Managed economy or free markets? ~ By Henry Lamb

America has almost forgotten what a free market really is. Government's insidious expansion of control over business activity, while denying that its control is implementation of Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive principles, is steadily killing free-market capitalism in America.

It will continue under Barack Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress. If free-market capitalism is not restored in the next election, it may vanish from the earth.

When you finish reading Henry's column, I'm sure that you will know where Henry Lamb stands on capitalism and a free market economy. And by the time you read what I have to say, you'll definitely be aware of where I stand when it comes to not just free market economics and true capitalism, but also on the importance of free enterprise based on the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans that made this country great!

At my age, some events of my life are no longer coming back to me with absolute clarity. However, there was one event that changed my perspective forever, and I can actually recall enough of that time with enough accuracy to make a point. It was 30 years ago, so I shouldn't be expected to remember every detail perfectly, but I remember enough to get my point across, I hope.

I was in the USAF (U.S. Air Force). Just prior to going on leave, I had learned that I was going to be promoted to Staff Sergeant, which rarely happened with just under four years in service. It happened that I was good at taking tests, and did well in the test for my promotion. Well, that's part of the background to this story, because my transformation happened when my family and I returned back to Iowa for some well deserved R & R.

During my time back in Iowa, I took a day to hang out with my two best friends, Phil and Dave. We went up to the Mississippi river at Phil's parent's cabin. Dave, Phil and I had fun fishing, but I didn't do so well in catching anything. Well, not until I caught the entrepreneurial bug, as we talked about various business ventures to start. Well, you see, we were young and dumb, and we thought that we could actually live our dreams by someday starting our own business! We just couldn't unanimously agree on what would work for us. It didn't matter, I was infected with the desire to DREAM, to work for myself. I just didn't know what I'd do for a business.

That all changed when I returned after leave to my duty station at Eglin AFB. My boss had been out of town for several days. I found out where he went when he returned. He had just attended a huge convention of fired up people up in Washington D.C. (of all places!). He was excited to tell me about what he was doing there, and I was even more ready and excited to hear what he could tell me. Well, SMSgt Wagner found out how easy it was to recruit people when he talked to somebody like me, that was looking for an opportunity!

Yes, I joined Jim and Yolanda in the business venture, in the summer of '81. Nearly 30 years ago, I began learning about free enterprise. And I got to meet a great American patriot and entrepreneur by the name of Bill Britt, a very successful Amway distributor from North Carolina, and my upline Double-Diamond... It was his words, which I heard both at conventions and on tape, that taught me about the benefits of capitalism and the loss of freedom with socialism.

When I finished up with my commitment with the USAF, I returned with my family to Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I was fired up! The country was still trying to recover from the four years of Jimmy Carter. The economy here in Iowa was hurting. I just knew that I'd be highly successful after showing all my friends and relatives "the business." I already had my two friends that talked about getting a business going, at least in my mind. But, while I was out of town serving my country, they got busy in their lives. Dave got a job with a jewelry store and Phil became a firefighter. Okay, so I got two immediate "no's"! Hey, that's okay. But, the story became really sad after that.

After failing at convincing so many of my friends and relatives that there's a better way to live - with a dream - I became an expert at sharing the business with cold contacts, people that I met anywhere, anytime. Despite my lack of credibility, I forced myself to discuss the business opportunity with all kinds of successful professionals: Doctors, lawyers, realtors, insurance executives, and even a former Iowa Governor that was living in Cedar Rapids! They were all kind to me, but said, "no thanks." That was when I decided to try to help people that had not been so successful in life. And that is when I found out that socialist propaganda had already infected society. That was thirty years ago!

When the successful professionals I had talked to said, "not interested," in many cases it turned out to be a time issue. Yes, I knew all of the responses to that "excuse," and they all failed to convince anyone, but it was okay. They were succeeding, and by far, exceeded anything I've been able to do with my life. But none of those people put me down for having a dream. It was a different story when I discussed the business with people that were not professionals. Of course, some of them were in unions. They had things taken care of. And believe me, many of them that I still know aren't doing too bad (except for the ones that were working in manufacturing jobs that were moved overseas). Their lifelong careers at manufacturing plants, with great union benefits, have really paid off. Many are my age, and they are comfortably retired.

And the ones I contacted that were living in mobile home parks and apartments? Do I really need to say what their response was? Probably not, but I will tell you anyway, just so I can make the point clearer: I was told that 1) They deserved a better income in their jobs, and didn't feel obligated to have to work any harder than they were already, 2) They didn't think it was right that the owners of the companies they worked for made at least 100 times what they made (though, now it is thousands of times in many cases), and 3) If they made any more money, they'd lose their government benefits or pay more taxes!

Now, let's get back to what Henry Lamb tells us in his column. The government's managed economy system is all about confirming those afflicted with class envy. That's simply what is called Marxism. Really, had it been that I would rather have free health care rather than eventually flying in my own private jet, I would have stayed in the Air Force. Free or subsidized housing? Yep, that could have been taken care of too. Oh, but no, I had to go and start believing in free enterprise and Ronald Reagan economics... and true freedom - economic freedom. That seems to be long gone. I'm just sayin'... or dreamin'....

Managed economy or free markets?

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

June 11, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern


© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

America was once the envy of the world. Even the poorest people in America had far more than most of the rest of the people in the world. Throughout the first two centuries of her existence, America welcomed people from everywhere and supported their efforts to invent, to build, to create and to produce wealth from whatever enterprise struck their fancy. Labor unions and government regulations have put an end to that era.

