Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Socialism
The forerunner of today's liberals, Bernie Sanders, and other dems
Joseph Stalin was considered “hip” by fellow young people with political ambitions in his time;
Joseph Stalin considered himself or was considered an intellectual;
Joseph Stalin was an atheist;
Joseph Stalin was historically labeled, self-identified, or both as a “Democrat Socialist”;
Joseph Stalin led protests against the rich and powerful;
Joseph Stalin rose to power promising equality;
Stalin’s ensuing regime took over private industry;
A takeover of private industry led to mass poverty and famine;
Stalin eventually killed 20 million of his own people;
Stalin is absent from history curricula across American universities
In the pantheon of dictators Joseph Stalin’s reputation for brutality is rivalled only by that of Hitler. The conventional image portrays Stalin as nothing more than a bloody tyrant, a machine politician, a heartless bureaucrat and an ideological fanatic. Yet Stalin was also an intellectual who believed in the transformative power of ideas and a bookworm who amassed a significant personal library.
New Harmony: America's failed 19th-century socialist experiment
The history of socialism in America did not begin with Bernie
Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rather, it began in 1825 on the banks of
the Wabash River in Indiana.
On
April 27 of that year, Robert Owen, a Welsh textile
manufacturer-turned-philanthropist, welcomed 800 eager arrivals to the
settlement he had christened New Harmony.
New Harmony was to be a
"community of equality" heralding a new way of life. Owen's followers
would soon coin a new name for his vision: "utopian socialism."
On
July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of
Independence, Owen issued his own variation, what he called the
"Declaration of Mental Independence." From that day forward, Owen
proclaimed, men would be free from what he called a "trinity of the
most monstrous evils that could be combined to inflict mental and physical evil
upon the whole race ... I refer to private property, absurd and irrational
systems of religion and marriage founded upon individual property."
The quest to do away with
private property would animate the philosophy of socialism for the next 150
years.
Intellectuals
were drawn to Owen and the promise of New Harmony, but managing the community's
resources without individual ownership proved highly inefficient. One New
Harmony member wrote that "even salads were deposited in the store to be
handed out, making 10,000 unnecessary steps [and] causing them to come to the
tables in a wilted, deadened state."
"In the end, I think one
of the problems in New Harmony was that it was a big group of idealists in one
place -- in a very isolated place," says Connie Weinzapfel, longtime
director of the Historic New Harmony site. "They spent a lot of time
thinking about the idea of a perfect community. Ultimately you had a lot
of thinkers and not enough doers."
After two years, several
re-organizations, and seven different constitutions, Owen's great
experiment collapsed.
"Owen had a very hard time acknowledging that there was a
failure at New Harmony," Joshua Muravchik, author of the 2003 book
"Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism," told Fox Nation. "And through a period of many
months when everyone around him, including his sons, was saying, 'Things are
falling apart,' Owen was saying, 'Things are going great here.'
"But
eventually, he couldn't keep up that pretense any longer because everyone was
leaving," Muravchik adds. "And so Owen found a kind of alibi, I
think, in blaming the people who came to New Harmony as being poor human
material for his experiment."
Owen's son, Robert Dale Owen,
stayed at New Harmony after its collapse and went on to serve two terms in
Congress. He had a different assessment of his father's experiment, writing:
"All cooperative schemes which provide equal remuneration to the skilled
and industrious and the ignorant and idle must work their own downfall. For by
this unjust plan they must of necessity eliminate the valuable members and
retain only the improvident, unskilled and vicious."
See more at:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/
See more at:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Why Obama and Clinton Tweeted About ‘Easter Worshippers,’ Not Christians
Sometimes, a few sentences tell you more about a person—and, more importantly, an ideology—than a learned thesis.
That is the case with tweets from Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama two days ago in response to the mass murder of more than 300 Christians and others in Sri Lanka.
Their tweets are worth serious analysis because they reveal a great deal about the left. Of course, they reveal a great deal about Clinton and Obama, too, but that doesn’t interest me.
And that, too, is important. Many Americans—especially conservatives and “independents”—are more interested in individual politicians than in political ideologies.
Many conservatives have long been fixated on Clinton—so much so that probably any other Democrat would have defeated Donald Trump, as conservative anger specifically toward her propelled many people to the polls.
Similarly, Republican Never-Trumpers are fixated on Trump rather than policy. They care more about Trump’s personal flaws than about the mortal dangers the left poses to America and the West or about the uniquely successful conservative policies Trump promulgates.
And independents all claim to vote “for the person, not the party.”
Only leftists understand that one must vote left no matter who the Democrat is, no matter who the Republican opponent is. Leftists are completely interchangeable: There is no ideological difference among the 20 or so Democrats running for president. Mayor Pete Buttigieg is not one degree to the right of Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.
That is why it is important to understand Clinton and Obama’s tweets: to understand the left, not to understand her or him.
Here are the tweets:
Obama: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”
Three hours later, Clinton tweeted: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”
As they both spelled “worshipers” the same idiosyncratic way and used the term “Easter worshippers,” it is likely they either had the same writers or Clinton copied Obama.
