Capitalism: The purest form of freedom ~ By Robert Ringer

There's an irony in the fact that Marx and Engels believed capitalism was necessary in order to create more wealth disparity. The irony I'm referring to is that capitalism also creates more wealth for those on the lowest rung of the income ladder than any other system, so income and wealth disparities, while interesting phenomena for academic eggheads to ponder, are irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is how well off each individual is in absolute terms – not in comparison to others.

The bottom line is that without capitalism, there is no such thing as prosperity for the masses. Capitalism is freedom in its purest form. Thus, without freedom, capitalism, by definition, cannot exist, because it is nothing more than a subcategory of freedom – the freedom to trade one's goods and services with others without interference from government.

If you agree with most of what I've said in this article, you should make it a point to vote only for those office seekers whom you are convinced truly understand that the main threat we face is our loss of freedom. My pessimistic vision of the future would change substantially if pro-freedom types were able to win the presidency and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 2012. The optimistic side of me hopes it will happen, but my realistic side keeps reminding me that history has not been kind to those who put their trust in politicians.

Spread the word, avoid distractions, and keep it simple: We are losing our freedom!

I'll be right up front with you today. This blog entry was close to being scrubbed. I almost didn't post this. Why?

I probably could easily say that I've had ego issues. There are times when I felt that my posts deserved more recognition than they received. Okay, ego... Apparently not possible, because I am writing this despite that issue.

Or could it be that I didn't want to trouble myself any longer with writing about politics, and troubling folks with motivation to read it? And there is nothing that troubles me more than self-promotion. Bingo...

Really? No. Here is another plausible reason: Is it too late? For what I read in Robert's column, and then in the related stories linked below, it seems to be a valid question. As far down the road to serfdom that we have gone, I'm not sure there is a way to turn people around before that proverbial edge of the cliff is reached. Honestly, I've had to consider the possibility that the cliff was already reached by the masses.

I would really hate to blame Robert Ringer for giving me any reason to give up hope, and just quit writing. Or just quit trying. It's just that the situation we are faced with seems to be getting more and more bleak. It wouldn't be all that hard to say that freedom is doomed. Well, it would be, if we all just gave up. But some of us won't:

And for the support of the Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Really?  Yes, for sure.  Capitalism is under attack, and that is just one of the offensives the enemy has taken on to eradicate Freedom.  I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:

• Checklist: America meets 90% of Karl Marx's demands, By Dr. Kirk Elliot

• The Revolution Was, By Garet Garrett

*    *    *

Capitalism: The purest form of freedom

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

July 07, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Americans are easy prey when it comes to political distraction debates. The NLRB's outrageous attempt to block Boeing from opening a new plant in South Carolina is a distraction. Proposed card-check legislation is a distraction. Our obsessive meddling in Middle Eastern countries is a distraction.

All these are important issues, but they are merely subcategories of the foundational issue that Americans should be focused on: loss of freedom. In a truly free society, none of these issues would even arise, because they are outside the scope of human freedom.

Unfortunately, instead of freedom, we are being cleverly engineered into social-justice automatons by left-wing zealots who run Atlas Shrug-like bureaucracies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Education, to name but a few of our worst enemies from within.

The antithesis of freedom is communism. Karl Marx and his lackey benefactor, Friedrich Engels, firmly believed that violent revolution was the only way to bring about pure communism, and that such a revolution was possible only where capitalism existed. Capitalism, they insisted, was a necessary ingredient for creating a wide financial disparity between workers and the privileged class.

I'm still baffled as to why Marx and Engels would want to increase the income disparity between the classes, only to rectify the disparity through violent revolution. Sounds like angry, left-wing mischievousness to me. Perhaps it was based on their knowledge of the utter failure of the French Revolution, which had led only to mob violence, unthinkable human carnage and, ultimately, a Napoleonic dictatorship.

But the fact is that there has never been a communist revolutionary threat in capitalistic societies such as Japan, Taiwan or (pre-China) Hong Kong. The most notable communist revolutions have occurred in Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba, none of which could have been considered capitalist countries at the time. Thus, Marx and Engels would have considered the United States to be a perfect crucible for testing their convoluted class-warfare theories.

