in Communism in this country is based upon an idea that is a proven loser all over the world.
Even Chavez presides over a 'third world' country although he is sitting on all that energy. What a 'role model.'
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
BOMBSHELL! OBAMA PLANS INTERNET TAKEOVER
Since most Americans have been spellbound by the awe-inspiring aura of Barack Obama rather than paying close attention to his actual proposals, this news apparently slipped by unnoticed.
Barack Obama wishes to nationalize the Internet, particularly broadband.
Obama has proposed a 'national CTO' which would serve as a government-appointed position to oversee, control, regulate, and of course, ration the Internet.
Michelle Malkin has more information on the plan.
And thus, along with the many other proposals coming from Obama that would greatly expand the intrusion and domination of government in our private lives, Chairman Ba-O continues his march toward Marxism, Chairman Mao-style, by controlling the one truly free forum the citizens have left--the Internet.
Say goodbye to free speech, particularly if you have anything negative to say about the Chairman and his Communist policies.
Barack Obama wishes to nationalize the Internet, particularly broadband.
Obama has proposed a 'national CTO' which would serve as a government-appointed position to oversee, control, regulate, and of course, ration the Internet.
Michelle Malkin has more information on the plan.
And thus, along with the many other proposals coming from Obama that would greatly expand the intrusion and domination of government in our private lives, Chairman Ba-O continues his march toward Marxism, Chairman Mao-style, by controlling the one truly free forum the citizens have left--the Internet.
Say goodbye to free speech, particularly if you have anything negative to say about the Chairman and his Communist policies.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, RIP
It is with some sadness that we note the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, age 89, the famed Russian dissident and author.
It was Solzhenitsyn that gave world-wide notoriety to the horrors of Russian Communism, horrors that had been largely hidden from the world for decades.
Solzhenitsyn put a face to the multiple millions of persons who had been imprisoned, tortured, deprived of food and water, and forced to suffer in the cold by Soviet Communists. The West could no longer ignore the atrocities of the Marxist revolution and its aftermath. Solzhenitsyn had been there himself.
Solzhenitsyn also confirmed estimates that Joseph Stalin's regime in the USSR had systematically murdered upwards of 27 million Russians.
The life and work of Alexander Solzhenitsyn are a stark reminder of the dire consequences of totalitarian systems of government and the toll they take not only on human liberty but on human life as well.
It was Solzhenitsyn that gave world-wide notoriety to the horrors of Russian Communism, horrors that had been largely hidden from the world for decades.
Solzhenitsyn put a face to the multiple millions of persons who had been imprisoned, tortured, deprived of food and water, and forced to suffer in the cold by Soviet Communists. The West could no longer ignore the atrocities of the Marxist revolution and its aftermath. Solzhenitsyn had been there himself.
Solzhenitsyn also confirmed estimates that Joseph Stalin's regime in the USSR had systematically murdered upwards of 27 million Russians.
The life and work of Alexander Solzhenitsyn are a stark reminder of the dire consequences of totalitarian systems of government and the toll they take not only on human liberty but on human life as well.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Second Amendment News Roundup for 6/19/08
Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Gateway Pundit states that the Democrats are continuing with their sickening and disgusting calls for the government seizure of the oil industry. What Commie Bastards!
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/rep-hinchey-d-ny-calls-for-government.html
Further, remember Commie-Dictator Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, you know, the man who seizes private industry and nationalizes private enterprise? Well, our Demo-Commies in Nancy Pelosi's House are copying the tactics of their good buddy and mentor, Hugo Chavez. Michelle Malkin reports:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/18/the-chavistas-in-our-backyard/
JR has a good one from the 'dumb crook' files, and he has plenty of links for you to see:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2008/06/sometimes-dumb-crooks-file-intersects.html
Roberta X comments on the Associated Press flap and suggests some great alternatives:
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2008/06/great-ap-flap.html
Roberta also blogs about her discontent with the choices this year--Obama, McCain, and Barr:
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2008/06/voting-for-prexi-plesi-big-guy.html
Armed and Safe writes about the ban of the .50 rifles in New Jersey, that state where all Constitutional rights go to die:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2008/06/banning-50-in-new-jersey.html
Blogonomicon has an excellent read on 'right and duty'--the obligation to carry a gun:
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2008/06/right-and-duty.html
Congrats to Breda on this great milestone. She has an excellent blog, and yes, Breda, we like you!
http://thebredafallacy.blogspot.com/2008/06/you-like-me-you-really-like-me.html
Nicki provides excellent commentary on John Lott's 'No Profits, No Oil':
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/06/john-lott-no-profits-no-oil.html
The MUST-read of the day is by David Codrea. Canada, Britain and the rest of Europe have no Constitutional guarantee of Free Speech, and now they are taking advantage of it much to the detriment of the citizens. As David reports, there are voices RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA who are urging that we emulate Canada and Britain, and thus limit Free Speech. BASTARDS!
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/06/freedom-of-speech-within-reason-and-as.html
Dr. John Lott points to the John Kass piece on the inequities of the Chicago handgun ban:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/06/chicago-tribunes-john-kass-on.html
The Volokh Conspiracy has a run-down on the five Supreme Court decisions handed down today:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_15-2008_06_21.shtml#1213883362
Gateway Pundit states that the Democrats are continuing with their sickening and disgusting calls for the government seizure of the oil industry. What Commie Bastards!
