Showing posts with label socialists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialists. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

David Barton - A true American Hero

Subject: David Barton - A true American Hero - A must read, his last book:
The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed
------
The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas
Jefferson
America, in so many ways, has forgotten. Its roots, its purpose, its
identity?all have become shrouded behind a veil of political correctness bent
on twisting the nation's founding, and its founders, to fit within a
misshapen modern world.
The time has come to remember again.
In The Jefferson Lies, prominent historian David Barton sets out to correct
the distorted image of a once-beloved founding father, Thomas Jefferson. To
do so, Barton tackles seven myths head-on, including:
Did Thomas Jefferson really have a child by his young slave girl, Sally
Hemings?
Did he write his own Bible, excluding the parts of Christianity with which he
disagreed?
Was he a racist who opposed civil rights and equality for black Americans?
Did he, in his pursuit of separation of church and state, advocate the
secularizing public life?
Through Jefferson's own words and the eyewitness testimony of contemporaries,
Barton repaints a portrait of the man from Monticello as a visionary, an
innovator, a man who revered Jesus, a classical Renaissance man?and a man
whose pioneering stand for liberty and God-given inalienable rights fostered
a better world for this nation and its posterity. For America, the time to
remember these truths again is now.
David Barton Bio
David Barton is the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national
pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes,
with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage.
WallBuilders is a name taken from the Old Testament writings of Nehemiah, who
led a grassroots movement to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and restore its
strength and honor. In the same way, WallBuilders seeks to energize the
grassroots today to become involved in strengthening their communities,
states, and nation.
David is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being
drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original
writings from the Founding Era. He also addresses well over 400 groups each
year.
His exhaustive research has rendered him an expert in historical and
constitutional issues and he serves as a consultant to state and federal
legislators, has participated in several cases at the Supreme Court, was
involved in the development of the History/Social Studies standards for
states such as Texas and California, and has helped produce history textbooks
now used in schools across the nation.
A national news organization has described him as "America's historian," and
Time Magazine called him "a hero to millions - including some powerful
politicians. In fact, Time Magazine named him as one of America's 25 most
influential evangelicals.
David has received numerous national and international awards, including
Who's Who in Education, DAR's Medal of Honor, and the George Washington Honor
Medal from the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. His work in media has
merited several Angel Awards, Telly Awards, and the Dove Foundation Seal of
Approval.
David and his wife Cheryl have three grown children, Damaris, Timothy, and
Stephen, and they reside in Aledo, TX.

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Windows Live Tags: David,Barton,American,Hero,Subject,Jefferson,Lies,Myths,About,Thomas,America,roots,purpose,nation,world,image,father,girl,Hemings,Bible,rights,Americans,pursuit,separation,church,life,Through,words,testimony,contemporaries,portrait,Monticello,innovator,Jesus,Renaissance,Founder,President,WallBuilders,organization,history,emphasis,heritage,Testament,Nehemiah,grassroots,movement,walls,Jerusalem,strength,author,library,consultant,cases,Supreme,Court,development,Social,Texas,California,news,Time,Magazine,fact,Education,Medal,Honor,George,Washington,Freedoms,Foundation,Valley,Forge,Angel,Dove,Seal,Approval,wife,Cheryl,children,Damaris,Timothy,Stephen,Aledo,truths,heroes,subjects,historian,writings
WordPress Tags: David,Barton,American,Hero,Subject,Jefferson,Lies,Myths,About,Thomas,America,roots,purpose,nation,world,image,father,girl,Hemings,Bible,rights,Americans,pursuit,separation,church,life,Through,words,testimony,contemporaries,portrait,Monticello,innovator,Jesus,Renaissance,Founder,President,WallBuilders,organization,history,emphasis,heritage,Testament,Nehemiah,grassroots,movement,walls,Jerusalem,strength,author,library,consultant,cases,Supreme,Court,development,Social,Texas,California,news,Time,Magazine,fact,Education,Medal,Honor,George,Washington,Freedoms,Foundation,Valley,Forge,Angel,Dove,Seal,Approval,wife,Cheryl,children,Damaris,Timothy,Stephen,Aledo,truths,heroes,subjects,historian,writings
Blogger Labels: David,Barton,American,Hero,Subject,Jefferson,Lies,Myths,About,Thomas,America,roots,purpose,nation,world,image,father,girl,Hemings,Bible,rights,Americans,pursuit,separation,church,life,Through,words,testimony,contemporaries,portrait,Monticello,innovator,Jesus,Renaissance,Founder,President,WallBuilders,organization,history,emphasis,heritage,Testament,Nehemiah,grassroots,movement,walls,Jerusalem,strength,author,library,consultant,cases,Supreme,Court,development,Social,Texas,California,news,Time,Magazine,fact,Education,Medal,Honor,George,Washington,Freedoms,Foundation,Valley,Forge,Angel,Dove,Seal,Approval,wife,Cheryl,children,Damaris,Timothy,Stephen,Aledo,truths,heroes,subjects,historian,writings

