The Roots of Socialism in America

I listen to students and young people comment on politics or society and wonder “how could they possibly believe what they are saying?” It dawned on me that to be able to draw reasonable conclusions, these young minds would have to have been properly educated and have access to all of the facts and not just the select few that suit the political agenda of the educator. While frustrating, there are reasons for this apparent lack of common sense.

The roots of socialism in America are found much as they were in Europe; a revolt against the harsh working conditions of the industrial revolution. It was Karl Marx, a philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist and revolutionary, whose ideas are credited as the foundation of modern communism. Marx summarized his approach in the first line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".

While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution in 1917, and few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century.

Teddy Roosevelt would never be known as a Socialist but he did espouse many ideas that were Socialist in nature. He considered himself a progressive and while he did believe in American Imperialism and a strong world military presence, he also believed in heavy government regulation, government control of wages and the redistribution of wealth for the public good.

On the heels of the Russian Revolution, Communist and Socialist movements found an audience in the American Labor movement. The Socialist Party of America was a coalition of local parties based in industrial cities. Even though by 1912 they claimed more than a thousand locally elected officials in 33 states and 160 cities, the party was factionalized. The conservatives, led by Victor Berger, promoted progressive causes of efficiency and an end to corruption. The radicals wanted to overthrow capitalism, tried to infiltrate labor unions, and sought to cooperate with The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). With few exceptions the party had weak or nonexistent links to local labor unions.

Once the stock market collapsed in 1929 forcing enormous numbers of people into unemployment, the communists surged once again and began to organize rallies and marches in support of workers and workers rights. In March, 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and other cities in a mass protest organized by the Communist Party’s Unemployed Councils. In 1931, more than 400 relief protests erupted in Chicago and that number grew by 150 in 1932. The leadership behind these organizations often came from radical groups like Communists and Socialists, who wanted to organize “unfocused neighborhood militancy into organized popular defense organizations.” Workers turned to these radical groups until organized labor became more active in 1932, with the passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act.

While Communists and Socialists did gain a foothold in these turbulent years, Walter Philip Reuther the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) would soon change that. As a prominent figure in the anti-Communist left, he was a founder of the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. He had left the Socialist party in 1939, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the CIO and in the Democratic Party.

Labor unions eventually eliminated the public connections between the unions, Communism and Socialism. They traded those links for something less troubling in the public eye, the progressive arm of the Democratic Party which espoused many of the same ideals as Socialists without the negative connotations; what some would call “Communism light”. Now the real work to transform the nation could begin under the American flag and right under the noses of the American people.

Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader 1958 to 1964, had once made a statement is a speech saying that he would “bury” America. Some thought that meant that he meant military action or that he would launch a nuclear attack to bring about his prophecy. That raised even more fear among average Americans during the cold war even though war was hardly his intention.

Khrushchev was perfectly willing to let America move to the left incrementally; here a little, there a little. When speaking about FDR’s New Deal, Khrushchev said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism.”

Changing terminology and calling socialist programs “compassionate conservativism” doesn’t change the nature of the beast itself. Redistributing the wealth to win votes will produce the same devastating end as redistributing the wealth because you are an outright socialist.

From 1959 until 1989, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) received a substantial subsidy from the Soviet Union. Starting with $75,000 in 1959 this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the Party's subservience to the Moscow.

Yuri Alexandrovic Bezmenov, now known as Tomas David Schuman, was born in 1939 in the former Soviet Union and worked as a journalist for Pravda. In this capacity, he secretly answered to the KGB. His true job was to further the aims of communist Russia After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow's policies. He decided to defect to the West.

Bezmenov/Schuman is best remembered for his Pro-American Anti-communist lectures and books from the 1980s. From his writings and speeches Mr. Bezmenov said: “Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage. I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic.... That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.

The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”

Thanks to the soviet doctrine in “ideological subversion”, America now has over 10,000 avowed socialist professors teaching in our universities that continue the practice of indoctrination. We also have over 70 members of Congress that consider themselves socialists or progressive socialists. In fact, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the authors of the Climate Bill (cap and trade) are two of the Progressive Socialists in Congress which a great reason to oppose that Bill all by itself.

Paul

Obama - Eighteen Months and Counting

We are approaching the eighteen month mark of the Obama Presidency and what a ride it has been. Despite Candidate Obama’s criticism of the deficit under the Bush administration, President Obama has presided over a quadrupling of deficit spending and has to date, added a whopping $2.36 trillion dollars to the national debt. The White House’s own calculations show that the spending levels outlined in the President’s budget will add another $9.7 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next ten years. That assumes of course, that we have a budget.

While the Federal government has been busy involving themselves in matters in which they have absolutely no constitutional authority such as healthcare, internet content and taking control of auto manufacturers, Congress has failed to focus on the things they are mandated by law to do such as securing the US borders, overseeing Federal agencies and adopting a budget. Of course, if you have no budget, you don’t have to make the hard choices of what to cut to keep it in balance. Instead, the Federal government continues to address spending by passing bill after bill that extend current spending levels and raising our debt ceiling to keep the cash flowing.

The Obama administration’s contribution to the national debt will shortly equal what Bush spent in the last four years of his presidency. Since his inauguration, Obama has raised the national debt 20% as a percentage of GDP (the entire national economy or Gross Domestic Product) and current calculations show that we will owe 100% of GDP by the year 2015. George Bush added $4.36 trillion to the debt during his entire eight years in office and even though Obama spoke harshly about the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration, President Obama is now poised to far exceed that measure of irresponsibility within the next two years. Moody’s has already warned that America is on the verge of losing its triple A bond rating if we do not reign in our current spending craze. The loss of that rating would require us to pay higher interest on our existing debt and an increase of just a couple of points on a twelve trillion dollar debt would spell financial ruin for the nation but the spending continues unabated.

So what else has the last eighteen months brought us? The Obama administration has brought deep divisions between every race and economic strata in the country. The tactics used to promote their Socialist agenda has created an atmosphere of controversy that has pitted entire groups of people against each other. As the administration tries to gain support for its dangerous and short sighted energy bill, they have gone as far as suggesting it is a race issue; that minority communities are unfairly burdened with a disproportionate amount of industrial pollution. They have taken the seriousness of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and are trying to frame every aspect of their agenda in terms of racial and economic justice. They are shamelessly using low income and minority communities to forward this agenda; an agenda that will drive those communities deeper into poverty as a very few of the Progressive elite sit back and watch their wealth and power multiply. Of course, since those elite Progressives are friends of the President and the Main Stream Press, those fat cats will be exempt from the same scrutiny used to examine the earnings of Wall Street executives.

Unions and former 1960’s radicals have been instrumental in writing the Stimulus bill, the Healthcare Bill and the Energy Bill. The language in those Bills has funneled billions of tax payer dollars into special projects that benefit the interests that helped write the bills. The President has already thumbed his nose at hard working Americans by issuing an executive order giving preference to Union contractors in government projects costing more than $25 million dollars. That order effectively blocks 80% of private contractors from those projects simply because their employees have not unionized. Under the Healthcare Bill, hospitals are only eligible for Federal funds for training programs if their staffs are unionized; clearly a gift to Andy Stern and the SEIU for their help during the election. Of course Union preferences won’t mean much if we continue on the path of national bankruptcy. After all, you need to have money to fund projects and training programs.

The Obama administration has adopted a policy of sheer luck where counter-terrorism is concerned. Catastrophe has only been avoided because the weapons training that our latest would-be assailants received was flawed and the devices they used failed to detonate. Still, Obama plans on only adding an additional 100 people to review and update the no-fly list but needs 17,000 new IRS agents to make sure you buy healthcare insurance. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, has problems using the term Radical Islam in connection with these failed terrorists but Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano has no problem using far more troubling descriptors when it comes to defining the dangers posed by Tea Party protestors. In fact, the only danger the Tea Party represents is that they mean to block the President’s agenda and that is something the current administration will not tolerate.

Cass Sunstein, Obama’s “Regulatory Czar” has even suggested that our government use tactics once reserved for the Soviet KGB and discretely infiltrate Tea Parties and other groups that protest the administration’s plans. Sunstein would also like to see the government use its power to organize information campaigns to counter the Tea Party message and promote the President’s agenda. Excuse me, but isn’t that called propaganda? If you don’t believe this administration has no problem using propaganda to gain support and power, take the case of Obama’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. The White House has impeded any attempt by the press to gain access to Kagan for an interview. They even contacted a school where Kagan’s brother teaches and “suggested” the school deny news access to Kagan’s brother. Instead, an unnamed White House staffer conducted a sanitary interview of Elena Kagan and that is the only material that has been given to the press. What are they hiding? Even Kagan’s thesis has been scrubbed from the internet; a thesis that clearly said she lamented the failure of Socialism to gain momentum in the United States.