For at least the last 50 years, government has continually tightened its grip on the economy by imposing ever-tighter controls over the activities of all businesses. Whether to promote safety or to protect the environment, government has made it nearly impossible for American business to compete with the rest of the world. In addition to this burden, labor unions, especially public employee labor unions, have fed Democrat candidates a healthy diet of campaign contributions in exchange for contracts that a free market would never tolerate.

The housing market crumbled because of government intervention. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and subsequent revisions imposed government management of the housing industry by forcing banks to issue loans to credit risks a free market would never tolerate. To entice banks to make these unjustified loans, the government guaranteed repayment. When some of the people couldn't, or wouldn't, repay their mortgages, the government took your tax money to make good the guarantee. This is the single most important cause of the current economic disaster, and the responsibility rests upon progressive Democrats who firmly believe that government must control and manage human activity.

Environmental regulations and government-mandated comprehensive land use plans have destroyed the concept of private property rights and elevated government to be the singular authority that controls the use of all land – regardless of who owns it. There are countless horror stories in which government destroyed the lives of enterprising Americans by preventing them from using their own land and resources. Ocie Mills and his son spent nearly two years in a federal prison for dumping 19 loads of building sand on his own property. Bob Brace fought through the courts for 12 years to win the right to convert his own pasture to a cabbage field; he lost. Wendy Birnbaum has been fighting for 12 years to use her 112 Washington acres as a campground. She still has to pay monstrous taxes on her land, but cannot use it to produce revenue. There are literally thousands and thousands of these cases in which government rolled over its citizens with no thought of being limited by their consent.

Marxists/communists/socialists/progressive Democrats are absolutely convinced that if left uncontrolled by government, people will destroy the planet, kill their neighbors with faulty products and force people to work for slave wages. Capitalists know that the conditions the progressives fear most are the inevitable consequences of the very policies they advocate. The former USSR and Cuba are but two very good examples to document this fact.

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Moving to the middle? ~ By Robert Ringer

If you have any hopes of keeping up with what our radical in chief (credit to Stanley Kurtz for the title of his eye-opening book) is really up to, you owe it to yourself to totally ignore everything he says and watch closely everything he does. It isn't an easy task, since most of what he does to continue moving America toward bankruptcy, collectivism and servitude goes unreported by the left-wing press.

For anyone still believing that Barack Obama (Obamessiah, as Mr. Ringer calls him) could ever move to the center, they obviously haven't been paying attention. As Robert says in the paragraph above, it will important to watch Obama's actions very closely over the next two years, and not to expect any help from the left-wing media in doing so.

Moving to the middle?

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

January 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

From the standpoint of those who like the idea of the America the Founding Fathers envisioned, the polls continue to be discouraging with regard to Barack Obama's popularity. Conservatives have been talking about "Obama's rapidly deteriorating poll numbers" for two years now, and, although the numbers do occasionally move a few percentages, the fact is that he has what appears to be a permanent lock on approximately 40 percent of the voters.

As I've said so often, you have to totally write off roughly 30 percent of the population, those who actually want the United States to be transformed into a collectivist utopia. And probably 10 percent or so of that 30 percent is radical enough to openly use the word communism in lieu of such euphemisms as progressivism and socialism.

Yet, in a society now obsessed with "hate speech," we are not allowed to use a term like communism, even when people say things like "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" or "Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." After all, we don't want to be accused of causing Chris Matthews to tinkle on his own leg.

For more than three years, most of the media and a significant percentage of the voting population have been playing the let's pretend game – meaning, let's pretend we don't really know what's happening and that the Obamessiah is a middle-of-the-road guy at heart. They ignore the fact that Barack Obama has appointed radical leftists such as Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Donald Berwick, Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd … the list of goes on and on … to positions that give (or gave) them the opportunity to have a major impact on policies that affect every American.

Within a week after Barack Obama was sworn in, I wrote an article in which I stated my belief that he would move swiftly to make good on his promise to fundamentally change America. He did not disappoint. If you look at Obama's track record from the perspective of someone intent on imposing the dreams of his father on the United States of America, it has been a rousing success.

Giving the man his due credit, he has been relentless. He did not allow Congress, the Constitution or the will of the people to stand in his way. From his days as a young boy learning at the knee of communist Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii to his 20 years of listening, week in and week out, to Jeremiah Wright's hate-America sermons, he has been a totally committed redistributionist.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

How about a regressive tax system? ~ By Robert Ringer

Just before it passed through Congress, Robert Ringer had written about the tax deal that was just signed into law yesterday. While the column discusses Robert's idea about a regressive tax system, I have included two excerpts below where Robert brings up specific points about the deal that he has a problem with. Now that Congress has included a 13 month extension to unemployment benefits, (and raised the estate tax back up to 35%, which wasn't mentioned in the column), he feels that it "would offset much, if not all, of that illusory economic stimulus by bleeding vast sums into idle hands."

How about a regressive tax system?

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

December 17, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

How refreshing it was to read Rep. Michele Bachmann's choice of words when she said, "I called for the current tax rates to be made permanent for all Americans." Finally, a Republican who refuses to use the term "Bush tax cuts" when alluding to our current tax rate.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, when politicians and media pundits talk about the "Bush tax cuts," they clearly are implying that the normal, acceptable tax rates are whatever they were before President Bush reduced them. Claire McCaskill recently summed up this warped far-left viewpoint when she said, "If they think it's OK to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because … we don't GIVE more money to millionaires, it really is time for people in America to pick up pitchforks."