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Why do RICH men fund Communism?

It was a long standing Western Movie cliche' that rich men would move into a certain area and then try to take complete control of all the resources, water, grass, etc. and monies by running the banks, businesses, etc. Recall any Jimmy Stewart movies with similar themes?
There were many. The desire to be rich parallels the desire to be in control, to be the King, the boss, etc.  One of the principal reasons that communism and socialism have never worked is because those at the heights of power are the ONLY winners of all the largese, witness NK, China,Myanmar, Cuba, the elites are rich but the countries are poor. ONLY the western free market system has allowed EVERYONE who wished to compete near equality of competition. NO system can or should guarantee equality of outcome but that will always be the dream of little people who want to be big people and don't have the ability to compete, socialism's greatest opponent. 
Fact: Many politicians are millionaires so little is left to them to fulfill their own narcissistic fantasies except increased power, hence they run for pubic office and are elected because people equate wealth with great ability and knowledge, even if they did not earn their own monies through dent of their own hard work but got it through chicanery, marriage, or as inheritance . 


> Subject: Why do RICH men fund Communism?
> ------
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoCPmu0jp... [1]
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoCPmu0jpsc&feature=colike
>
> ------

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Humor: Cutting the Budget


Humor: Cutting the Budget

Read this on the Web at http://media.patriotpost.us/humor/2011/11-29.html


Patriot Humor

To subscribe to Patriot Humor, click here.

Cutting the Budget

Legendary game show host Chuck Woolery discusses ways to cut the federal budget in this humorous fireside chat-style video: Watch Video »


Finally, Some Budget Cuts

This sad specimen is the White House's Christmas tree for 2011. In related news, Charlie Brown's Christmas tree is missing.

Meanwhile in Pakistan

Americans aren't the only ones losing their shirts these days. Pakistanis are getting in on the action, albeit in their own way. This guy thought that blindfolding himself and beating his shirtless chest was the most logical means of expressing disdain for the evils of America.
Is it just us or would he look completely at home performing rap music?



Click Here

Tennessee Whiskey Fudge

This hard-to-put-down creamy chocolate Tennessee Whiskey Fudge is made in Lynchburg, Tennessee. Makes a great gift, but we recommend you buy at least two and don't blame us if you eat it all in one sitting. We warned you that it is really, really good.