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/rep-hinchey-d-ny-calls-for-government.html
Further, remember Commie-Dictator Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, you know, the man who seizes private industry and nationalizes private enterprise? Well, our Demo-Commies in Nancy Pelosi's House are copying the tactics of their good buddy and mentor, Hugo Chavez. Michelle Malkin reports:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/18/the-chavistas-in-our-backyard/
JR has a good one from the 'dumb crook' files, and he has plenty of links for you to see:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2008/06/sometimes-dumb-crooks-file-intersects.html
Roberta X comments on the Associated Press flap and suggests some great alternatives:
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2008/06/great-ap-flap.html
Roberta also blogs about her discontent with the choices this year--Obama, McCain, and Barr:
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2008/06/voting-for-prexi-plesi-big-guy.html
Armed and Safe writes about the ban of the .50 rifles in New Jersey, that state where all Constitutional rights go to die:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2008/06/banning-50-in-new-jersey.html
Blogonomicon has an excellent read on 'right and duty'--the obligation to carry a gun:
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2008/06/right-and-duty.html
Congrats to Breda on this great milestone. She has an excellent blog, and yes, Breda, we like you!
http://thebredafallacy.blogspot.com/2008/06/you-like-me-you-really-like-me.html
Nicki provides excellent commentary on John Lott's 'No Profits, No Oil':
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/06/john-lott-no-profits-no-oil.html
The MUST-read of the day is by David Codrea. Canada, Britain and the rest of Europe have no Constitutional guarantee of Free Speech, and now they are taking advantage of it much to the detriment of the citizens. As David reports, there are voices RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA who are urging that we emulate Canada and Britain, and thus limit Free Speech. BASTARDS!
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/06/freedom-of-speech-within-reason-and-as.html
Dr. John Lott points to the John Kass piece on the inequities of the Chicago handgun ban:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/06/chicago-tribunes-john-kass-on.html
The Volokh Conspiracy has a run-down on the five Supreme Court decisions handed down today:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_15-2008_06_21.shtml#1213883362
House Democrats Call for Socialism
House Democrats on Wednesday showed their true colors by calling for 'the nationalization of the oil industry.'
The classic definition of 'socialism' is 'a system where the government owns the means of production.'
Thus, when Adolf Hitler nationalized certain industry within the Third Reich, he was implementing socialism within Nazi totalitarianism. When Lenin and Stalin forbade private ownership of property, business, and industry, they were implementing socialism within Communist totalitarianism.
Socialism as an economic system will forever be associated with totalitarian regimes of one sort or another. We know for sure that its proponents are anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, and anti-free markets.
And if the truth were known, they probably don't want you to own private property or engage in any form of free enterprise either.
On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, one by one the Democrats called for the nationalization of the oil industry so that 'we can better control the flow of the oil supply.'
Balderdash. The reason they want to own the oil industry is because they don't believe in private enterprise, and the current skyrocketing gasoline prices give them a convenient excuse to seize what is not theirs.
The oil companies and oil refineries do not belong to the government but to the stockholders who invest in them. For government to take private enterprise is stealing, and anyone who attempts to do such a thing should be arrested on the spot, charged with the crime, and taken immediately to jail pending trial.
Read the following sickening and disgusting account of the statements on the floor of our illustrious U.S. House of Representatives, lead by the chief Commie herself, Nancy Pelosi, and her Democrat foot-soldiers in the American version of the Bolshevik Revolution:
http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18
The classic definition of 'socialism' is 'a system where the government owns the means of production.'
Thus, when Adolf Hitler nationalized certain industry within the Third Reich, he was implementing socialism within Nazi totalitarianism. When Lenin and Stalin forbade private ownership of property, business, and industry, they were implementing socialism within Communist totalitarianism.
Socialism as an economic system will forever be associated with totalitarian regimes of one sort or another. We know for sure that its proponents are anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, and anti-free markets.
And if the truth were known, they probably don't want you to own private property or engage in any form of free enterprise either.
On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, one by one the Democrats called for the nationalization of the oil industry so that 'we can better control the flow of the oil supply.'
Balderdash. The reason they want to own the oil industry is because they don't believe in private enterprise, and the current skyrocketing gasoline prices give them a convenient excuse to seize what is not theirs.
The oil companies and oil refineries do not belong to the government but to the stockholders who invest in them. For government to take private enterprise is stealing, and anyone who attempts to do such a thing should be arrested on the spot, charged with the crime, and taken immediately to jail pending trial.
Read the following sickening and disgusting account of the statements on the floor of our illustrious U.S. House of Representatives, lead by the chief Commie herself, Nancy Pelosi, and her Democrat foot-soldiers in the American version of the Bolshevik Revolution:
http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18
Sunday, May 25, 2008
A Marxist Because of Religious Faith?
Seen on a bumper-sticker today, along with other Leftist propaganda--'A Democrat Because of My Faith.'
Since when did Marxist-Socialist-Communist ideology become part of one's religious faith?
It has always been assumed that since Marx was anti-religion and since Communism always mandated atheism, religious faith has been antithetical to the principles espoused by those whose political ideology leads them to embrace the concepts affirmed in Marxist Socialism.
Just as Democrats for the last 30 years have wrapped themselves in the flag to hide their unpatriotic and outright anti-American sentiments, including a disdain for our military, it appears that this year they are going to wrap themselves in religion to hide their disdain for traditional Christianity and conservatism, using their faith to justify their embrace of radical, extremist schools of thought.