I understand that lefties like McCaskill are hopeless, but I often wonder if I'm the only one who finds it odd when a Republican legislator says, "You don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession." Such a statement implies that it's OK to raise taxes when times are good. Sorry, but there's no such thing as a good time to raise taxes.

If raising taxes is a bad thing to do during a recession, why would it be a good thing to do when the economy is strong? What would be the objective – to try make a strong economy weak? If high taxes are good for the economy, let's have high taxes permanently. But if they're bad for the economy, let's get rid of them altogether.

Republicans will be shooting themselves in the foot if they finalize a deal that includes an extension of unemployment benefits. Why don't we stop kidding ourselves and admit that this insidious transfer-of-wealth program is evolving into a guaranteed minimum income (via never-ending extensions). Sorry, Nancy, but unemployment benefits accomplish just three things: They 1) increase the deficit, 2) cause unemployment and 3) slow economic growth.

No one knows the exact degree of the tradeoff, but the big picture is that in a compromise scenario people would get to keep more of their own money because taxes would not be increased (for now), and some would use it as an opportunity to expand their businesses and create jobs. But the increase in unemployment benefits would offset much, if not all, of that illusory economic stimulus by bleeding vast sums into idle hands.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The burned hand teaches best ~ By Patrice Lewis

I am so very sorry, Patrice, and I sincerely apologize for taking so long to publish this post here, but once again, the eloquence of your column threw me for a loop. It seems that I once again had a difficult time trying to opine on this brilliant column. I had a real case of brain lock and writer's block...

I spent the whole day trying to figure out what I would say, or looking for a video that could illustrate the point of this column. But alas, I think I finally found what I was looking for. This video will be in two parts, please watch both of them. It will be very much worth your time.

Ronald Reagan 2012 Address To America: Part 1/2



Ronald Reagan 2012 Address To America: Part 2/2

Both videos provided by PaulWilliamsWorld (Excellent work, Paul!)

It was after a few moments of silent prayer did the Lord give me the mercy to find the above two videos. What an absolutely great way to bring Patrice's column to the world. First of all, it has to be a little ironic that I had thought of including something about Ronald Reagan, being that when Patrice discussed her liberal days in college, and said this: "This was during the days of Reagan (for whom I felt the obligatory liberal hatred) – I wondered why people hadn't been clear-headed enough to elect a solidly progressive president." I was so thrilled to find these videos right in my own youtube playlist, literally right under my nose! (That's almost always how God works, ya know?)

The other reason why these videos fit so perfectly with this column is even better. It perfectly displays the fact that the burned hand may NOT have taught us best. Why, shoot, Reagan came along, and most of the speech in the video was during the 1980 campaign, and you would have thought that Jimmy Carter had given us the burned hand that we should have learned from. However, it seems that those days somehow went down the memory hole. And the scary thing is knowing the painful truth that the progressives control the schools, the mainstream news media, and Hollywood, and combined, they used indoctrination along with distracting our attention away from what Ronald Reagan had told us 30 years ago.

I'm really hoping that it is not too late to learn from the burned hand, because now, the government does everything in their power to take care of us from cradle to grave, and we may not be allowed to feel the pain of the burned hand until it goes up in smoke... and then it's too late! Ponder on that for a moment! Just sayin'...

So, wearily, conservatives must continue to fight the evil we see, which is the ballooning size and power of an increasingly despotic government. To add insult to injury, conservatives must also continue to fight the tools of that government – the mainstream media, the useful idiots (progressives) who applaud that government, and the megalithic industries (financial institutions and multinational corporations) that can only maintain their monopolies by partnering with those who have guns and the willingness to use them (the government).

Conservatives cannot deny the existence of this evil. Therefore we cannot deny the need to fight it. Fighting is hard work, and I work hard enough as it is – but it's better than standing dumbly to one side and allowing history to repeat itself because I was too apathetic to fight evil when I saw it.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: July 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Ever wonder why conservatives and progressives can't seem to get along? I think I have a clue. We see evil in different things.

When I was in college, I was a good little liberal. I marched in feminist rallies, I signed petitions, I feared nuclear warfare. I was all for world peace and universal harmony and couldn't understand why everyone else didn't yearn for the same. And I felt disdain for the close-mindedness of those poor ignorant conservative sods who Just Didn't Get It.

I was a pacifist and felt sincere bewilderment at the emphasis on America's military strength. This was during the days of Reagan (for whom I felt the obligatory liberal hatred) – I wondered why people hadn't been clear-headed enough to elect a solidly progressive president.

Ah, to be so young and ignorant …

Age and life experience has a funny way of changing one's perspective. So does parenthood and the responsibilities of training up one's children to be decent people and contributing members of society. All this combined to gradually change my perspective from raging liberal to thoughtful conservative. Now I wonder how the progressives can be so close-minded that they Just Don't Get It.

Recently, I came across a quote that was so powerful it stopped me dead in my tracks:

"It is tempting to deny the existence of evil since denying it removes the need to fight it" (Alexis Carrel).

Aha. Perhaps this helps explain the widening chasm between the perspective of the conservatives and the progressives. No, I'm not saying progressives deny the existence of evil. As I see it, progressives identify the wrong things as evil, then proceed to fight those things tooth and nail.

I'll take this moment to point out that this dichotomy between progressives and conservatives transcends the miniscule differences between Democrats and Republicans. While in theory Republican politicians are (cough) conservative, all too often they're just a slower version of the more blatant liberal progressives.

