Rejecting Socialism

 

Rejecting Socialism

by Mustang

There is a gulf of separation between theoretical socialism and its practical realities —something that socialists are well aware of, and why they intentionally deceive others about this peculiar ideology.  One important overarching reality of socialism is that its success requires compulsory adherence to the will of the state that wields it. 

One might argue that socialism opposes human nature, and I think this is true, but experience tells us that it is nevertheless possible to convince human beings to relinquish their natural instincts to the demands of the state —particularly if individuals are duped into accepting socialist theory over socialist reality, and where the state is willing to use coercive methods against its citizens to assert and maintain totalitarian power. 

By writing “coercive methods,” I mean to suggest numerous insidious strategies beyond holding a gun to a citizen’s head.  Most thinking humans will recognize coercion as the gateway to an unnatural state; anyone who is willing to give up his or her unassailable rights probably doesn’t deserve them in the first place.

Socialism is complex, however.  What makes it complicated are its several (actually, too many) and competing theoretical ideologies.  These include Utopianism, Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Leftist Communism, Autonomism,  Anarchism, socialist democracy, democratic socialism, liberal socialism, ethical socialism, libertarian socialism, religious, regional, and eco-socialism … and it goes on from there.

One may recall the case of Winston Smith, who frustrated by state oppression and rigid control —even to the extent of prohibiting individualism in thought or expression, sought to break away from his socialist masters.  He soon realized that the socialist state can never allow even one citizen to achieve independent thought.  At one time, George Orwell was a committed socialist, whose work Nineteen-Eighty-Four reflected his realization that socialist reality was a stark betrayal of its theory.  Orwell’s conclusion was that mankind must never trust any state to deliver a just society.

If this is true, then why should anyone living in Utopia wish to change from a system that values individuality —indeed, one in which society thrives on our natural instincts— to live within a society controlled by the state, where the only rewards come from group think, and where success economic is only achieved through carefully measured doses of state welfare? 

In 1908, writer Jack London wrote the earliest of dystopian fiction novels; he titled it The Iron Heel.  The background for London’s book is set in San Francisco and Sonoma County.  He chronicles an oligarchic power structure that exists for three centuries before a revolution ushers in what he calls “The Brotherhood of Man.”  London, a socialist activist who died in 1916, was never witness to the fact that his predictions about San Francisco came true —but one in which the transformation to a brotherhood of man transformed itself into a socialist oligarchy.

Nevertheless, Marxian socialism in America failed because it was largely rejected by the American people.  This rejection fueled a massive undertaking by the socialist elite to rethink their strategies. 

The change came in 1973.  It was the year that the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book Gulag Archipelago was published.  It demolished any pretense that communism had any moral authority.  Socialism was exposed for what it is.  The American left struggled … what next, then?  The answer: identity politics: a struggle between victim and victimizer, the oppressed and the oppressor, and rather than presenting the socialist ideal as being collectivist in nature, the political left began to “expose” the power of the white people over exploited minorities (and third-world nations). 

And where should this new battle plan be implemented?  Within US colleges and universities, of course.  Writer Bruce Bawer tells us: “The point [became] simply to “prove”—repetitively, endlessly—certain facile, reductive, and invariably left-wing points about the nature of power and oppression.  In this new version of the humanities, all of Western civilization is not analyzed through the use of reason or judged according to aesthetic standards that have been developed over centuries; rather, it is viewed through prisms of race, class, and gender, and is hailed or condemned in accordance with certain political checklists.”

This is American socialism today.  We are witness to it every single day in the 24/7 news media, the perfect place for the expression of opinion vs. fact.

In contrast to leftist socialism (pick any of its manifestations) free-market capitalism is founded upon voluntary human interaction.  Its characteristics include private property ownership, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchanges of goods and services, and competitive markets. 