A Commie is still a Commie no matter how 'religious' they claim to be.
Since when did Marxist-Socialist-Communist ideology become part of one's religious faith?
It has always been assumed that since Marx was anti-religion and since Communism always mandated atheism, religious faith has been antithetical to the principles espoused by those whose political ideology leads them to embrace the concepts affirmed in Marxist Socialism.
Just as Democrats for the last 30 years have wrapped themselves in the flag to hide their unpatriotic and outright anti-American sentiments, including a disdain for our military, it appears that this year they are going to wrap themselves in religion to hide their disdain for traditional Christianity and conservatism, using their faith to justify their embrace of radical, extremist schools of thought.
A Commie is still a Commie no matter how 'religious' they claim to be.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Second Amendment News Roundup for 5/1/08
Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Roberta X has a message for certain liberal politicians of the Democrat variety: communism still isn't cool:
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-wasnt-gonna.html
Armed and Safe reports that the Illinois legislature passed a terribly misguided anti-Second Amendment bill:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2008/05/they-passed-what.html
All American Blogger has rolled out a brand new look...and it is wonderful...highly professional. Go have a look!:
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/
Born Again Redneck features some timely commentary on Hillary Clinton's appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News Network:
http://bornagainredneck.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-wish-id-said-this-3417.html
FreedomSight has a most gripping piece of commentary on the suicide of Deborah Palfrey. And I agree with the blogger that government has no business passing or enforcing so-called 'personal sin crimes':
http://freedomsight.net/?p=2469
Uncle has a message to the Bastard (Mayor Michael Bloomberg) in light of his being slapped down by a federal court for his vendetta against guns:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/05/01/poor-bloomberg/
David Codrea comments on the Bastard here (among other important items):
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/05/some-housekeeping-items.html
David Codrea also has a critical update from Cavalry Arms and their fight with the feds:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/05/statement-of-cavalry-arms.html
Robb Allen has a MUST-read on bullet efficiency from the perspective of a medical examiner:
http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2008/04/30/A-FANTASTIC-read.aspx
Sebastian has the quote of the day:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/05/01/quote-of-the-day-46/
Nicki has an interesting post on 'who should own guns':
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-should-own-guns.html
John Lott alerts us to the fact that California is getting ready to pass another ominous anti-gun bill:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/04/another-very-restrictive-california-gun.html
Michelle Malkin has this gem on May 1--May Day, World Commie Day, Illegal Alien Rights Day, Open Borders Day, and all other groups of the disgruntled:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/01/may-day-may-day-all-purpose-left-wing-grievance-day/
The Volokh Conspiracy has the right idea. May 1 should be 'Victims of Communism Day' due to the fact that Communism is responsible for the murders of at least 110 MILLION people in the USSR, China, Cambodia, and other countries:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_27-2008_05_03.shtml#1209689111
Roberta X has a message for certain liberal politicians of the Democrat variety: communism still isn't cool:
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-wasnt-gonna.html
Armed and Safe reports that the Illinois legislature passed a terribly misguided anti-Second Amendment bill:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2008/05/they-passed-what.html
All American Blogger has rolled out a brand new look...and it is wonderful...highly professional. Go have a look!:
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/
Born Again Redneck features some timely commentary on Hillary Clinton's appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News Network:
http://bornagainredneck.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-wish-id-said-this-3417.html
FreedomSight has a most gripping piece of commentary on the suicide of Deborah Palfrey. And I agree with the blogger that government has no business passing or enforcing so-called 'personal sin crimes':
http://freedomsight.net/?p=2469
Uncle has a message to the Bastard (Mayor Michael Bloomberg) in light of his being slapped down by a federal court for his vendetta against guns:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/05/01/poor-bloomberg/
David Codrea comments on the Bastard here (among other important items):
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/05/some-housekeeping-items.html
David Codrea also has a critical update from Cavalry Arms and their fight with the feds:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/05/statement-of-cavalry-arms.html
Robb Allen has a MUST-read on bullet efficiency from the perspective of a medical examiner:
http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2008/04/30/A-FANTASTIC-read.aspx
Sebastian has the quote of the day:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/05/01/quote-of-the-day-46/
Nicki has an interesting post on 'who should own guns':
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-should-own-guns.html
John Lott alerts us to the fact that California is getting ready to pass another ominous anti-gun bill:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/04/another-very-restrictive-california-gun.html
Michelle Malkin has this gem on May 1--May Day, World Commie Day, Illegal Alien Rights Day, Open Borders Day, and all other groups of the disgruntled:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/01/may-day-may-day-all-purpose-left-wing-grievance-day/
The Volokh Conspiracy has the right idea. May 1 should be 'Victims of Communism Day' due to the fact that Communism is responsible for the murders of at least 110 MILLION people in the USSR, China, Cambodia, and other countries:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_27-2008_05_03.shtml#1209689111
Saturday, April 12, 2008
The Chinese Show Their True Colors
The world is truly fortunate that the Chinese are hosting the Olympics. Never since Tienanmen Square have the true colors of the Communist regime been on full display for all to see.
Despite all of the so-called 'progress' made in China with the introduction of capitalism into its system (albeit with clear anti-capitalistic restrictions on speech and other human rights), the nation is still held firmly in the grip of totalitarianism along with all of its concomitant suppression of human rights.