Progressives apparently do not believe our founding documents have relevance in our modern society. In fact, it seems progressives believe those documents are evil – otherwise, why would they fight like mad to change or (worse) ignore them? Why else would they seize the opportunity to translate their particular beliefs into federal law explicitly against constitutional restraints? Why else do they seem to rejoice in the massive and intrusive expansion of government rather than the small and streamlined government put in place by the Founding Fathers?

When you get such things as a ban on incandescent light bulbs, forced socialized medicine, cap-and-trade and even such absurdities as federal regulations about what schools can serve in their cafeterias … well, I'm sorry, but it's clear progressives have no faith in peoples' ability to govern themselves. We are all little children and must be told what to do.

Given the nature of the quote ("It is tempting to deny the existence of evil since denying it removes the need to fight it"), it seems progressives see individual freedom and liberty as evil (or at least misguided). Otherwise, why would they work to deny personal liberties and implement the power of collectivism and the State, as with Obamacare? Otherwise, why would they applaud the redistribution of our wealth through the largest tax hike in the history of this nation?

Conservatives see this constant encroachment of federal micromanagement as evil and contrary to the economic health of this country. That's why we fight it.

But progressives embrace it. They prefer to fight us, for fighting it. See how it works?

We think we're right and they're wrong. They think they're right and we're wrong. And never the twain shall meet.

But like all differences of opinion, there is a simple and time-tested method of determining in a debate which side is more correct. You know this method. Your children know it. It is so simple that every creature on God's green earth knows it.

The simplest method of determining who's right and who's wrong is called "risk-reward," or, as we were all taught as children, "the burned hand teaches best."

At NO point in human history has growth in the power of government over the governed ever resulted in freedoms and liberty. Never. It always results in tyranny and oppression.

Our founders knew this. Their hands had been burned by a massive and intrusive government, and it taught them well. That's why they built a system of severe restraint and limited power. Unrestrained government can and always does become the "fearful master" of which Washington spoke, when it expands to replace the rights of man with the "privileges" of government.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Progressives' perversion of compassion ~ By Robert Ringer

As absolutely correct as Robert Ringer is, have you ever wondered what would happen if all the government entitlement programs were suddenly cut off? Civil unrest would be an understatement, I'm afraid.

As the size of the government grows, complete with the many cradle-to-grave entitlement programs, so does the number of people who depend on the government. This Spring, we learned that 47% of Americans don't even have to pay taxes any more. The number of people that "share their wealth" through taxes continuously dwindles. The percentage of people that pays a large majority of taxes has decreased over the years. The progressives are doing all that they can to give more and more people more and more entitlements. Obamacare is the latest example.

Which brings us to the other side of the coin, and a further difficulty in being able to end entitlement programs. Are we even going to be able to get people elected that believe the way to compassion and charity is in ending the system of "compassion and aggression" as Robert calls it? Are we going to be able to find enough voters that understand what Robert Ringer and others have been saying about the evils of forced redistribution of wealth? With Barack Obama as President, doing his best (intentionally, I believe) to destroy our economy, how many more people will he be able to add to the unemployment roles, not to mention, needing other entitlements?

In my humble opinion, and I am as right as I can be, there really is only one way to solve this dilemma: We MUST get the economy growing again. The first thing that needs to be done is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Businesses will then be less afraid to start investing again. And of course, the cap-and-tax program must be defeated, or if it gets pushed through in the lame duck session, it will have to be repealed. Cut taxes, and then start cutting bureaucratic red tape that keeps new businesses from starting up. Only if the economy is legitimately growing again, through the free market system of capitalism, can we begin to whittle away at the entitlement programs, reducing the number of people depending on them, and proceeding on the principles that Mr. Ringer explains in this column. Just sayin'...

Only the most demented Marxist mind would even attempt to concoct a justifiable reason why the use of force is morally superior to charity. The idea that compassion justifies aggression is a perversity that must be exposed for what it is: an excuse for government to increase its power over people. Compassion, on the other hand, leads quite naturally to charity – without government involvement.

Seems pretty simple to me. Nothing whatsoever to get tongue-tied about.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: July 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Now that BHO has appointed Donald Berwick – a man who has made it clear that universal health care necessitates redistribution of wealth – to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid health-insurance programs, it's yet another reminder that progressive politicians and non-elected bureaucrats believe they have the authority to grant, as well as take away, individual rights.

All this gives new meaning to the word arrogance. Any civil human being knows, in his heart, that people have a natural right to be free to make personal choices about their own lives, their own bodies and their own property. This simple truth is commonly referred to as "Natural Law." It can also be thought of as the Law of Nonaggression.

If one believes it is a violation of an individual's natural right to force him to do something he does not want to do (e.g., give up part of his wealth or property to others) or prevent him from doing something that he does want to do (so long his actions do not harm anyone else), then government aggression can never be morally justified. In a society of moral people, the Law of Nonaggression would be the only law that would be needed.

Where confusion comes about – and trouble begins to set in – is in the progressive's perversion of a unique human trait known as compassion. Compassion is why private charity thrives in America, notwithstanding the fact that the government forces individuals to hand over a substantial portion of their earnings to fund immoral government activities.

Charity is about each individual giving not according to his ability, but according to his desire – to those whom he deems to be in need and worthy of his charity. CC = compassion and charity. Got it?

The progressive, however, does not get it. He tries to sever the link between compassion and charity, and instead links compassion with aggression – i.e., the use of force. And while it may seem self-evident that compassion and aggression contradict one another, thanks to the emotion of guilt, this combo is an easy sell even to those who possess a basic belief in individual sovereignty.