The past eighteen months has brought America closer to financial ruin that at any other time in history. The programs and policies of this administration have depleted our ability to respond quickly to additional economic downturns and have placed us dangerously close to the point where we may not be able to afford to adequately defend ourselves. While the Feds corral militia groups in Michigan, North Korea has been acting with impunity against South Korea, apparently unafraid of a meaningful American response. While Congress launches a harsh campaign against Toyota because of safety concerns, Iran continues on the path to nuclear arms without a worry in the world. While the Mexican drug war continues to spill over the border into Arizona and Texas, the Obama administration is seeking to seize private property in Vermont to strengthen our border with Canada.

Obama refuses to answer questions about the radical past of his closest advisors. He refuses to answer questions about why his campaign spent nearly a million dollars to seal documents and information about his past. He refuses to answer questions about why his Social Security number was part of a group of numbers reserved for residents of Connecticut, a State in which he never resided and why that number was issued a full three years after his first known job at a Hawaiian ice cream shop. He refuses to answer questions about why his application for student aid was filed stating he was a foreign student of Indonesian patronage. He even refuses to answer the question about why the birth certificate he submitted to the Federal Elections Commission, a birth certificate issued in 1961, has no State seal and shows his father’s race as African when African is neither a race nor a nation; nor would it have been used as a description of race in 1961 America.

We have a long way to go before November 2012….I only hope the nation can survive that long.

Paul

Reagan Was The Real President of Hope and Change

There are so many assaults on one’s senses today, where can you reasonably begin without feeling that you’ve left something out? For a President that promised hope, I don’t think I have ever seen an atmosphere as thick with hopelessness as I see in America today. Even during the darkest days of the Carter administration when American hostages were being held in Iran and the economy was in turmoil, people still believed there was something that could be done with the right leader at the helm.

Maybe that is where Reagan really made his mark. People not only believed in his abilities, but because of his inspiration we could believe in our own abilities as a nation again. The hostages held in Iran for nearly four-hundred and fifty days were released as Reagan took the oath of office which we took as a clear indication that the world knew this President was not going to allow America to be disgraced by petty dictators and radical theocracies. The economy rebounded as Reagan released the restraints of regulation and the shackles of punitive taxation; the military took on the shine and precision of well oiled and meticulously cared for machine and our cities began to shed the decay after decades of neglect.

Critics would later criticize Reagan for quadrupling the National Debt but the numbers speak for themselves. Under Reagan’s policies, revenues to the Treasury had tripled. Not because of tax increases but because of the economic expansion brought on by tax relief that rewarded entrepreneurs for the risks they took reinvesting in America. The debt did quadruple but only because of congressional fiscal mismanagement which according to OMB records, spent $1.34 for every new dollar in revenue the treasury collected. Reagan continually asked for the line-item veto to enable him to eliminate the pork that bloated every spending bill but that was something Congress would not grant to Reagan. In the end, if Reagan wanted the appropriations he felt were critical to the nation’s well being, then he had to sign the bills and accept the additional spending Congress had irresponsibly sewn into them.

The line item veto was eventually granted to President Clinton in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which he signed into law and put to the test at least eighty-one times throughout eleven pieces of legislation. We will never know the full value of the line item veto as it was struck down by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in February of 1998. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in June of that year. Similar legislation was requested by President George W. Bush in 2006 but failed to pass a vote in the Senate. A recent move to reinstate the line item veto was begun by Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Senator Russ Feingold in 2009, but never gained the support it needed to move forward. So much for the conscience of Congress.

After Reagan’s second term, the National Debt had climbed to $3.2 trillion dollars which represented 55% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, inflation had dropped from 13.9% under Jimmy Carter, to 4.67% when Regan left office in 1989. When 1990 began, we had a six-hundred ship navy, an air force that guaranteed superiority in any theater it would be tested and the best equipped and trained military that the world had ever seen. The economy was vibrant with every indicator showing steady gains. The Soviet Union was straining under the weight of trying to compete with capitalism in an open arms competition and would fail only a year later. From every gauge I use to measure success, it appears that America got an awful lot in return for its three trillion dollar investment.

I truly believe that Ronald Reagan will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents this country had ever had the good fortune to elect. That is, unless the same revisionists that have slandered Thomas Jefferson and Christopher Columbus have the opportunity to re-write his accomplishments as well. Beyond the economic and military legacy he left, I still insist that his greatest gift to this nation was the faith he instilled in us. He spoke from the heart and I can’t remember a time that I had cause to question his words. He was truly, the “Great Communicator”. Is there anyone under the age of forty that doesn’t recall the challenge he shouted out in Berlin? “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” echoed through the hearts and minds of the world. Is there anyone that doubted his sincerity as he eulogized the crew of the ill-fated Challenger spacecraft? For all his critics, was there anyone that has ever doubted his loyalty and love for the United States?

What has changed? I remember when I was a boy, we went to the World’s Fair and the biggest attraction was the “World of Tomorrow”. We clamored for a glimpse into an amazing future and the wonders that technology and innovation promised us. We saw the Space Program grow from a single man perched precariously atop what was in fact, a ballistic missile, to the towering Saturn V rocket that brought America to the moon and back. Movies like “2001 a Space Odyssey” took us to explore the outer planets and Carl Sagan’s documentary “Cosmos” introduced us to the wonders of the Universe. Technological advances had taken the cords off our phones and put the power of computers on our desk tops. To all appearances, the promises of the future were coming true. But what did we give our children?

It began with the television shows of the late 1980’s. As if Hollywood were revolting against Reagan for ruining their vision of utopia as capitalism rebounded and communism fell, the youth were targeted with one show after another. Father didn’t know best anymore, now parents were portrayed as witless idiots while their children kept the family on track. Actually, that began back in the ‘70s but those shows were directed at adults in an attempt to show them the evil of their bigoted and selfish ways. This was different. These were shows for kids, about kids. Then the disaster movies came; the post apocalyptic adventures of Mad Max and Robo-Cop. One film after another that told our young adults that their future would be a barren wasteland in which survival itself, was their only job. Now we have the “environment-gone-wild” movies where the adults have finally destroyed the planet and now mother earth was revolting against us.

No wonder our kids are disillusioned. No wonder they have no interest in school or responsibility. After all, why bother? The earth is doomed and according to the latest big screen calamity, we won’t make it past 2012 anyway. Now they are completing the picture by telling school children that the earth is in peril because of global warming. Oops! I meant Climate Change. Ever since the data has been showing a cooling trend they changed the name or people might actually question the science behind the claims. Why would anyone want to do this to our children?

The only reason I can think of is to complete the work of demoralization that began decades ago. Those misguided students of socialist doctrine that have now become the teachers, still believe that utopia lies just beyond the greed of capitalism. If the youth can be shaped early enough then it isn’t just a thought, it is a core belief; nearly a religion. The climate crisis is being presented to them in such a way that we don’t have the luxury of thinking about what to do. We must follow the only clear path and that is the complete reversal of our industrial society or we face certain doom. I intend to take that apart tomorrow piece by piece but first there is a more pressing need.

Despite everything we are being told, there is hope. Sane and reasonable actions can bring America out of financial crisis but it will take hard work, a lot more Reagan Republicans and solid capitalistic principals. We can ill afford more progressives in our government regardless of whether their names are suffixed with a “D”, an “R” or an “I”. Those principals have already given us a national debt that is about to top twelve-trillion dollars, which is 98% of the GDP. For perspective, the next largest debtor nation is China and their debt is at 23.5% of their GDP. Our greatest challenge is that the progressives in Congress coupled with the Marxists in the White House have placed America up for sale. It is critical that nothing passes this legislative session until the system of checks and balances are safely restored.

Most important is the time you invest with your children. Restore their sense of wonder for the future and encourage a courageous desire to explore the unknown. Give them the knowledge and hope that their future is not written for them but by them. Empower them with free thought and for God’s sake, break down the rote memorization of social doctrine that the left has been brainwashing them with. Be understanding; they have been using our children’s worst fears to obtain their devotion. You must be their “Reagan”. You must give them the hope and faith that Reagan gave you and your words must have the same weight of truth because above all else, that is really what made Reagan the great communicator.

Paul

Real Un-American Activities

With Tea Parties and Conservative programming now being called seditious and un-American, I thought it would be a good time to discuss true un-American activity and its history. With roots established as far back as 1918, The House Un-American Activities Committee has provided the means for Congressional investigations of subversive activities conducted within or against, the United States. The direct precursors to The House Un-American Activities Committee can be found in the Overman Committee of 1918, the Fish Committee of 1930, the Special Committee on Un-American Activities of 1934-1937 and the Special Investigations Committee of 1938-1944.

The Overman Committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary chaired by Senator Lee Slater Overman of North Carolina. The Overman Committee operated from September 1918 to June 1919 and investigated German as well as Bolshevik elements in the United States. Originally tasked with investigation pro-German sentiments in the American liquor industry, the priority shifted after the conclusion of World War One to focus on the affects of Communist Bolshevism in America after the Russian Revolution of 1917. This Committee had a decisive role in constructing an image of a radical threat to America during the First Red Scare.