Of course, only naïve dreamers believe in the communist fairly tale that under communism, the state will eventually "wither away" because there will be so much of everything for everybody that government will no longer be necessary. But I do believe that Marx and Engels were on to something with their belief that socialism would precede communism. In fact, they referred to socialism as a "transitional stage of society" between capitalism and communism.

Nevertheless, here in the U.S. we have long suffered from the delusion that "European-style socialism" is a nice, peaceful, cradle-to-grave compromise between capitalism and communism. Elitists on both the right and the left have come to believe that European society is static, and that so long as European countries keep their redistribution-of-wealth policies finely tuned, capitalists will go right on producing enough to support the parasitic masses.

What they have not taken into account, however, is a crucial factor known as human nature. Homo sapiens – particularly its progressive subspecies – is, by nature, an avaricious creature. Worse, the more goods and services he acquires without work, the more avaricious he becomes. In fact, the human appetite for wealth without work is insatiable.

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

Why Marxism lives on ~ By Craige McMillan

Today we call capitalists entrepreneurs. By virtue of their capabilities, these individuals rise to positions of power and prominence. They create products people want to buy, which results in jobs for those whose work is needed to produce the product.

Thus the legacy of Marx lives on, from generation to generation. Why? Because the human failings of ego, conceit and the lust for power over others never die.

Craige enlightens us with his reasons why Marxism keeps on ticking. And no, the explanation doesn't involve people wanting to help the poor or eliminate poverty.

Why Marxism lives on

CRAIGE McMILLAN

By Craige McMillan

February 10, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

There's a reason Karl Marx is revered by so many academics. The reason is very simple. Marx made them respectable.

The secret lament of many academics goes something like this:

• There are lots of problems in the world

• We know – because we've studied them

• Because we've studied them, we know how to fix them

• We have the answer, yet nobody ever calls on us!

• Here! In the back row (waving hand furiously). I know the answer! Pick me!

In other words, "We're the best and the brightest. We have the answers. We should be running things!"

The genius of Karl Marx was not that he solved the world's economic problems. He didn't. The genius of Karl Marx was that he flipped the very old argument from, "Who should have the power?" and made it appear that the real question is, "Who should have the money?"

The great success of Marx is that he made the age-old vices of conceit and the lust for power seem legitimate; perhaps even honorable. Those who craved power over others could now cloak their lust in bland economic platitudes about the means of production and the voice of the proletariat.

The means of production – factories, jobs (and the money to pay for them) – would be owned in common by all the people. The decisions about what to produce (how to spend the money), how much to produce and who does what job would be made by those with political power (since they now controlled the assets). And these same elites would surely call on the academics for advice and implementation.

Two very different systems. Two very different inputs. And two very different results – as 90 years of communist history in various nations of the world has shown.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

A nation divided ~ By Henry Lamb

There are some things I think that I should clarify before you read Henry's column.

The first clarification is that Henry wrote, in the second paragraph, that "Restoring Honor," Glenn Beck's 8/28 event, "was planned months ago to celebrate the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's 1963 'I Have a Dream' speech." Actually, no, that isn't what it was about at all. As seen on the "Restoring Honor" facebook page, there would be a much better explanation for the event:

Throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we can live as a free country. On August 28th, come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.

Join the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and many more for this non-political event that pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.

Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous. Help us restore the values that founded this great nation. Come join us on August 28th in our pledge to restore honor at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

Okay, now that we have THAT slight error in the column taken care of, there is one more little statement that needs to be attended to for the sake of clarifying what the liberal media want people to believe. Though I don't think that it was intentional, Henry wrote, in speaking about Sharpton's event called "Reclaim the Dream," that his people put out a call to "black organizations to come to Washington to out-demonstrate Beck's event". That somewhat distorts the meaning of the "Restoring Honor" rally. Glenn's event wasn't what should be called a "demonstration." Sharpton and the mainstream media would like you to believe that "Restoring Honor" was a political event, a tea party "demonstration," but that is very far from the truth. Actually, if they wanted to call the Beck event a "come-to-Jesus revival meetin'," I wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact, I would celebrate it! And I did celebrate it, and I did shout out to Jesus yesterday morning while watching it! Just sayin'...

