Tag Archives: socialist

All Your Children Are Belong To Us

A lot has been made of Melissa Harris-Perry’s MSNBC Lean Forwardcommercial where she declares that “we need to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents and families” and we need to “recognize that kids belong to whole communities”.

 

According Mrs. Harris-Perry, once we recognize the collective ownership of the children in our community, we’ll begin making better investments in public education. It’s great that it has been brought to the forefront of public discussion but my biggest issue with the discussion is “where has everyone been?” All she’s done is verbalize what’s been going on globally with our children for decades and in the United States at least since the mid-nineties. Make no mistake; this is a Common Core Public Education announcement more than an MSNBC promo for her show. And it sounded the bell for the final chapter in Marx’s ten point plan in the Communist Manifesto – literally the tenth point.

“10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.” (Emphasis added).

And so our free education is brought to you by, with your tax dollars, The Federal Government, Microsoft, General Electric and countless other “industrial producers” that have a vested interest in seeing that your children understand the world as the future they invision and not the God centered family centric individualism you think you have a right to instill upon them. The Melissa Harris-Perry video makes it fairly clear – you may be the baby producer, but the children belong to the community. And the community believes in education as a collective social process where everyone learns from the same exams and believes in the same social order.

You may be teaching God’s justice or equal justice at home but your children are being taught social justice at school. You may teach your children about the second amendment right to bear arms, as the Founders intended, but your children are being taught that guns are the problem with our society – not the lack of faith in God. You may teach your children that salvation is personal, that your salvation is between you and your God. Your children are learning about collective salvation. You don’t believe in global warming? Wait a couple of years and your children will be laughing at your “ignorance”. Evolution. LGBT. Abstinence. Every year my son spent in the Chicago Public School System was a year I spent trying to “un-teach” what he was learning at school until I finally just pulled him out and put him in a Christian School. And I fear that will not be an option with tomorrow’s “community” children. And I fear that option will disappear sooner than you may think.

While we’re focusing on the mostly federally centered Common Core program and whether or not states will reserve the right to maintain their sovereignty with regards to education, we need to keep an eye squarely focused Romeiki v. Holder case. This case will be the sole focus of my next post but the implications of this case the way I understand it and the very fact that the Justice Department finds it necessary to pursue it should be factored into every Federal Education program discussion – whether called Common Core, Race To the Top or No Child Left behind. It’s a case involving a German evangelical family who was granted political asylum in the United States from Germany because they were about to have their children taken away from them for homeschooling them versus Germany’s compulsory education system. Apparently, in Germany the children’s education has belonged to the community since 1938 and our Justice Department feels the need to spend the time and expense getting this family’s children back to their community. Who was running Germany in 1938?

For those of you needing a refresher on Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”, I’ve taken the liberty of presenting an excerpt of some paragraphs that were relevant to Mrs. Harris-Perry’s video. I can’t help that his writing is as painful to read as Mrs. Harris-Parry’s video is painful to watch. Remember, both personalities start with hatred and envy as the foundation of their worldview.

“Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.”

Social Capitalism

I have struggled for two weeks to get this posting out. Even as I write, I cannot reconcile exactly where I should stand on the issue of supporting businesses that absolutely offend my sensibilities as a consumer. The genesis of this posting began when I read about all of the companies that pulled their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh Show. I am not here to defend or support what Rush Limbaugh said,  (he can do that himself), only that he has the right to say whatever he wants. What struck me as appalling was the speed and efficiency in which the left was able to mobilize to bring Rush down. We all know, or should know, the progressives have entire organizations dedicated to listening to conservative voices, waiting for the perfect moment to be offended so that they can snuff out free speech they disagree with.

I must say that I was quite awestruck by the fact that a minority of people, 20% liberal if we go by the latest Gallup survey I could find, could force companies into action despite the fact that 42% of Americans identify themselves as conservatives in that same poll. (Apparently 38% of the people have no idea what they believe in, will not take a stand and they’re called moderates.) With self-righteous indignation I was angered by the fact that companies like Carbonite and ProFlowers.com would acquiesce so quickly to such a small group of people and while I don’t have the purchasing demographics for these companies, I almost have to believe that there are more people purchasing their products and services on the recommendation from a Beck or a Limbaugh or a Levine than the left could ever muster up the support for. (Full disclosure: I tried Carbonite based on one of these recommendations – it didn’t work for me – and I give my wife a box of Sheri’s Berries, a subsidiary of Provide Service which owns ProFlowers, every year, again based on one of these recommendations.)

The original intent of this posting was to point out the fact that these 26 or 27 companies had made a choice. In the name of social Marxism, they would cave to this small but highly vocal group despite the fact that people that label themselves as conservatives are the actual majority of the population. I intended to point out the fact that they could get away with this because we, as conservatives wouldn’t do a damned thing about it. This was going to be a rallying call to all conservatives that believe in the free markets and our freedom of speech to get out there and vote with your purchasing power and call these companies up and let them know that you will not do business with a company that has zero regard for you and what you believe in. All I needed was a few days to think about the best way to articulate how we can make a real difference by supporting other businesses that care about all of their customers. We would take on the defense of our causes by employing the lefts’ tactics. Saul Alinsky would not be remembered if his tactics did not work. And then the wheels started falling off in my thinking….

I believe in capitalism. Not the crony-capitalism of the General Electric / General Motors variety, but true free market capitalism. And while I stand firm on what I’ve previously mentioned, I can’t say that I’m for using the progressive tactic of calling for boycotts every time I disagree with someone. (Note: To be fair, I just found out that some conservatives are also looking at the tactic in the research of this article.) I’m not even sure how effective boycotts are, when they’re actually implemented. Off of the top of my head I do not recall hearing of a boycott that was truly effective in hurting a business’s bottom line. But then again, it’s hard to measure the effectiveness of what a boycott can actually do when any group of fifty people can call, claim they were offended, threaten a boycott and meet their goal of suppressing freedom of speech in the name of tolerance. (Don’t spend too much time thinking about that last sentence; it’s mind numbing when you do.)

However I do believe in personal responsibility when it comes to making purchasing choices but even this has significant downside. I pride myself for the fact that I refuse to pay money to HBO because of what Bill Maher spews out about people – specifically conservative women and people of faith. He has the right to be on cable and say whatever he wants and I have the right not to support the company that supports him. It is hard for me to understand why anyone that calls themselves conservative would pay HBO for their services so that HBO can pay Bill Maher for his services so that Bill Maher can donate one million dollars to a progressive super-PAC. This is an easy case for me to make because there are several choices out there for watching movies and while I do have some movie channels, I rarely watch movies anyway.

What about products this author really likes? I’ll apply the same logic to ice cream. Ben and Jerry’s has some of the best flavors put in pints and they’re everywhere and easy to get. But according to an ABC News story, founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are giving money to the Resource Movement Group, a group designed to fund this year’s Occupy Wall Street protests. Their website openly supports everything I’m against. Using the same argument as delivered in the previous paragraph, every time I purchase a pint of Ben and Jerry’s, I’m paying Ben and Jerry to support and advertise for the OWS movement. So much for “Pistachio Pistachio” and “Everything But The…”. The argument for voting with your wallet remains as sound as ever but the practical application of that argument can be very difficult when the purchasers’ choice is to accept a product of lesser quality. I apologize in advance to the fans of Haagen-Dazs. I made the switch but they’re really not the same.

I’ve “war gamed” these issues with several different people over the past couple of weeks and the conversations ranged from, “whatever we do doesn’t make a difference anyway” to “well, if you’re going to stop buying Ben and Jerry’s, you should stop buying Unilever products as well since they own them”. If this is the case, I’ll need more time to get rid of my Lipton iced tea. I really don’t know what the “answer” is. My next jeans purchase will not be Levi’s. My next pint of ice cream will not be Ben and Jerry’s. My wife will get something that’s not Sheri’s Berries next Valentines Day. But is it even possible to stop doing business with every single company that pulled their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show to make the point that we are the majority and respect the freedom of ideas – even if we don’t always agree with those ideas?

20% of the population has figured out a way to set the agenda for the entire country. They set the tone and decide what the rest of the country is allowed to say and how they are to say it. I read somewhere that Vladimir Lenin was able kick off the Russian Revolution with 10% of the population. We might want to figure this one out.

Authors Note: In my research for this posting I read a little about the history of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. It is one of the greatest capitalism stories I have ever read all the way to the point that they even won the title of U.S. Small Business Persons of the Year, awarded by President Regan. And yet they support the anti-capitalist movement. Figure that one out.

Greece – The Canary in the Coal Mine

By now, just about everyone is aware that Greece has issues. But what’s a bit appalling is how little we know about what is really happening with that country. The knowledge most people have boiled down to two points; Greece has run out of money and the people there are rioting in the streets. However if one digs a little deeper, you’ll realize that Greece is essentially no longer a sovereign country – it is a country led by a technocrat and more or less owned by the EU and ECB. Before I get into the implications of what that means, let’s first go through the brief history of how Greece got to where it is today.

Between 1999 and 2008, Greece’s real GDP was hovering between 3-4% while their debt percentage hovered in and around 100% until 2008 where it stood at 113% during the global recession. In 2009, the newly elected Prime Minister George Papandreou came into office and soon after revises the country’s budget projections, indicating the government had been understating its deficit for years. That year Greece’s debt percentage shot to 129% and is currently standing at 173% projected. After several credit downgrades in 2009 and 2010, Papandreou agrees to implement harsh austerity measures in exchange for $152 billion in loans from the European Union and the IMF. Riots ensue as the Greek population does not want to give up anything. Despite Greece meeting the austerity requirements of 2010, credit ratings continue to be downgraded so Greece pushes through another set of highly unpopular austerity measures June 2011 to qualify for a second bailout package for $157 billion in loans. Shortly after this, the Greek parliament agrees to new highly unpopular taxes, cutting public sector jobs, decreasing public sector wages, decreasing pensions for high-income workers and scaling back collective bargaining rights.

In addition to this very brief recent history, it is also important to note how Greece got to this point in the first place. Ironically, it began 30 years ago Papandreou’s father Andreas began building an unsustainable civil service in order to continue winning elections. Additionally, Greece had spent the last few decades erecting social safety nets producing cradle to grave benefits such as government healthcare, a generous welfare system and a retirement age of 61, (social security). In fact, the entitlement mentality is so firmly entrenched in Greek society, the population there does not understand anything else and seems perfectly willing to give up its’ national sovereignty while devolving into a cesspool of pain and misery grasping at the last reed it can find while drowning. And because they have no basis for understanding true freedom and liberty, they are willing to live through the degradation of their country in the hopes that things might magically get better. Here are a few of the things that are going on in Greece that are getting very little press in the US.

  • After the collapse of the socialist party in November 2011, an interim prime minister, Lucas Papademos was sworn in to lead Greece through the economic crisis. Papademos is a technocrat and was previously vice president of the European Central Bank. (Could you imagine Ben Bernanke being sworn in as interim President?)
  • Having lost its fiscal independence, Greece is now required have the permanent presence of a Eurogroup Task Force with strong onsite monitoring capabilities. (In other words, it’s their money and they have the right to manage their money. Who owns the bulk of the US debt?)
  • This EU presence will ensure that state revenues will flow into a segregated escrow account for state revenues.
  • The Greek constitution will be amended to ensure that priority will be given to serving debt payments. This includes the right for European banks to seize Greece’s gold reserves, 111.6 tons.
  • Public sector salary cuts are so deep and because they are retroactive to November 2011, up to 64,000 workers will have to work without salary for a month and some may even be asked to return money.

There is far more to the Grecian condition than what I can post in this blog but the point is obvious. Greece’s socialistic experiment has been a complete and utter failure and from a practical perspective, they are no longer a sovereign country. And despite all of this, Greece is virtually assured to default anyway, only now with zero gold reserves.

Socially, the Greeks are feeling completely hopeless and are turning bitter towards the EU and specifically Germany. There are riots and lootings in the streets. Well dressed Greeks have been reported rummaging through the garbage for food. Clinics that were set up to service the immigration population in Greece have seen a 22% jump in the domestic population. And still, they’re clinging on to an idea that didn’t work – hoping against hope that it will all just go away

Understanding what is happening in Greece is essential when looking at our current economic situation. From a GDP perspective, the US is in a worse economic condition than Greece but we have the ability to print money. However, eventually every country will have to pay back the debt that they owe and Greece gives us a better understanding of what can happen when we fail to make the tough choices today. We cannot afford our current social programs and Obamacare begins to hit its stride in full in 2013. That means higher taxes and still more debt. Despite what’s lacking in our current healthcare system, Obamacare literally means the destruction of economy.

We have an opportunity this year to elect real leaders that will face our issues head-on. We need to repeal the healthcare bill and we need to seriously manage the scaling back of all of our social programs – social security, Medicare, food stamps, etc. We either face up to our issues with honesty and determination, or we will wake up one day and realize our country isn’t even ours anymore.

The Republican Plan for Surrender

In a CNN interview on Tuesday, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced the Republican slogan, “repeal and replace”, for the fall campaigns.  He goes on to say, “…we’re going to remind the American people of that in the future and hopefully we’ll be able to repeal the most egregious parts of this [health care bill] and replace them with things we could have done on a bipartisan basis much earlier this year.”

“Repeal and replace” is a catchy slogan and no doubt it will catch on with the American people.  What is overlooked is that it is, in the final analysis, a slogan for surrender, the surrender of our liberty, the surrender of our Constitution, and the surrender of our future.  As we have pointed out in previous blogs, “Fixing Health Care”, and others, the federal government has no authority over America’s health care –period. The so-called “general welfare clause”, “the elastic clause” or the “commerce clause” does not give them that authority and neither does any other.

In order for progressivism (American socialism) to succeed, it must first destroy our Constitution. It has been working toward that end for over a hundred years and in the last year; it has all but finished the job.  All it needs now is for the Republican Party to cooperate in its destruction by attempting to “play nice” and come up with a “bi-partisan” solution for our current perceived health care crisis.

After over a century of watching progressives chip away at our Constitution and therefore our liberty, most of us still have not figured out their method of operation.  At one time, we were a Constitutional Republic.  Today, after passage of the health care bill, we are a progressive (American socialist) oligarchy.  We did not go from republicanism to progressivism overnight. We got to where we are today one-step at a time, one compromise after another.  The time for compromise and “bi-partisanship” has passed. Today it is victory or defeat.

We have been attempting to exist in a middle ground between progressivism and capitalism for generations, all the while knowing that the two are mutually exclusive. That middle ground is fast disappearing and there is no longer any ground on which to stand. Progressivism is a cancer on our body politic. It is eating away our economy, our liberty, our Constitution and our children’s future. It can no longer be tolerated by any American who loves our country and our way of life.

Our only hope for the future is elected officials that will take seriously their oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic”. Replacing an unconstitutional Democratic plan with an unconstitutional Republican plan may slow down our demise, but it will not replace the liberty we have lost.  We can no longer afford to vote for a candidate simply based on his or her party label. We have to make it clear to every politician, if they want our vote they will have to support the Constitution without reservation.  That is the only constitutionally mandated duty an elected official has.

Article VI makes the first duty of all officials in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal, as well as the state governments, the support of the Constitution. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.  In a republic, it is the law that rules, not the will of the people, majority or otherwise.  The law for our government is the Constitution of the United States; it trumps the political ambitions of politicians, the opinions of judges, and the self-serving desires of the people until it is replaced by revolution, anarchy, or lawful amendments.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

The Dual Agenda of Barack Obama

minute-man-2-lithoDuring November, December and into January following the election of Obama to the office of President, conventional wisdom among the conservative and moderate elite was that Obama would govern from the center.  During the first few weeks of his administration that began to change to a “hope” that he would move to the center from the far left position he began with, as he gained more experience and heeded the advice of those with a better understanding of how our system works.

Millions of American voters, ignoring Obama’s resume of socialist activities and his lack of a resume in governing, were caught up in the historic importance of electing our first black President.  Closing their eyes to reality, they projected their desires into Obama’s carefully crafted rhetoric, hearing what they wanted and rejecting or denying the clear evidence of his intentions.

The Obama agenda that is emerging before our eyes can in no way be called centrist.  Instead, it is following in the patterns established over the past century and a half by international socialism.  The continuing optimism concerning Obama’s ability to govern a free society demonstrates a lack of understanding of both Obama and socialism.  Even those who disagree with his policies insist they are not really socialist.  Socialism takes on many forms depending on the culture on which it is imposed.  The single characteristic that makes socialism, socialism is the redistribution of wealth and income.  That is the litmus test.

Obama is the face of the socialist movement in America.  He is not the socialist movement. The real socialist movement is composed of the environmentalists, academics, media elites, and the Democratic Party leadership.  With the passing of each news cycle Obama appears to be more a pawn of the movement rather than its leader.  His agenda and the movement’s agenda are identical and interchangeable.  That agenda is two-pronged.

First is the destruction of free-market capitalism to be replaced with a centrally planned, government run economy.  By hyping the current temporary downturn in the up and down cycles of capitalism and capitalizing on the propaganda war directed against President Bush for the past eight years an opportunity has been created for an expansion of regulatory control over the economy never before seen in American history.  As Rom Emmanuel says, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.

The second prong of the socialist agenda is the dismantling of the traditional American culture as a “melting pot” and replacing it with a fragmented society based on class envy and class warfare that is easier to control from Washington.  The cornerstone of this agenda is the destruction of the family unit by promoting unwed motherhood, welfare dependency, and redefining the meanings of marriage and family.  The further fragmenting of our culture is carried out through immigration policies, multiculturalism, bilingual education and the importation of millions of illegal immigrants.

If you want to understand better the future Obama has in store for you read the next article by Jeffery Folks printed in the March 15th, edition of American Thinker.  It contains the most vivid first hand account of the destructive nature of socialism I have read in a long time.

My Socialist Past
By Jeffrey Folks

Anyone who has lived inside the demoralized, unproductive, gray prison of a communist state, as I did in the mid-1980s, knows to what depths of impoverishment the egalitarian fantasies of socialism inevitably lead. They lead to decades of frustrated poverty and lifetimes of untreated illness culminating in early death. I remember the columns of death notices for men and women in their forties and fifties that appeared in the local newspaper. Gradually I learned to associate those death notices with the lack of fresh foodstuffs, the travesty of state health care, and the pervasive demoralization of an enslaved population drowning itself in cheap alcohol and cigarettes.
Read More…

Fairness Doctrine 2.0

minute-man-2-lithoPresident Obama is the most tightly scripted President in history, partly due to the relatively new technology of the teleprompter.  The teleprompter is vital to the Obama image because he is an excellent reader and a lousy orator.  The few times his handlers have allowed him to speak in public without a teleprompter his rhetoric has been filled with pauses, “uhs”, “ahs”, “umms” and clichés as he casts about in his mind for words that will convey the “official” populist message without revealing his true intentions.

Looking at his rise from obscurity to the most powerful office on the globe in less than four years could cause those of a conspiratorial nature to think of him as a “Manchurian Candidate”.  However, I am not given to conspiracies.  I look rather to trends brought about by the collective influence of thousands and sometimes millions of individuals making up a political or social movement.  There is no doubt that we have been trending toward socialism since the advent of the “progressive movement” at the beginning of the twentieth century.  Obama is simply the culmination of that movement.

The problem for Obama and his socialist supporters is that Americans are overwhelmingly center right conservatives with a visceral aversion to socialism.  That being the case, his challenge is to get his agenda firmly into place before the American people fully realize what he is doing.  To accomplish this it is imperative that his supporters control the flow of information.  That should be an insurmountable obstacle in a nation whose Constitution guarantees freedom of speech.  Such is not the case, however.

Presidents and Congresses have cooperated throughout our history to find ways of getting around the First Amendment and control the flow of information.  John Adams, our second President and a dedicated big government Federalist used the threat of an unpopular war with France to call for, and get, the “Sedition Act of 1798”.  This, less than a decade after the Bill of Rights was ratified by the states.  Article Two of the Sedition Act says,

“And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or publishing, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.”

Fortunately, the Sedition Act had a “sunset clause” calling for it to expire at the beginning of the next Presidential term, March 3, 1801.  Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election and immediately pardoned everyone who had been convicted under the unconstitutional law.  Other administrations, including those of Lincoln, Hoover, Roosevelt and others have attempted to limit free speech to one degree or another.

The most far-reaching Act in terms of its effects today came during the roaring twenties.  Between Congress’ first attempt to regulate broadcasting in 1912 when radio transmissions were mostly used in communicating between ships and shore and the mid-twenties radio became popular with the public.  Then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover controlled broadcasting.  Anyone could obtain permission to broadcast over any frequency chosen by Hoover by simply mailing a post card to the Secretary.

By 1926, there were 15,111 amateur stations, 1,902 ship stations, 553 land based stations for maritime use and 536 broadcasting stations.  The chaos created by overlapping signals and the complaints they caused among the public made it obvious that some type of control over the use of the airwaves was necessary.  The Attorney General’s office issued a decision in 1926 stating that the Radio Act of 1912 did not give the Secretary of Commerce the authority to assign wavelengths.  Consequently, Congress passed the Radio Act of 1927 establishing the Federal Radio Commission.

The new law was intended to bring order out of the chaos that existed in radio broadcasting at the time.  However, politicians could not resist the temptation to set guidelines as to what could or could not be broadcast over the airwaves. In crafting the new legislation, they revived the spirit of the Sedition Act but did not give it the same specificity in terms of what was or was not acceptable. Fearing what they perceived as the potential of radio to be the means of calling for radical political or social reform, Congress gave the RFC authority to determine when broadcaster were not operating their stations according to “the public interest, convenience and necessity”.  The threat of withholding licenses or not renewing them kept most stations in line.

The ’27 law was revised in 1934 creating the FCC and expanding the licensing powers of the government.  In 1945, the FCC established the “fairness doctrine” requiring broadcasters to provide equal time to all sides of controversial issues.  The result was that broadcasters simply avoided the airing of controversial issues.  In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled the FCC was not required to enforce the fairness doctrine since it was an FCC regulation and not a statute.  Under the leadership of President Reagan the doctrine was dropped.

Since the abolition of the fairness doctrine created the conditions allowing for the rise of conservative talk radio, most conservatives expect there to be an attempt by the Obama administration to bring it back.  In reality, some form of the fairness doctrine is essential to the Obama agenda.  The so-called “mainstream media” including the broadcast TV networks, NPR, PBS, and most national newspapers have been willing propagandists for the liberal and socialist wings of the Democratic Party for decades.  In addition, the most heavily funded Internet sites are those promoting the liberal/socialist agenda.

With the exception of the Fox News cable network, talk radio provides the only mass opposition to the Obama agenda with up to fifty million listeners, twenty to thirty million of them also being listeners to Rush Limbaugh.  President Obama has said he has no interest in reviving the fairness doctrine.  That’s a pretty good indication that he is working behind the scenes to bring it about.  Actually, his administration has launched a two-pronged attack on talk radio, utilizing both Congress and the tested and proven tactic that worked so well against President Bush, demonization.

A concerted effort has been launched over the past month or so to marginalize and destroy the creditability of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the best known of conservative talk show hosts.  Similar efforts have been directed against Ingraham, Beck, Hewitt, Reagan, Gallagher and others.  While the talking heads and scribblers in the mass media are carrying on this campaign, Congress is preparing the way for legislation to give it more control over the airwaves.

Last week Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) attached an amendment to the DC Voting Rights Act, another unconstitutional Bill, calling for more “diversity of ownership” and “localism” in radio broadcasting.  Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mi) has called for Senate hearings, requiring station owners to explain their programming practices.  “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.”  Stabenow said.

Other Congressional leaders on record as approving of some form of information control over the airwaves, include Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Harry Reid (D-Nev), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and, of course Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, among others.  The latest U.S. Senator to fall in line with the liberal/socialists in Congress concerning the idea behind the fairness doctrine is Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa.  Last week he told liberal talk show host Bill Press, “We gotta get the fairness doctrine back in law again.”

Talk radio is both the number one threat to the Obama agenda and the number one channel for conservative’s ability to successfully oppose it.  It is imperative that we protect our freedom to express our political opinions freely without censorship by government; otherwise, we can look forward to the wholesale loss of all our freedoms.

The Obama Gamble

minute-man-2-litho

Was the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States a bridge too far for the socialist movement?  Since the beginning of our Republic, the political struggle has been between a liberal big government and a conservative limited government.  The early contests were between the federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams and the republicans led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

The federalists won the first round by winning the Presidency and both houses of Congress in 1796.  Jefferson won the second round by battling them from his position as President of the Senate and then defeating them in the election of 1800, which he referred to as the revolution of 1800.  In a letter to Judge Roan dated September 6, 1819 he writes,

“I had read in the Enquirer, and with great approbation, the pieces signed Hampden, and have read them again with redoubled approbation in the copies you have been so kind as to send me. I subscribe to every tittle of them. They contain the true principles of the revolution of 1800, for that was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form; not effected indeed by the sword, as that, but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people. The nation declared its will by dismissing functionaries of one principle (federalism), and electing those of another (republicanism), in the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election.”

The principle of government Jefferson referred to was the principle of a federation of independent and sovereign states united under a federal government of limited size with enumerated powers versus a consolidated government with all power residing in a national capitol.

A quarter-century later, Jefferson, looking back on his years of public service, writing in a petition to the Virginia Legislature, described this episode in his career as “the most important in its consequences, of any transaction in any portion of my life;”   While the federalists ceased to exist as an organized party by 1824, their influence has continued down through history.  The Supreme Court more or less kept them in check until the influence of European socialism began to gain a foothold in America during the twentieth century.

Their ultimate goal and their political tactics have remained steady for over two hundred years. Their aim is to consolidate state government powers under the control of Washington. Since Roosevelt, their techniques for gaining power have changed little.  The method used is to exaggerate problems into crises and use them to expand the power of the federal government.  The Recession of 1930-31 that Roosevelt turned into the Great Depression and then used it to expand government power more than at any other time in history provided the template for all future expansions.

Economic cycles, crime, drugs, communism, wars, and other chronic problems of society have been used to diminish liberty and increase government power.  The two most recent examples are the changing weather patterns and the economy.  The slogan for democratic campaigns is consistently “the worst economy since the Great Depression”.  This theme is carried on year after year regardless of the economic facts.  Unrelenting pressure is kept on the institutions of our society combined with the unremitting propaganda from the left to gain one incremental step at a time.

Incrementalism has been the hallmark of the socialist movement for the past century.  As the American people become more accustomed to the small changes that occur over time, they pay less attention to their disappearing liberties.  The election of 2008 was perhaps the most monumental since the revolution of 1800.  The socialist movement abandoned its past practice of incremental advances and decided to go for “the whole enchilada” with the candidacy of Barack Obama.

I fear those who cling to the hope that Obama will govern from the center are in for a major disappointment.   He was elected to bring about radical socialistic changes in the American system and everything in his rhetoric prior to the election and everything in his life experiences indicate that he is likely to do so, his proposed appointments and modified positions since the election, not withstanding.

The best hope for America is that he will overreach to a degree that even a conditioned electorate cannot overlook.

As Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, “all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, that to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

If Barack Obama carries into practice all the policies he alluded to in his campaign he may very well cross a threshold of despotism the American people will not tolerate.  If so he could set in motion the same forces Adams set in motion in 1796 and the Democratic Party could follow the Federalist Party into the dustbin of history.  2010 and 2012 could be a repeat of the revolution of 1800.