Here’s what’s critical: Neither used the word “Christians.” And in order to avoid doing so, they went so far as to make up a new term—”Easter worshippers”—heretofore unknown to any Christian.
When Jews were murdered at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Clinton mentioned the synagogue in a tweet. But in her post-Sri Lanka tweet, despite the bombing of three churches filled with Christians, Clinton made no mention of church or churches.
In a tweet after the massacre of Muslims in New Zealand, she wrote that her heart broke for “the global Muslim community.” But in her latest tweet, not a word about Christians or the global Christian community.
Obama similarly wrote in his tweet about New Zealand that he was grieving with “the Muslim community” over the “horrible massacre in the Mosques.” But in his tweet about Sri Lanka, there is no mention of Christians or churches.
The reason neither of them mentioned Christians or churches is that the left has essentially forbidden mention of all the anti-Christian murders perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and of all the Muslim desecration of churches in Europe, Africa, and anywhere else.
This is part of the same phenomenon—that I and others have documented—of British police and politicians covering up six years of rape of 1,400 English girls by Muslim “grooming gangs” in Rotherham and elsewhere in England.
Essentially, the left’s rule is that nothing bad—no matter how true—may be said about Muslims or Islam and nothing good—no matter how true—may be said of Christians or Christianity.
Clinton’s post-New Zealand tweet also included these words: “We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”
She made sure to condemn “Islamophobia,” but she wrote not a word about the far more destructive and widespread hatred of Christians in the Muslim world, seen in Muslims’ virtual elimination of the Christian communities in the Middle East, the regular murder and kidnappings of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and the murder of Christians in Nigeria.
She calls on “leaders everywhere” to condemn “white supremacist terrorists,” one of the smallest hate groups on Earth, but never calls on leaders everywhere to condemn Islamist terrorists, the largest hate group on Earth.
These two tweets tell you a lot about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But far more importantly, they tell you a lot about the left.
read more at
Monday, April 22, 2019
How do Civil ward happen by Jack Minzey
Dr. Jack Devere Minzey,
born 6 October 1928- died 8 April 2018,
was the Department Head of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as
a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of
Education and the Government role therein.
(Editor's note)This was the
last of his works:
Civil War: How do civil wars happen?
Dr. Jack Devere Minzey
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the
country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they
don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge. That's the basic issue here. Who decides
who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results,
you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a
countdown to a civil war.
The Mueller investigation is about removing
President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all
know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a
Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win.
The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.
What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting
the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the
results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that
transfers of power in this country are determined by elections. That's a civil
war.
There's no shooting. At least not unless you
count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game
practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.
This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You
can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever
happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election.
When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what
you want is a dictatorship.
Your very own dictatorship.
The only legitimate exercise
of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever
Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost
Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to
run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a
Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States
can't scratch his own back without his say so, that's the civil war.
Our system of government is
based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country.
The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total
and unlimited power over the country.
If the Democrats are in the White House, then
the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty
for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. He can use
the IRS as his own police force and imprison citizens who speak against him. He
can provide guns and money (Fast and Furious) (Iran nuclear deal) to other
countries to support his own agenda, and watch while one of America's
Ambassador's is dragged through the streets and murdered doing nothing to aid
our citizens. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.
But when Republicans get into the White House,
suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the
illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in
the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of
immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse
him. That's how the game is played That's how our country is run. Sad but true,
although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.
When a Democrat is in the White House, states
aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the
White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state
wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under
Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent
republic and sign treaties with other countries. The Constitution has something
to say about that.
Whether it's Federal or State, Executive,
Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it
controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in
the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.
Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government
to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval
guilds. You can't serve in if you're not a member. If you haven't been
indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump
isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with
him. Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them.
They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use
the tools of power to bring them down.
That's not a free country.
It's not a free country when FBI agents who
support Hillary take out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the
election. It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive
unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to
the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported
him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude
together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win
did.
Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between
conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional
government. Well now Pilgrims and Patriots, having read the above I suggest two
things; forward this very timely, very important analysis to those whom you
believe think like you do and make sure you vote on every Election day!
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Sending the Fireman
Michael A. RothmanFollow
Most folks know that I despised Hillary, but was somewhat dismayed that the alternative was Trump. Trump for me was the lesser of two evils, but that’s water under the bridge. I stumbled into this article about a Gold Star Mom, and figured I’d share.
Billy and Karen Vaughn are the parents of fallen Navy SEAL, Aaron Carson Vaughn (SEAL Team VI). On August 6, 2011 Aaron was killed in action in the Tangi River Valley of Afghanistan when a chopper (call sign Extortion 17) carrying thirty Americans was shot from the sky. Let me tell you, when a Gold Star Mom speaks, people listen. These moms have endured unimaginable loss and have earned the right to a bully pulpit. They are not some fawned over TV show host or starlet. GSMs are the stuff that made America truly great, raising kids who understand the meaning of “the last full measure of devotion.”