The nation is sharply divided. The upcoming elections provide an opportunity to reject the Hobbes-Rousseau-Marx-Sharpton-Obama vision of a society enslaved by an omnipotent government. It may be our last chance.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: August 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

To see the nation divided, watch the people who gather today at the Lincoln Memorial to hear Glenn Beck and the people who gather at Dunbar High School to hear the Rev. Al Sharpton.. Beck and his group want to restore the principles of the founders; Sharpton and his group want to transform America into a progressive utopia.

Beck's demonstration, dubbed "Restoring Honor," was planned months ago to celebrate the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech. Sharpton's coalition was outraged by the audacity of a white man – especially Glenn Beck – attempting to hijack King's dream. They immediately sent out a call to black organizations to come to Washington to out-demonstrate Beck's event with their own competing event they named "Reclaim the Dream."

Beck has used his national television program to promote King's idea that all people should be measured by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. Were Sharpton and his colleagues following King's teachings, they would be attending Beck's event, not trying to belittle it by scheduling dueling demonstrations. King worked to achieve a color-blind society; Sharpton and his followers are working to secure special status for blacks. King worked to remove the social bonds that enslaved black people; Sharpton and his colleagues are working to enslave black people to ever-more government handouts.

Skin color, however, is not what divides Americans. Americans are divided by different visions of how society should be organized. Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" demonstration seeks to restore the vision held by the founders of this great nation. Theirs was a vision of sovereign individuals voluntarily selecting representatives from among their neighbors to create a government to do only those chores enumerated in the Constitution they wrote.

Sharpton and his crowd see another vision. They see a government empowered to take whatever resources it wants from the people who have resources, to make sure that all people have at least a home, adequate food, a job with a livable wage, health care and an education.

The founders' vision celebrates individual responsibility, hard work and successful accomplishment. Sharpton's vision assumes that an individual's success was gained unfairly by taking advantage of others. The founders' vision expects people to be responsible for their own needs and to give freely of their resources to help those in need. Sharpton's vision expects government to ensure that the earth's resources are distributed equitably to everyone.

Sharpton's vision, or what he and others like to call the "progressive" agenda, is actually a holdover from the philosophy of folks such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Karl Marx. Hobbes believed that "The control of power must be lodged in a single person, and no individual can set their own private judgments of right and wrong in opposition to the sovereign's commands." This is the same philosophy Sharpton displays when he wants the control of power to be lodged in the federal government against which no private judgments of right or wrong may be lodged against the government's command. This is why it is so terribly important for Sharpton's Democratic Party to be in control of the government. When Democrats control government, the Hobbes-Rousseau-Marx philosophy always prevails. When Republicans control government, the Hobbes-Rousseau-Marx philosophy prevails only some of the time.

Glenn Beck is looking far beyond Democrats and Republicans, all the way back to the founders who constructed this nation on the principles of freedom they considered to be essential: 1) recognition that the right to life, liberty and property is a gift from the Creator, 2) that government is a creation of free people and is empowered only by the consent of the governed, and 3) government is best that governs least.

Listen to this column online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Doing the Socialists' bidding ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry Lamb explains how the Democrats ridicule those that call Obama and Democrats in Congress Marxists. So, let's see if the evidence proves them wrong. I think you'll be able to say that they ARE Marxists after reading this! But first, the video showing Obama's arrogance:

Video provided by PresidentObama3, Oct 22, 2009

Marxism in a free society is like a cancer. It grows and spreads and infiltrates every facet of society, always demanding more taxes to provide universal health care, a living wage, adequate housing, education and other entitlements, until eventually, there are no more taxes to take.


The only cure for Marxist cancer is radical surgery. The first of two necessary operations is scheduled for Nov. 2, 2010.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: April 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

People who follow the teaching of Buddha are called Buddhists. People who follow the teaching of Christ are called Christians. People who follow the teaching of Karl Marx are called Marxists, except in the United States, where they prefer to be called Democrats.

In the United States, people who oppose the teaching of Karl Marx are called a variety of names that include teabagger, trailer-trash and even domestic terrorist. In fact, the primary defense used by Democrats against the Marxist label is arrogant, condescending ridicule. (See video above).

Obama says his critics accuse him of using a "socialist" mop to clean up the mess he inherited.

Socialism, according to Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism; both political systems are based on the teaching of Karl Marx.