No greater example of this can be found than China's present treatment of Tibet, the Buddhist monks, and its reaction to the nations participating in the Olympics that protest the regime's oppressive actions.
The problem is that the West routinely capitulates to Chinese demands. Google and Microsoft betrayed their country when, on condition of doing business in China, they agreed to the regime's demands that freedom of expression be suppressed.
And the most that the West can seem to muster in response to China's barbaric treatment of Tibet is a verbal slap on the wrist.
As usual, this is not enough.
George the First set the tone for this travesty when he refused to react forcefully to the manner in which the Chinese regime reacted to the brave students who protested Communism in Tienanmen Square nearly 20 years ago.
Our non-action was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
China is still home to thousands if not millions of citizens, many of them the most intellectually astute in the country, who detest the regime and believe that democratic ideals and human liberty are the height of human progress.
We owe it to these stalwart souls to give a clear signal that we are on their side.
Despite all of the so-called 'progress' made in China with the introduction of capitalism into its system (albeit with clear anti-capitalistic restrictions on speech and other human rights), the nation is still held firmly in the grip of totalitarianism along with all of its concomitant suppression of human rights.
No greater example of this can be found than China's present treatment of Tibet, the Buddhist monks, and its reaction to the nations participating in the Olympics that protest the regime's oppressive actions.
The problem is that the West routinely capitulates to Chinese demands. Google and Microsoft betrayed their country when, on condition of doing business in China, they agreed to the regime's demands that freedom of expression be suppressed.
And the most that the West can seem to muster in response to China's barbaric treatment of Tibet is a verbal slap on the wrist.
As usual, this is not enough.
George the First set the tone for this travesty when he refused to react forcefully to the manner in which the Chinese regime reacted to the brave students who protested Communism in Tienanmen Square nearly 20 years ago.
Our non-action was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
China is still home to thousands if not millions of citizens, many of them the most intellectually astute in the country, who detest the regime and believe that democratic ideals and human liberty are the height of human progress.
We owe it to these stalwart souls to give a clear signal that we are on their side.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Hillary's 'McGovernite' Plan to Buy Votes
How does a candidate who is dogged by high negatives in the polls and constantly brewing scandals gain an advantage in the race for the White House?
Promise free money to the masses.
In a speech delivered on Friday Hillary Clinton stated that she 'likes the idea of giving $5000 dollars to each baby born in America.' Hillary would like for the taxpayers to fund accounts for each baby born in the U.S. to the tune of $5000 a piece, so that when they graduate from high school they will have money to spend for college or other worthy endeavors.
I can just hear the uninformed masses 'oooo' and 'ahhhh' over that one. And they are being egged on by proponents of big government and huge tax increases.
The thing is, she probably bought herself roughly 10 million votes by simply rolling out the proposal.
In 1972 another Democratic Presidential candidate rolled out a similar proposal. George McGovern, the Democrats' choice to run against Richard Nixon, stated that the federal government should give $1000 bucks to every man, woman, and child in America.
Like Hillary Clinton, McGovern and his backers believed that big government can solve most if not all of the problems of life. All you have to do is to 'tax the rich' to oblivion, except the definition for 'rich' keeps changing.
In February of this year, the Democratic Presidential candidates claimed that 'rich' means millionaires. In seven short months that definition has changed significantly. Rich now means that you make roughly $90,000 per year, according to Democratic strategists who devise tax schemes to pay for mammoth government social programs.
The problem is that $90,000 is a far cry from one million. In fact, a bread-winner living in NYC with a family of four would only barely make ends meet on that salary.
Yet in order to pay for everything Socialists who run the Democratic Party want in terms of social programs, those making $90,000 and above should be willing to withstand a sharp increase in taxes. After all, it's 'for the children.'
This seems to be the rallying cry of the Democrats and their government programs. Claim it's 'for the children,' and you make it well-nigh impossible for an opponent to get away with criticizing it.
George McGovern's plan to give $1000 bucks to every man, woman, and child in America back in 1972 was met with derision, as were most of his ideas. He was trounced by Nixon in the general election. Back then, being a Socialist was not a good thing. Apparently in the intervening 35 years we have raised a generation of Americans who view Marxism, Socialism, and its close cousin, Communism, as attractive ideas.
Thus, Hillary Clinton is applauded for introducing a concept that would have been met with howls of protest and ridicule 35 years ago.
During the 1970s most Democrats distanced themselves from the ideas of George McGovern. To be considered a 'McGovernite' usually spelled disaster for a Democratic candidate.
Today, the McGovernites are alive and well. They run the Democratic Party and are to be found in places of leadership in universities, law schools, the clergy, and particularly within some economic sectors.
I would suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that such persons are of mortal danger to this nation and its Constitution. Constitutional limits on the legitimate role of government are ignored by these purveyors of Socialism, and we are poised to elect one to the Presidency in 2008 unless the masses wake up to the tyranny.
Promise free money to the masses.
In a speech delivered on Friday Hillary Clinton stated that she 'likes the idea of giving $5000 dollars to each baby born in America.' Hillary would like for the taxpayers to fund accounts for each baby born in the U.S. to the tune of $5000 a piece, so that when they graduate from high school they will have money to spend for college or other worthy endeavors.
I can just hear the uninformed masses 'oooo' and 'ahhhh' over that one. And they are being egged on by proponents of big government and huge tax increases.
The thing is, she probably bought herself roughly 10 million votes by simply rolling out the proposal.
In 1972 another Democratic Presidential candidate rolled out a similar proposal. George McGovern, the Democrats' choice to run against Richard Nixon, stated that the federal government should give $1000 bucks to every man, woman, and child in America.
Like Hillary Clinton, McGovern and his backers believed that big government can solve most if not all of the problems of life. All you have to do is to 'tax the rich' to oblivion, except the definition for 'rich' keeps changing.
In February of this year, the Democratic Presidential candidates claimed that 'rich' means millionaires. In seven short months that definition has changed significantly. Rich now means that you make roughly $90,000 per year, according to Democratic strategists who devise tax schemes to pay for mammoth government social programs.
The problem is that $90,000 is a far cry from one million. In fact, a bread-winner living in NYC with a family of four would only barely make ends meet on that salary.
Yet in order to pay for everything Socialists who run the Democratic Party want in terms of social programs, those making $90,000 and above should be willing to withstand a sharp increase in taxes. After all, it's 'for the children.'
This seems to be the rallying cry of the Democrats and their government programs. Claim it's 'for the children,' and you make it well-nigh impossible for an opponent to get away with criticizing it.
George McGovern's plan to give $1000 bucks to every man, woman, and child in America back in 1972 was met with derision, as were most of his ideas. He was trounced by Nixon in the general election. Back then, being a Socialist was not a good thing. Apparently in the intervening 35 years we have raised a generation of Americans who view Marxism, Socialism, and its close cousin, Communism, as attractive ideas.
Thus, Hillary Clinton is applauded for introducing a concept that would have been met with howls of protest and ridicule 35 years ago.
During the 1970s most Democrats distanced themselves from the ideas of George McGovern. To be considered a 'McGovernite' usually spelled disaster for a Democratic candidate.
Today, the McGovernites are alive and well. They run the Democratic Party and are to be found in places of leadership in universities, law schools, the clergy, and particularly within some economic sectors.
I would suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that such persons are of mortal danger to this nation and its Constitution. Constitutional limits on the legitimate role of government are ignored by these purveyors of Socialism, and we are poised to elect one to the Presidency in 2008 unless the masses wake up to the tyranny.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Dangers Inherent in 'Deliberative' Democracy
The term 'democracy' as it has come to be widely used and accepted in free societies is somewhat of a misnomer. No free society is a true democracy.
For example, if the U.S. were a pure democracy, the wishes of a simple majority of the electorate could obliterate every single liberty that free people cherish. 'Majority rule' is actually mob rule, as strong-armed, vocal, and intimidating mobs could potentially get a 51% plurality of voters, for example, to ban blue-eyed blond females from driving automobiles.
A better way to explain our form of government in American free society is 'constitutional republic,' which includes the notion of a 'representative democracy.'
Yet, even then, the representatives we elect are restricted in what they can do by an agreed-upon Constitution with a Bill of Rights that protects precious human liberty, including that of minorities that should never be subject to the mob mentality of 'majority rule.'
A growing movement in certain sectors of academia, however, takes the notion of representative democracy governed by a Constitution in a new and dangerous direction.
The movement has become known in academic and political circles as 'deliberative' or 'discursive' democracy.
The basic premise embraced by the proponents of this theory is that free societies should encourage greater cooperation between government and citizens, encouraging open discussion or deliberation concerning policy initiatives, the result of which would be a lower degree of opposition to policy decisions once they are initiated by government.
Civil libertarians and other academics who keep an eye on threats to liberty express deep concern about such a notion.
As one commentator pointed out, merely discussing freedom is not the same thing as actually being free.
Giving citizens the illusion that they are free and can influence government decision-making in developing public policy is a dirty trick of collectivists. Such a tactic satisfies the citizens' need to be heard and to feel important. But then, the elitists of government go ahead and do whatever they want anyway.
Are you now thinking to yourself as I am, that government in the U.S. is already under the creeping crawl of 'deliberative democracy'?
And this is precisely the core issue with regard to 'deliberative democracy.' At the heart of the movement is the desire to increase government power to control every aspect of human life.
Under normal conditions such a movement would be rejected outright as totalitarian, which is an accurate assessment. But what makes this movement so dangerous is that totalitarianism is disguised and made palatable by encouraging 'citizen participation' in government.
When citizens are allowed to deliberate proposed policy decisions effecting society, they are given the 'warm fuzzies' in that they feel their voices have been heard.
And then everyone can congratulate themselves over how wonderful it is to live in a land where average citizens can participate in their government.
The ominous, dark side of this plan, however, is that such an outcome among the electorate effectively diffuses and renders null and void any potential threat to the policies implemented by those in government.
In short, the plan is nothing but window-dressing.
Citizens are made to feel free without actually being free.
A perfect example of an adherent to deliberative democracy in politics today is John Edwards, Democratic candidate for President. As reported several weeks ago on The Liberty Sphere, when asked what he thinks are the most important basic, fundamental human rights, Edwards responded with things such as 'universal Internet access,' 'universal government healthcare coverage,' and the biggie, 'American citizenship.'
Never once did Edwards refer to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of self-defense as protected by the Second Amendment, or for that matter, ANY of the liberties delineated in the Bill of Rights.
In the brave new world of 'deliberative democracy,' there are many more important matters than guarding liberty. Apparently Edwards believes that allowing the entire world free citizenship in the U.S. is a good idea, along with all of the freebies offered to those he wants to import to the country in droves.
And it really doesn't matter if these new citizens know a thing about the Bill of Rights.
Collectivism as a political ideology has greatly matured since the days of the Cold War and Soviet Communism. Adherents are much more adept at hiding their true motives. The intent to expand government control to every single aspect of human life can be carefully framed and couched in the language of democracy and liberty.
And this, perhaps, is what makes the modern 21st century even more dangerous a time to live than during the Cold War. Not only do we contend with terrorists who wish to wipe us from the face of the earth, but we are now confronted with another enemy, and this one has a friendly face and nice-sounding words.
Knowledge and awareness are the number one enemies of these purveyors of government control in the name of democracy. It is vital that citizens become informed.
To help begin that process, we point you to two important links. The first is an excellent overview of the concept of deliberative democracy provided by Blogonomicon. It is well worth a careful consideration.
Next is a link to an organization that is fighting those promoting the concept of deliberative democracy--The Foundation for Economic Freedom. An excellent essay on the subject is provided there.
Blogonomicon:
http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/21/3109136.html
Foundation for Economic Freedom:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8070
For example, if the U.S. were a pure democracy, the wishes of a simple majority of the electorate could obliterate every single liberty that free people cherish. 'Majority rule' is actually mob rule, as strong-armed, vocal, and intimidating mobs could potentially get a 51% plurality of voters, for example, to ban blue-eyed blond females from driving automobiles.
A better way to explain our form of government in American free society is 'constitutional republic,' which includes the notion of a 'representative democracy.'
Yet, even then, the representatives we elect are restricted in what they can do by an agreed-upon Constitution with a Bill of Rights that protects precious human liberty, including that of minorities that should never be subject to the mob mentality of 'majority rule.'
A growing movement in certain sectors of academia, however, takes the notion of representative democracy governed by a Constitution in a new and dangerous direction.
The movement has become known in academic and political circles as 'deliberative' or 'discursive' democracy.
The basic premise embraced by the proponents of this theory is that free societies should encourage greater cooperation between government and citizens, encouraging open discussion or deliberation concerning policy initiatives, the result of which would be a lower degree of opposition to policy decisions once they are initiated by government.
Civil libertarians and other academics who keep an eye on threats to liberty express deep concern about such a notion.
As one commentator pointed out, merely discussing freedom is not the same thing as actually being free.
Giving citizens the illusion that they are free and can influence government decision-making in developing public policy is a dirty trick of collectivists. Such a tactic satisfies the citizens' need to be heard and to feel important. But then, the elitists of government go ahead and do whatever they want anyway.
Are you now thinking to yourself as I am, that government in the U.S. is already under the creeping crawl of 'deliberative democracy'?
And this is precisely the core issue with regard to 'deliberative democracy.' At the heart of the movement is the desire to increase government power to control every aspect of human life.
Under normal conditions such a movement would be rejected outright as totalitarian, which is an accurate assessment. But what makes this movement so dangerous is that totalitarianism is disguised and made palatable by encouraging 'citizen participation' in government.
When citizens are allowed to deliberate proposed policy decisions effecting society, they are given the 'warm fuzzies' in that they feel their voices have been heard.
And then everyone can congratulate themselves over how wonderful it is to live in a land where average citizens can participate in their government.
The ominous, dark side of this plan, however, is that such an outcome among the electorate effectively diffuses and renders null and void any potential threat to the policies implemented by those in government.
In short, the plan is nothing but window-dressing.
Citizens are made to feel free without actually being free.
A perfect example of an adherent to deliberative democracy in politics today is John Edwards, Democratic candidate for President. As reported several weeks ago on The Liberty Sphere, when asked what he thinks are the most important basic, fundamental human rights, Edwards responded with things such as 'universal Internet access,' 'universal government healthcare coverage,' and the biggie, 'American citizenship.'
Never once did Edwards refer to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of self-defense as protected by the Second Amendment, or for that matter, ANY of the liberties delineated in the Bill of Rights.
In the brave new world of 'deliberative democracy,' there are many more important matters than guarding liberty. Apparently Edwards believes that allowing the entire world free citizenship in the U.S. is a good idea, along with all of the freebies offered to those he wants to import to the country in droves.
And it really doesn't matter if these new citizens know a thing about the Bill of Rights.
Collectivism as a political ideology has greatly matured since the days of the Cold War and Soviet Communism. Adherents are much more adept at hiding their true motives. The intent to expand government control to every single aspect of human life can be carefully framed and couched in the language of democracy and liberty.
And this, perhaps, is what makes the modern 21st century even more dangerous a time to live than during the Cold War. Not only do we contend with terrorists who wish to wipe us from the face of the earth, but we are now confronted with another enemy, and this one has a friendly face and nice-sounding words.
Knowledge and awareness are the number one enemies of these purveyors of government control in the name of democracy. It is vital that citizens become informed.
To help begin that process, we point you to two important links. The first is an excellent overview of the concept of deliberative democracy provided by Blogonomicon. It is well worth a careful consideration.
Next is a link to an organization that is fighting those promoting the concept of deliberative democracy--The Foundation for Economic Freedom. An excellent essay on the subject is provided there.
Blogonomicon:
http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/21/3109136.html
Foundation for Economic Freedom:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8070
Sunday, July 15, 2007
American Healthcare, Economics, and Politics
Washington, DC (TLS). Healthcare in the U.S. was bound to be a campaign issue with someone like Hillary Clinton running for President. People on the far-left have long targeted American healthcare as a golden apple just ripe for the picking in terms of their plan to gradually socialize the economic system of the country.