Semper Lorem Ipsum!
Ron Locke, UD
Humor Minion

To subscribe to Patriot Humor, click here.
To submit humor items for our consideration, email us at humor@patriotpost.us

If you enjoy Patriot Humor, you should check out our other online resources:

Follow The Patriot Post:
              
You have received this email because you are subscribed to Patriot Humor, a service of The Patriot Post. To subscribe to Patriot Humor and The Patriot Post, link to http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/. To manage your subscription or to unsubscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us/manage/ and log in with your email address.

congress,super committee,budget cuts,common sense,comedy,stupid congressmen,BO,socialists,election time

Another Discussion of Citizenship


> Subject: Obama eligibility "natural born citizen"
> ------
> Natural Born Citizen
>
> Their has been many allegations with regard to our present president of these
> United States has to where he was born. They have been called "Birthers".
> They have questions about the birth certificate and social security number or
> numbers. Are they real or valid? There are many questions, investigations and
> opinions by experts on the subject.
> The impact of a determination that Barack Obama was not born in this country
> would be profound. Every act, every appointment he has made in every
> department, every bill he has signed into law, including spending bills,
> every executive order, any proclamations would all become null and void. For
> this very reason the evidence needed, the proof provided would have to be so
> iron clad, slam dunk, spot on and overwhelming that it would be easier to
> convict Casey Anthony of her daughter's Caylee's death. Unless we had a
> confession.
> But what if we had court rulings and not just court rulings but federal court
> rulings and not just any federal court rulings but supreme court rulings
> along with a confession that makes Barack Obama ineligible to run for and be
> elected president of the United States. That this was known and that the
> knowledge was censored, hidden, along with attempts to scrub this information
> from the public to access. Would these actions be treasonous and those who
> perpetrated these action traitors.
> We all know that Barack's farther was not born in this country because
> Barack has said as much, many times. That is the confession. Below is article
> 2 of the U.S. constitution.
>
> Article. II.
> Section. 1.
>
> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
> America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and,
> together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as
> follows:
>
> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
> direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
> Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
> Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit
> under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
>
> The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for
> two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same
> State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted
> for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and
> certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United
> States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate
> shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all
> the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the
> greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority
> of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who
> have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
> Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President;
> and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the
> said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the
> President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each
> State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or
> Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall
> be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President,
> the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the
> Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes,
> the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
> This paragraph was changed with AMENDMENT XII
> Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
>
> The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on
> which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the
> United States.
>
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
> at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
> Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
> shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
> Years a Resident within the United States.
>
> In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
> Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
> Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by
> Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of
> the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as
> President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be
> removed, or a President shall be elected.
> This paragraph was changed with AMENDMENT XXV
> Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.
>
> The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a
> Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the
> Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within
> that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
>
> Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
> Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
> execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of
> my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
> States."
>
> Eligibility to run and be elected President of the United States is contained
> in the fourth paragraph that has not been amended, it states a follows;
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
> at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
> Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
> shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
> Years a Resident within the United States.
>
> Question; What is or who is a natural born citizen? The constitution
> doesn't say, but the federal supreme court did, and affirmed that decision
> many times afterward by siting that ruling in other decisions. Setting a long
> precedent or stare decisis a Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere:
> "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." This is understood
> to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb
> settled matters.. The ruling that determined what a natural born citizen is,
> by the supreme court and every other ruling of the court where that ruling
> was sited is what some if not many have attempted to censor, hide and scrub
> from public access.
>
> U.S. Supreme Court
> MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
>
> 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.)
>
> MINOR
> v.
> HAPPERSETT.
>
> October Term, 1874
>
> This is the case where the federal supreme court determined what constitutes
> a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen. It case involves a woman in
> the State of Missouri being denied the right to register to vote as a citizen
> of that State because she was a woman. Supreme Court of Missouri upheld that
> decision so it was then petitioned to the federal supreme court. The court
> took the case because of this part of the argument;
>
> "Mr. Francis Minor (with whom were Messrs. J. M. Krum and J. B. Henderson),
> for the plaintiff in error, went into an elaborate argument, partially based
> on what he deemed true political views, and partially resting on legal and
> constitutional grounds. These last seemed to be thus resolvable:
>
> 1st. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff was entitled to any and
> all the 'privileges and immunities' that belong to such position however
> defined; and as are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the
> United States."
>
> As part of the opinion given by the chief justice of the court is this, in
> quotation marks as those in quotes above.
>
> "The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the
> fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of