After all, how can a person not be in favor of taking wealth by force when millions are unemployed … homeless … in need of medical treatment … lacking money for education … the list is endless, because human desires/needs are endless. But a person would have to be omniscient, not to mention divinely moral, to know which needs of which people are superior to the rights of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

The fact that 35 percent of Americans favor government-run health care is irrelevant. Lots of people want lots of free stuff. That's a given. But to take money by force to give them the free services they desire is unconstitutional – and, more important, immoral.

Since the government does not create wealth of its own, the only way it can "help" people – whether it be to give them unemployment benefits, health care, or any other commodity – is to commit aggression against others and simply use force to take the resources it needs.

If we are to steer the USA Titanic away from the gigantic Obamaberg that lies in the treacherous financial waters just ahead, the entire concept of entitlements – of any and all kinds – must be rejected by a majority of Americans. The notion that anyone has a right to anything other that what others are willing to pay him in a free market is progressive nonsense.

That includes such sacred cows as Social Security, Medicare, and especially unemployment benefits. Liberty-minded folks must not allow themselves to fall into the compassion trap that results in hopelessly tied tongues.

Many conservatives squirm for an answer when asked if they are not concerned about people with pre-existing conditions that have no health care. Of course they are concerned, as am I and most other people. But the solution is not to destroy our current health-care system and make everyone equally miserable.

If insurance companies are forced to insure people with pre-existing conditions, they will have to raise everyone else's rates dramatically, which is the equivalent of a transfer-of-wealth program. If people refuse to pay such increased rates, their insurance companies will go out of business. Presto: Government achieves full control of health care.

On the other hand, if the government prevents insurance companies from raising their rates so they can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions, those companies will go out of business because they will quickly incur unsustainable losses. Same presto: Government achieves full control of health care.

Get the picture?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The Liberal-Fascist Axis, Part 2 ~ By Ellis Washington

The following is a continuance of Ellis Washington's column, "The Liberal-Fascist Axis." Ellis continues he discussion about the relationships between liberalism and fascism.

Okay, so neither Ellis nor I, nor anyone else, like Glenn Beck... or you, have yet to be hauled away to detention camps... "Yet" is the key word. A couple of days ago (June 9), though, Glenn Beck gave us a warning when he asked, "Where does it end?" 

In the 1st segment of the show (you will see Part 1 of 3 in the video below), Glenn is explaining how just in the last week, things were getting very different. The President is going to go "kick someone's ass," and the Obama minions are beginning to want Obama to start changing things. Huh? I thought a lot of change has already been going on since this regime took power. So, what's there to worry about? I'd have to be crazy to think that anything more extreme could happen... But, as always, I'm just sayin'...

Epilogue

Slavery, abortion, Social Darwinism, eugenics and fascism make up the five-headed monster of modern times. Each head reveal the Nazi doctrine of Lebensunwertes Leben (life unworthy of life). In the modern era, these ideas and policies are directly responsible for the genocide of hundreds of millions of people.

American fascism is exhibited today in policies like: Obamacare, TARP, Obama's takeover of the banking and auto industries, exploiting the Gulf oil leak to destroy the oil industry through federal takeover while forcing Americans into unsustainable alternative energy uses, thus further decimating our economy.

Absent Christianity and Natural Law, Obama's revolutionary policies will only augment the ever-expanding socialist state under the Liberal-Fascist Axis.

By Ellis Washington

Posted: June 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The left supported Hitler not because he deceived them. They knew Hitler would kill. He said he would. In fact, it was why they supported him.

~ Latvian documentary "The Soviet Story" (2008)

WARNING: This video contains disturbing images.

Video provided by stclymer

I am more than willing to drop the radical pose for the radical ends.

~ Van Jones (Communist, Obama's former green czar)

(See the video at 8:42 where Glenn Beck mentions this quote.)
From his show on June 9, 2010:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Prologue

Slavery, abortion, Social Darwinism (evolution), eugenics, fascism (i.e., Nazism, communism, liberalism), are perhaps the five most diabolical and irredeemable ideas of the past 160 years; yet despite civil wars, world wars, social revolutions, civil-rights acts, Christian revivals and political reforms, this five-headed monster is still alive and thrives under the totalitarian cult of liberalism, now called "progressivism."

1. Slavery

Slavery has existed since the earliest annals of human history and has been practiced at some period by virtually every nation and tribe on earth. In America, it took a bloody Civil War to bring an end to this "peculiar institution" in 1865 and later by law via the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

The Democratic Party proliferated and profited most from slavery, and yet because of liberal hegemony in the academy, courts, Congress, media and Hollywood, the virulently racist background and political madness of liberalism has been largely erased from the history books, and all sins forgiven. Why? Because the Democrats co-opted the black vote in the early1930s, and LBJ and got all the credit for passing the Civil Rights Act (1964, 1968) and the Voting Rights Act (1965).

2. Abortion

Abortion is the act of a woman causing the premature termination of her baby and pregnancy. Despite volumes written on abortion, few writers have made the unmistakable connection between the twin evils of abortion and slavery – such as, for every 1,000 black babies born in America, there are 472 unborn black babies aborted, or for every two black babies born, one black baby is aborted.

The NAACP and the civil-rights movement essentially support the genocide of their own race.

I made the existential connection between slavery and abortion in a Socratic dialogue:

Socrates: Indeed. You must first tell us why this day does America allow an average of 1.5 million abortions annually and 40-53 million abortions worldwide? Why have between 40-50 million abortions occurred in America alone since Roe v. Wade (1973)? This, in a country that in your own Declaration promised each of her citizens "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?" Why, Mr. ACLU?

Attorney ACLU: {indignant} B-B-B-But, but, but, but abortions are an entirely different issue than slavery.

Socrates: I agree if by "different" you mean in the manner of execution. However, the public policy is the same: One person, the slave master with slavery and one woman/Supreme Court justice with abortion, has the legal authority to kill another human being, correct, Attorney ACLU?

3. Social Darwinism (evolution)

Social Darwinism understands that the laws of Darwinian evolution by natural selection are applicable to social structures and public policy. Despite the instant and worldwide cult following of evolution since the 1860s, Darwin was rightly skeptical and in a famous letter to Asa Gray Darwin shared his doubts about evolution, writing: "… I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science. ... It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts."

In his 1882 book, "Selection in Relation to Sex," Social Darwinism was his major thesis:

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man … hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Who determines who lives and who dies? Progressives, of course.

4. Eugenics

"Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species." Eugenics was founded by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Margaret Sanger zealously propagated eugenics before becoming the founder of Planned Parenthood, one of the largest abortion providers in the world. Sanger's entire idea for eugenics (of which abortion is its logical consequence) was to bring genocide to the black race, which Sanger and many progressive intellectuals believed was by nature unworthy of full participation in civilization.

5. Fascism

Throughout history, liberalism, totalitarianism, terrorism, anarchy and fascism have been bedfellows – during the Age of Enlightenment (Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Jefferson), through its systemic corruption during the French Revolution (the Jacobins, Robespierre) and later during 19th-century German Romanticism (Schopenhauer, Wagner, Kaiser Wilhelm, Darwin, Nietzsche). The 20th century saw liberalism morph into the progressive movement and the modern welfare state (Lippmann, Croly, John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Obama) where the apotheosis of the State has essentially replaced God, reason, constitutionalism and Natural Law.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

The Liberal-Fascist Axis ~ By Ellis Washington

I have to wonder how Ellis can get away with writing such "extreme" columns about topics like this without the government coming to shut him up. And the same for Glenn Beck on his radio and TV shows. For that matter, you and I would seem to be in line for some type of retaliation, just for posting this or reading it. Why hasn't the Obama cabal come after us (yet)? A friend told me the other day why he felt the Obama government was ignoring things that would seem to be so damaging to them and their agenda: They just don't care what we think, say, or write. Kind of like how they didn't care what we thought about ObamaCare. For now, they can just call us names, demean us, call us crazy... (That is just part of the principles of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals")

Well... the friend may have been partially right. Maybe for now, they don't care. They seem to just do whatever they want, almost as if they don't have to worry about an election unseating them from power in 2012 (or even in 2010?). Or... they're just taking names for right now, and we'll be on that list once the ObamaCide commences. Just sayin'...

RELATED VIDEO:

George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler, Mass Murder
(Warning: Not suitable for younger children.

Video provided by stclymer

This is the sophistic justification liberals, socialists, Democrats and globalist have used so effectively for decades. People ask the question: When in history has Marxism, liberalism, socialism, welfare statism, communism, redistribution of wealth worked for any society? Of course, the answer is never – but since liberalism in my view is a totalitarian cult of politics, facts don't matter to true believers, and liberals will retort with the mantra demonstrative of Obama's presidential election – We are the ones we've been waiting for! In other words, the reason liberal fascism, communism or the socialist welfare state hasn't worked in the past was that the wrong people were running it … until now?

By Ellis Washington

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Shaw idolized Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini as the world's great "progressive" leaders because they "did things," unlike the leaders of those "putrefying corpses" called parliamentary democracies.

– Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism" (2007), p. 134

George Bernard Shaw

"The Soviet Story" was a revelatory "documentary on progressivism." (see video above) In a revealing excerpt, George Bernard Shaw, the famous playwright and literary critic was filmed in the early 1930s openly defending Hitler, mass murder and genocidal eugenics. The documentary explains liberals' love affair with fascism, saying: The left supported Hitler not because he deceived them. They knew Hitler would kill. He said he would. In fact, it was why they supported him.

The progressive movement has always been filled with socialist and liberal intellectuals who love to praise depraved tyrants like Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler as men of action who, unlike the bureaucrats in our democracies, could get things done. Remember Stalin apologist Walter Duranty, a foreign correspondent for the New York Times who during the ghastly purges in the Ukraine in 1932-33, where over 7 million people were starved, Duranty heartlessly rationalized, "In order to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs."

The leftists of the Liberal-Fascist Axis have never been shy about their admiration for totalitarian government, using the Machiavellian idea of the end justifying the means as a common pretext for killing millions of people through ideology, eugenics, war, the Holocaust, abortion, social revolution, ghettoization, redistribution of wealth, the Green movement, etc.: All diabolical means are permissible for progressives to achieve their utopian kingdom of power and control on earth.

At one point in the documentary, Shaw is speaking directly to the camera in positive tones about killing those members of society "who are no use in this world":

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can't be of very much use to yourself.

Although Jesus commanded us to love thy neighbor, Shaw demands an answer to his affronting question: "Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence … we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can't be of very much use to yourself." Here, Shaw is touting the Nazi doctrine of "life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben).

Remember, at the end of liberal fascism is always death.

Twenty-five years before Hitler built his first gas chambers to exterminate the Jews, the progressive prophet of death George Bernard Shaw prophesied in a lecture to the Eugenics Education Society on March 4, 1910: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment. … A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal [gas] chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."