Similarly, the Fish Committee of 1930 pursued the same interests. NY Congressman Hamilton Fish III, who was a fervent anti-communist, introduced on May 5, 1930, House Resolution 180, which proposed to establish a committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. The resulting committee, commonly known as the Fish Committee, investigated people and organizations suspected of being involved with or supporting communist activities in the United States. Among the committee's targets were the American Civil Liberties Union and communist presidential candidate William Z. Foster. The committee recommended granting the United States Department of Justice more authority to investigate communists, and strengthening of immigration and deportation laws to keep communists out of the United States.

In May 1938, the House Committee on Un-American Activities was established as a special investigating committee. It was chaired by Texas Representative Martin Dies Jr., and therefore known as the Dies Committee. Its work was aimed mostly at German American involvement in Nazi and Ku Klux Klan activity but the committee's chief counsel Ernest Adamson announced that "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe." Instead of the Klan, HUAC concentrated on investigating the possibility that the American Communist Party had infiltrated the Works Progress Administration, including the Federal Theatre Project and the Federal Writers' Project.

Representative Dies, who was a supporter of the New Deal, eventually withdrew his support for FDR’s far reaching social programs in 1937. The Committee fell under attack by members of the Roosevelt administration after their investigations were found to involve child actress Shirley Temple, who was ten years old at the time. The attacks were an intentional misrepresentation of the Committees work since Miss Temple’s name was only mentioned as it had appeared on a list of Hollywood figures that sent greetings to the Communist-owned French newspaper, Ce Soir. Mr. Dies tried to appear before the public to address this deliberate attempt to discredit the Committee but was curiously refused air time by both CBS and NBC as they feared reprisal from the Roosevelt Administration through use of the FCC.

In 1945, The House Un-American Activities Committee became a standing or “permanent” committee. The Un-American Activities Committee has often been mistakenly identified with the anti-communist investigations of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1953-1954. Although the goals were the same where subversive activities were concerned, Senator McCarthy chaired the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and had no direct involvement with The House Un-American Activities Committee.

After the House Un-American Activities Committee achieved status as a permanent committee, it became more focused on Communist subversive activities. Ironically, Democratic Congressman Samuel Dickstein, vice-chairman of the respective committees, would eventually be named in Soviet NKVD (precursor to the KGB) documents as a Soviet agent. Congressmen Dickstein, who had actually assisted in forming this committee to root out German fascists, apparently had not anticipated the change in the targets of committee’s investigations. The allegations remained unproven at that time and Dickstein later served as a Justice on the New York Supreme Court until his death in 1954.

In an interesting development, documents discovered in 1990s in the Moscow archives showed Dickstein was paid $1250 a month from 1937 to early 1940 by the NKVD, the Soviet spy agency, which hoped to get secret Congressional information on anti-Communist and pro-fascist forces. Whether Dickstein provided any intelligence is uncertain and when he left the Committee, the Soviets dropped him from their payroll.

Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion. Through his position as Chairman of The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator McCarthy made numerous claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere.

His subcommittee held 169 hearings throughout 1953 and 1954. Of the 653 people called by the Committee during a 15 month period, 83 refused to answer questions about espionage and subversive activities on constitutional grounds and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, and their names were not made public. Some of the 83 were working or had worked for the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the Government Printing Office, the Treasury Department, the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic Services, and the Veterans Administration. Others were or had been employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratories in New Jersey, the secret radar laboratories of the Army Signal Corps in New Jersey, and General Electric defense plants in Massachusetts and New York.

Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. It is clear that Joe McCarthy faced the same opposition that the House Un-American Activities Committee did but was he wrong?

Recent disclosures point to a Soviet program of demoralization that infused money into key areas of our society to fund groups that would reduce the American resistance to socialist ideals. The Soviets funded labor movements in the 1920’s and ‘30s, which infiltrated the film industry and print news. They also established socialist professors in American universities and funded the anti-war movement against American involvement in Viet Nam.

Periodically, the news is still punctuated with names like Robert Hanson and Aldrich Ames, both if which were convicted of espionage and conspiracy, both of which are currently serving life sentences and both of which were in the employ of the Soviet Union and later, Russia, which serves to prove that this program of demoralization is still being practiced today.

The protests in Pittsburg that erupted into violence at the G20 conference were mostly anti-capitalist factions that acquired their left leaning tilt at the hands of radical professors that are still spreading the disease of socialism. You already know many of the colleges that are famous for this indoctrination by name, such as UCLA Berkeley, Columbia University, Bard College, etc, etc. Just the names invoke a response because the radical teachings in these schools are common knowledge.

Now we have new threats to our society. Since blatant socialism is still met with resistance the new communist social engineers have found a new host to infect; the environmental or “green” movement. Have you noticed that their message has recently changed from fighting pollution to “creating a green economy”? The new environmentalists (Marxist globalists) have presented their earth-saving agenda to the newest generation of indoctrinates with the added urgency that we must do this now or all is lost. What these clandestinely co-opted college students don’t realize is that these plans will do little to improve the environment since they are really crafted to destroy the U.S. economy and food supply; hence, destroying the American citizen’s resistance to socialism as it becomes their only hope for food and warmth.

No, Joe McCarthy isn’t rolling over in his grave and I doubt he would say “I told you so” even if he could. People like Joe McCarthy would have loved nothing more than to have been wrong and to know the nation he loved was safe and sound. If he were alive today he would probably be leading the charge to expose these threats just as he did then. He would be leading the charge to expel those that mean harm to our country not only from the schools, but from all facets of government as well.

Paul

More Tax and Spend But Where Are The Jobs?

So the news these days is that the stock market is rallying after the passage of healthcare and the stimulus bill is finally bringing us out of the recession. Newsweek (or is it News Weak? I never can remember) ran a story recently that America is back; claiming the recession is over. Well, if we are actually recovering from the recession, where are the jobs? The increase we see in the Dow has nothing to do with the stimulus bill and while it is on the rise, it is not because companies are hopeful about healthcare savings but because they are trying to mitigate the negative effects the tax increases will bring in the future.

There are massive new taxes on the way because of the healthcare bill in addition to the increases business will see after the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. Corporations operate under different tax rules than private citizens and are able to shift their losses around to offset earnings where it will provide the most benefit. In fact, corporations can amend previous returns and move losses back three years or use them as far as twenty years into the future to offset future income. That is what we are seeing this year in the Dow. Companies know their taxes will be substantially higher in 2011 and are posting their income in 2010 when the taxes aren’t great, but they aren’t as insane as they will be next year. Once the tax cuts disappear and the new tax impositions from the healthcare bill are in place, the losses and expenses from this year will be used to offset the tax liabilities in 2011 and that will have a drastic effect on the Dow Jones.

Reagan made the same mistake when he took office. He promised tax cuts to rouse the economy but rather than make them immediate, he phased the cuts in, which allowed companies to post losses during the years of higher taxes; biding their time until the tax cuts took affect. Once the tax cuts were in place, the economy soared, ushering in one of the largest peace-time expansions of the GDP in history but before those cuts were actually made, the economy lagged and jobs suffered. Conversely, businesses are now taking advantage of the temporarily lower tax rates knowing that those rates are guaranteed to rise sharply in 2011. Furthermore, business is counting on the November 2010 elections to restore some sanity to government. While the Republicans cannot secure enough seats to repeal healthcare, they can certainly block the funding needed to implement it; stalling the healthcare legislation until 2012 can bring in a new Congress and a new President.

The President can try to put a happy face on the prospects Democrats are facing this election but he knows that a vote for the healthcare bill was a vote for their own retirement. Going into the healthcare vote, Republicans were no more liked than Democrats were but the scandalous way this legislation was forced through Congress against the will of the people has severely damaged the Democrats. While people are not quite sure they can trust Republicans right now, Republicans do have the distinct advantage in not being Democrats. The President has been trying to label Republicans as “the Party of no” but the Democrats have labeled themselves “the Party of sit down and be quiet you silly people”. In the whole grand scheme of things there is an awful lot you can do to Americans before they get truly angry but ignoring them just isn’t an option.

The frightening part about the President’s predicament is that it has fostered another sense of urgency in the White House and now every program and policy the President really wants is going to be desperately rushed in much the same way that TARP, the Stimulus and Healthcare was. Don’t forget that TARP had to be done right then and there or banks were going to fail, throwing America into a new depression. Well, TARP passed and Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke and the President claimed credit for averting financial disaster but isn’t it funny that as soon as executive salaries were capped in the companies that accepted TARP money, those silly companies discovered that they actually did have liquidity and paid the TARP money back as fast as humanly possible. Well, most of them did. Curiously, the only ones that couldn’t pay the taxpayers back, and in fact, still needed more money, were the government’s own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Imagine that!