> the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the
> provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right
> of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other
> grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it
> was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has
> been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole
> purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident
> propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a
> decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at
> once to its determination.
>
> It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State
> of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to
> men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore
> void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United
> States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United
> States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage
> as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State
> cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
>
> There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the
> fourteenth amendment 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States
> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' are expressly declared to be
> 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' But, in
> our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
> Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms
> prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several
> States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
> There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political
> community, such as a nation is, implies an [88 U.S. 162, 166] association of
> persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons
> associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes
> it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection
> are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation
> for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance."
>
> "For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this
> membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation
> he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,'
> and 'citizen' have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made
> to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly
> employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the
> description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by
> nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was
> afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution
> of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying
> the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
>
> To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the
> adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons
> originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were
> afterwards admitted to membership.
>
> Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and
> established by 'the people of the United States,'3 and then going further
> back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had
> before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain,
> and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth,4 and
> that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took
> the name of 'the United States of America,' entered into a firm league of [88
> U.S. 162, 167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the
> security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding
> themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made
> upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
> other pretence whatever. 5
>
> Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the
> Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a
> member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons
> associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its
> original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have
> arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons
> were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if
> they were.
>
> Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two
> ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from
> the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that 'no person except a
> natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the
> adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,'7
> and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of
> naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by
> naturalization.
>
> The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
> Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the
> nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was
> never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its
> citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were
> natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
> foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born
> within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88
> U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as
> to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve
> these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that
> all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
> citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used
> in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last
> they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied.
> In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
>
> Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as
> early as 1790, provided 'that any alien, being a free white person,' might be
> admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such
> persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under
> twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be
> considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens
> of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits
> of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These
> provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the
> naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was
> somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born
> out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers
> were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States,
> were declared to be citizens also.9
>
> As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had
> declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died
> before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be
> considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and
> privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath;10 and in 1855 it was
> further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the
> existing laws, married, or [88 U.S. 162, 169] who should be married to a
> citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. 11
>
> From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon
> this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by
> naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have
> been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors
> were already citizens by birth."
>
> According to this ruling and other cases siting this ruling, Barack Obama
> whose farther was not a citizen but because his mother was, he became a
> citizen by naturalization, period! As such he is not eligible to run for or
> become president of these United States.
> For more information on the courts rulings here is a link to start with.
> http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ [1]
>
> Note; When you go to this site take time to click on the posts dated December
> 08 and January 09. Very interesting!
>
>
> [1] http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
>
> ------
>
> To view and reply to this discussion visit the following page:
>
> http://connect.freedomworks.org/user/login?destination=node%2F79901%2Fdiscussions%2F427460
>
>
> If you would like to stop recieving email updates for group activity, please
> visit the notifications page in your account settings:
> http://connect.freedomworks.org/user/login?destination=user%2F120228%2Fsettings%2Fnotifications.