People who own wealth make their own economic and investment decisions; prices and the distribution of goods and services are controlled through competition.  Traditional Americans believe that while there is a role for government, it must be a limited role —as reflected in the United States Constitution.  There is another significant distinction: it is founded on commonality among Americans, which includes friendliness toward one another, the sharing of common values, beliefs, and traditions.  True Americans have a firm belief in the goodness of our founding documents.

America is now involved in a new civil war.  Is it a contest involving differences in culture, east coast to west, northern border to southern?  On the one hand, American socialists (nee communists) deny the importance of God, endorsed such odd notions as transgender rights, forcing small business owners to provide medical procedures for the employees that violate our religious beliefs, force Catholic Nuns to provide contraception, engineered the firing of corporate executives because of their stand on such issues as marriage equality, imposed fines upon bakeries who refused to service homosexual weddings, and denying to Christians the same religious protections accorded to Native Americans.

It is more than a cultural war.  It is a conflict that pits west coast, metropolitan, well-educated upper-class elite against the traditions and liberties of middle American, exurban and rural, lower-middle- and working-class citizens with a modest education.  It is a war where the privileged few seek to impose their will on a recalcitrant majority of traditional Americans.

At present, the conflict manifests itself as a cold civil war.  It doesn’t need to become a “hot” war.  This will depend, I think, on how well the intractable majority realizes their power at the voting booth —which is why I think Mr. Trump is making such a gargantuan effort to “stump” for the Republican ticket in the mid-term elections.  He appeals to those of us who regard ourselves as nationalist s—that is to say, people who are passionate in our love for America.

Note this important contrast: Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party of unity around our founding principles, while the socialists are the party of elitists who can only offer us the politics of identity.  Which of these will you choose?

Advertisements

Democrats – An Anti-American Platform

 

An Anti-American Platform

By Mustang

Whenever Barack Obama was talking to all Americans, he spoke about unity.  When he was confronting an audience of black Americans, he told them that white people are racists, that white people hate black people, and that white people are the bad guys.  From Obama’s own voice, “It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.  (White) people were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.  They were more than satisfied —they were relieved— such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.”

Throughout his administration, Obama continually said racist things about white people.  His attorney general discriminated against white Americans, his treasury department discriminated against conservatives, and his FBI targeted political enemies of Barack Obama.  This is not conjecture —it is fact.

Obama isn’t president anymore, of course.  I keep hoping to see him deposited onto the dustbin of history, but no … he’s still out stumping around the country reminding everyone what a dyed-in-the-wool racist he is —as he has always been.  The phenomenon is catching.  CNN’s pseudo-journalist, Don Lemon recently said the same thing: paraphrasing, the problem with our society is white men; we’ve got to do something about those radical white men.  CNN, the official propaganda arm of the Democratic Party refused to hold Lemon accountable for his racist sentiments.  But to be fair, Lemon isn’t the only one.  There are self-loathing white men who’ve jumped on that bandwagon as well.

 

Why is that?

It’s actually a page right from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: #12—pick your target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.  Go after people, not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.  This is cruel, but very effective.  Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.

So then, to shut down any conversation about our diverse views, anti-American progressives (communists) attack anyone who disagrees with them by calling them racists, fascists, hate-mongers, right-wing radicals, white extremists, and bible-carrying gun owners.  The list goes on.  Do you oppose Obama Care?  You’re a racist.  Do you support closed borders?  You’re a racist.  Are you fed up with Islamic extremism?  You’re Islamophobic.  Do you happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin?  You’re homophobic.  Do you think there is something seriously wrong, mentally, with transgenders?  You’re transgenophobic.

Now, says the communist left, since you’re so full of hate for your fellow-man, sit down and shut up.  If you don’t want to sit down and shut up, the left will send along representatives from their terrorist arm to beat you up.  We see this every day on the televised news; well, at least on conservative learning news services.  They even assault senior politicians who are dining in public —egged on by Representative Maxine Waters, a professed communist.

Who are these people? 