Then there was the Stimulus Bill. We had to pass that one without thinking about it because joblessness was on the rise and without this critical infusion of money, the unemployment rate would get as high as 8%. Well, we passed that without thinking about it and unemployment climbed above 10% before stagnating at a miserable 9.7%. Recovery.gov still has no idea how much of your money was wasted on frivolous projects like amphibian underpasses so that frogs and salamanders can safely cross the road or funding studies about the drinking habits of Indonesian transgender prostitutes. Billions are listed as being given to Congressional districts that do not exist and since the government cannot say with any accuracy how many (if any) jobs were actually created, the White House has had to claim that the Stimulus Bill saved two million jobs knowing full well there is no way to substantiate a “saved job”.

With the Healthcare Bill we all watched in horror as the legislative process was subverted into a corrupt and underhanded push to pass something nobody wanted. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama all blamed the Republicans for trying to stonewall the legislation when the bare fact is that the resistance that nearly derailed the bill was entirely on the other side of the aisle. Reluctant Democrats had to be bullied, threatened and bought off just to get the votes they needed to push this through. Once Scott Brown had been elected to the Senate, it was thought that the bill would finally die the death it deserved but the Senate Bill was taken behind closed doors once more where Pelosi and Obama abused House Democrats. They would use the same tactics Harry Reid used, forcing them to vote for the Senate Bill so they could ram it through under reconciliation; requiring only a simple majority in the Senate, effectively negating Scott Brown’s vote.

Now that the healthcare bill has passed all the nasty little details are emerging. The Medicare cuts, the tax increases and the admission by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, that the healthcare bill is designed to “correct a mal-distribution” of wealth in America. For those of us that warned about the redistributive goals of the bill, a healthy “told you so” might certainly be warranted but what good would that do now? Then there are the unintended consequences to deal with. America’s largest corporations are reporting that they will loose hundreds of millions in profits because of the healthcare bill; something that Henry Waxman fumed over, demanding that these companies appear before his committee and explain themselves. Waxman claimed that a report prepared prior to the passage of the bill said these companies would see a decrease in healthcare costs amounting to roughly three-thousand dollars per employee and he insisted upon knowing why they were not taking those savings into consideration. As it turns out, the report to which Henry Waxman was referring had nothing to do with the Senate healthcare bill and was based on a limited and incremental approach to healthcare reform similar to what the Republicans had proposed.

I suppose the funniest story came out last week when the Congress found out that the healthcare bill they all told us they read contained a little secret none of them knew about. Unless they act to correct the bill, Congress and their staff members are all going to lose their health insurance and will be forced into the exchange market. The only problem for them is that the way the law is written, they must lose the insurance now and the market they have to purchase from won’t even exist until 2014.

Despite the President’s promise that jobs are going to be his priority in the coming year his next race to get something past the Senate is on the financial reform bill. This bill places drastic and dangerous limits on American financial institutions placing them at a severe disadvantage when competing against foreign banks that are curiously not mentioned in this “much needed” reform bill. Even though Harry Reid said it may not be possible in an election year, the President insists that immigration reform is right behind his Financial Reform Bill. Also tucking into the White House fast track to destroy the country is the infamous Cap and Trade massive energy tax. The Senate is threatening to unveil their copy of that scam as early as the end of next week. So I have to ask the same question I started this article with….Where are the jobs?

Paul

Target 2010 - Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Henry Waxman is one of the more nefarious members of Congress and poses a greater threat than most because of his seniority as a thirty-five year veteran of Congress. His political ideology and voting record are currently rated between 85 and 100% by a whole host of Progressive and Leftist political organizations but of course, that should come as no surprise. Anyone that has followed Waxman’s career has seen that time and time again, Waxman has openly displayed a real love for political activism and Socialist principals. He champions many of his causes with a hard core belief that government must act for the good of the people, even if those actions are unpopular and stretch the very fabric of the Constitution. Curiously, as he claims to speak for the public, much of the legislative action that Waxman is famous (or infamous) for, necessarily requires a degree of government control over the people that is clearly beyond the lawful limits decreed by the enumerated powers of the United States Constitution.

Many Progressives are drawn to the study of Political Science and Law to facilitate their ideology and Waxman was no different. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a Degree in Law from UCLA Law School. Anyone that has been alive for the past forty years knows who UCLA is and what they represent. They have been one of the centers of Progressive ideology for decades and their halls and buildings are clogged with openly Socialist professors and educational programs. Many of those professors actively pursue the indoctrination of their students until they are drawn into a zombie-like belief of what is now called, social and economic “justice”. The curious thing about this brand of justice is that it unapologetically advocates stomping on the rights, freedoms and possessions of some, to provide a subsistence level, government funded existence for others. I was raised to believe that the redistribution of wealth is not justice; it is Socialism but then again, I didn’t go to UCLA. In the end, I think the only thing UCLA excels in is providing future Progressives with a lexicon of new and less threatening words they can use to sell Marxist principals to an unsuspecting nation.

It is clear that Waxman drank the “Kool-Aid” while he was in UCLA because he is one of the most far left leaning Progressives in Congress and second only to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that is an admitted Socialist. Waxman pushed for crushing legislation against the tobacco industry and was instrumental in the House passage of many anti-smoking legislative packages that included the imposition of heavier “sin” taxes for tobacco products. I know there aren’t many people that think that smoking is a good thing, including me. It is a nasty, filthy habit but in reading the Constitution, it should remain a nasty, filthy personal choice because there is no way to tax smokers into submission without inflicting grave damage on the Constitution.

Taxation was never meant to regulate behavior and the imposition of those specific taxes is a direct assault on the Ninth Amendment affirmation that the general public has more rights than those that are specifically stated in the Constitution. It also flies in the face of Article One, Section Eight (The Powers of Congress) which states clearly that taxes are to be collected only to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States and that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. There is nothing uniform about a tax on one consumable item that is not levied on all of them and there is no compelling argument that the Congress has the right to impose a tax that exceeds the criteria of Article One, Section Eight to encourage or dissuade behavior. The Constitutional issues with Waxman’s urge to ignore personal freedoms for our own good have been argued six ways from Sunday and I doubt little progress will be made on that unless we can establish a list of definitions that clearly state the intentions of the law as it was written by the founding fathers.

Laying taxes aside for the moment, Waxman is quoted as saying something far more dangerous to a nation of free people. Henry Waxman said "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” One must first recognize that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because it was the only way to guarantee that the rest of our rights would remain inviolate at the hands of the Federal government. The founders did not trust a strong central government and recognized that a limited government would only remain limited for as long as the people maintained the ability to “keep them honest”; by force if needed.

I submit to you that the only people that would be nervous about American citizens that would use weapons in the defense of their rights are the people that intend to deny those rights in the first place. The Progressive movement seeks to replace the Free Market with a government based on Socialist principals and it is well known that the first impediment to this “Progressive Transformation” is the uninhibited private ownership of weapons. As such, the first assault on our rights must have the affect of nullifying the Second Amendment before they can move with impunity to tamper with any of the rest. I don’t think it’s any great mystery that Henry Waxman is a devoted advocate of strict gun regulation. For those that think gun registration and licensing is a benign action that promotes safety; don’t forget that every government that made radical changes towards Socialism used those very registration and licensing records to zero in on gun owners when the confiscation of weapons finally began.

Henry Waxman is currently Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which is an extremely powerful position and Waxman has used that position to nudge the country closer to the hidden goals of the Progressive movement than at any time in our history. In many ways, Henry Waxman was the muscle behind Nancy Pelosi when it came to extorting the votes they needed for the Healthcare Bill from reluctant Democrats. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, there are matters taken up before his Committee that can direct billions in funding to the States of Congressmen willing to cast the “right” vote and those same Congressmen could see projects and special funding dry up and blow away if their votes weren’t in line with the demands of the House leadership.

Of course, those deals are never discussed openly on the floor of Congress but you can bet that language favoring Congressmen that sold their votes behind closed doors has already been slipped into Bills totally unrelated to Healthcare so the trail to connect the bribes to the votes would be difficult, at best, to follow. The justification for this can be found in the open admission by the Democratic leadership is that this is the way business in Washington is done. It doesn’t really matter if Candidate Obama campaigned on a new era of transparency and honesty in government, Obama is President now and he made it very clear during the healthcare summit that the campaign is over.

Henry Waxman used every power at his disposal to move the healthcare bill forward and now he is already positioning himself to do the same for the comprehensive Energy Bill otherwise known as Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is his bill and is even more intrusive and fiscally irresponsible than the Healthcare Bill. Through the smart grid, smart meters and compliant appliances, the government will have the ability to reach into your home and regulate how long your appliances run and how much you will pay to run them. The regulation of CO2 is not actually meant to curb climate change. It is meant to provide a vast new source of revenue for redistribution, bringing us even closer to a Socialist State. Just as in smoking, if the government were serious about reducing CO2, they wouldn’t simply charge you a fee to produce it or to use it; they would actually regulate it with goals for reduction.