BO eligibility,president,socialists,democrats,dishonest,citizens,natural born

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Seductive Beliefs

Thomas Sowell


Seductive Beliefs

One of the painfully revealing episodes in Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" describes his early experience listening to a sermon by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Among the things said in that sermon was that "white folks' greed runs a world in need." Obama was literally moved to tears by that sermon.

This sermon may have been like a revelation to Barack Obama but its explanation of economic and other differences was among the oldest-- and most factually discredited-- explanations of such difference among all sorts of peoples in all sorts of places. Yet it is an explanation that has long been politically seductive, in countries around the world.

What could be more emotionally satisfying than seeing others who have done better in the world as the villains responsible for your not having done as well? It is the ideal political explanation, from the standpoint of mass appeal, whether or not it makes any sense otherwise.

That has been the politically preferred explanation for economic differences between the Malay majority and the more prosperous Chinese minority in Malaysia, or between the Gentile majority and the Jewish minority in various countries in Europe between the two World Wars.

At various other times and places, it has been the preferred explanation for the economic differences between the Sinhalese and the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, the Africans and the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Czechs and the Germans in Bohemia and numerous other groups in countries around the world.

The idea that the rich have gotten rich by making the poor poor has been an ideological theme that has played well in Third World countries, to explain why they lag so far behind the West.

None of this was original with Jeremiah Wright. All he added was his own colorful gutter style of expressing it, which so captivated the man who is now President of the United States.

There is obviously something there with very deep emotional appeal. Moreover, because nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, there will never be a lack of evil deeds to make that explanation seem plausible.

Because the Western culture has been ascendant in the world in recent centuries, the image of rich white people and poor non-white people has made a deep impression, whether in theories of racial superiority-- which were big among "progressives" in the early 20th century-- or in theories of exploitation among "progressives" later on.

In a wider view of history, however, it becomes clear that, for centuries before the European ascendancy, Europe lagged far behind China in many achievements. Since neither of them changed much genetically between those times and the later rise of Europe, it is hard to reconcile this role reversal with racial theories.

More important, the Chinese were not to blame for Europe's problems-- which would not be solved until the Europeans themselves finally got their own act together, instead of blaming others. If they had listened to people like Jeremiah Wright, Europe might still be in the Dark Ages.

It is hard to reconcile "exploitation" theories with the facts. While there have been conquered peoples made poorer by their conquerors, especially by Spanish conquerors in the Western Hemisphere, in general most poor countries were poor for reasons that existed before the conquerors arrived. Some Third World countries are poorer today than they were when they were ruled by Western countries, generations ago.

False theories are not just an intellectual problem to be discussed around a seminar table in some ivy-covered building. When millions of people believe those theories, including people in high places, with the fate of nations in their hands, that is a serious and potentially disastrous fact of life.

Despite a carefully choreographed image of affability and cool, Barack Obama's decisions and appointments as President betray an alienation from the values and the people of this country that are too disturbing to be answered by showing his birth certificate.

Too many of his appointees exhibit a similar alienation, including Attorney General Eric Holder, under whom the Dept. of Justice could more accurately be described as the Dept. of Payback.


Herein Dr. Sowell  explains in very simple terms the greatest reasons why the Dem/Progressive/Socialist/Islamist movement can never be trusted. They are simply incapable of living in reality. Like children whose minds have never been trained, they believe in a fantasy of their own making and are either too lazy, too stupid, or too immature to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings and/or lack of individual effort. It is easy to blame others for your own poor quality of life, a lot easier than to actually do something about it yourself, particularly when you have been taught you cannot excel or succeed without someone else help that they are refusing you. The US has had singular success over the past centuries because there were so many individuals willing to take individual responsibility for their own efforts at success but today our schools teach only government can give those opportunities and if your efforts lack success then you cannot be help responsible for your own actions. Within the Dem Party, one of their trademark abilities is to stick together when being lying ore being proponents of a lie, probably because they are incapable of recognizing truth and their entire philosophy has come to base itself on untruth, socialism and the absurd idea that man is so perfectible that only governments run by men dedicated to socialism can succeed or are worthy of adherence by the public and the party. 


BO may be a very intelligent man but his policies are none-the-less stupid as they simply do not equate to reality. He says he loves the US but treats it as though he hates it. He has been the recipient of its largesse but acts as though he'd been purposefully help down by some unholy system (or the Jews in his friends eyes). He has appointed socialists after socialist and even known communists and Islamists to public office and yet neither party finds any of that remarkable and the Conservative group (supposedly the GOP) cannot even find room to complain or to fight back against his gangster style tactics. The very lack of GOP effort has brought forth the Tea Party movement that now threatens to ruin the GOP. Several other Political Parties have sprung up to take up the slack of opposition to the Dems that the GOP has failed to support. Now the Constitution Party is growing faster than any other party in the US because it is in open Christian Conservative opposition to the Dems and the BO regime. 


It seems apparent that no effort nor comments to the GOP is going to awaken that party leadership and that may well bode ill for the US as a large percentage of voters will be leaving GOP ranks to vote as independents or as Constitutionalists leaving  insufficient majority to wrest the Presidency from this purely evil man and the Dems. 

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Lying Politicians, Wasting Tax Monies, Murdering the USA, listening to Fools

Americans may learn two very important things about government this week: (1) Democrats, including the President, are not willing to make real fiscal cuts because they have learned from years of experience that they can buy the votes needed to re-elect themselves by spending monies Government doesn't actually have because no one actually opposes them (2) Republicans may stand their ground on the first round of cuts but will knuckle under to the pressure of incumbents' needs to be re-elected on the taxpayers' dollar. I fear for America's future because I believe the answer to either scenario is to cut expenditures drastically.
"Obama has long been ambivalent about American leadership in the world -- a doubt reflected during the Arab upheavals by his repeated references to universal human rights, rather than American values of freedom. Yet when we have the power to protect our citizens, we cannot be ambivalent about using it. That is why we have a military in the first place: so that the tyrants of Tripoli will fear us, not the other way around." Joel Pollak

"There's good reason to believe that Obama has always been lying -- yes, lying -- about opposing gay marriage. For example, in 1996, he told The Windy City Times, 'I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.' But by 2004, Obama very much wanted to be president, and he understood that supporting gay marriage would be a political liability. So he opted for something other than honesty. And in a 2004 interview with a gay publication, Obama strongly hinted his opposition was strategic, not philosophical. ... President Obama says DOMA is unconstitutional, and yet the 'law professor' says he will continue to enforce it. In a properly ordered constitutional republic, this would be a scandal. But in America today, it's cause for eye-rolling, shrugs and platitudes about the demands of politics." --columnist Jonah Goldberg

Here is an invalid comparison made by the Prince of race baiters: "Collective bargaining is something that is so close to slavery in terms of abolishing it, that it is not an American concept to tell people that they cannot discuss their economic position." --Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY)  Of course, asking PUBLIC EMPLOYEES who are already a  protected class to actually give up any privilege (it's not a right) is anathema to unions and the Dem pols who support them for the monies they get for re-election from the unions. Fed employees average 75K/annum, not exactly average pay, plus lower health insurance costs and a generous retirement.


He then crumpled up his prepared remarks and threw them on the floor. He then told them the following. "Here’s the deal: I understand you're angry, and I understand you're frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed. . . . For 20 years, governors have come into this room and lied to you, promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for, making promises they knew they couldn't keep, and just hoping that they wouldn't be the man or women left holding the bag. I understand why you feel angry and betrayed and deceived by those people. Here’s what I don't understand. Why are you booing the first guy who came in here and told you the truth?"

Governor Christie recently spoke to the state fire fighters convention. Days earlier he had introduced pension and benefit reforms that would raise the retirement age, increase employee pension contributions, and roll back an earlier pay increase.Governor Christie understands that there is little political advantage to being truthful in politics. He went on to say that the old political playbook is still being used in Washington and in various state capitals says that you "lie, deceive, obfuscate and make it to the next election." He mentioned a study that said that New Jersey's pensions may go bankrupt by 2020. He then told them the following. "Here’s the deal: I understand you're angry, and I understand you're frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed. . . . For 20 years, governors have come into this room and lied to you, promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for, making promises they knew they couldn't keep, and just hoping that they wouldn't be the man or women left holding the bag. I understand why you feel angry and betrayed and deceived by those people. Here’s what I don't understand. Why are you booing the first guy who came in here and told you the truth?"  Because all public sector unions have been promising their constituents that their pay would always rise and that they'd never face any cuts in benefits, that all politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, and that the Unions buy whechever Pol they need to improve their member benefits.

Our President Obama suffers from a narcissistic complex and hatred of our nation that requires him to do all he can to destroy us from within. He is succeeding beyond his wildest dreams. Personally, I find him ignorant, arrogant, self-serving, socialist, and dedicated to the destruction of a republican form of government. He doesn't seem to actually know how anything actually works nor how a capitalist form of economy should be run. He seems to believe he can do anything he wants whether or not it conforms to the rule of law or not. He uses his office for his personal pleasure and to further himself rather than the nation's interests. His policies are greatly consistent with Cuba's, North Korea's or China's interests and governmental styles but not our own. He seems preoccupied with forming policies that will lead to the destruction of this nation's economy and the dissolution of the nation as a unified world political force.

It is as though he is a political plant from our enemies that wishes nothing less than our complete destruction. I seriously doubt the GOP has the political will nor strength to impeach either he or his policies but I do pray the elephant grows some stones large enough to stymie these socialist tendencies and efforts.

The BLue EYE View of MO

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

FW: 2011 Conference: The Fight for Socialism Today


This is just the tip of what is happening in..and TO...our country. Check out the link.
http://fightforsocialism.org/

Friday, February 18, 2011

Praise for Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet.

Praise for Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet.

Sure, like his Commie predecessor Salvador Allende, he had his faults, but his economic legacy has made Chile the richest per-capita, healthiest, least corrupt country in South America. Compare it to Venezuela today. Liberals hate being told this. Their hero is the "martyred" Allende, of course. But under Allende, inflation was running at 1,000 percent, whereas thanks to free market reforms introduced by Pinochet - taking advice from Milton Friedman's "Chicago Boys"- the Chilean economy thrived. We saw the differing results of this from two earthquakes - the one in Haiti in January 2010 that claimed nearly a quarter of a million lives; and the one in Chile a month later which, though 500 times more powerful, claimed just over 700 lives. Why? Because rich economies can afford to build earthquake-proof buildings. Impoverished ones dependent for their survival on international aid alone cannot.

Socialism just does not work; not here, not in Chile, not in Haiti, not in Venezuela, not in Cuba, not in China (which is abandoning Communism), not in Soviet Russia (which no longer exists), not in North Korea (which has less than 5% of the South's GNP). So why do we have an entire political party and its leader dedicated to Socialism? Because it, at least temporarily, keeps them in power by buying votes. Abandon the Democrats to their own devices and California, New York, Michigan, perhaps Minnesota and Wisconsin, and Illinois will all be forced to declare bankruptcy. Should be some bargains available in those states again, one of these days.

PS: When Milton Friedman collected his Nobel Prize, he was heckled by leftists for having advised so repugnant a regime. He wryly noted that he had Given Communist dictatorships the same advice - but strangely, no one attacked him for that.

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View of MO, 2/18/11


Monday, October 11, 2010

the depravity of the environmental movement

The Foundation

"[T]here is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust." --James Madison

Culture

The 10:10 campaign video
"Leading environmental organizations in Britain, with the backing of numerous major corporations, recruited British screenwriter Richard Curtis to produce a video for the '10:10' campaign, which seeks to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent every year for 10 years. The video begins in a classroom, where a mild-mannered teacher tells her middle-school students about the 10:10 effort. She then asks the class if they'd like to sign up. Most do, but two kids abstain. The teacher tells them, 'That's absolutely fine, your own choice.' Then, she reaches for a device on her desk with a red button on it. She pushes the button, and the kids who refused to sign up for the green crusade are blown up, their blood and viscera spraying across the classroom, staining the school uniforms of their conformist and compliant classmates. The same 'joke' plays out several more times in different settings (an office, soccer practice, etc.). Each time someone resists the idea of getting with the program, the response is swift, bloody execution. The video's defenders argue it's all a big joke, lighten up. For the layman, the obvious response is, 'That's not true.' Blowing up kids isn't funny. But that misses the point. This isn't a joke for the benefit of you and me. No, this is a knee-slapper for those already committed to the cause. The subtext is, 'Wouldn't it be awesome if we could just get rid of these tiresome, inconvenient people?' That's why they're blown up without anyone trying to change their minds. That's the joke: 'Enough with these idiots already.' How else to explain the fact that this thing went through the entire pre-production and filming process, was undoubtedly screened by any number of people, most likely including sponsors and PR people, and none of them said, 'Are you nuts? We can't go public with this.' That's the outrage here: not that they thought normal people would find it funny, but that the producers and sponsors clearly did think it was funny. ... In fairness, a host of leading environmentalists have condemned this snuff film as an idiotic disaster. I'm fine with taking most of them at their word, but I suspect that at least some object to the film because it was bad PR, not because they actually found it offensive." --columnist Jonah Goldberg


It isn't that all environmentalists are so absurdly malevolent but it should strike all who possess a conscience that this video and the mindset behind it that caused its production is illness personified. It is unfortunate but still true that the socialist progressive mindset has taken over the environmental movement spreading its illness to all too many within.

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Hitler, Wealth, and Taxes

Does our current national situation remind anyone of Hitler's move to extinguish the Jews? Well, OK, read conservatives or Christians for Jews. Now do you see any similarities?

----

Why yes... yes it does. Let's see...

Children singing odes about BHO in matching shirts?

BHO, who has been raised by fascists and Marxists, and wants to embrace centralized state government.

Michell Obama who wants to spread the "pie" instead of making more pies.

Holdren who suggested mass sterilization, via the drinking water supply.

E. Emmanuel who has created the "Total life system" for HC.

Dunn who likes the philosophies of Mao.

Ayers the Marxist who helped groom BHO.

Marshall the Marxist who was BHO mentor.

Wright - black Marxist liberation theology.

Van Jones who is an open communist.

J Jones who is a friend of Ayers and contributed to congressional legislation.

Lloyd who wants to silence opposing (conservative) views in the media.

Clinton the proud progressive who champions GB Shaw and Alinsky.

Sunstein who will "nudge" us into submission, until the nudge doesn't work, then we have (raw power)...

Andy Stearn who will use the power of persuasion, and if that doesn't work...(more raw power)

the Unions will use the persuasion or power (and will strike any large company that doesn't kow-tow to them). (See the banker who was harassed at his home, or the black man beaten by SEIU, or the man who had his finger bit off by lefties. and so on...)

Yes the current situation looks EXACTLY like Hitlers moves to exterminate the Jews. In this case eliminate the opposition and various useless eaters (that's be Christians, Conservatives, people who just happen to like personal liberty, anyone who doesn't like paying excessive taxes, anyone foolish enough to protest or disagree with the "Annointed One", etc.)

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
And of course, there are numerous misguided Democrats and uneducated or poorly educated students at all levels who simply do not comprehend what liberty is about since they haven't yet had to fend for themselves and have no comprehension of what is required to prosper in the wild, wild world of commerce.

And what about the dishonest politician who tells us that he won't raise taxes on the middle class; instead, he's going to raise corporate income taxes as means to force rich corporations to pay their rightful share of government? When a tax is levied on a corporation, if it is to survive, it will have one of three responses or some combination thereof. One response is to raise the price of its product, so who bears the burden but the customer? Another response is to lower dividends; again, who bears the burden but the investors? Yet another response is to lay off workers (unemployment actually helps the economy if you are Moron Pelosi). In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of the tax.
Because corporations have these normal and natural responses to impositions of taxes, they are merely government tax collectors who collect money from people (customers and employees) and send it to Washington. Therefore, you should tell that politician, who promises to tax corporations instead of you, that he's an idiot because corporations, like land, do not pay taxes. Only people pay taxes. Only people own or possess wealth, not government. Government is a user and destroyer of wealth. It is systematically impossible for government to manufactor wealth. All it can do is make it easier or more difficult for its citizens to make wealth.


PL Booth, The Blue Eye View of MO, 10/7/10