 

Ironically, they call themselves Anti-FA (for anti-fascist).  In reality, they are the new-day brown shirts … and they do present a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens, particularly those who refuse to carry a concealed weapon.  The behavior of these thugs is among the worst examples of hate-mongering I’ve ever seen.

How does it advance our Republic?

It doesn’t.  But it is the new face of the Democratic Party.  This is the new communist front.  It exists full-bore today within the United States of America.

Now, about that “Hope and Change” line during Obama’s candidacy?  Here’s what he really thinks: “I don’t believe it is possible to transcend race in this country.  Race is a factor in this society.  The legacy of Jim Crow and slavery has not gone away.”

Of course not.

It hasn’t gone away because Democrats perpetuate it and the black racists in this country are too heavily invested in maintaining racial discord.  Disunity is their goal —and they are achieving it.

By the way, whenever you listen to a dunderhead on CNN or MSNBC talking about right-wing fascism, know immediately that the person speaking is a complete idiot.  Fascism originated on the left.  Not from Hitler (who adopted it as part of his National Socialist scheme), but from Benito Mussolini.  The word fascist is the shortened version of Mussolini’s Fasci Rivoluzionari d’Azione Internazionalista Party, translated to Revolutionary Fashions of Internationalist Action.  No one on the right has ever been a fascist.

Well, something to think about as you drive over to the voting station on Tuesday. 

Welfare? because it pays….

 

Because it pays … By Mustang

 

Considering the total amount of welfare spending, welfare fraud is but a small percentage. This, at least, is the argument posed by the defenders of state welfare. On the other hand, interviews with welfare recipients where the questioner has gained a high level of trust with his subject illustrates that most welfare recipients fail to report their total income and that just over 80% of these recipients are willing to cheat because there is only a 16% chance that their dishonesty will be discovered. It’s a game —and one that pays good dividends.

Welfare fraud, while widespread, is mostly committed by people who struggle financially. In a study conducted in 2012, 88% of welfare recipients admitted that they regularly cheat, either to maintain their benefit, or toward increasing it. The 2012 study was remarkably consistent with one conducted in 1988, where 80% of Chicago blacks worked either full or part time but failed to report their income to the welfare office. In 1974, a study of 450 welfare recipients in Orange County, California discovered a 45% fraud rate; in less than ten years, this number increased by 729%.

In 2016, investigators in the Social Security Administration received 143,385 allegations of fraud. They opened 8,048 cases; 1,162 people were eventually convicted of fraud. This was a small percentage of individuals ever going into court, but the government claims to have recovered $52.6 million while imposing $4.5 million in fines.

Note: I’m not sure how the government “recovers” stolen benefits. What I do know is that fraud perpetrated against the Social Security Administration Trust Fund threatens the integrity of the fund and blocks access to needy applicants with legitimate claims for benefits

By 2017, resulting from advances in medicine, safety devises, and an overall decrease in positions demanding manual labor, the numbers of people unable to work actually decreased since 1960 … but the percentage of people qualifying for federal benefits because they are unable to work actually increased. The only explanation, given that the legal definition of physical disability hasn’t changed since1960, is an increase in fraud.

In addition to the Social Security Administration, fraud also exists within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. In the first half of FY- 2012, the IG of the SSA detected frauds amounting to more than $253 million. If we extrapolate this through the entire fiscal year, over $500 million dollars of public assistance money was stolen by recipients of welfare or assistance.

Some examples:

  • In 1977, Linda Taylor from Chicago used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 in medical assistance. Within 18 months, hundreds of others in Chicago developed equally outrageous schemes to steal millions from the welfare state.
  • In 1978, Dorothy Woods claimed 38 non-existent children.
  • In 1979, Esther Johnson in California was sentenced for collecting $240,000 for more than60 fictitious children. When she was released from prison four years later, she had acollege degree in social welfare administration, paid for by the American taxpayer.
  • In 1979, Arlene Otis of Cook County Illinois was indicted on 613 charges of illegally receiving $150,839.Welfare fraud aren’t the only costs. The cost of policing and prosecuting welfare fraud is high (although largely unmeasured). These costs involve labor costs of investigators, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, probation officers, and the administration costs of welfare diversion programs.