Waxman is a vicious little troll that has been in Congress long enough to believe that he is a member of the ruling class instead of just another United States citizen elected to represent his constituents. As with most Progressives, Waxman has forgotten his responsibility to his district and to the Constitution. You can always spot the Congressmen that have been there way too long. They are the ones that think the Constitution is a hurdle to be jumped or a challenge to be overcome. Unfortunately, Henry represents an area that doesn’t pose much difficulty for his reelection but I still have faith. I think this year exposed career politicians for what they really are and that is the polar opposite of the founder’s intention of having a citizen legislature. You can’t stay in Washington for thirty-five years and pretend you have the first idea about what your constituents expect from their government. The biggest favor anyone can do for Henry Waxman is to send him home so he can get reacquainted with the human race.

Paul

Target 2010 - James Oberstar (D-MN)

In preparation for the 2010 election, I am preparing a weekly series to expose those members of Congress that are deserving of special attention this election year. To open this series I have selected Representative James Oberstar (D-MN). James Oberstar is another career politician that has made a mockery of his office and has spent the last thirty years doing everything possible to add to the deficit and debt that countless generations of Americans will have to repay.

Of course, as a member of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, one would hardly expect that Jim would be a fiscal conservative. In fact, there isn’t a tax he doesn’t like as long as it’s progressive enough to buy all the votes he needs through massive social spending. While Oberstar is not a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, his affiliation with the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party provides him with enough ownership of the increasingly disturbing title of “Progressive” as the Party most comfortably identifies itself with a Liberal / Progressive ideology. There are several members of Congress that are members of the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, most notably, the recently elected Progressive screw-ball Al Franken.

The Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, or “DFL”, was born after the 1944 merger between the MN Democratic Party and the Farmer Labor Party. The Farmer Labor Party was part of Minnesota’s political landscape since 1918 and was a direct descendent of America’s passing interest with Communism and Socialism at the turn of the century. Most of America eventually grew up and realized that these ideologies were wholly un-American while others, like members of the Farmer Labor Party, took their Socialist leanings underground until they could safely reemerge as Liberals. Of course, they quickly tarnished the name of Liberalism, which forced them to eventually adopt the name of Progressive. During the formation of the Farmers Labor Party, they were politically aligned with American Socialists and American Communists until they decided to break ties with any group that would plot to overthrow the United States through violence and that was the good news. The bad news is that the DFL is closely modeled after the British Labour Party and to bring about the collapse of the Republic using our own laws against us is clearly something they can live with.

My most notable opposition to James Oberstar has to do with his decision to change his vote and support the current healthcare bill being forced through the House of Representatives. Mr. Oberstar sold himself as a pro-life Democrat. Of course now that the bill was in jeopardy, his Progressive (Socialist) spots have shown through and he is willing to turn his back on something that is very important to his constituents in order to help Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi take the first step towards to socialization of America’s healthcare system.

Oberstar refused to vote for the first bill that passed through the house until the Stupak Amendment provided an iron clad guarantee that Federal funds could never be used for abortion, upholding a long standing belief and principal of most Americans. Even Pro-choice Democrats have no problem with banning the use of Federal funds for abortion as long as abortion would remain a choice that people could make as their conscience dictated. Of course we know the Senate rejected the House bill as well as the Stupak Amendment, crafting their own bill under the leadership of Max Baucus in the Senate Finance Committee. It was almost guaranteed that the block of pro-life Democrats in the House would reject the Senate Bill unless there were guarantees that the prohibition of Federal funds for abortion would be promised in a resolution conference; a promise the Senate will not make and a majority of the House Progressives don’t want.

Instead of standing by his principals, Jim Oberstar sold his vote to Nancy Pelosi. Of course, after all the controversy surrounding the “Cornhusker Kickback”, the “Louisiana Purchase” and “Gator-aid” that benefited no one but Nebraska, Louisiana and Florida; nothing quite as controversial would be advertised this time. I predict that once the bill is passed, we will see huge sums of that unspent stimulus money make its way into Minnesota and a few other States that happen to be represented by Congressmen that had one of those crucial, last minute changes of heart to finally support the bill. Why else would so much of that critically important stimulus money still be sitting around? Unfortunately for this gang of thieves, we will be watching this time and will connect the dots as they appear.

Jim Oberstar did something far worse than prostitute himself for some undisclosed, undercover bit of Federal funding. Oberstar sold his integrity. His constituents did not want this bill and they especially did not want their tax money paying for abortions. He promised them he wouldn’t vote for a bill that would help fund abortion and now he will have to answer to them. The biggest problem with selling your principals is what can you run on after that? Can you ask the voters to trust you when you can’t even be trusted with your own convictions? Can you claim to be an honest man when haven’t even been true to yourself? Can you look your constituents in the eye when you now find it hard to look in the mirror?

This goes beyond anything the Federal government has ever done and Jim Oberstar knows it. For the first time in the history of this nation, people will be forced to pay taxes knowing that their money will be used to fund something that many of them not only find morally reprehensible but forbidden by their faith. How can Congress claim to abide by our First Amendment protection of Religious freedom and then force people to violate their own religious principals by knowingly funding abortion? It might be easy for Jim Oberstar to sell his soul but what about his fellow Minnesotans? What about his countrymen?

America is a Republic; a representative government, but it is becoming increasingly clear that what is being represented in Washington is not the will of the people or the voice of the majority. What is being represented is the ideology of a small but powerful group of Progressive radicals that will stop at nothing to transform our nation into the latest “Socialist Utopia”. Oh sure, Progressives don’t actually say “Socialism” because they know freedom loving Americans will reject that. They use carefully crafted code words designed to make people feel good about change like “social justice”. After all, what American would oppose justice? Superman was for justice…even Underdog was for justice! But social justice is different. Social justice is nothing more than stealing from the responsible to help pay for the irresponsible.

Progressives also love to talk about a “truly Democratic Society”. Again, most Americans confuse democracy with freedom and there are quite a few that are not even sure what a Republic is let alone that America is one. Democracy is a society where everything is decided by a direct vote. There are no representatives because none are needed. On the surface, that sounds awesome but Progressives know that only a Democracy can elect a dictator. Think about all of the “Democracies” around the globe like Communist China; the Soviet Union; Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; Ahmadinejad’s Iran and Chavez’s Venezuela. "Truly Democratic Societies" really aren't worth a damn because the ruling party first decides who and what is on the ballot and then controls the counting of the votes.

Mr. Oberstar has brought us one step closer to Socialism and has emboldened the people that want to bring us seven dollar gasoline, five hundred dollar electric bills and a "truly democratic society". This is only the beginning because once this is passed they will move on to energy, housing, food, etc. The goal of the Progressive movement is total control because they can provide nothing for the masses unless the individual surrenders control.

Paul

The Socialist Threat in America

While I feel that the Progressive movement is the real enemy of freedom, I am not blind to the efforts of radical Socialists and Communists that are sadly on the rise again. I supposed it is inevitable that these groups spring up whenever there are economic difficulties and it’s probably our own fault for tolerating their nonsensical diatribe. The First Amendment guarantees their right to speak out and I would not risk damaging the bill of rights simply because I think their message is ridiculous but I am perplexed that their message actually reaches more than the few unwashed screwballs in their own little group.

The Socialist movement claims to be the harbinger of true democracy; a workers utopia where everyone is equal and everyone shares the wealth. Uh yeah… Similar promises were made by the Bolsheviks prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917 but once the rule of Czar Nicholas II was brought to a bloody and violent end, the utopia never appeared. The oppressive government of the Czar was replaced by a violent mob that terrorized and murdered millions of Russia’s citizens. The Russian people were powerless in the face of this brutal regime because as soon as the loyal resistance had been broken, the Bolsheviks seized control of the press, weapons and industry. They moved swiftly against any opposition and millions were swept away in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again.

Russia is not an isolated incident. Anywhere that Socialists and Communists have assumed power, similar atrocities were committed. The left loves to equate Nazi Germany and Hitler with rigid Conservatism but anyone that has ever bothered to pick up a history book can quickly refute this claim. Nazis were “National Socialists”, not unrestrained Conservatives. Hitler openly admitted that the goals of the Nazi Party were in line with that of the Socialist movement but he did not want Germany to become part of some Bolshevik empire. He believed in a Socialism dominated by Germany, not Russia because he also believed in racial superiority and that the Russian people, among others, were genetically inferior.

While Hitler’s Nazis were directly responsible for the death of six million Jews through his mission of ethnic cleansing, it is dangerous to assume that non-Jews were safe. Although few hard facts have been found, it is estimated that Nazis killed five million gentiles of all faiths before the end of the war in 1945. Any opposition to Hitler’s power or programs was neatly eliminated in much the same way as the Bolsheviks disposed of their dissenters.

Italy’s Benito Mussolini was a little more civilized and simply shipped his problems into exile on small islands off the coast of Italy. Thousands of Italians died during their internment and while some were executed, the majority of the fatalities were from hunger and neglect. Once again, the left loves to equate Mussolini with the right wing because of his leadership within the National Fascist Party. Why Fascism is even mentioned in the same breath as Conservatism is beyond me and an examination of Fascism and Mussolini draws far more parallels with Socialism.

Mussolini spent his early life studying the radical philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, socio-economist Vilfredo Pareto and French Marxist Charles Péguy. While living in Switzerland, Mussolini met some of the Russian political exiles living there, including the Marxists Angelica Balabanoff, and Vladimir Lenin. Although Mussolini joined the Marxist Socialist movement at that time, it was the merging of all these radical schools of thought that aided Mussolini in the creation of Fascism. While he publically opposed Socialism and Communism, so close were Mussolini’s ties to Socialist labor groups that it was the economic disaster brought on by massive strikes and demonstrations in Italy that forced King Victor Emmanuel III to appoint Mussolini as his Prime Minister, replacing Luigi Facta. That appointment would later be considered a political coup d’état as Mussolini and his Black Shirts accumulated more power, eventually replacing the Parliamentary Republic with National Fascism.

I find it particularly disturbing that so many Progressives have an obsessive admiration of China’s Mao Zedong. Zedong’s revolution killed over seventy-million Chinese in his sweep to seize total power making him one of histories most ruthless and deadly dictators. Of course the Progressives saw this as a necessary evil and the ends would justify the means as Zedong brought social justice to the masses of China. Social justice is one of those “catch-all” phrases used by the far left to rationalize nearly anything. It doesn’t matter that the lives of the Chinese people are no better now than they were then as long as there are none of those horrible rich people around to show the poor how poor they really are. In a Socialist economy there can be no expansion so there is no hope of elevating the poor out of poverty. The best you can hope to accomplish is to make everyone universally poor. Instead of the injustice of having some feast while others starve; now there is fair and balanced hunger for all. Of course now that the new ruling party had dominated the nation, the angry mobs that brought them into power on the promise of shared wealth are silenced with brutal retribution for any show of dissent.

Jed Brandt of the Brecht Forum is an angry Socialist that would prefer that the United States collapse so they can usher in their own “workers utopia”. I imagine that he believes the historical devastation wrought by forming Socialist governments against their own people couldn’t possibly happen here. Really? Listen to his speech and even that is filled with the same hate and venom as every one of his predecessors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDnF8xHhRgo

Then there is SEIU President Andy Stern; a little more refined but still as dangerous. Sort of like the difference between Hitler and Mussolini. Andy is not ashamed to quote directly from the Communist Manifesto during interviews were he says that “Workers of the world, unite” is no longer a phrase but how SEIU must do their work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzG0xpkjWrA

Stern has gone as far as saying that they will try to use the power of persuasion to achieve their agenda but if that fails they are willing to use “the persuasion of power”. That was evidenced last year during the town hall meetings and Tea Party events where SEIU and MoveOn.org members violently retaliated against people opposed to Obama’s healthcare plan. Of course neither group accepted the responsibility for that saying that these were isolated incidents and individual acts that were not encouraged by their respective organizations. Historically, there was no “official” encouragement in the violence perpetrated against Jews in pre-war Germany or in pre-revolutionary Russia, but looking the other way is not exactly a rebuke either. It would be years before the truth about those attacks was learned and the fact that they were the product of secret policies of both governments would eventually be revealed.

Curiously, as Jed Brandt and the Brecht Forum spew their hateful venom at the United States, they still have active support in the strangest places. New York State, a State that is more than fifty-billion dollars in debt, sees fit to provide support funding for the Brecht Forum through the New York State Arts Council. While NY did not supply a lot of money for this radical rat’s nest, it still flies in the face of reason. I support Mr. Brandt’s First Amendment right to speak even if I completely disagree with the message. However, the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to be heard and there is no mandate to provide any material assistance to insure opposing messages have a publically funded forum. The Brecht Forum has some interesting followers too. There are links to organizations and media outlets contained on the Brecht Forum’s web page and some of those links are all too predictable such as Van Jones’s “Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Andy Stern’s SEIU and even the AFL-CIO.

http://brechtforum.org/taxonomy/term/50?page=1

http://brechtforum.org/taxonomy/term/50?page=2

http://brechtforum.org/taxonomy/term/50?page=3

Don’t forget that Progressives love Socialist radicals. They can always be counted on to provide our sneaky left wing politicians with a crisis or two that will help propel the Progressive agenda forward. Remember that their ultimate destination is the same and the only difference between the two is whether or not you want to hop a flight or take a leisurely drive to get their.

Paul

Is Heathcare Reform a Bolshevik Plot?

I was watching video of the speech the President gave on the economy that sparked his argument with Las Vegas. He began by saying “When times are tough, you tighten your belt. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.” I’m not sure why Las Vegas was so upset with that. I’m sure even the Mayor of Las Vegas would agree you spend vacation money in Las Vegas and not your kid’s college savings; but my interest really isn’t on his fight with Vegas. My interest is in the idea behind that paragraph and how it was directed at the American people.

The United States now has a National Debt of over twelve trillion dollars and the White House’s own budget estimate shows a doubling of that debt over the next decade. When times are tough, you tighten your belt, you don’t jump into an ideological frenzy to pass sweeping reforms that will change the banking, healthcare and energy industries; especially when those changes will add trillions more in debt to the current estimates. Oh sure the CBO says the healthcare plan is budget neutral and the President claims it actually brings deficit reduction, but the CBO estimates are based on ten years of spending cuts and tax increases while only counting six years of expenditures. Great idea! I’m sure I could show some incredible savings if I could collect ten years worth of income and only pay six years worth of bills but I doubt I could sell that idea to the utilities, the supermarket or my mortgage company.

The primary reason why America is not buying the President’s healthcare plan is because we know it doesn’t make sense. We see past the shady accounting and know it’s not going to reduce the deficit. We know you cannot provide health insurance for thirty million more Americans, most of which would need subsidies, and still lower healthcare costs. We especially know that you can’t mandate new and expensive benefits that health insurers will have to provide, cap their rate increases and expect them to remain in business for very long. No, it doesn’t make sense unless that is the goal. It is no secret that Progressives have long wanted America to shift to a single payer, Universal healthcare system. Now it has even become an imperative for more moderate politicians as Medicare and Medicaid are about to bankrupt the Federal government. It is especially appetizing for States that have tried to enact public health insurance on their own like Massachusetts, Tennessee and Oregon.

No, healthcare reform isn’t about making health insurance more affordable for average Americans; it is about making healthcare more affordable for the Federal government and for the States that have tried to make it a local entitlement. While we are not currently discussing a Universal, single payer healthcare system or for that matter, a public option; this plan is crafted to bring us to that point in time. As health care insurers are driven out of business, the Federal government will “have to” step in and offer a public option to shore up the exchange. Of course, since the public option is the only one that will be federally funded, it will be the only one that survives the mandates and price controls leaving us with a single payer system by default. With all Americans forced to buy into the government plan every penny that America spends on healthcare will be funneled into the Federal entitlement machine for distribution. With all that money I’ll bet they can keep the new system afloat for twenty years before they have to start rationing care or denying services.

I am sick to death of hearing the President and his Progressive friends talk about how health care is now a right. Food is a far more basic need but somehow, we are not all being forced to buy into a government food plan. The same can be said for clothes, housing and utilities but somehow we have avoided all but meager assistance programs for the very poorest. If you live in a rural community without mass transit, couldn’t a car be considered a basic need and therefore, a right? I am dead set against the Federal government, or any government providing “rights” for me. The Constitution was not meant to provide my rights; it was meant to protect my rights from government interference. The founders understood that any rights created by law could be as easily taken away by the same legal process.

The President stood before the cameras at his January meeting with Congressional Republicans, criticizing them for portraying his health-care plan as “some Bolshevik plot” and telling the public that he is “doing all sorts of crazy stuff that is going to destroy America.” Obama also refutes the charges that he is a Socialist but the one thing I’ve learned about the man is that he is not so much a liar as he tells selective snippets of the truth. For instance; just before the election he declared that we were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States.” While some would think that this was simply campaign rhetoric, I knew that he not only meant what he was saying but since he never mentioned his views of “fundamental transformation”, people would not be getting what they thought they were voting for. Never having mentioned what the transformation would consist of, he neatly avoided a debate on the substance of change.

I believe Obama when he stands tall and says he’s not a Socialist and that his healthcare plan is not a Bolshevik plot. Obama is a Progressive but if you have read anything about Progressive goals, they are identical to that of Socialists. The major difference between Socialists and Progressives is that Socialists force change through revolution while Progressives use subterfuge and strategy to bring about an incremental, evolutionary change in the political structure. If the strategy is properly applied, the changes cannot be reversed without causing severe hardship to those who benefit from the programs; creating what is in essence, a sacred cow that no politician would dare challenge. Does that sound like Social Security or Medicare? You bet it does. The transformation of those programs into the leviathan they now are was gradual and intentional. Now that so many rely on them there can be no conversation on whether or not they should exist. The only conversation we are allowed to have is on how to sustain them.

Healthcare a Bolshevik plot? This was a clever method of defining and directing the argument by the President. He didn’t deny it was a plot; he intentionally said it wasn’t a Bolshevik plot knowing that Stalin had essentially declared that the Bolshevik Party no longer existed in 1952. It’s not even a Communist plot. It is a Progressive plot based on the strategies of Saul Alinsky. In Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” he cautioned that revolutionaries don’t stand out and scream about their plans…they wear suits and ties, speaking in a voice and in terms that would be accepted by the middle class. They don’t engage in a battle over agenda, they control the terms of the discussion so they can extract the answers they need to move forward. Most importantly, that the end goals are never disclosed, only the incremental steps that must be accepted by the public to achieve those goals. You have to admit; that sounds like a brief summary of the healthcare debate that has been raging for over a year.

Only the radical lefts like Van Jones, George Soros, Bill Ayers and Andy Stern have been shouting from the roof tops. They feel the time for extreme change is now; that the President should abandon Alinsky theory and force the agenda through while he has the votes and momentum to get it passed. They all know what the goal posts are and since the Democratic Party is already controlled by Progressives, they believe the President should forget about making short strides and just go for the touchdown before America has the chance to elect the road blocks to stop it.

Paul

The Fall of the Roman Empire - Is America Taking the Same Path?

In the two hundred years since the American Revolution was fought and won, our country has gone from a band of rebellious colonial upstarts that defeated British rule in 1781 to becoming the world’s last remaining Superpower by the 1990’s. As remarkable as that story is it will pale in comparison to the story of our current race to commit national suicide. While the Progressives began their assault on the Constitution over a hundred years ago, the decline of America really began to accelerate twenty years ago and we are now challenged with making the decisions that will either restore America to sanity and prosperity or will complete the destruction. The day of reckoning is here and we can no longer delay the choices. The big question is what choice will we make?

One would think we would turn to history for some insights. After all, history is replete with examples of other societies and civilizations that were faced with similar challenges. Most chose poorly and as a result, we now study the ruins they left behind; examining the documented history of how their choices collapsed their society. One perfect example is the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire had its roots in a small agricultural community on the Italian peninsula. The legends claim that twin brothers, descended from a Trojan Prince, founded the City of Rome in 753 BC. The brothers, Romulus and Remus were purportedly conceived when Mars, the God of war, raped a vestal virgin named Rea Silvia who gave birth to the twins. Because Romulus and Remus were fathered by the God of war, they were considered half divine. As the story goes, their Grandfather and King of Alba Longa, Numitor, was deposed by his rival Amulius. Fearing the twins would recapture the throne, Amulius ordered them drown. A she-wolf would save the boys from death and raise them. Once grown, Romulus and Remus returned to Alba Longa and restored Numitor to the throne before departing to found their own city. In a dispute over who would rule the new city, Romulus killed his brother and assumed the crown. Now that his throne was secured, the City would be named Rome in honor of its king, Romulus.

For the following two hundred and fifty years, Rome would prosper as a Monarchy led by seven successive Kings. Just as the American colonists revolted against the British crown, Rome revolted against King Lucius Tarquinius Superbus in 509 BC. Superbus was noted in history as a tyrannical dictator but revulsion turned into open revolution after Superbus’s son, Sextus Tarquinius, raped Lucretia, who was an important noblewoman in the Kingdom. The people of Rome succeeded in their revolt and deposed the tyrannical King, replacing the Monarchy with an Oligarchic Republic.

The Roman Republic was a system based on annually elected magistrates and various representative assemblies was established. A constitution set a series of checks and balances, and a separation of powers. The most important magistrates were the two consuls, who together exercised executive authority through the imperium, or military command. The consuls had to work with the senate, which was initially an advisory council of the ranking nobility, or patricians, but grew in size and power over time. While there are many differences between the Roman Republic and America, there are also a number of parallels, particularly in the forces that worked against the Republic.

See if this sounds familiar? Violent gangs of the urban unemployed, controlled by rival Senators, intimidated the electorate through violence. The situation came to a head in the late 2nd century BC under the Gracchi brothers, a pair of tribunes who attempted to pass land reform legislation that would redistribute the major patrician landholdings among the plebeians or working class. Both brothers were killed, but the Senate passed some of their reforms in an attempt to placate the growing unrest of the plebeian and equestrian classes.

Curiously, that sounds like our own radical fringe that would eventually become today’s “Community Organizers”. Rome’s community organizers also had their sympathetic Senators that brought about reforms to redistribute Roman wealth with land instead of cash. Just as today, the sympathetic Roman Senators forced the rest of the Senate to pass some of these reforms just to prevent civil unrest. It almost sounds as if the Gracchi brothers were the ancient equivalent of Cloward and Pivens that proposed the poor work to overwhelm the system and punctuate those efforts with threats of violence in order to bring about social justice. Rome’s sympathetic Senators could quite easily be paralleled with today’s Progressives in Congress on their quest for redistributive policies.

To continue; the Republic grew through a series of wars, allowing Rome to occupy much of the Italian peninsula. Of course with growth comes power and with power comes corruption. In the mid-1st century BC, three men, Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, formed a secret pact—the First Triumvirate—to control the Republic. After Caesar's conquest of Gaul, a stand-off between Caesar and the Senate led to civil war, with Pompey leading the Senate's forces. Caesar emerged victorious, and was made dictator for life. While we haven’t had a dictator assume power in the United States, it is a well known fact that we came very close to just that in the early days of Franklin Roosevelt’s Presidency when there was a secret pact among the Democratic hierarchy that actually urged FDR to assume dictatorial powers to combat the depression. Fortunately, that never happened and the Constitution survived both the depression and FDR.

The Roman Republic however, would not survive. Caesar was assassinated in the 44 BC attempted Senate coup to restore Constitutional government. The aftermath created a Second Triumvirate, consisting of Caesar's designated heir, Octavian, and his former supporters, Mark Antony and Lepidus that took power. However, this alliance soon descended into a struggle for dominance. Lepidus was exiled, and when Octavian defeated Antony and Cleopatra of Egypt at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, he became the undisputed ruler of Rome.

Rome under the absolute rule of Octavian and his successors would become a vast Empire and eventually ruled over two and a half million square miles of the ancient world. The Empire dominated the entire Mediterranean coast including northern Africa, most of the European continent and even most of the British Isle. Of course the Roman economy was only an illusion that relied on a steady flow of loot from its wars of conquest and the taxes collected in the occupied territories. Hmm? That sounds like the illusion of our own economy. Instead of tribute collected from conquered lands our government spends borrowed money on the promise that future generations will somehow find a way to pay for the debt. The problem with economies based on conquest or credit is that they both ignore the hard work needed to sustain the spending and are therefore, both doomed to fail. Rome took all there was to take and by the time captured cash stopped pouring into Rome, the Roman people had forgotten what it meant to work for themselves and that sounds familiar too. Even more familiar are the chief causes listed for the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor
Decline in Morals
Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard
Fast expansion of the Empire
Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending
Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics
Failing Economy
Unemployment of the Working Classes (The Plebs)
The 'Mob' and the cost of the 'Games'
Decline in Ethics and Values
Slave Labor
Natural Disasters
Christianity
Barbarian Invasion

Tomorrow we will discuss the causes for the fall of the Roman Empire and how our society is now enganged in the modern equivalent of many of the same things.

Paul

Who is Saul Alinsky?

MSNBC’s Chris Mathews calls him “one of our heroes from the past”; Barack Obama taught his theories in college; Hillary Clinton even wrote her college thesis about him. So who is Saul Alinsky and why should we be suspect of anyone that doesn’t grimace at the mention of his name?

Saul Alinsky was born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, and while he never had clear associations to any political party but instead, as Alinsky biographer David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left. Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration familiar to anyone that lived through the 1960s.

His tactics have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. Alinsky, in essence, created a blueprint for revolution under the banner of "social change" that is the main underpinning for modern Progressives. His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results” which is little more than a rewording of the Marxist doctrine that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky studied criminology as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, during which time he became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters. Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, offers a glimpse into Alinsky’s personality: “Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories -- some true, many embellished -- from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look and thick, horn-rimmed glasses.

According to Lizza: "Alinsky was deeply influenced by the great social science insight of his times, one developed by his professors at Chicago: that the pathologies of the urban poor were not hereditary but environmental. This idea, that people could change their lives by changing their surroundings, led him to take an obscure social science phrase—‘the community organization’--and turn it into, in the words of Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, ‘something controversial, important, even romantic.’ His starting point was a near-fascination with John L. Lewis, the great labor leader and founder of the CIO. What if, Alinsky wondered, the same hardheaded tactics used by unions could be applied to the relationship between citizens and public officials?"

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop his concept of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he gained notoriety as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom) which only lends credence to the notion that the ultimate goal of Progressives is the globalization of politics and the unification of the world under a single, socialist style government.

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a cleaner, less threatening word for “revolution”. Not just any revolution but a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is a systematic cultivation of power by a supposedly oppressed segment of the population and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. Isn’t it curious that Barack Obama chose the phrase that we were “five days away from fundamentally changing the United States” just before the 2008 election?

The goal, according to Alinsky, is to create enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted; a revolution whose foot soldiers view America’s Capitalist system as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than the current system’s complete collapse which would be followed by an entirely new system built upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. Can you think of any “charismatic radical organizers that profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed”? Naw….Obama just said he’s not an ideologue so that must be strictly coincidence….right?

We are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations (like ACORN?) to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world … This means revolution.”

Alinsky did not mean the sweeping upheaval as was witnessed in 1917 Russia but instead, viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin who viewed the demoralization and eventual collapse of the West as best accomplished through a “Trojan Horse” tactic; rotting the mighty oak of Capitalism with a disease from within.

Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care when they first unveil their particular crusade for “change,” not to alienate the middle class with any type of defiant demeanor or menacing appearances that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions. Alinsky added, “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism; They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.” While his ultimate goal was nothing less than the “radicalization of the middle class,” Alinsky stressed the importance of “learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse.”

Alinsky taught that the organizer’s first task was to make people feel that they were wise enough to diagnose their own problems, find their own solutions, and determine their own destinies.

Alinsky explained, the organizer must employ such techniques as the artful use of “loaded questions designed to elicit particular responses and to steer the organization’s decision-making process in the direction which the organizer prefers. “Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly!”; but to Alinsky, it was manipulation toward a desirable end: “If the common man had a chance to feel that he could direct his own efforts … that to a certain extent there was a destiny that he could do something about, that there was a dream that he could keep fighting for, then life would be wonderful living.

Alinsky viewed the role of the organizer as supremely important; a master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization. “The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God. Perhaps that explains the unbelievable statement Obama made during a campaign stop when he said that people would have an epiphany; that a light will descend upon on them and tell them that they must vote for Barack Obama.

I could go on for a week and still not be through with Alinsky but there is enough here to spell out who he was, what he believed in and the incredible parallels to the actions and words of Barack Obama. There are reams of information out there on Alinsky not to mention his books and writings that can complete the picture far better than I can. One thing I will add is that you must always remember that this man; this unapologetic radical, is the man that Barack Obama emulates; Hillary Clinton studied and Chris Mathews worships. If you do forget this, you forget not at your own peril, but at the peril of our nation.

Paul

The State of Confusion Address

The President took to the air last night to deliver his State of the Union Address after a day filled with one prediction after another of what this critical speech will contain. Obama is in a very difficult position as he enters his second year in office. The antics of his administration and Congressional Democrats have isolated him from Republicans, moderate Democrats and independents alike; his failure to deliver the most radical portions of his agenda have the far left nearly as angry with Obama as they were with Bush and the hundreds of billions he spent for “economic recovery” have not prevented the loss of an additional three million jobs since the Stimulus Bill was signed into law.

The dramatic losses for Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts have so far managed to quiet the biggest (the pun is definitely intended) loud mouth in the pro-Obama arsenal, Bob Beckel. Beckel, who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Carter administration and a vociferous supporter of Obama as well as every bit of this administration’s most radical proposals. There is no government program or tax hike that could be too big for Beckel and even after Corzine’s loss in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, still maintained that this President would go down in history as the greatest President of all time. Well, if current events can shut even Beckel up, what chance does this President have that this speech will reverse his fortunes and restore his plummeting approval ratings?

Many have insisting that the President should step to the right; cutting taxes to stimulate business and begin an earnest assault on runaway Federal spending. Of course the Democratic strategists have already been saying that Obama finally gets it and his announcement that he intends to freeze discretionary spending for the next three years is proof that he is serious about tackling the economy which is one of the clear priorities of the American people. Of course that might have worked a couple of years ago or with another President but I doubt that will mean much now. Other Presidents didn’t have the additional baggage of not only breaking this many campaign promises but he has also been caught on a number of occasions just plain lying to the American people .

As they occurred, C Span reported on the closed door meetings that Obama had with Congressional Democrats, Senate Democrats, Heath Insurance and Pharmaceutical industry leaders as well as labor Unions, in his attempts to broker support for healthcare reform and yet he (Obama) appeared on network television this week and said that he held no closed door meetings on healthcare and made no closed door deals to buy support for healthcare. Really?

Does he really believe that if he says that often enough and loud enough that we will suddenly forget what we saw with our own eyes? The spending freeze that he is planning is yet another lie. When he announced his plan to freeze Federal discretionary spending he left out a few little details. The discretionary spending the President refers to only represents a very small portion of the current Federal budget, roughly 17%, and I’m sure it just slipped his mind but he also forgot to mention that he had already raised discretionary spending 24% just in the past year. His freeze will do nothing more than lock in an average 8% annual increase over the spending levels of the Bush administration; spending levels that Candidate Obama called reckless.

To dispel any rumors; the President said little, if anything. What I thought was amusing was that Harry Reid was actually caught yawning as the President announced that two million jobs were saved and taxes were cut for 95% of all Americans. Well of course you would have to ignore that three million jobs were lost since the Stimulus Bill was signed into law or that seven million jobs were lost since Obama took office for that to even be a half truth. But let’s not let petty little numbers stand in the way of progress. Oh by the way…..shifting the tax burden from the individuals to businesses does not yield a tax cut. Business NEVER pays taxes. Those taxes are always passed on to the consumer as a rise in the price of goods or services; in essence, a middle class tax increase.

Oh but fear not. Obama promised, well he suggested, a small business tax break to incentivize hiring but like so many of his promises, that is something only Congress can do. Congressional Republicans would agree, at least most of them, but Democrats would have to surrender their chief guarantor of reelection…..class warfare. How could any self-respecting, OK….I take that back…how could any Democrat hope to gain reelection if they took the side of those evil business owners? After all, they have railed against them for years!

I empathize with the President. It must be exceedingly hard to stand before all of Congress, not to mention the nation, and lie your butt off but then again, he wanted the job. Perhaps he thought it would be like Chicago where animated speech mattered more than content. Perhaps he thought it was more like it was a dozen years ago and no one would pay attention. But this is 2010 and we are all watching the shell game (for a change).

The fact is, Obama said nothing I didn’t expect. Even his call for exploiting America’s energy resources is a red herring. He has already appointed the radical left to positions of power within the EPA that will trump any chance that we will develop nuclear, coal or oil powered plants within the United States. That is apparently the domain of developing nations and he cannot develop those resources and keep his promise to the United Nations.

The most important thing in his speech took place nearly at the end. Despite the failing economy and the continuing decline in employment, our President still thinks that driving the nation into the budget-busting abyss of the current healthcare reform legislation and an equally devastating climate agreement is something he can talk us into supporting. I will give him a little credit though. He all but admitted that this was an effort that has been underway for one-hundred years. Not climate change….healthcare. Theodore Roosevelt started that. Fortunately he failed, and everyone who has tried it since has thankfully failed as well.

It is apparent that the President still doesn’t get it and probably never will. He called for another jobs bill, in essence a third stimulus bill, which only proves he is a hopeless ideologue. It seems that everyone but the Federal government knows that government does not create jobs, the private sector does and the private sector can not flourish as long as government is picking their pockets. The job prospects in this country will not improve as long as business remains skeptical about what their tax liability or energy costs will be but this President still wants healthcare reform and cap and trade. He has empowered the EPA to unilaterally curtail carbon emissions with total disregard to the economic damage that will cause if the Congress rejects the climate bill. He wants to invest in high speed rail even though 10% of this nation no longer needs a ride to work. He wants to accelerate green initiatives claiming this is the wave of the future but where is our manufacturing base? Those “green” jobs will be located in countries that will not have the added burden of skyrocketing energy costs because of the government regulation of greenhouse gasses; regulations imposed because of corrupt climate studies and United Nations interference.

Obama said in a recent interview that he would rather be a really good one term President than a mediocre two term President. I don’t think he looked behind door number three. If this President and his co-conspirators on Capitol Hill do not halt this crazy march towards socialism; if they keep giving speeches instead of listening to the American people; if they keep huddling behind closed doors, the current trend will continue through the November election and Barack Obama will be a lame duck in the second year of his first term. He can call the Republicans the party of no if that suits him. What he fails to see is that at the request of the American people, the Republicans will be the party of no more!

Paul