The Socialist Party USA "…stands for a socialized health-care system based on universal coverage, salaried doctors and health-care workers, and revenues derived from a steeply graduated income tax."

Obama agrees with this goal, and his Democratic majority in Congress has delivered the first major step toward this most important plank in the Socialist Party's platform.

The Socialist Party Platform says: "The Socialist Party stands for municipal ownership and control of energy plants, in a non-profit and decentralized, but coordinated, system that ensures the most careful use of natural resources."

During a legislative hearing, Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters threatened a government takeover of the entire oil industry.

The Socialist Platform says: "We call for public ownership and democratic control of all our natural resources in order to conserve resources, preserve our wilderness areas, and restore environmental quality."

Even though the government already owns nearly 42 percent of all the land in the United States, Democrats have introduced S. 787, which will take virtually all water from private owners and state and local governments, and give it to the federal government. It will also give legal jurisdiction over "… all activities affecting these waters" to the federal government. Enactment of this bill will effectively deliver this plank in the Socialists' platform.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Marxist is as Marxist does ~ By Henry Lamb

As Victoria Jackson said, "Obama is a Communist." There shouldn't be any doubt about this FACT, and Henry clearly explains how that should be the obvious explanation for Obama's progressive agenda.

Passage of Obamacare is the most dramatic step forward for the Marxist agenda in more than a generation. It must be undone. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force people to purchase insurance – unless the people allow it. The people must not allow it. This Marxist agenda must be stopped, and the only way to stop it is to remove the Marxist advocates from Congress and the White House.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: March 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

People who believe that health care is a right instead of a privilege embrace a fundamental principle of Marxism. This philosophy is built on the idea that workers are the source of productivity and must not be exploited by kings or capitalists; that workers must control their own destiny. This is the foundation of socialism. The Democrat Socialists of America admit that:

We are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious and community-organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party's left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

This belief system, articulated eloquently by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their Communist Manifesto, envisions the perfect society to be one in which everyone shares equally in work and wealth, coordinated by a hierarchy of representatives chosen from the workers. The Democratic Party considers its leaders to be that hierarchy, empowered to do whatever it takes to redistribute society's wealth more equitably.

Despite the ridicule and denials that spew forth from the Democrats, the enactment of Obamacare is a victory for Marxism in the United States, recognized and publicly acknowledged by Al Sharpton. What Democrats have done is absolutely consistent with Marxism; the way it was done provides a course in this Marxist principle: The end justifies the means.

Marxists, Socialists, Communists and Democrats have been trying for most of the century to advance a Marxist agenda. Woodrow Wilson implemented two major Marxist principles: the central bank and the income tax.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED VIDEO:

March 22, 2010 - Al Sharpton Claims American Public Voted for Socialism When Electing Obama

Video provided by JPoor007

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

Is Obama really 'brilliant'? ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Commentary from WorldNetDaily. Like Burt says, I wish people like O'Reilly or MSNBC would give examples of why they think Obama is "brilliant." I myself haven't ever noticed any emanating intelligence coming from Obama.

But I wouldn't want to leave liberals and some goofy conservatives entirely speechless when it comes to describing the president. So to fill the void, I'm happy to supply them with some options, such as stubborn, pompous, inflexible, dishonest, officious, partisan, unpatriotic, duplicitous, socialist, untrustworthy and dictatorial.


Any of those words is far more fitting than brilliant, as are self-enamored, egotistical, narcissistic, long-winded and boring.

By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: February 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

During his State of the Union address, with eight of the Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him like clay pigeons, Barack Obama told the world that he would have to correct their mistake by bringing back McCain-Feingold. Well, why wouldn't he say such a stupid thing? After all, he's been wrong about everything else.

It's perfectly reasonable that Obama would oppose corporations donating money to political campaigns. Where do oil, coal and pharmaceutical companies get off thinking they should have the same right as the UAW, the SEIU, ACORN and George Soros to finance elections? For that matter, while whining about some corporations playing a role in the election process, I haven't heard Obama say boo about the role such corporations as NBC, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post or the New York Times have played in creating and burnishing his image.

But, then, who are regular, run-of-the-mill, taxpaying Americans to question Obama? He's brilliant, after all. It's not just liberals who say so, either. I keep hearing people like Bill O'Reilly saying so day after day. The problem is that I keep looking for signs of his brilliance, and looking and looking. It doesn't help that the O'Reillys of the world never point out any examples.

Still, if Obama is so brilliant, why does he parrot the words and thoughts of a bunch of schmucks like Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Al Gore and Michael Moore? Why does he insist that the trouble with the Constitution and the civil-rights movement is that they didn't focus on the redistribution of wealth? Why would he hand over the federal budget to a couple of morons like Pelosi and Reid? And why on earth would he put Henry Waxman in charge of his energy program? A brilliant person wouldn't trust Waxman to bring baked beans to a picnic.

READ FULL STORY >

Freedom in the balance ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

"The current majority in Washington, which obviously rejects the idea of limited government and individual freedom, must be removed, or at least significantly reduced, in 2010. In 2012, a whole new regime must capture the Capitol."

By Henry Lamb Posted: December 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 The federal government was created by people who were sick and tired of a king's government that controlled every facet of life. They wrote a Constitution that explicitly limited the power of the new government. Under this new government, individuals were free to pursue happiness as they chose. In 200 years, this new nation of free people created prosperity unmatched in all of history. While free people were busy pursuing their happiness, others were free to pursue political power. Throughout the 20th century, a cancer grew in the very fabric of freedom. The idea that the role of government is to provide for its citizens is a return to the Dark Ages when the prevailing thought was that without the protection of a benevolent government (king), man's life was, as Thomas Hobbes put it, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." The people who share Hobbes' philosophy have been called by many labels over the years, but they all fit rather nicely into the ideas expressed most eloquently in modern times by Karl Marx. It matters not what labels are pinned on the people who want to put government in charge of individual lives; what matters is that freedom cannot exist when it requires the permission of government. The people who have found life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" are eager for government to take control of their lives, and the lives – and fortunes – of those people whose pursuit of happiness has produced prosperity. When government assumes control it can "spread the wealth around." READ FULL STORY >

How the Pilgrims progressed ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

Do you think we are wise enough to learn a lesson from the Pilgrims' experience today? Or are we doomed to repeat the failures and experience the miseries of socialism, again, for ourselves?

By Joseph Farah Posted: November 25, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 As America embarks on a bold leeward lurch toward centralized power and massive redistribution of wealth in addressing its economic problems, it might be time to take a step back and learn a lesson from our forebears, the Pilgrims. But first we must familiarize ourselves with the historical truth of their experience – something that has been in short supply in the media and our schools. Kids often learn today that the Mayflower gang were pretty incompetent – bad farmers, bad fishermen, bad hunters. They came to the New World unprepared for the hardships they would face in the wilderness. They were rescued by the friendly native Americans who taught them the survival skills they would need, so the story goes. The first harvest festival was a time of rejoicing and giving thanks to their saviors – the Indians who befriended them and guided them to a better way of life. That picture is totally wrong. Here's the real story. Before leaving Europe the Pilgrims entered into a contract, dated July 1, 1620, that would have all profits of their "trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remain in the common stock until division." In other words, the settlement at Plymouth Bay was the first New World experiment in communism – long before Karl Marx supposedly invented it. To say that social experiment was a total failure would be an understatement. The first winter spelled death and disease and hunger for the colony because the Pilgrims had arrived too late in the season to plant crops and build adequate shelters. Half of them died. The following spring, however, they planted and hunted and fished to get by – just barely. They did invite some of the friendly Indians to join them in their first "Thanksgiving" celebration. But they were not thanking the Indians. They were thanking God for pulling them through. As William Bradford wrote in his journal: "And thus they found the Lord to be with them in all their ways, and to bless their outgoings and incomings, for which let His holy name have the praise forever, to all posterity." Nevertheless, Bradford remained troubled by the colony's inability to prosper. He found the answer by studying the Bible and revisiting the notion of private property and incentivized hard work. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