There are also prison costs, and the cost of foster care when single mothers are incarcerated. In 2008, California spent three times as much in policing welfare fraud as its cost of welfare fraud overpayments. Now of course, state comptrollers have concluded not to prosecute fraud —it is cheaper to just turn a blind eye.Why do they do it? Because it pays.

Welfare fraud more often than not reflects the idea that
citizens have a moral right to proper financial support from county, state, and federal governments. They think this because politicians continually reinforce this kind of thinking. The fact is, more than one-half of adultAmericans receive more money in government payments than they pay in federal taxes —this according to the Congressional Budget Office. The lower one’s income, the more benefits they receive, and the wider the disparity between benefits received and taxes paid.

CBO tells us that the lowest income earners pay only $400.00 in taxes yet receive $16,000.00 in benefits. They receive more income after taxes than they do before taxes. So, the question is, who is paying for this disparity?

American taxpayers, of course.

This is not a problem if one happens to be a Democrat. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a popular refrain among Marxists. Still, the sentiment does provide an effective strategy for recruiting political support. Ludwig von Mises instructed us that once we reach the point where a majority of voters receive more in benefits than it pays in taxes, they will demand even more from the government and be politically positioned to demand it. The more this political majority demands fromgovernment, the greater the government’s assault on a diminishing number of middle and higher-income people taxed to support welfare programs.

According to the Cato Institute, the federal government in 2014 spent $688 billion on 126 separate welfare programs. Spending by state and local governments pushed this figure well over $1 trillion. Leftists like to quibble over these figures, though. They’ll argue that $55 billion is refundable as part of the Earned Income Tax Credit, $21 billion to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which, given the history of welfare payments in the United States, isn’t temporary at all). $44 billion is the figure attached to Supplemental Security Income; $75 billion for food stamps, $18 billion for housing vouchers. Medicaid spends $228 billion on the non-elderly population, with children’s health claiming $13.5 billion. Added to this are Title 1 grants of $14 billion and Head Start programs of $10 billion.

If the Cato figures tell us anything at all, it is that the United States and its so-called Great Society lost the war on poverty … a presumption on my part based on the fact that such programs haven’t accomplished raising the poor up into the middle class. All it ever did was increase the rolls of voting Democrats. Given the fact that registered voters have an iron in the welfare fire, it makes one wonder if these people shouldn’t recuse themselves from voting. After all, it isn’t as if they’re giving much thought about who to vote for.

There is no civic virtue on the American left.

I do believe that each of us has a duty to help our neighbors in need. Giving to the poor is laudable act when private citizens make those kinds of decisions. This isn’t what happens in Marxist run countries, however: private citizens don’t decide —the government makes that decision for them. The government decides how much the wage earner will “donate.” Government decides how we define poor, and who qualifies for taxpayer-funded assistance. Government even decides how this money will be extorted and the penalty for withholding it.

This is the Democratic (communist) political platform. We now live in a society where the political majority consist of those who benefit most from government largesse. Who are they —these leftist voters? They are people who do not, and will not work for a living. They are people who feign illness or injury so that the government will pay them to stay home and watch television.

They are the millions of illegal aliens here now (and those who are in the way — the communist left’s future voters). They are the literally millions of people who refused to stay in school, people who’ve made a mess of their lives, who produce more children than they can afford, and now expect the American taxpayer to bail them out. These numbers, by the way, far exceed the numbers of our truly-needy elderly and disabled citizens —and they too are loyal Democrats, because this is the party that consistently frightens into thinking that the other party may cause them to lose their benefits.

If these genuine recipients ever do lose their benefits, it will be because the communists have squandered precious monetary resources recruiting young voters into the Democratic machine.

The Goal of Socialism is……..?

 

The Goal of Socialism…..

