What soft socialism has wrought ~ By Robert Ringer

With springtime on the horizon, methinks it's time for the tea-party folks to take it to the next level and let Republicans know – much louder and more aggressively this time around – that they weren't kidding when they said wanted out-of-control government spending to come to an end.

If the deficit is $1.7 trillion, wouldn't a good starting point be to cut government spending by $1.7 trillion? Or is the idea of balancing the budget still just too extreme?

Robert Ringer brings up the concept of how you boil a frog by gradually turning up the heat. The term "Gradualism" is something that I hope you have heard of before, and Robert explains how gradualism has been implemented ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt using the new-baseline strategy. The problem is that it never ends well, because it isn't sustainable forever. That unless we stop it NOW, guess where this country is headed? The Republicans need to do a lot better than cutting $61 billion from a $1.7 trillion budget. There may not be too much time left for our freedom, otherwise.

What soft socialism has wrought

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

February 25, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

With the angry uprising of pampered teachers in Wisconsin, the long-awaited Marxist revolution in the U.S. may finally be under way. It's been clear for decades that a forced ending to America's experiment with soft socialism would almost certainly trigger such a revolution.

Soft socialism was destined to fail from the outset, because it is the nature of life that a little bit of something bad tends to expand into a lot of something bad. That reality, however, has for decades been masked by the progressive's best friend – gradualism.

The average American had no idea that he was slowly being boiled alive, because soft socialism made it possible for him to buy a house he couldn't afford, go on vacations he couldn't afford and fill his life with high-tech toys he couldn't afford. This comfy lifestyle made him oblivious to the realities of life.

While there was no official beginning to the era of soft socialism in the U.S., there's no question that FDR's ascent to the presidency and the implementation of his New Deal was a major step in that direction. The centerpiece of FDR's New Deal was the 1935 Social Security Act, which defied the Constitution by implying it was the government's duty to fulfill the needs and desires of individual citizens.

It was billed as a modest program that would help a relatively small number of elderly people who were truly in need. Through the magic of gradualism, however, once the initial funding for Social Security was established as a baseline, a new baseline emerged each year to grow it into the monster redistribution-of-wealth program it has become.

Then, in the '60s, along came Lyndon Johnson with his vote-buying Great Society that destroyed the black community and, with it, the black family. Once baselines were established for hundreds of Great Society programs, Democrats and Republicans rarely spoke about cutting the budget, and anyone who suggested such a far-out idea was viewed as an extremist.

Instead, the debate has always been about restraining the growth of the budget beyond each year's new baseline. This clever "new-baseline" strategy is the key to progressivism: Get a bill passed (e.g., health care), establish a baseline, then, in the future, debate is restricted to what the percentage of increase should be each year for that particular bill. And an integral part of the new-baseline strategy is to vilify opponents of increased spending as cruel and calloused, a psychological ploy progressives have been using since our experiment in soft socialism began.

Long term, however, soft socialism doesn't work. That's because socialism, as both Marx and Lenin made clear, is merely a transitional stage on the way to communism. A little bit of socialism, because it appeals to the avaricious instincts in people, only whets their appetites for more. It is the nature of wealth redistribution to slowly bring down capitalism, which is why soft socialism eventually evolves into hard socialism – and, from there, communism.

Socialism destroys capital resources. And when the money runs out, a nation ends up with angry, spoiled adults – such as those protesting in Wisconsin – who have been happy recipients of years of artificial prosperity. Panicked and enraged, they boldly demand that their neighbors continue to support them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. They have no interest whatsoever in hearing about economic reality.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The absurdity of Bubba's 'violence' warning ~ By Craige McMillan

Craige's angle in this column needs no further explanation or commentary on my part, other than I join him in saying that Bubba just needs to shut his trap.

Yes, Mr. Clinton certainly knows a thing or two about using violence to achieve his political ends. And like the rest of the self-anointed elites and useful leftist idiots today, he wants Americans to go gently into that "good communist night" (with apologies to Dylan Thomas).

By Craige McMillan

Posted: April 22, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Leftists, progressives and other communist community organizers have got to love former president Bill Clinton lecturing America on the dangers of heated rhetoric.

After all, wasn't it Bill Clinton who presided over one of the more murderous administrations, in terms of killing its own citizens, since the Civil War? Was it not Bill Clinton's administration that murdered 76 people, burning them alive in a church compound in Waco, Texas?

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by ordering the military to assist the FBI with gassing and then destroying the Branch Davidian church building and residences? And isn't that violation of Posse Comitatus an act for which the former president has never been held accountable?