Healthcare is a perfect place to start, given that part of the system is already socialized, such as the government-run V.A. hospital system.
In addition, Hillary had already proposed sweeping changes to the system back in 1992 just after her husband was elected to the White House.
That proposal would have dismantled free enterprise in healthcare, placed physicians under the employment of the federal government, taken away the citizens' right to choose their own physicians, and ushered in medical care rationing based upon the decisions of someone in a massive bureaucracy hundreds of miles away.
The tax increases to pay for such a system would have been astronomical.
Yet Hillary is back, and this time she is running for President. And she has help in promoting socialized medicine with the Commie-loving movie-maker, Michael Moore, visiting his buddy Fidel Castro down in Cuba to show Americans how much better off we would be with a Communist healthcare system.
Our favorite intellectual, Dr. Walter Williams, economist extraordinaire, recently warned about socialized medicine. A small minority, less than 10% of Americans, do not have health insurance. This means upwards of 90% of citizens have health coverage.
With his characteristic wit and logic, Williams questions the rationality of dismantling an entire healthcare system that works for over 80% of the population in order to cover the small minority that does not have coverage.
Such a thing would be tantamount to dismantling the entire auto sales industry, streamlining and making uniform one single, small, utilitarian vehicle, made by the government, that would be offered to the masses for nearly nothing, so that people at the bottom 10% of the economic ladder would be able to afford clean, cheap transportation.
The only problem is that the other 90% or so would no longer be allowed to buy nicer vehicles. Everyone would have to drive the same thing so that the poorest among us would benefit.
For the rich this would mean no more Porsche. Bye bye Mercedes. And as for Jaguars, Vipers, Hummers, and other expensive toys of the rich--begone!
In short, such a view of economics is not only shortsighted, it is a study in abject failure. Such a system has never worked over the long haul. When people are not allowed to possess the rewards of their success and hard work, all motivation to excell is squelched.
At Walter Reed Army Hospital, the scene of the scandal involving vermin-infested rooms and outdated facilities that had fallen into disrepair, the shocking news came that at that same government-run facility the 'elites' get the deluxe treatment with luxury suites and all of the amenities of home, while our war heroes are treated to the bland uniformity of a minimalized facility where no one truly wants to be.
Does this really surprise anyone in a socialistic system?
The old Communist Soviet Union was run the same way. The masses were treated to 'socialized uniformity'--that bland and bare-bones way of living in government run housing projects, where residents shared one bathroom per floor. Yet the government elites within the Communist Party were treated like royalty.
In any socialistic system there are elites just as there are in capitalism. And those elites are treated better than anyone else, just as the rich are treated better in a capitalistic system.
Thus, in Hillary's 'brave new world' the elites will still get all of the best while the rest of us peons get the bland uniformity of socialism...such as being placed on a 10-year waiting list for a hip replacement, which is common in countries with socialized medicine.
And you could be dead before they get around to your name on the list for heart-valve replacement.
Does anyone honestly believe that if such a system were implemented in the U.S. that Hillary Clinton, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, George Soros, John Edwards, or Dianne Feinstein would be treated exactly the same way in the healthcare system as the rest of us?
If you believe that, I have some swamp-land in....well, you know.
The simple fact is that free markets always favor the masses, and the masses fare much better in a free market system than they do in a socialized system. As Dr. Williams points out, the auto industry does not stay afloat by making cars just for the super-rich. If they did, they would go out of business. Rather, the mass production of well-made, safe, and relatively inexpensive autos to 'the common guy' is where the big money is.
The same is true in healthcare. When the open market is allowed to function at its fullest potential, without interference from government, the system stays afloat by marketing healthcare to the masses. This is where the money is.
And that money has enabled American technology to rise to the forefront of the medical industry. This means new and better treatments can be developed.
Instead of dismantling the best healthcare system in the world for the sake of the small minority, why not instead address the issue of how to get those who are outside the loop insured?
They are ways to do this without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Healthcare is a perfect place to start, given that part of the system is already socialized, such as the government-run V.A. hospital system.
In addition, Hillary had already proposed sweeping changes to the system back in 1992 just after her husband was elected to the White House.
That proposal would have dismantled free enterprise in healthcare, placed physicians under the employment of the federal government, taken away the citizens' right to choose their own physicians, and ushered in medical care rationing based upon the decisions of someone in a massive bureaucracy hundreds of miles away.
The tax increases to pay for such a system would have been astronomical.
Yet Hillary is back, and this time she is running for President. And she has help in promoting socialized medicine with the Commie-loving movie-maker, Michael Moore, visiting his buddy Fidel Castro down in Cuba to show Americans how much better off we would be with a Communist healthcare system.
Our favorite intellectual, Dr. Walter Williams, economist extraordinaire, recently warned about socialized medicine. A small minority, less than 10% of Americans, do not have health insurance. This means upwards of 90% of citizens have health coverage.
With his characteristic wit and logic, Williams questions the rationality of dismantling an entire healthcare system that works for over 80% of the population in order to cover the small minority that does not have coverage.
Such a thing would be tantamount to dismantling the entire auto sales industry, streamlining and making uniform one single, small, utilitarian vehicle, made by the government, that would be offered to the masses for nearly nothing, so that people at the bottom 10% of the economic ladder would be able to afford clean, cheap transportation.
The only problem is that the other 90% or so would no longer be allowed to buy nicer vehicles. Everyone would have to drive the same thing so that the poorest among us would benefit.
For the rich this would mean no more Porsche. Bye bye Mercedes. And as for Jaguars, Vipers, Hummers, and other expensive toys of the rich--begone!
In short, such a view of economics is not only shortsighted, it is a study in abject failure. Such a system has never worked over the long haul. When people are not allowed to possess the rewards of their success and hard work, all motivation to excell is squelched.
At Walter Reed Army Hospital, the scene of the scandal involving vermin-infested rooms and outdated facilities that had fallen into disrepair, the shocking news came that at that same government-run facility the 'elites' get the deluxe treatment with luxury suites and all of the amenities of home, while our war heroes are treated to the bland uniformity of a minimalized facility where no one truly wants to be.
Does this really surprise anyone in a socialistic system?
The old Communist Soviet Union was run the same way. The masses were treated to 'socialized uniformity'--that bland and bare-bones way of living in government run housing projects, where residents shared one bathroom per floor. Yet the government elites within the Communist Party were treated like royalty.
In any socialistic system there are elites just as there are in capitalism. And those elites are treated better than anyone else, just as the rich are treated better in a capitalistic system.
Thus, in Hillary's 'brave new world' the elites will still get all of the best while the rest of us peons get the bland uniformity of socialism...such as being placed on a 10-year waiting list for a hip replacement, which is common in countries with socialized medicine.
And you could be dead before they get around to your name on the list for heart-valve replacement.
Does anyone honestly believe that if such a system were implemented in the U.S. that Hillary Clinton, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, George Soros, John Edwards, or Dianne Feinstein would be treated exactly the same way in the healthcare system as the rest of us?
If you believe that, I have some swamp-land in....well, you know.
The simple fact is that free markets always favor the masses, and the masses fare much better in a free market system than they do in a socialized system. As Dr. Williams points out, the auto industry does not stay afloat by making cars just for the super-rich. If they did, they would go out of business. Rather, the mass production of well-made, safe, and relatively inexpensive autos to 'the common guy' is where the big money is.
The same is true in healthcare. When the open market is allowed to function at its fullest potential, without interference from government, the system stays afloat by marketing healthcare to the masses. This is where the money is.
And that money has enabled American technology to rise to the forefront of the medical industry. This means new and better treatments can be developed.
Instead of dismantling the best healthcare system in the world for the sake of the small minority, why not instead address the issue of how to get those who are outside the loop insured?
They are ways to do this without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Part of the Reagan Legacy--A Piece of the Wall
Washington, DC (TLS). For millions of Americans born after the last world war, and yet old enough to remember much of the 2nd half of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan is THE quintessential American President by whom all others are judged.
As for me, NO ONE has even come close to Reagan's greatness.
But then, I am not exactly totally unbiased in this assessment. I began working for Reagan's ascendancy to the White House in the early 1970s--when most people still knew him only as the former Governor of California and a former Hollywood actor.
I joined Young Americans for Freedom, an organization that William F. Buckley founded at least a decade earlier, but by the time I came around the organization had two distinct purposes: one, to promote conservative values among America's college students, and two, to elect Ronald Wilson Reagan to the White House.
I have written at length in past posts concerning Reagan. Yet I never cease to be amazed and dazzled by the manner in which his legacy continues to live on.
The Reagan Library has an artifact that is a lasting legacy to the Reagan Presidency. It is a piece of the Berlin Wall. I still remember to this day my eyes filling up with tears as Reagan stood at that Wall--a symbol of oppression, murder, Communism, anti-freedom--and demanding, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall!'
Cap'n Bob and the Damsel have written a moving testimonial of a trip they made to the Reagan Library and seeing that piece of the Wall, which by the way, DID, indeed, come down.
Be sure to click on the link and read it. You will find a picture of that piece of the Wall, and you will also find the full text of Reagan's history-making speech at the Berlin Wall.
Read all about it here:
http://capnbob.us/blog/2007/06/12/a-piece-of-the-wall/
As for me, NO ONE has even come close to Reagan's greatness.
But then, I am not exactly totally unbiased in this assessment. I began working for Reagan's ascendancy to the White House in the early 1970s--when most people still knew him only as the former Governor of California and a former Hollywood actor.
I joined Young Americans for Freedom, an organization that William F. Buckley founded at least a decade earlier, but by the time I came around the organization had two distinct purposes: one, to promote conservative values among America's college students, and two, to elect Ronald Wilson Reagan to the White House.
I have written at length in past posts concerning Reagan. Yet I never cease to be amazed and dazzled by the manner in which his legacy continues to live on.
The Reagan Library has an artifact that is a lasting legacy to the Reagan Presidency. It is a piece of the Berlin Wall. I still remember to this day my eyes filling up with tears as Reagan stood at that Wall--a symbol of oppression, murder, Communism, anti-freedom--and demanding, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall!'
Cap'n Bob and the Damsel have written a moving testimonial of a trip they made to the Reagan Library and seeing that piece of the Wall, which by the way, DID, indeed, come down.
Be sure to click on the link and read it. You will find a picture of that piece of the Wall, and you will also find the full text of Reagan's history-making speech at the Berlin Wall.
Read all about it here:
http://capnbob.us/blog/2007/06/12/a-piece-of-the-wall/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)