 

by Mustang

… is communism.  We know this because Vladimir Lenin told us so.  After all, if anyone should know, it would be the man who first implemented the inane notions of Karl Marx and Frederick Ingles.  If we fast forward through the next 100 years, we’ll find the result of communism has been somewhere on the order of one-hundred-million deaths.  I suspect that a socialist might argue, “Well, if you wanted to avoid 100-million deaths, all you had to do was sit down, shut up, and do what you’re told.”

The facts about socialism and communism are sufficiently dismal to make me wonder why any American would wish to pursue a socialist agenda.

I was reading a commentary at AOW’s blog the other day.  Writer “Silverfiddle” reminded us that the Democratic Party is home to leftwing mob violence.  He’s right about that, and so too is a commenter named Sam, who wrote:

Marxist/leftist theory is only the tip of the iceberg.  What follows theory is the leftist program, which defines the aims of the movement, provides a strategy to implement the program, and offers the tactics to set civil unrest and discord into motion.  This is not something new, and it is not new inside the borders of the United States.  It’s been going on for quite a while.

It is also quite complex, involving main and auxiliary organizations.  If we pull back the cover of leftist activism, we will find that there are differences in tactics that depend upon the social group that is intended to implement them: one set for disaffected blacks, another for illegal aliens, another for slow-thinking college students, another for unions, and so on.

Tactics may also include regional differences.  But we can say for certain there is a method to the leftist madness—and there are no shortages of examples where the communist left has provoked civil unrest all the way back to the late 19th Century.

In the modern sense, the underlying strategy is one of terror, which places the American communist left in the same camp as Islamic radicals.  As Silverfiddle has said, disagree with any mind-numbing leftist contention and you run the risk of being assaulted.

I’ve asked this question before (admittedly a rhetorical one): why would any thinking American EVER vote for a Democrat?  The answer is that a thinking American wouldn’t —but we don’t have a plethora of these sitting around waiting to vote patriotism, do we?

I have no crystal ball, so I think the upcoming mid-term elections will be instructive to all of us.  The worst thing that could happen is that conservatives will stay home on election day.  If that happens, the communists will reclaim the House of Representatives.  I wish I had more confidence in the American electorate, but I don’t.  What is it?  Only 42% of registered voters even bother to vote?  If the statistic is true, we should worry about the upcoming election.  Maybe I will develop more confidence if conservative Americans are able to maintain its control of the Congress.

Will you vote in the mid-terms?

Who’s Coming to Dinner?

By Mustang

Ted Bundy (1946-1989) was a serial killer, kidnapper, rapist, necrophile, and thief.He was convicted of assaulting and murdering numerous young women and girls during the 1960s and 1070s and just before his death, he admitted to having murdered 30 people in seven states.Now then, given what we know about Ted Bundy, would any sane or rational person invite that scum to dinner?

No.

In 1963, US Representative Syd Herlong stood in the U. S. House of Representatives and said, “Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of Deland, Florida is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the Deland Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from The Naked Communist, by Cleon Skousen.”

I won’t provide the entire list, but here are a few that you may find particularinteresting and remember, this is from a book published in 1958:

4.Argue for free trade between all nations regardless of communist affiliation and without regard of whether or not trade items could be used for war.

6.Urge American foreign aid to all nations, regardless of communist domination.

7.Insist upon recognition of Red China and it’s admission to the UN[1].

11.Promote the UN as a globalist organization and the only hope for mankind.

13.Demand an end to oaths of loyalty to the government of the United States or any state thereof[2].

15.Capture one or both of the political parties in the US[3].

16.Weaken the US Constitution to weaken basic American Institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights[4].

17.Get control of public schools; use them as transmission belts for socialism and communist propaganda.Soften curriculum.Get control of teachers’ unions.Put the party line in textbooks.

19.Organize and foment public and student unrest against programs or organizations that oppose Marxist movements.

20.Infiltrate the press.

21.Gain control of key positions in radio, television, and motion pictures.