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath about sex in the Oval Office with intern Monica Lewinsky, but found "not guilty" when the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to convict, entirely along party lines? And wasn't it Bill Clinton who surrendered his law license over his perjury?

I thought so.

Even Presidents Richard Nixon and Lyndon Baines Johnson, during the height of violent protests against the Vietnam War, never ordered the military to act against American citizens. And this was when college administration buildings were being occupied by protesters, and "peace" marches were nearly as violent as the war.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

(Want to know what the government today thinks about using the military against Americans?)

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

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

A minority report about minorities ~ By Burt Prelutsky

In this column, Burt points out the results of liberal Democrat thinking for minorities, and the irony that the minorities now vote almost exclusively for the Democrats. And keep in mind, one of the greatest civil rights leaders ever, was a Republican. That would be Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yet another tragic irony is that LBJ is a large part of the reason that, year in and year out, 90 percent of blacks will leave the plantation just long enough to vote for the party of Strom Thurmond, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, Bull Connor and Robert Byrd.

By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: February 26, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Because white Americans are so terrified of being called racists, they rarely marshal a defense. Instead, they tend to stammer and stutter, muttering "Am not" under their breath, mimicking an angry child who has been called a baby by an older sibling.

For instance, the astronomical drop-out rates among Latino students is generally blamed on whites. Because nothing negative must ever be laid at the feet of minority groups, a sensitive, politically correct white majority must always hold itself accountable for their failings. Well, not all white people, of course. As a rule, white liberals are always prepared to link arms with Hispanic race hustlers to blame conservatives.

Here in Los Angeles, a 10-year study found that 30 percent of students who were placed in bilingual classes in early primary grades were still in the program when they entered high school, which greatly increased their chances of bailing out before they graduated.

As if that's not depressing enough, over half of those students were born in the United States!

America, as people are fond of saying, is a land of immigrants. We, or at least our ancestors, came from all over the world. But I dare you to come up with a group of immigrants from Asia, Europe or Africa whose children aren't speaking English within a year of arriving on our shores. But here are all these native-born Americans who, even after several years in school, can only speak Spanish. And that's the fault of gringos? I don't think so.

This brings us to America's black population. Slavery was evil, we all agree. The fact it was commonplace in most places on earth in the old days, and is still practiced in Africa these days, doesn't give America a pass. America, after all, isn't just another country, even if Barack Obama doesn't seem to think it's anything special.

In the aftermath of slavery, we still had segregation and Jim Crow laws in several states. However, in 1960, in spite of that, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was just 19 percent. What's more, between 1890 and 1940, blacks had a higher marriage rate than whites. If you go back to 1925, 85 percent of black children were raised in two-parent families.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Unwinnable war in Afghanistan? ~ By Patrick Buchanan

By Patrick Buchanan Posted: August 13, 2009 7:54 pm Eastern © 2009 "Taliban Are Winning: U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Warns of Rising Casualties." Thus ran the startling headline on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The lead paragraph ran thus: "The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home." Source for the story: Gen. Stanley McChrystal himself. The general's spokesman in Kabul was swift to separate him from that headline and lead. They "go too far," he said: The general does not believe the Taliban are winning or "gaining the upper hand." Nevertheless, in the eighth year of America's war, the newly arrived field commander concedes that U.S. casualties, now at record levels, will continue to be high or go higher, and that our primary mission is no longer to run down and kill Taliban but to defend the Afghan population. What went wrong? Though U.S. force levels are higher than ever, the U.S. military situation is worse than ever. Though President Karzai is expected to win re-election, he is regarded as the ineffectual head of a corrupt regime. Though we have trained an Afghan army and police force of 220,000, twice that number are now needed. The Taliban are operating not only in the east, but in the north and west, and are taking control of the capital of the south, Kandahar. NATO's response to Obama's request for more troops has been pathetic. Europeans want to draw down the troops already sent. And Western opinion has soured on the war. A poll commissioned by The Independent found 52 percent of Britons wanting to pull out and 58 percent believing the war is "unwinnable." U.S. polls, too, have turned upside down. A CBS-New York Times survey in late July found 33 percent saying the war was going well and 57 percent saying it was going badly or very badly. In a CNN poll in early August, Americans, by 54 percent to 41 percent, said they oppose the Afghan war that almost all Americans favored after 9/11 and Obama said in 2008 was the right war for America to fight. The president is now approaching a decision that may prove as fateful for him and his country as was the one made by Lyndon Johnson to send the Marines ashore at Da Nang in December 1965. [READ COMPLETE STORY]