Here are her words:
Sometimes God uses the no-nonsense, salty sailor to get the job done. Appreciating what the man is doing doesn’t mean we worship the salty sailor or even desire to be like the salty sailor. It doesn’t even mean God admires the salty sailor. Maybe He just knows he’s necessary for such a time as this.
I believe with all my heart that God placed that salty sailor in the White House and gave this nation one more chance in November 2016. Donald Trump is what he is. He is still the man he was before the election. And without guilt, I very much admire what that salty sailor is accomplishing.
He’s not like me. That’s okay with me. I don’t want to be like him. I will never behave like him. I know we’ve NEVER had a man like him lead our nation. It’s crazy and a little mind blowing at times. But I can’t help admire the ability he has to act with his heart rather than a calculated, PC, think tank-screened, carefully edited script. I still believe that is WHY he became our President and WHY he’s been able to handle a landslide of adversity and STILL pass unprecedented amounts of good legislation for our country AND do great works for MANY other nations, including Israel.
I’m THRILLED with what he’s doing for my nation, for the cause of Christ (whether intentional or unintentional, doesn’t matter to me), and for the concept of rebuilding America and putting her FIRST. I will not be ashamed of my position because others don’t see him through the same lens.
Should it matter to me if a fireman drops an f-bomb while he’s pulling me from a burning building? Would I really care about what came out of his mouth in those moments? Heck no! I’d CARE about what he was DOING. He wasn’t sent there to save my soul and I’m not looking to him for spiritual guidance. All I’m thinking in those moments is, “Thank you, Jesus, for sending the fireman.”
This man is crass. Okay. He’s not careful with what he says. Okay. You feel offended that he’s not a typical statesman. Okay. But he is rebuilding the nation my son died for…the nation I feared was on a fast track to becoming a hopeless cause. Forgive me if I’m smiling.
Friday, March 9, 2018
Obama on Trump Tweets
Columnist Charlie Hurt said former President Barack Obama acted "obnoxiously" when he criticized President Trump's Twitter usage.
In an interview with the United Kingdom's Prince Harry, Obama said it's more difficult to be "as cruel in-person" as one can be on the internet.
Obama also told the royal that people can live in "entirely different realities" when they are online.
Hurt said many people saw the comments as criticisms of Trump.
Charles Hurt on @BarackObama's social media usage comments: "It's just a form of communicating with people in a way [@POTUS] can communicate with people around a media that viciously despises him." #SpecialReport
He said Obama's comments are "akin to attacking [President Franklin Roosevelt] for using the new-fangled radio for doing his fireside chats."
"[Twitter is] a way of communicating with people," Hurt said, adding that it is also helpful in "getting around a media that viciously despises him."
see more at http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/27/charles-hurt-obamas-interview-prince-harry-criticism-trump-tweets-fdr-radio
Obama vs Fox news
by Breck Dumas
Recently, former “Late Show” host David Letterman signed on for a series of six episodes with the streaming giant, Netfilix, rolling out his debut with [former]President Obama as his first guest. During the interview, Obama expressed his disdain for Fox News, saying “If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR. If I watch Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me. I would watch it and say ‘Who is that guy.'”
by Brian Flood
Recently, former “Late Show” host David Letterman signed on for a series of six episodes with the streaming giant, Netfilix, rolling out his debut with [former]President Obama as his first guest. During the interview, Obama expressed his disdain for Fox News, saying “If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR. If I watch Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me. I would watch it and say ‘Who is that guy.'”
by Brian Flood
Former President Barack Obama resurfaced on Friday and took a shot at Fox News viewers, saying they’re “living on a different planet” than people who consume mainstream media.
Obama made the remarks on the premiere of the new monthly Netflix series “My next guest needs no introduction with David Letterman,” which hit the streaming service on Friday morning. Early in the episode, Obama asked Letterman about his retirement but the veteran talk show host quickly let the former president know who was boss.“Now here’s how this is gonna work. I’m gonna ask you stuff, and then you respond to stuff,” Letterman joked.
Letterman then asked Obama what he considers the more dangerous threat to a democracy, the president demeaning the press or a foreign power sabotaging the voting process. Both options are clearly jabs at President Trump and Obama answered without mentioning the current president’s name.
“One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don’t share a common baseline of facts,” Obama said. "If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR.”
The response got a big round of applause from the presumably liberal crowd at the City College of New York. Obama has a long history of taking shots at Fox News but the recent comment marks his first public attack on the network and its viewers since leaving the White House.
While Trump is often criticized for attacking the media and labeling CNN as “fake news,” Obama’s comment is a reminder that the White House and the press have sparred for decades. Obama once even accused Fox News of “attacking” his administration during an interview with CNBC.
see more at http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/01/12/obama-rips-fox-news-viewers-are-living-on-different-planet.html
and
see more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/08/obamas-in-talks-with-netflix-to-produce-series-of-exclusive-shows?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%202018-03-09&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%20-%20last%20270%20days
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)