23.Gain influence over artists, art critics, and museum curators.

24.Convince jurists to rule against obscenity laws by arguing that they violate free speech, freedom of expression, and a free press.

25.Promote pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, films, radio, and television.

26.Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as being normal, natural, and healthy.

27.Infiltrate churches and replace revealed religion with social and moral relativism.

28.Eliminate prayer in schools.

29.Discredit the US Constitution by labeling it inadequate, old fashioned, and out of step with the demands of a modern society.

34.Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities[5].

39.Infiltrate the psychiatric profession with a view toward labeling anyone opposed to communism as intolerant, bigoted, fanatical, and xenophobic, and narrow-minded.

40.Discredit the family as an institution; encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41.Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of their parents[6].

42.Insist that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of America’s tradition: incite students, anarchists, and special interest groups to demonstrate against economic, political, and social policies.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal[7].

One might criticize Dr. Skousen as a Bircher[8] and/or for his be institutions (including religion), 
and policies of the federal government.Before we roll our eyes and judge the man too harshly,
we ought to consider another eye-opening effort.
Anthony Napoleon, PhD and Yevgeni Yevtushenkov authored 
A Look Inside the Playbook: How Marxists Plan to Destroy America.

The foreword to this manual for Marxists includes the following:

“We have transformed America’s press into agencies that would put to shame our Izvestia and Pravda of our golden years back in the USSR. Our enemy’s children have been “turned” and now represent one of our core demographics. We have successfully fractured America into competing groups; each estranged from the country that is their home.”

“Our once powerful enemy is unsure and insecure about its history and traditions. We have inculcated shame and promoted ignorance into America’s children such that by the time they become adults they are ashamed of their country while having little or no insight or knowledge about the ways of the world. And they don’t even know what has happened to them.”

The reader may be interested in the Amazon (dot com) summary of this book: “Imagine if you could study the operations manual of a master American Marxist trainer, someone who teaches American communist operatives the strategies and tactics they must use to subvert the citizens of the United States of America.Well, now you can.A Look Inside the Playbook: How Marxists Plan to Destroy Americais THE Bible of American communist subversion strategies and tactics.In this training manual you will learn Marxist’s methods, their thinking, strategies and inside secrets that have been used so successfully against the people of the United States of America. The authors provide readers with a tell-all exposé on the dangerously sophisticated subversive techniques being used by collectivist revolutionaries intent upon subverting American principles and values and replacing them with communist inspired tyranny.”For more about this book, see following notes[9].

Now I will include a short excerpt from Chapter One:

“From this moment forward we are no longer Marxists, Communists, Collectivists or Socialists. We are Progressives or simply Liberals. After all, to not be Progressive is to be regressive and that is what our enemies are: Regressive and backward.

“From this moment forward we shall not look or behave like those who came before us. Our grandfathers and mothers made the mistake of identifying themselves honestly in all manner and style.”

“You will come to trust the fact that we can hide in plain view. We have spent decades blurring the difference between image and substance. You can count on our victim’s inability to see past our facade. Be filled with joy, fellow comrade, with the confidence that comes from knowing that you can hide in plain sight!”

Now then, given what we know about the communist-centered Democratic Part
y —that Democrats have been working with international communists for
 decades to subvert American culture, destabilize America’s unique 
institutions, and overwhelm the US government with Marxist infiltrators
 who despise the US Constitution and the liberties enjoyed by the American people
— why would any rational patriot ever vote for a Democrat?

 


Notes:

[1] Accomplished by President Carter in 1979.

[2] Since the 1960s, loyalty oaths have been repeatedly challenged on grounds that they violated the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of association. The US Supreme Court avoided addressing these problems during the McCarthy Era.During the 1960s, it began striking down such oaths on the basis of vagueness and undue breadth. On 16 October 1961 Cramp v. Board of Education was argued and in 1962, the Court struck down the Florida requirement that teachers swear “I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist party”. This decision was followed in 1964 by its lack of support for two oaths, one of which required teachers to promote respect for the flag, reverence for law and order, and loyalty to the institutions of the United States and the State of Washington.Arizona and New York teacher oaths affirming lack of association with subversive organizations were struck down in 1966 and 1967.