In 1934, just one year after Hitler came to power, Shaw said: "If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way." The Nazis heard Shaw's plea of Lebensunwertes Leben and used the diabolical gas Zyklon B to effect their evil madness upon the Jews and against civilization.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Barack Obama's new world order ~ By Henry Lamb

It just happens that on Thursday (May 27, 2010), Glenn Beck spoke about Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama. And while Glenn didn't discuss any of the New World Order issues, the show drew the comparisons out between Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama. How about if we take a look at the first segment of the show before we go to Henry's column:

Glenn Beck 05/27/10: The Progressive History of Faith, Charity and Hope, Part 1



Glenn Beck 05/27/10: The Progressive History of Faith, Charity and Hope, Part 2

Videos provided by TheREALjohnny2k

The point is, there are so many parallels between the three most progressive Presidents in American history. Glenn Beck is not crazy, nor is Henry Lamb. If you watched the Beck videos above, you will see what the first two Presidents, Wilson and Roosevelt, were capable of doing. Glenn made the case that Obama is capable of doing the same things, as the appointment of Cass Sunstein as the Information Czar points out.

Now, add to it what Henry says in his column, and you should see the progressive pattern is being continued. And it is my opinion that "Obama's destruction of Americanism is INTENTIONAL!" as I say in my twitter bio, because the end game is the "New International Order." Just sayin'...

Obama's "New International Order" goes beyond the United States and seeks to take the wealth of the United States and redistribute it to the rest of the world. He seems perfectly willing to make everything equal in every nation – until your wealth is gone.

The United States should show the rest of the world how to earn prosperity through free-market capitalism, and thereby help the other nations of the world elevate their wealth to equal ours. Obama and his crowd choose instead to equalize the wealth of nations by draining America's wealth and reducing Americans' wealth to the lowest possible common denominator.

The Wilson-Roosevelt and now Obama vision of a new world order must be rejected, along with all those politicians who share it.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It should come as no surprise. During the campaign, he told us he was a "citizen of the world." Last week, he told the cadets at West Point, and the rest of the world, just what his vision of a new world order is.

Obama wants a new international order that can "resolve the challenges of our times." That's what Woodrow Wilson wanted when he and his cronies created the League of Nations. That's what Franklin Roosevelt wanted when he and his cronies created the United Nations. Fortunately, conservative senators prevented the United States from surrendering its sovereignty to Wilson's vision of a new world order. Roosevelt steamrolled what few conservatives there were in 1945, and the United Nations was created to "resolve the challenges" of his time.

One of the fundamental flaws in the vision of these three globalists – and the New World Order crowd – is the idea that the United States must submit its sovereignty to an ultimate power greater than our own.

Absolutely not – never!

In 1945, there was enough conservative influence to retain veto power for the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council and to prohibit the U.N. having the authority to levy taxes. Both of these provisions have been targeted by the New World Order crowd ever since. The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance recommends that the veto be removed from all five permanent members and that the U.N. be given extensive taxing powers.

These two barriers, and the absence of authority to raise its own army, are what prevent the current United Nations from becoming the unchallenged government of the world.

If Obama's "new international order" is to have the authority and resources it needs to "resolve the challenges of our time," then it will have to have taxing authority to fund the army that will be required to enforce its mandates, which can be enacted at will without fear of veto from the U.S. or the other permanent members.

The United States must never be subservient to any governmental power on earth, other than the government elected by the citizens of the United States. The United States must never depend upon any other government on earth for its defense, or its welfare. The United States must be responsible for "resolving the challenges of our time."

The United States should seek and welcome cooperation from all nations in all efforts to resolve challenges of mutual concern, but never in a structure where decisions that may control the behavior of U.S. citizens are made by people who are not elected by U.S. citizens. The United States could find itself in just this situation, should the new global financial regulatory scheme now under development become a reality.

The United States has shown that free people who are allowed to invest time, energy, resources and ideas into a free market can lift the world to unimagined heights of prosperity and well-being. This is the example the United States should offer the world. Those nations that wish to follow this example and benefit from its rewards will be excellent trading partners, worthy of support, assistance and cultivation. Those who curse capitalism and seek socialism should be free to follow their own course – so long as their course respects our right to ignore them.

Al Sharpton inadvertently revealed another fundamental flaw in the philosophy of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama New World Order crowd. He said Martin Luther King's dream was not getting one black family into the White House; his dream was to "… make everything equal in everybody's house."

The United Nations reflects this dream in its Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11(1)), which claims that all people have a right to "… an adequate standard of living … adequate food, clothing, and housing."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Safety Net: Personal responsibility and charity should matter

Progress and social justice at one time may have been a good thing... That is until politicians that they could use it to expand government, and eliminate the need for personal responsibility and charity. So, on that theme, I ended up writing this column. While I give Glenn Beck the credit for helping me to arrive on these thoughts, it took some effort on my part to arrange it into this conclusion.

So, if people continue to be dependent on government and not learn personal responsibility, those rude awakenings of not having a true “safety net” to protect them will hit ground… I mean, home. And on the other hand, those that are charitable will be ready and willing and able to help those that are unable to help themselves.

Honestly, in my humble opinion, the only true safety net will be when personal responsibility and charity both matter.

By John Kubicek

May 7, 2010

© 2010

There will always be those that fail. It’s a fact of life. I understand it, because I’ve been there, done that. Anyone that has ran GM, Chrysler, Fannie and Freddie, or Goldman-Sachs understands that. Anyone who is a fan, or has who played for the Chicago Cubs, understands that. … but I digress.