None dare call it Marxism ~ By David Limbaugh

By David Limbaugh Posted: July 03, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 All right already. I won't call Obama a Marxist in this column. Instead, I'll point to some signs that indicate that Barack and Karl might well be soul mates. At least, they have similar attitudes about capital, labor and profits, er, surplus value. Liberals, even those of the Marxist variety, take umbrage when you point out their ideological kinship with Marxism. I suppose this dates back to the days when being a communist was tantamount to being an enemy of the United States, in that there was a global communist movement intent on – and coming darn close to – world domination. Though global communism has been defeated, there remains a strong contingent among us, whose nerve center is the Democratic Party leadership under President Obama, committed to obliterating America's free market. Without getting into the intricacies of Marxist theory, suffice it to say that at the core of this political and economic philosophy is a belief in the historical class struggle. The capitalist (bourgeois) exploits the industrial worker (proletarian) by underpaying him and adding on unnecessary charges to the prices of goods and services, driving up costs to the consumer, and pocketing the profits. In "Basic Economics," Thomas Sowell puts it this way: "Profits may be the most misconceived subject in economics. Socialists have long regarded profits as simply 'overcharge,' as Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw called it, or a 'surplus value' as Karl Marx called it." The theory is that under socialism or Marxism, these surplus charges would be eliminated and goods and services would become more affordable. But in reality, socialism doesn't make goods and services more affordable, but less so. As Dr. Sowell explains: "The hope for profits and the threat of losses is what forces a business owner in a capitalist economy to produce at the lowest cost and sell what the customers are most willing to pay for. ... Under socialism (there is) far less incentive to be as efficient ... much less to keep up with changing conditions and respond to them quickly." With less incentive for efficiencies and cost control, the prices of goods might well be higher. Profits are not arbitrary charges added on to the costs of producing goods and services; nor are they attributable to artificially high prices charged by those motivated by greed. Indeed, writes Sowell, most of the great fortunes in American history were amassed when entrepreneurs were able to reduce costs and charge lower prices and to increase their volume sales to mass markets. You get the point. Capitalists don't view profits as evil or the product of greed. Their opponents – call them Marxists, fascists, socialists, radical liberals or whatever – do. Which brings us back to Barack Obama. Both his father, Barack Obama Sr., and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, were communists. His church of choice was one of black liberation theology, whose Marxist roots are inarguable. He associated with far leftists on the "organizing" streets of Chicago, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mentorship and associations are one thing, but what have Obama's words and actions revealed about his attitudes toward labor, capital, profits and government control of business and industry? [CONTINUE READING]

Barack H. Obama: Administrator ~ By Henry Lamb

By Henry Lamb Posted: June 13, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Barack H. Obama will forever be known as the first black president of the United States. This fact will likely be the least impressive item about him in tomorrow's history books. The first four months of his administration strongly suggest that he will most likely be known as the president who transformed America's system of government. The U.S. Constitution provides for a system of representative government with a degree of checks and balances. This system has been tested, twisted and tormented over the years, but has always survived the abuses inflicted upon it. Obama brings a new threat, in a new era, to a new generation. Obama is creating a system of government that is beginning to look much like an "Administrator" form of government that will ultimately have no checks and balances, and little need for legislators. This form of government was the fantasy of Col. Edward Mandell House, the "alter-ego" of President Woodrow Wilson, a designer of the League of Nations, and author of "Philip Dru: Administrator." House fantasized about a system of government in which a single administrator held all executive power to appoint underlings without interference from elected bodies, and to design and enforce rules of behavior for individuals and organizations – including states and local administrative units. In House's world, his administrator was a part of a global system of administrative governance whose purpose was "… to pursue socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." Are we witnessing the return of Karl Marx, or at least his anti-capitalist ideology? Compare today's developments with Marx's classic, "Das Kapital" Obama's actions during these first few months are very much like those of Philip Dru: Administrator. He has found a way to design and enforce rules of behavior on much of the banking system, and on General Motors and Chrysler – private industries not subject to governmental management under previous presidents. Obama has found a way to force state and local governments to yield to his rules in order to get federal dollars, even when states don't want the dollars that come with federal strings attached. Obama is creating a new form of government with a growing network of "czars" that do not have to be approved by the Senate, nor are they subject to the oversight of Congress. So far, 21 Czars have been appointed, with assignments and salaries set by Obama and accountable only to Obama. This network of White House officers bypasses the traditional executive organizational structure that relies on Cabinet secretaries to administer laws and promulgate rules subject to congressional oversight and supervision. [Continue reading]

Please digg this story