[3] In his book “Reagan’s War,” Peter Schweitzer demonstrated the astonishing degree to which communists and communist sympathizers have penetrated the Democratic Party.Some may find alarming the leftward movement of conservative politicians.

[4] This provision was seized by Moslems in the 1990s and 9/11 hijackers were instructed to use the US Constitution to help destroy the United States.One might conclude that Moslems and American communists share a common goal.

[5] Abolished in 1975

[6]It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us is a book published in 1996 by Hillary Clinton (ghost written by Barbara Feinman, uncredited).In it, Clinton presents her vision for the children of America—focusing on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child’s well-being.Clinton advocates a society which meets all of a child’s needs.

[7]Democratic President Jimmy Carter relinquished control of the Canal in 1977.

[8]The John Birch Society is private organization founded in the US on 9 December 1958 by Robert H. W. Welch, Jr. (1899–1985).The purpose of JBS is to confront communism in the United States while promoting conservative causes. The name derives from John Birch, an American Baptist missionary and U.S. Army intelligence officer who was killed by Chinese communists on 25 August 1945.The JBS argues that Birch was the first casualty of the Cold War. 

[9] “I want to know how this information became public? I worked as a behavioral scientist in the former Soviet Union on subversion research. Moscow University, through Serbsky Center, employed the top psychologists and psychiatrists in our country. We even had on staff American ex-pats with PhD’s who were Marxist inspired. Our work somehow made it out of our top-secret labs into this book. I was personally responsible for the “indoctrination unit.” This unit funded American writers and public-school unions along with top celebrity plants and politicians who secretly promoted our revolutionary goals. What happened is that our revolution failed in the USSR, as it will ultimately fail in America, but not until it destroys America just like it destroyed mother Russia.”

“I write this review because today my fellow Russians tore down a prominent statue of Lenin. In America your “Progressive” politicians and subversives, including your White House, are busy metaphorically erecting statues of Lenin all over the USA. You are making the same mistake we made. Perhaps no one is reading this book by looking at the numbers (ranking), but you must ask yourself why in God’s name would you not read that which we protected with lethal force because it was so important? I personally know the answer to that question because that was my area of expertise: The forces that control the media in your country are our agents. They belong to us. Your media has only one option when it comes to this expose, hit the ignore button. What fools you all are. You are well on your way to killing your once great country. God help you, you will need it.”—Vladimir Ulanov

South Korea’s Moon over Obama

 

Moon meets with Putin

Post by Mustang

Gordon Chang’s recent article at the Gatestone Institute is nothing if not instructive.  Reading the post, titled “Will North Korea Take Over South Korea?” … one wonders how the people of South Korea, given their history over the past 70 years, can possibly accept President Moon’s treasonous behavior as their chief executive —but then, the efforts of this man to dismantle republican democracy in South Korea does sound awfully similar to the presidency of public enemy number one, Barack Obama.

I still shake my head every time I think of Obama’s election … not once, but twice.  In fact, there are so many similarities between Obama and Moon that one begins to think about conspiracies of global proportions.

You can read the article for yourself, but here are a few of his salient points:

  • ·       While visiting North Korea, President Moon went out of his way to downplay the legitimacy of the country he was elected to represent;
  • ·       Since becoming president in 2017, President Moon has undermined his country’s democracy in tangible ways, including the use of broadcast media to suppress dissenting views, while at the same time promoting those of North Korea.
  • ·    President Moon ordered the dismantling of the South Korean military, including the removal of defenses along likely invasion and infiltration routes.
  • ·       In North Korea, President Moon recently stood mute while Kim Jung Un referred to the South Korean people as “My people.”
  • ·     President Moon has long advocated unification of the Korean Peninsula; what no one expected is that he has been working overtime to make South Korea more compatible with the authoritarian nature of the North Korean state.  As but one example, Moon insists that the term “liberal” be removed from the concept of constitutional democracy.