But here is the real kicker: Some that fail are bailed out, and some aren’t. That is just SOOO unfair (said in total sarcastic tone)! Is there a way to ever justify that agenda? Obviously not, at least as far as Conservatives are concerned. Because in the case of bail-outs of the failures, responsibility doesn’t seem to count anymore. It seems clear that now, only those that grease the palms and make the largest contributions to politicians can get away with it. And for those that can barely afford a peanut butter sandwich or a small container of Mac & Cheese, how are they going to ever (afford to) make a difference? Financial contributions would not seem to be an option for many people. Are there any other options? We’ll talk about that here, but stick with me for a bit.

Voluntary charity – funds given freely to the institution of choice – should actually be the ONLY kind of bail-out available for individuals. For businesses, let the free market determine whether businesses succeed or fail.

But for now, the safety net depends on an ongoing progressive affair with government assistance. The key word is actually “dependence.” The tendency is to be a big enough part of a “victimhood,” so that if there are enough of you in a voter’s block, and anything you want or need will be taken care of by those wonderful guys and gals representing us in DC. Do the words, “Too big to fail” ring a bell?

There are two words that are the biggest enemies of liberty: “government” and “dependency.” Our Founding Fathers were quite obviously aware of this. They set up the architecture of the government via the Constitution as they did for a reason. Their intention was to make it very difficult to change the form of our government (aka “transformation”). Unfortunately, as technology progressed, so did the knowledge of the one hole in the idea that our founders warned us about. And I am not sure you will be ready or receptive to this information, but it was through the Church. It was a good thing at one time: Social Justice. The very first effort that was mostly GOD-lead was the abolition of slavery in America. The social justice movement kept on rolling along, quite well I might add, to give us the Civil Rights Act. Nothing to be ashamed of, America!

However, there was a dangerous undercurrent to go along with the positive waves of progress. (PS – William Ayers is NOT my ghost writer. Thought I better mention that being that I used an allusion to the murky, oily sea of change…) To accomplish many of these objectives that went along with social change (justice), the progressives learned how to be more aggressive than what we may have really desired. We were being transformed, but it was a very slow process. People that thought of social justice weren’t satisfied with just equal opportunity for all. Now, they insist on equal outcomes. Those are the people that first infested the universities; that lead to the public school institutions where the teachers are unionized and lead by the radicals that were taught by the progressive professors. They used indoctrination. It didn’t take long for the infestation to spread to the entertainment industry. And folks, we are still talking about what happened in the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s! From there, it has only gone down hill.

READ FULL STORY at BreakdownofAmerica.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

The 100-year war … against America ~ By Erik Rush

Erik explains why we must stay very vigilant, and start replacing those progressives (Democrats) and RINOs, while we still can.

I don't know how many Americans are really so dim – as opposed to advocating this abomination – that they haven't a hint yet that abject tyranny is halfway through the door. But I, like others, believe that if enough people in their right minds become engaged, we still may be able to stem the tide until we can dispose of the Democratic majority in Congress and Barack Hussein Obama. We will have to be equally vigilant, however, that we replace them with nationalistic, conservative Americans, rather than smiling RINO whores; people who know who our enemies are and who won't play nice with those enemies.


While we are doing that, for the next hundred years – at least – we must vigorously and relentlessly beat the drum of progressivism being as great an evil as any historical atrocity.

By Erik Rush

Posted: March 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Tonight, after nearly 100 years of talk and frustration…

– President Barack Obama, March 21, 2010

So, America, have you deduced that the current occupant of the White House, his underlings and congressional leaders are manifestly evil – or are you going to wait until they're gunning us down in the streets?

On March 22, WND reprinted remarks made by President Barack Obama on March 21, after the House passed the much-contested health-care reform bill.

Many of you (those over 35) recall hearing Soviet leaders deliver speeches just like Obama's. Do you remember chuckling sardonically, knowing their words were lies and that their people were essentially nothing but slave labor, toiling to maintain a cyclopean, hideously ineffective mega-bureaucracy and a pitiless, criminal privileged class?

Have you asked yourself why Congress found passage of the health-care reform bill such an imperative, even in the face of public mobilization against it that we haven't seen since the Civil Rights Movement?

Have you considered the president's reference to "100 years of talk and frustration"? Just who was talking and frustrated during all of that time, and what occurred ten decades ago? Well, it was around 100 years ago that progressivism first infected the worldview of American politicians and that communism took hold in Russia.

Is this scenario difficult for you to grasp because you can't identify with why anyone would crave the degree of power those in our government covet? Is the same reason any tyrant would crave that degree of power not good enough an answer for you?

In case you're just tuning in: About 100 years ago, certain politicians decided that an America ruled, rather than governed, by an elite political class (versus the system of a representative republic then in place) looked rather attractive. They had been philosophically corrupted, of course; it probably hasn't escaped your notice that such individuals would be at the top of this class. The type of people who were beginning to gravitate toward political office (who otherwise had little to offer society) were enticed by this system in which guile and avarice was substituted for meaningful, constructive contribution. Those who had already become successful, believing their worldly station to be inviolate, were intrigued by the notion that they might rule on a parallel track with this new elite.

The politicians seeking this change – called progressives – began to propagandize those who were on the lower socioeconomic end of society, fostering a belief that they might have all they wanted if only the politicians were given enough power to redistribute others' wealth to them. Contemporaneously, they began to impede economic progress in order to disenfranchise an increasing number of Americans, thereby expanding the dissatisfied, disaffected class and creating more people who would be susceptible to their empty promises.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!