So why are the people of South Korea standing idly by?

I suppose for the same reason our people thought that electing Barack Obama was a wise choice —on two occasions.  South Korea society today mirrors that of the United States: it is beset with social issues, which include alcoholism, substance abuse, over-fascination with social media and video games, destruction of core family values, and a sense that their nation’s policies are of no concern.  Being lulled to sleep by drugs and technology would seem to a windfall for Kim Jung Un.

Does any of this sound familiar?  Why does this matter?  Why should anyone care what South Korea does?

Does it matter because 34,000 Americans gave up their lives during the Korean War?  Does it matter because five-thousand Americans suffered as prisoners of war in North Korea and China —and that not all of them came home?  Since the Korean armistice (a peace treaty was never signed), the American taxpayer has paid billions of dollars helping to improve South Korea’s infrastructure and subsidizing South Korea’s national defense … a treaty obligation since 1950.

On the other hand, I’m not sure that there is anything the United States can do about President Moon’s treasonous behavior.  Maybe the wise course of action is to do nothing —let the Koreans decide their own fate, come hell or high water.  The American people seem incapable of dealing with their own political system much less those of another country so far from our shores … and you know, this does suggest to me that Obama achieved most of his goals as chief executive: to make fundamental changes to the United States of America.

Is it in America’s long-term interests to abandon global leadership?

Should we hit them in the old pocket book by refusing to buy Korean cars?

Well, such a remarkable repudiation of South Korea’s present leadership would suggest that we Americans have the chutzpah to act on our principles.

Or that we even have such things as principles.

 I would be interested in reader’s views.

The Leftist Way

The Leftist Way. Guest post by Mustang.

It is difficult not to appreciate the way leftists demonstrate against those with whom they disagree.  Their first tool out of the box is ad nauseam repetition of the rather asinine charge that conservatives are fascists, apparently not understanding what a fascist is or how such governments work. In the recent British election, the leftist tripe under Jerry Corbyn attacked conservative member of parliament Sheryll Murray by painting swastikas over her election posters.  That wasn’t enough, though; they also made personal attacks against her on Face Book … and then some slug urinated on the door to her office.  How nice.

The amusing part is that these so-called neo-communists seem not to understand that there is but a hair’s breadth between these two criminal organizations.  Let’s review, shall we?

Fascists generally head authoritarian one-party states within which no democratic election of representatives is possible without the consent of the head of state, where free markets are unable to survive due to rampant corruption, where the state seeks to stamp out individualism, and where the state controls the press and all other media.

Communists are generally lead by an authoritarian state within which political parties are approved in advance, where the democratic election of representatives is s sham, where free markets are unable to survive because the state exercises central control over every aspect of the economy, within which individualism is discouraged, and where the state controls the press and all other media.

Yes, these are mere summaries and because of the near-psycho nature of communist doctrine, the communist theory is much more complicated than we can fit into a one paragraph brief … and yet, it doesn’t take much to understand that each of these —far from being at opposite ends of a political spectrum— pretty much follow the same tenets.  Each subverts the will of the people, each controls the media (either through force or co-opting the media), both hate those who generate wealth and jobs, and both suppress individual liberty.  Did I mention they are liars of the first order?

In addition to the disgusting behaviors of the Corbyn crime family, Sheryll Murray, aged 61-years and a widowed mother of two, was threatened with physical violence and harassed on social media —you know, the kind of thing that cowards do … a new form of bullying where one can hide behind their tweets and Face Book smears.

We see this sort of thing in the United States, as well. It is, after all, the Leftist Way. We have come to know the political left as a collection of human filth too stupid to feel ashamed of their tawdry behaviors.

Source: Daily Mail, June 29, 2017

 
%d bloggers like this: